HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-08) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
BitTorrent inventor announces eco-friendly Bitcoin competitor Chia
152 points by chriskanan
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrency___________________________________________________________________
kiddico - 2 hours ago
One of the only things I dislike about bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies is the flagrant use of power that doesn't
necessarily compute anything.With the proof of chia being used in
storage, does that imply a lower power cost? I'm not sure what
proof of time is either...Does anyone know more about this and can
clarify things?
Squithrilve - 2 hours ago
> flagrant use of power that doesn't necessarily compute
anything.I don't get it. Why won't you complain about monitor
pixels, that don't display content using/wasting power or various
unused/reserved bits transmitted every second
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abhi-covert-00) that also
waste power. Proof of work uses energy to meet some strict
guarantees.This reminds me of complaining that SSL is
computationally expensive and therefore plain HTTP is better. 10
years ago of course.
viraptor - 1 hours ago
The comparisons fall short.- pixels are being optimised, with
displays going closer and closer to true-off all the time-
pixels: even whitespace is important next to information- RFC:
we're wasting a few bits as a tradeoff for less complicated
hardware and less processing power. Not sure if applicable
anymore, but reserved fields and consistent parsing saved us
some power/materials historically.- SSL provides security and
privacy in your communication at a cost reasonable for the
outcome.It's only logical they if we don't need to spend the
energy to mine coins, we should stop doing that sooner then
later.
eridius - 1 hours ago
If bitcoin's power usage is like a massive drain in the middle
of the ocean sucking down millions of gallons of water per
second, your comment is like complaining about the drip on your
kitchen faucet.
gtrubetskoy - 1 hours ago
> Why won't you complain about monitor pixelsor the Sun, what a
waste of energy that is
traverseda - 1 hours ago
Yeah, we gotta get on that dyson {sphere,swarm,etc} thing.
traverseda - 1 hours ago
The problem is that coin incentivizes* the use of electricity,
which is a dumb thing to incentivize. Sure, we can incentivize
the use of electricity, but we can also decide to incentivize
something else.A system like bitcoin but that only uses (all
of) the CPU 10% of the time incentivizes a lot of cheap compute
power for projects that need it. As an example. Algorithms that
have similar loads to conventional software encourages more
powerful general purpose computers instead of more powerful
custom bitcoin ASICS.There are much better things to
incentivize.
[deleted]
free_everybody - 1 hours ago
You can't possibly be comparing SSL with bitcoin mining. SSL
provides a service that is immediately valuable to all parties.
Bitcoin mining is done by people who want to get rich by not
doing anything. The price of bitcoin is EXTREMELY speculative
no matter how you look at it. What if Bitcoin were to fail for
some reason? All the computation dedicated to mining coins
which were never spent would be wasted. Entirely different
scenarios here.
joe_the_user - 1 hours ago
Uh, power that isn't used for bitcoin mining could be used to
improve human lives in innumerable way - or not used at all and
allow a decreased production of greenhouse gases.
kiddico - 1 hours ago
What are you even getting at here?That is a totally different
use case. A display is supposed to always be on, while a cpu
should turn off while not in use. When a cpu has no work it
slows down to conserve power and reduce heat output. What
happens when a monitor has no input data? It goes to sleep. It
doesn't just display the last thing and continue processing a
stream of data from it's input.
toomim - 1 hours ago
Yes, I watched Bram's talk in Berkeley two weeks ago. It indeed
runs with much lower power costs. The cost is the power to do a
hard-disk seek every long once in a while, rather than to compute
sha256 over and over again.It does incentivize a buildup of
physical disk drives. And if it becomes successful, it'll likely
spur specialized datacenters and hardware (think specialized tape
drives) to try to outcompete in space, so it might end up just as
centralized as bitcoin mining.But the power costs will be much
lower.There also is a proof-of-time component, that does
computation, but it is designed to not be parallelizable, which
means that throwing additional power at the problem doesn't help
you as much. Instead, imagine that each participant must spend a
deterministic length of time to compute a solution, and the
person closest to the internet backbone wins. But this proof-of-
time component is also smaller subsidiary role to the proof-of-
space.So overall, it's a hybrid proof. Bram didn't go into
enough detail explaining the actual proof-of-time or space in his
talk, so I'm not sure if it all works, but if it does, then you
can expect it to use less power.Proof-of-Stake should use even
LESS power, though.
cvg - 19 minutes ago
I believe this is the recording of that Berkeley talk: https://
www.facebook.com/BerkeleyBlockchain/videos/200606982...Still a
lot of implementation details to be revealed, but looks really
interesting.
kiddico - 1 hours ago
Thanks for the explanation. Does the proof of storage allow
that storage to continue to be used?/does the proof use the
space on a disk?Or is it sort of like mining bitcoin where a
gpu is wholly used for mining?
sillysaurus3 - 41 minutes ago
Proof of Stake is worth being highly skeptical of. The fact
that most people blindly support the idea when it seems to
leave fundamental questions swept under the rug is worrying.I
wish I could give a further critique, but I'm not familiar
enough with the subject. There have been several persuasive
comments posted to HN on the brittle nature of Proof of Stake,
and the lack of hard answers to basic problems. Tacking it on
as "this would use even less power" is a sign that perhaps
these alternate schemes (including the one in the article)
should be taken with a dash of salt and pepper.
zitterbewegung - 1 hours ago
Proof of chia would use disk storage which at idle wouldn?t
require processing . So yes because the other way is to use GPUs
which would have higher costs for electricity than a disk.
sillysaurus3 - 1 hours ago
If Bitcoin reached 2 trillion dollars, it would use about 2% of
the world's power.It seems tough to argue that a 2 trillion
dollar GDP doesn't merit a 2% increase in power output.
txcwpalpha - 1 hours ago
Bitcoin's total value being 2 trillion dollars is not the same
thing whatsoever as bitcoin being responsible for 2 trillion
dollars of GDP. There is no "merit" here.We can have $2
trillion in GDP with paper money, too, and that uses 0% of the
world's power.
simplify - 46 minutes ago
To be fair, paper money requires banks & bank employees,
bullet-proof transportation trucks, government regulation,
anti-counterfeit research & technology, and perhaps more.
yayitswei - 1 hours ago
Not 0% if you count the resources required to enforce that
paper money.
UncleMeat - 1 hours ago
Market cap and GDP contribution are different things. The
market cap for the USD is very very high, but we don't consider
all of those dollars to count as GDP nor would it justify a
comparably large power cost.
notahacker - 1 hours ago
Do you mean a 2 trillion dollar market cap? That's not the same
as GDP.I mean, Apple is close to a 1 trillion dollar market
cap. I'd argue a 1% increase in world power output simply for
Apple to store its money and make transactions would be a
remarkably poor use of power.
sillysaurus3 - 1 hours ago
Unfair comparison. Bitcoin benefits all who hold it, not a
single corporation.If anything, my "GDP" comparison was off
the mark because GDP typically represents a country's total
wealth, and bitcoin can't have a GDP. But it's a useful
abstraction that comes pretty close.Those bitcoin paper
millionaires are investing in startups like Pinkapp, and
Pinkapp is hiring programmers. All of this is happening
outside the legal system. What does that say to you about
bitcoin's ability to affect the world?
maxerickson - 38 minutes ago
Oh man, the legal system is gonna surprise anyone who
thinks they are operating outside of it. And not in a good
way.
sillysaurus3 - 37 minutes ago
Look up pinkapp.https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=the_
stchttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15389364https://m
edium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano...
maxerickson - 11 minutes ago
Sure. But also look up all the dark markets the FBI
busted.
sillysaurus3 - 1 minutes ago
The interesting thing is, this founder has apparently put
in contingency plans in case they mess up. The
organization can continue.I'm not sure how true that will
turn out to be, but it's an interesting attempt.
notahacker - 1 hours ago
OK, let's do it the other way. Let's pretend (in BTC's
favour) that market cap and GDP are the same thing.World
GDP is around 100 trillion.So by your own figures, if it
were denominated in BTC or equivalent cryptocurrency, we'd
require more than 100% of the world's current power output
just to store and send people's money.That's more power
output than is currently required for all the world's
homes, factories, hospitals, transportation networks and
all the world's computing power, everything. Which also
benefits everyone who uses it, and creates jobs for a few
billion peopleDo you now see why people don't think current
crypto tech is a particularly optimal use of power?
sillysaurus3 - 58 minutes ago
This is a strawman argument. I'm trying to think of a
charitable interpretation, but it's difficult.The world's
currency isn't ever going to be 100% bitcoin. It's an
invalid basis to start from.I kind of see what you're
trying to hint at, but it would be helpful for discussion
if you could think of a more persuasive example.(It may
be difficult though, because it seems true to say that if
Bitcoin starts becoming a significant fraction of the
world's GDP then it's fine if it uses a little power.
Where "little" is relative to the ratio of BTC's wealth
vs the world's wealth, vs BTC's power usage to the
world's power usage.)
txcwpalpha - 1 hours ago
> Unfair comparison. Bitcoin benefits all who hold it, not
a single corporation.No, that's not how economies work.
"Bitcoin benefits all who hold it" is like saying "the USD
benefits everyone who has a USD". It's a completely
meaningless statement.> But it's a useful abstraction that
comes pretty close.No, it doesn't come close at all.
Bitcoin's market cap has absolutely nothing to do with the
value that Bitcoin adds to society, and thus it is a
completely meaningless metric to look at if you are trying
to decide if it "merits" use of our resources.>Those
bitcoin paper millionaires are investing in startups like
Pinkapp, and Pinkapp is hiring programmers. All of this is
happening outside the legal system. What does that say to
you about bitcoin's ability to affect the world?Nothing? I
don't know what you're trying to say with this. Just
because people made money off of bitcoin and now can use
that money to hire other people does not mean it is
affecting the world any more than anything else that people
make money off of.I also have no idea what you mean when
you say "All of this is happening outside the legal
system." That is another completely meaningless statement.
I assure you that investments in startups and hiring of
programmers all happens firmly within the bounds of all
applicable legal systems. But even if it wasn't, it still
says nothing about bitcoin's "ability to affect the
world".You need to stop drinking the bitcoin koolaid, bro.
You're spouting nonsense in an attempt to defend it.
sillysaurus3 - 1 hours ago
Just because people made money off of bitcoin and now can
use that money to hire other people does not mean it is
affecting the worldThis doesn't follow.I also have no
idea what you mean when you say "All of this is happening
outside the legal system." That is another completely
meaningless statement. I assure you that investments in
startups and hiring of programmers all happens firmly
within the bounds of all applicable legal systems.You
haven't done even the most cursory search for Pinkapp.
It's outside of the legal system, i.e. criminal.You need
to stop drinking the bitcoin koolaid, bro. You're
spouting nonsense in an attempt to defend it.Please re-
read the site guidelines:https://news.ycombinator.com/new
swelcome.htmlhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.
htmlIt's important on HN to comment civilly and
substantively or not at all.
dgacmu - 1 hours ago
This is a helpful way to view it. Apple's 2016 revenue of
215B was about 0.2% of gross world product (GWP)... Which
means the power draw if extended globally would be 5x our
current global use. Of course, it wouldn't actually happen
that way, because Bitcoin itself would then cause the price
of power to increase.Edited: fixed mis-use of "world GDP" to
GWP as per tantalor's comment below. Thanks!
tantalor - 1 hours ago
It's "gross world product", not "world
GDP".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
kiddico - 1 hours ago
Solid point. Unless of course we can do it with 1% of the
world's power, which is what I hope something like proof of
space would allow.
gaetanrickter - 1 hours ago
You can always create a token basket which could be made up of
crypto's that are more eco-friendly. Systems for doing this are
described here https://medium.com/@alexanderwestin/3-crowdsales-
leveraging-...
[deleted]
gzou - 2 hours ago
What are "proof of space"/"proof of work" ? How do they compare to
proof of work/proof of stake ?
kanzure - 2 hours ago
"Beyond Hellman's time-memory tradeoffs with applications to
proofs of space" https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/893.pdf
dynofuz - 2 hours ago
so we are going to go from spending energy for "work" to spending
energy producing drives for "space". Time to buy some digital
storage stock ;)
quickben - 2 hours ago
Or gridcoin. At least Science is advancing with hydro bills
there.
durkie - 1 hours ago
so this has been an issue that keeps coming up for a while, but i
don't really understand the issue.* As others have asked, how much
is bitcoin supposed to use? What's the right amount and why? How is
that number better/worse than the amount of resources spent on
existing financial infrastructure?* We are rapidly progressing
towards an era of free (extremely cheap) clean power. Just today
(https://electrek.co/2017/11/08/chilean-solar-down-26-as-impo...)
incredibly low bids for solar projects were submitted in Chile at
2.15c/kWh. That's insanely cheap. We're not there yet in having
ubiquitous cheap clean power obviously, but neither is bitcoin
"there" in being able to replace much of traditional financial
infrastructure. But the point still stands: will bitcoin's energy
usage still matter in the not-too-distant future?
paulgb - 1 hours ago
The problem is that with a competitive mining market, Bitcoin
energy use will rise until the cost of mining a block is equal to
the reward for that block (i.e. market equilibrium). So if the
cost of energy goes down but the price of Bitcoin stays constant,
the amount of energy expenditure will be (approximately)
equal.Likewise, if the price of Bitcoin goes up, the amount of
energy used will go up accordingly.The reward amount will
decrease over time and mitigate this, but not enough by a long
shot IMO.
jaawn - 1 hours ago
within roughly 5 years or so (very rough guess on my part), all
of the available Bitcoin will have been mined. At that point, the
mining part of the equation will be moot, leaving only the
blockchain infrastructure to consider. Note that this may not
hold true for various "forks" of the bitcoin blockchain, or for
other cryptocurrencies.
alethiophile - 20 minutes ago
Not true at all. The security of the bitcoin blockchain is
fundamentally based on mining; after the inflation schedule
runs low enough that it's not the major component of mining
rewards (which won't be for decades), miners will continue
mining, but for the transaction fees instead.
paulgb - 54 minutes ago
No need to guess, the reward schedule is written into
Bitcoin:https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/162
sschueller - 2 hours ago
Sounds like IPFS.Why do we need an ICO. Can't we just do it like
bitcoin and download a client to start 'mining'?
wyldfire - 2 hours ago
We don't. But dev teams keep creating them. It's IMO much more
appropriate for new coins to make an announcement, provide a
whitepaper + source, and start the network at time X.But I can
(somewhat) sympathize with their desire to be rewarded. What if
someone just aims their ASICs/GPUs/cloud cycles at their new coin
for the first months after the announcement and reaps the lion's
share of the rewards? While that seems unfair to them, it is
traditionally the fairest/most honest method.
pdog - 1 hours ago
Why would they do all that work for free?
ringaroundthetx - 2 hours ago
Because nobody skilled is going to build this without payment?
this thinly veiled criticism of ICOs has that obvious logical
flaw.Computational proofs take a long time for the development
team to get funded, and this delays go to market strategies. Look
at the graveyard of mineable projects before this year's ICO
boom, broke underfunded devs with no ability to mobilize a
community to fund the tiniest things. Pitiful bounty systems
where the payouts can't even motivate the imagined Indian
developer.If you don't think current ICOs align economic
incentives well ENOUGH, then discuss that particular nuance
instead.
jameskegel - 2 hours ago
Also, mining implies PoW, whereas this is not always guaranteed
to be the case. It's my favorite, but it's falling out of
fashion, unfortunately.
codazoda - 1 hours ago
I'm trying to understand..."The three best proofs of space rapidly
the propagated through the whole network and proofs of time servers
start working on top of them."Should that read, "The three best
proofs of space rapidly propagate through..."?
goodroot - 1 hours ago
I understand the argument regarding power consumption.However, if
we're going to green wash
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing) a cryptocurrency, we
need to focus on more than power consumption.Given that power is
getting cheaper and cleaner through solar[1, 2], this is asking
people to further accumulate more waste and precious metals in the
form of fixed drives. This is not eco-friendly and it's dubious to
assert such.[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22
/solar-pow... [2]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheap...
freeloop3 - 49 minutes ago
Bitcoin adjusts difficulty based on how many people mine it. So
cheap power doesn't reduce the cost, since it will just mean even
more mining.
tpallarino - 26 minutes ago
Exactly, the amount of money spent on energy to mine is equal
to the amount of mining revenue. Energy consumption is more
closely related to price.
wyldfire - 2 hours ago
> A bitcoin transaction wastes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcosts -- FTFY. It's not
a waste if you actually got something for it. e.g. your chemical
ICE in your car produces heat that is useful in cold weather. Not
waste heat if it has utility. Electric cars have to spend
electrical energy to generate the same heat.That said, the fact
that this keeps coming up would indicate that there's definitely a
marketplace for a coin that costs less energy/emissions for the
same features.
wbkang - 2 hours ago
Waste: use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
solotronics - 1 hours ago
see the interesting part here is that if you can come up with a
less wasteful way to mine BTC anyone is welcome to do that. You
would become rich beyond your dreams for this.
jkdufair - 1 hours ago
If we use the assumption is that the energy is carbon-based and
we consider externalities, extravagant may well be the right
term.
wyldfire - 2 hours ago
IMO it's none of those, and I think I'm being honest and fair
here -- not just a bitcoin fanboy.What's the baseline for a
corresponding transaction? Maybe that's a credit card which
will cost (not waste here either) 1-2% of the purchase price.
But even that's not quite fair because the merchant is taking
some risk on this purchase that usually amounts to some
additional cost. Also credit cards can't be used to secure
transactions of >= millions of USD (and if they did it would be
at a significantly higher cost). Bitcoin transactions at the
low end of that spectrum are prohibitively expensive, though.
mrguyorama - 1 hours ago
Bitcoin doesn't replace credit card transactions or system.
You have to judge it by it's actual value, not what it
pretends to want to be
wyldfire - 1 hours ago
Yes, fair enough -- it is truly unique and difficult to
compare w/credit cards.But to further the debate, how would
you evaluate it in these terms ("waste"/"extravagance")?
Would you stipulate that it has value or that it at least
has utility? What sort of analogy or baseline would you
compare it to, so that we could evaluate how efficient or
wasteful it is?
wmf - 1 hours ago
What's the baseline for a corresponding transaction?A proof
of stake system that consumes virtually no energy and charges
negligible fees (if it works)?
mej10 - 2 hours ago
Personally, I think it would be morally reprehensible to use
energy to keep BTC alive if there are vastly more efficient
alternatives that achieve the same goal. Though I am interested
in counter-arguments.
wyldfire - 2 hours ago
I don't think "reprehensible" applies here. We keep running
old computers and old cars and we replace them as the old ones
wear out. Bitcoin's ubiquity will be hard to unseat but all
you can do is try to convince individual wallet-holders and
merchants to use [the new more efficient coin].Other coins have
been proposed that either reduce the amount of computation
(PPC) or increase the utility of the calculations (XPM). Note
that those have existed for a long time and don't require an
ICO. Using storage space as a (hopefully?) less energy-
intensive contest to replace PoW is interesting although I
suspect that Chia isn't truly novel here either.
Karrot_Kream - 2 hours ago
I like your ICE analogy, but likewise ICEs have gone through a
century of constant innovation to make them more efficient.
Likewise, Bitcoin may be the first example of a distributed
consensus blockchain, but isn't the only way to implement
one.We're just in the process of coming up with alternative ways
of doing what Bitcoin does in a more efficient manner, much like
what ICE innovation has done and continues to do.
amenghra - 1 hours ago
Relevant talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYG0NxoG7yw
giancarlostoro - 19 minutes ago
So... One thing I missed is, how do you mine Chia? Do you mine it?
How much will there be... these are the questions, is it
technically a cryptocurrency or just a digital currency?
craigc - 55 minutes ago
There are already blockchains that do not require proof of work
(Lisk, Nav, Dash, NEO, etc) and already storage based blockchains
(Filecoin, Storj, Sia, Maidsafe, etc).It is unclear to me what Chia
brings to the table that is really new.
maltalex - 31 minutes ago
Beyond the tech, it brings a somewhat famous person, which is not
to be underestimated. Hype is important, it makes this coin pop
out a little bit more than some of the others competing for the
same mind share.
mandelliant - 39 minutes ago
The storage based blockchains don't use storage space as a means
of verification- they're storage product focused (you
buy/rent/use/sell storage space on the platform as a commodity).
That's not what Chia does; it seems like its primary use will be
store of value/transactions like Bitcoin. It's the "green"
alternative to BTC- I wouldn't call Filecoin, Storj, Sia,
Maidsafe, etc. competitors to Bitcoin (and I don't think they're
trying to be that).While Lisk, Nav, Dash, etc do use alternatives
to proof of work, what Chia is doing, from my understanding of
what they're saying, is using the lowest cost alternative to
proof of work, which is proof of storage (disclaimer, I don't
know the math behind proof of storage, just that it's their
alternative to PoW). However, proof of storage alone has some
inherent vulnerabilities so they compensate with another
mechanism, proof of time (again, not sure of the math).Edit:
punctuation
craigc - 28 minutes ago
Ahhhh. I somehow missed that while reading the article. Thanks
that makes more sense.When I saw Bittorrent and storage I think
my brain immediately jumped to the storage based tokens.Curious
to read about and see how that works
dpiers - 9 minutes ago
My understanding is that your computer computes the answer to
a difficult calculation ahead of time and stores the output
up to a specified size (ex. 1GB worth of digits of pi) .
Proof-of-Space asks you to respond with a segment of the
output at a certain offset. The amount of time given to
respond is less than the amount of time it would take to
calculate the output, and so by replying you prove that you
had it stored already.
[deleted]
Pirolita - 2 hours ago
Filecoin and Burst already do that
kentiko - 52 minutes ago
Paper on proofs of space: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/893.pdf
jparse - 2 hours ago
I don't see how this is better. It sounds like we have to waste
power running hard drives now. Isn't Ethereum's Proof of Stake
better?
bglusman - 2 hours ago
I thought so too until I read this http://www.truthcoin.info/blog
/pow-cheapest/#is-a-work-indep... and, maybe there's counter
arguments? But it seemed like a pretty good argument to me.
1053r - 1 hours ago
Your linked argument is poorly formed. It's true that any
system which periodically emits value will cause people to work
towards achieving that value. However, it's not true that the
work in question will necessarily be wasted in an arms
race.Specifically, a (well constructed) Proof of Stake system
will cause people to work to get a piece of the value by having
them purchase the coin used for staking. This will cause the
value of the coin on the open market to rise, which will
increase the equilibrium market cap of the coin in relation to
the world.Because "money is a veil" [1], this won't create or
destroy any actual goods or services. It will just transfer
value from some persons to other persons. Therefore, Proof of
Stake is more efficient than Proof of Work, because it moves
cryptocurrency from negative-sum (electricity wasted) to
something that's approximately zero-sum.Another way of saying
this is that you can't PRODUCE value by creating any currency
with zero intrinsic value. However, you can WASTE value in this
activity, and Bitcoin, as currently constructed (along with all
possible Proof of Work systems) is wasteful. Proof of Stake
wastes less value than Proof of Work.1 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_money
deevolution - 1 hours ago
How does proof of stake prevent double spending if there are
no miners to validate blocks? I must be missing something
here...
AgentME - 1 hours ago
Stakers take act like miners, but instead of staking
computation time through proof-of-work, they stake an
amount of cryptocurrency which gets burned if they ever
double-vote (and maybe if they vote for the losing chain,
etc, depending on the scheme).It's not very obvious how
exactly a proof-of-stake scheme should work though. Many
past attempts have been pretty flawed. I'm excited to watch
Ethereum's progress in this area.
idibidiart - 49 minutes ago
"Capitalizing, Capitalizing, Capitalizing." Paraphrasing Fake Yoda
(Mel Brooks) from Space Balls
DonHopkins - 1 hours ago
Proof of work is conspicuous consumption economics.
olegkikin - 2 hours ago
So it's nothing new. Ethereum and Peercoin and Nxt do proof of
stake.
45h34jh53k4j - 1 hours ago
Slight correction, Ethereum may do PoS in future, it currently
does not, it is a PoW CryptoCurrency like bitcoin. Because of the
state of miners ETH right now, I suspect it may take a long time
to migrate, with several contentious forks. I suspect bitcoin
will always be PoW.
xwvvvvwx - 41 minutes ago
What is the advantage (if any) of this over proof of stake?
pmlnr - 1 hours ago
Yay, after pushing GPU prices into madness, now we push storage
prices there as well!
Houshalter - 22 minutes ago
In the long run it will make them both cheaper.