Bitcoin Forum
February 25, 2020, 03:18:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 [654] 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3901528 times)
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 12:12:58 PM
 #13061

Yes this is variance. You can verifiy it after 3 days...

The whole network suffers from bad luck  sometimes. We could have 1400.093 Thash/s right now or 886.093 Thash/s... Its just variance



You mean you can verify its not variance only after 3 days?

That's just a figure plucked from the ether. All you can say is the longer the higher hashing rate appears to continue, the less likely it is due to variance. You can't put a specific time limit on it. This is luck we are talking about, as we keep saying.
No.

There is a reason why the difficulty adjustment is (14 days) ... 2016 blocks ...

Sorry, lost me, the guy said "you can verify after 3 days" and you say "There is a reason why the difficulty adjustment is (14 days) ... 2016 blocks ..." - how are the two connected?

The reason the difficulty adjustment is every 14 days (approximately) is that you need a period of that length (or longer) to reduce potential variance to reasonable levels. Adjusting the difficulty every day would cause large swings in both directions.

So if you already need 14 days to get a reasonable average of the network hashrate, you'll need more than that to properly reduce variance for a part of the network (in this case, ASICMiner), which brings us back to the main point that any hashrate estimate over a period of 3 days or less is completely meaningless due to the random nature of block-solving. Even longer periods, like 1 week or 2 weeks are susceptible enough to variance that it can be hard to draw any conclusions from those data.
1582600686
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582600686

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582600686
Reply with quote  #2

1582600686
Report to moderator
1582600686
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582600686

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582600686
Reply with quote  #2

1582600686
Report to moderator
1582600686
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582600686

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582600686
Reply with quote  #2

1582600686
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1582600686
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582600686

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582600686
Reply with quote  #2

1582600686
Report to moderator
1582600686
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582600686

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582600686
Reply with quote  #2

1582600686
Report to moderator
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
 #13062

I shudder to think of the electricity wasted otherwise.
I'm quite concerned about scaling too, but apparently most people aren't.


Can you copy paste what you wrote there here? It seems to be a private forum.


Sure!

I can copy what I wrote, but I can't copy other people's answers, though.

Quote
The most compelling argument in defence of the resources spent for the proof-of-work is that the current legacy systems (banks + credit cards + paypals + etc.) are already eating up tons of resources, and likely mining bitcoins is going to eat much less than that.

While this appears to be fine, I've just noticed it doesn't really work: the legacy systems scale in a more or less proportional way to the transaction volume, i.e. if transaction volume doesn't increase, they do not need to scale up.

Bitcoin's proof-of-work, instead, will apparently go up indefinitely, because either miners will move to countries where electricity and sysadmins are cheaper, or they will find ways to produce more powerful chips. Problem here isn't only the consumed electricity, but the wasted hardware: old chips will be useless and will become just pollution.

Honestly I can't see how can this not go horribly wrong. We'd better think very hard about this now that we are still in early stage, rather than waiting for it to become a huge problem later.

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1242


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 03:04:01 PM
 #13063

Now where did I see a comparison that said that one major bank central office used probably more electricity than all the bitcoin mining in the world ...

Pool: https://kano.is 0.1 BTC bonus - low fee PPLNS 3 Days Here on Bitcointalk: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
neilol
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 302
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
 #13064

Now where did I see a comparison that said that one major bank central office used probably more electricity than all the bitcoin mining in the world ...

That can't be true, I would be surprised

lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000

Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 03:20:53 PM
 #13065

Banks love to print papers and send letters, that's a lot of energy consumption. Wink

We are so arrogant to make our own currency that is created at a limited amount within a range of time and in the process use electricity.

We should let them print infinite money with infinity paper and electricity cost. That is better for the economy and the environment  Cool.

We can't be thinking better it is not like we have brains to think with, right Satoshi?

Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1242


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 03:23:22 PM
 #13066

Now where did I see a comparison that said that one major bank central office used probably more electricity than all the bitcoin mining in the world ...

That can't be true, I would be surprised
OK lets try a wild estimate Smiley

I use less than 1KW to do well over 100GH/s
So lets go with 1KW for 100GH/s
That's a way over-estimate for some of the high hashing devices and a way under-estimate for any of the old devices anyone is silly enough to keep mining with

The bitcoin network is ~1PH/s
So that's like 10,000KW

That seem too high for a big bank's main data centre head office?
If it is then say how about 10 of them? Certainly not too high for 10 of them.

All guesses, but certainly makes that argument above seem far from certain.

Pool: https://kano.is 0.1 BTC bonus - low fee PPLNS 3 Days Here on Bitcointalk: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
supert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 03:55:40 PM
 #13067

The power used to sustain either currency will be negligible compared to the effect on power consumption due to the economic effects on investment.

The question is really which currency system promotes investment with a meaningful real rate of return.

All of which is off-topic.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 04:11:18 PM
 #13068

OK lets try a wild estimate Smiley

I use less than 1KW to do well over 100GH/s
So lets go with 1KW for 100GH/s
That's a way over-estimate for some of the high hashing devices and a way under-estimate for any of the old devices anyone is silly enough to keep mining with

The bitcoin network is ~1PH/s
So that's like 10,000KW

That seem too high for a big bank's main data centre head office?
If it is then say how about 10 of them? Certainly not too high for 10 of them.

All guesses, but certainly makes that argument above seem far from certain.

Well lets compare, not to a bank, but to paypal/ebay.

The first phase of the Topaz project is a 240,000 square foot building housing three 20,000 square foot data center halls – one for eBay Marketplace, one for PayPal.com, and a third hall for expansion space. The master plan for the site calls for four phases, which will allow eBay to consolidate leased data center space currently spread across three states. The facility has 7.2 megawatts of capacity in phase 1, with a 30 megawatt substation on site.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/05/23/ebay-unveils-new-flagship-data-center/

So bitcoin is currently using a roughly comparable amount of electricity as ebay+paypal datacenter.
If you are going to spread that over  transaction volumes, honestly bitcoin isnt going to look very green.
JimiQ84
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
 #13069

I went through old friedcat posts and realized that last three updates in this thread were posted month apart. And now it's around one month since last one. I guess we should expect update any day now. (last posts were june 21st, july 23rd and august 22nd)
BitAddict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 05:05:41 PM
 #13070

I went through old friedcat posts and realized that last three updates in this thread were posted month apart. And now it's around one month since last one. I guess we should expect update any day now. (last posts were june 21st, july 23rd and august 22nd)

I hope he also come with some news about future plan and gen2 chips.
lophie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000

Unlimited Free Crypto


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 05:41:03 PM
 #13071

Now where did I see a comparison that said that one major bank central office used probably more electricity than all the bitcoin mining in the world ...

That can't be true, I would be surprised
OK lets try a wild estimate Smiley

I use less than 1KW to do well over 100GH/s
So lets go with 1KW for 100GH/s
That's a way over-estimate for some of the high hashing devices and a way under-estimate for any of the old devices anyone is silly enough to keep mining with

The bitcoin network is ~1PH/s
So that's like 10,000KW

That seem too high for a big bank's main data centre head office?
If it is then say how about 10 of them? Certainly not too high for 10 of them.

All guesses, but certainly makes that argument above seem far from certain.

That's 10MW, iirc any one of the top 50 supercomputers uses at least 15MW. Just the ATM machines worldwide consumed several times the power of the Bitcoin network too.

The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done.

Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like undermining the system, pun intended  Cheesy

Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
 #13072

The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done.

Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like undermining the system, pun intended  Cheesy

Are you saying bitcoin ATMs are more energy efficient, or that bitcoin somehow eliminates the need for POS transactions?
tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 06:58:47 PM
 #13073

The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done.

Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like undermining the system, pun intended  Cheesy

Are you saying bitcoin ATMs are more energy efficient, or that bitcoin somehow eliminates the need for POS transactions?

Banks have datacenters that use up more energy than the Bitcoin network. There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment, I read a rebuttal on one of the Bitcoin news sites (can't remember which) in which the author had calculated that the Bloomberg HQ building in New York used more energy than the entire Bitcoin network. It is really a red herring.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:13:27 PM
 #13074

Banks have datacenters that use up more energy than the Bitcoin network.

Banks offer services and volume that is just not comparable to the blockchain.
Paypal is a much more direct comparison, even though they do a lot more than just processing transactions, and I just showed its using a comparable amount of energy. Except PP handles $100 billion worth of payments each year for 130 million users and does tons of other things too. That makes it very much more energy efficient.

Quote
There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment, I read a rebuttal on one of the Bitcoin news sites (can't remember which) in which the author had calculated that the Bloomberg HQ building in New York used more energy than the entire Bitcoin network. It is really a red herring.

The entire bitcoin network doesnt really represent a whole lot yet does it? Not compared to PP or banks, heck not even compared to Bloomberg.
I wouldnt go as far as calling it a environmental threat, but its certainly not something to take pride in and if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency, it would get fairly ugly.



tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:18:27 PM
 #13075

The entire bitcoin network doesnt really represent a whole lot yet does it? Not compared to PP or banks, heck not even compared to Bloomberg.
I wouldnt go as far as calling it a environmental threat, but its certainly not something to take pride in and if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency, it would get fairly ugly.

I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:29:34 PM
 #13076

I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.

THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result in almost proportionally lower mining cost per TH, which will  results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0

For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics.
tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:37:03 PM
 #13077

I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.

THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result lower mining cost per TH, which will  results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0

For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics.

If enough people take their miners offline because they don't make a profit difficulty will drop and then it will be (briefly) profitable to mine again. It then helps if you have the best energy efficiency. I guess when the limit is reached we will see cycles between high difficulty and low difficulty ad infinitum, until quantum computers come online and the arms race starts again.
Strange Vlad
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:42:01 PM
 #13078

There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment
LOL that's Bloomberg for you.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
1CdVTkA288cd3m1jkdqPjUfhQ5ebei8gVT
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:44:45 PM
 #13079

If enough people take their miners offline because they don't make a profit difficulty will drop and then it will be (briefly) profitable to mine again. It then helps if you have the best energy efficiency. I guess when the limit is reached we will see cycles between high difficulty and low difficulty ad infinitum, until quantum computers come online and the arms race starts again.

For an individual miner, power efficiency will soon make all the difference in the world. But for the network as a whole, it makes next to no difference. It would make zero difference if the hardware were free or its cost could be amortized over an infinite time. In that case, total mining revenue of the network == electricity cost of the network. That makes it pretty darn simple to predict and completely independant of efficiency per GH. Instead cost per KWH will nicely predict network speed. See link above for a chart of that.
tinus42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 20, 2013, 07:48:04 PM
 #13080

There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment
LOL that's Bloomberg for you.

Here is a link to the Bloomberg article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-12/virtual-bitcoin-mining-is-a-real-world-environmental-disaster.html

Can't find the rebuttal article about Bloomberg's HQ using more energy but it was very good.
Pages: « 1 ... 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 [654] 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!