CryptoCurrency Mining with GPUs *spawn*

Blockchains are spreading with or without cryptos. But I have ask, is there no smarter solution than such escalation of difficulty draining (hardware) power?
 
There is proof of stake (PoS) as an alternative instead of Proof of Work (PoW). Instead of mining, you stake some of your tokens - like a deposit, you cannot use them - and they may generate some small interest (or not I think, it is random)

From the wikipedia article though, it seems that theoretically is not as secure as PoW.

There are coins out there that have a hibyrd PoS & PoW approach. To my knowledge, none of the coins with PoS has any importantce at the moment. An example of hybrid coin : https://bit.diamonds

Then there is BURST, which instead of mining via processing power has a weird mining algo where you reserve disk space on your hard drive instead of doing computations. You do use the cpu (or gpu) sporadically, but it's much less power intensive. It's debatable wether buying loads and loads of hard drives for mining is more efficient, IMO. They call that PoC (proof or capacity), but of course its still PoW
 
There's some research on "proof-of-stake" to replace the current "proof-of-work" system. Ethereum is expected to transit to a proof-of-stake system next year, but it's still uncertain at current stage AFAIK.
 
"Identity Thieves Hijack Cellphone Accounts to Go After Virtual Currency"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/business/dealbook/phone-hack-bitcoin-virtual-currency.html
Most victims of these attacks in the virtual currency community have not wanted to acknowledge it publicly for fear of provoking their adversaries. But in interviews, dozens of prominent people in the industry acknowledged that they had been victimized in recent months.

“Everybody I know in the cryptocurrency space has gotten their phone number stolen,” said Joby Weeks, a Bitcoin entrepreneur.
 
I'm sure their government wouldn't be very happy to know what they're using the solar panels for..
Those incentives probably don't exist to enrich households that only contribute to further heat the planet.

I'm pretty sure the governments don't care. They are greedy anyway.

Solar is not for saving money, but preparing for emergencies like if the grid power goes out. Though if its a widespread outage you better hope you aren't in a big city where looters can steal your panels and batteries.

It's too expensive and complex to setup to be completely self sufficient with solar.

Those panels would power something else otherwise, mining really is needless ecological drain.

What about gaming and entertainment?
 
It's probably a lot more than 500k for mining. Cards were already being sold for mining well before Q1 2017 and what happens in Q2 is gamers buy less cards.
Question - given the investments cryptocurrency miners do in grahics hardware, is there a tendency favouring currencies that fit GPUs?
Otherwise, whenever a currency reached sufficient volume it would seem a given that ASICs would be produced that make GPU mining uncompetitive.
(The same is true of "AI" computation. Google is already working on their second generation, Spreadtrum is making a dedicated chip on 12nmFF, Apple is rolling their own according to rumors. Adding such hardware to GPUs only makes sense in a certain small window, after that it's just dead weight.)
 
After the ASIC „desaster“ with Bitcoin and Lightcoin, some algorithms for hashing have specifically been designed/selected because of their „ASIC resistancy-ness“, i.e. high demands on cards bandwith.
 
If the cryptocurrencies are made to "give power to the people", then making them mineable by custom ASICs pretty much defeats that purpose.
 
After the ASIC „desaster“ with Bitcoin and Lightcoin, some algorithms for hashing have specifically been designed/selected because of their „ASIC resistancy-ness“, i.e. high demands on cards bandwith.
Why would it be considered a disaster unless you are deeply invested in GPU mining farms though? It is the natural progression.

Edit: Related - why shouldn't AMD design a chip explicitly for mining, and either keep it in house for profitable mining, or sell it openly?
 
Why would it be considered a disaster unless you are deeply invested in GPU mining farms though? It is the natural progression.

Edit: Related - why shouldn't AMD design a chip explicitly for mining, and either keep it in house for profitable mining, or sell it openly?
It was a "disaster" because the people who thought they'd get rich off of mining Bitcoins with their GPUs got usurped by more powerful entities who had the ability to design and manufacture their own hardware...
 
If the cryptocurrencies are made to "give power to the people", then making them mineable by custom ASICs pretty much defeats that purpose.
That's a rather naive take on billion dollar businesses.
For a currency to actually have a volume to be truly viable as a general means of trade, it needs to be big. Ergo....
 
That's a rather naive take on billion dollar businesses.
For a currency to actually have a volume to be truly viable as a general means of trade, it needs to be big. Ergo....

The question is not that big businesses can't make money out of them. It's that dedicated ASICs prevent "common people" from making money.
 
That's a rather naive take on billion dollar businesses.
For a currency to actually have a volume to be truly viable as a general means of trade, it needs to be big. Ergo....

Naive as it sounds, having multiple parties (the more the better) involved stregthens the security of the currency. Having most of the hash power distributed between 2-3 entities on the other hand means it's much easier for them to agree on forgeries or to change all sorts of things n the currency's implementation (such as block sizes)
 
Back
Top