Hacker News Reader

Comment by PKop | Hacker News Reader

Apply that to energy efficiency research as well. The monetary incentives are too strong for it not to happen.

I don't think it's possible to be energy efficient in a proof-of-work blockchain? Whatever energy saving you come up with will be negated by having to match competing miners' increasing throughput. If you are not running on 100% you are losing out?

There are projects like gridcoin, uscore dot net, that use mining to compute scientific research. It is considering using a Proof Of Research approach.

It would be game changing if blockchain mining efforts could be applied like this to other uses as well, like someone needing huge datasets analyzed and formatted into a presentable state on an ad-hoc basis, sort of like AWS Athena.

Just found out about Filecoin which is an interesting concept, you "mine" by storing and serving files people save to the network.

Stuff like this is a much more interesting use of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in my opinion, instead of burning electricity for PoW you can do meaningful work while collecting a reward.

FileCoin and Upfiring both claim to have this PoW, but their Github repos are empty and their Reddit channels are drowning in shilling.

Unfortunate, I like the concept - I wouldn’t mind giving up a couple TB of space on my FreeNAS rig that’s currently going unused.

And the point of blockchain is to set a minimum difficulty level of work, which translates to a minimum energy use.

It translates to a maximum cost per hash calculation, which becomes a minimum level of energy efficiency.

Does the efficiencies discovered not get distributed to the rest of the economy? My point was that it could lead to developments in energy use beneficial in separate domains.

The more efficient your hardware is the more profit you make per block (because you buy less electricity per block reward).

If all hardware was equivalent and an unlimited amount were available efficiency wouldn't matter, but neither of those things are true.

Wouldn't the difficult per block rise, making it the same current usage as before?

Eventually. But newer hardware will tend to be the most efficient component of the hashrate and push out older hardware by generating more hashes per unit of electricity (hence the CPU->GPU->ASIC progression).

That doesn't mean anything.

Bitcoin network bandwidth remains the same, and energy usage has continued to increase in a race to the bottom in terms of work and waste for bitcoin mining - this is by design of how Satoshi's difficulty algorithm reduces efficiency with increase in hash rates.

The difficulty rises with the total hashrate across all miners, not on the individual hashrate/efficiency of any particular miner - if you can eke out a temporary efficiency advantage over everybody else, you can profit nicely while they're trying to catch up.

You're thinking from the perspective of the miners.

From the perspective of the hardware manufacturers that's an advantage. If you're making the hardware and you come up with a 10% energy savings, everyone must now replace their old hardware or be left in the dust. Hardware manufacturers will make a killing. The prisoner's dilemma you are thinking of only applies to the miners, it's a benefit for the parties selling them the hardware.

> Hardware manufacturers will make a killing. The prisoner's dilemma you are thinking of only applies to the miners

Something something shovels in a gold rush...

I think the only energy efficiency PoW can hope for is the demise of traditional banks and what energy they consume.

There would definitely be a first mover advantage. On the other hand, for most other VLSI applications, improved energy usage is a PERMANENT advantage: If e.g. Apple improves energy efficiency of Annn chips, it enables them to build better devices, even if the rest of the industry catches up.

For Bitcoin, my understanding is that this is not the case, because any cost improvement in the industry will attract more miners until difficulty adjusts to the previous equilibrium where (cost of mining a bitcoin) = (value of a bitcoin)-(some risk premium)

Yeah - that "first mover advantage" can be lucrative though.

Simplistically they're betting on:

(cost to you of mining a bitcoin)-(cost to everybody else of mining a bitcoin) * (time it takes to reach equilibrium)

being a very big number...

It's first mover advantage in the same way surviving is a first mover advantage. You're fine if you're profitable, but with constant improvements that won't be the case for long, unless you too start moving to new technology.

>Apply that to energy efficiency research as well. The monetary incentives are too strong for it not to happen.

now i know where the fusion and cheap space access are to come from. Finally we've got real economic incentives for both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com