>One needs a cost/benefit analysis, not just an account of the cost. For
example, if PoW could do calculations that are otherwise useful (maybe
solve a queue of standardized math-jobs, such as climate simulations) there
would be more benefit, or, let's say the data storage in proof-of-space is
> Ultimately all currency security derives from energy consumption.
> Everything eventually resolves down to proof-of-work.
This is ideology. Yes, without energy and work, not many things happen. But
the amounts of energy and work to achieve a goal vary widely. Detailed
analysis comparing one
Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are patented
and so on.
It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever be made by
any mechanism, however conservative.
We do go into
That’s interesting. I didn’t know the history of ASICBOOST.
Our proposal (see Implementation) is to phase in oPoW slowly starting at a very
low % of the rewards (say 1%). That should give a long testing period where
there is real financial incentive for things like ASICBOOST
Does that resolve
That’s a fair point about patents. However, note that we were careful about
this. oPoW only uses SHA3 (can be replaced with SHA256 in principle as well)
and low precision linear matrix multiplication. A whole industry is trying to
accelerate 8-bit linear matrix mults for AI so there is already
Devrandom is correct to point out that there is nuance to these things and it’s
better to look at the details rather than proclaiming that PoW is PoW. (I do
agree though w the original point that other ideas often turn out to reduce to
PoW despite their convoluted architecture)
A note on the
Good morning Michael,
> Good morning Michael,
>
> > Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
> > example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are
> > patented and so on.
> > It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever
Good morning Michael,
> Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
> example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are patented
> and so on.
>
> It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever be made
> by any mechanism,
Good morning Michael,
> That’s a fair point about patents. However, note that we were careful about
> this. oPoW only uses SHA3 (can be replaced with SHA256 in principle as well)
> and low precision linear matrix multiplication. A whole industry is trying to
> accelerate 8-bit linear matrix
Good morning devrandom,
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> > When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects
> > until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you
> > will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects
> until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you
> will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
>
Let's not simplify away
> A few things jump out at me as I read this proposal
>
> First, deriving the hardness from capex as opposed to opex switches the
> privilege from those who have cheap electricity to those who have access to
> chip manufacturers/foundries. While this is similarly the case for Bitcoin
> ASICS
A few things jump out at me as I read this proposal
First, deriving the hardness from capex as opposed to opex switches the
privilege from those who have cheap electricity to those who have access to
chip manufacturers/foundries. While this is similarly the case for Bitcoin
ASICS today, the
13 matches
Mail list logo
