That one is fun! First, I credibly claim to have plans to release ridiculous quantities of CO2, and then you negotiate with me to convince me not to. Then we can split the coins.
Exchanging money for not doing things is fun.
Hang on, Fidel Castro is on the other line.
> That’s actually pretty simple if you can live with centralization ... just certify CO2 offsets for example for each coin purchased.
We have this today, but "just certify" does a lot of work here. It's really hard to certify CO2 offsets in many cases (e.g., it's tough to verify that the trees someone plants weren't going to be planted anyway or that they will live to their expected potential and not get burned down prematurely).
1. Take a picture of the tree
2. Burn the tree down.
3. Create NFT of the picture of the tree burning down.
4. Use the NFT of the picture of the tree to certify the CO2 offset.
Inspiration from: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56335948
2. Create NFT of the picture of the tree.
3. Use the NFT of the picture of the tree to certify the CO2 offset.
4. Burn down the tree.
Is it more obvious with this ordering? The NFT proves nothing. It doesn't matter when you burn (or otherwise damage) the tree. You have an NFT stating a carbon offset that is completely fake.
I'm just making fun of the idea that NFTs prove... anything useful... in these circumstances. Its the same thing as people who want to use blockchain to certify supply chains or whatever. The "Blockchain technology" doesn't do anything aside from provide marketing points.
We have something like this in France. Energy providers (for example EDF, Electricité De France) must buy a certain number of CEE (Certificats d'Economie d'Energie, I think the concept is white certificates) every year, or face heavy fines (big enough that buying certificates is a big part of their activities).
As an example: let's say I want to change my window to have more isolation, which will reduce my energy consumption. This can produce a CEE, that I can "sell" to EDF, which will help financing the change.
You could make carbon-neutral coin that automatically offsets its own emissions by buying and extinguishing carbon offsets for every transaction. Obviously this would be cost-prohibitive for Bitcoin, but seems practical for less energy-intensive cryptos. I’m surprised nobody has done this (at least, I didn’t find it by googling). I think you could make billions of dollars off this because of the current furor over environment impact of cryptos. And it would actually be good for the world.
I still would like everyone to understand how proof-of-work really works, I don't think many people do.
The current Bitcoin hash rate means that all those miners are currently calculating on the order of 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 hashes per second.
Of those, in Bitcoin only around 6 per hour have any actual effect. Six. Those are the ones that met the arbitrary target. The other 10^20 did not do any actual work, meaning that none of them did bring any miner, not even the same miner, the same chip, closer to the "answer". In that sense, they are wasted.
Instead, it is literally a lottery. The difficulty is adjusted such that if you try 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 random numbers per second, 6 per hour will randomly hit the target. It's more "raffling" that "mining".
It is correct that the difficulty is adjusted based on the hash rate. If mining power was halved, it would become twice as easy to hit the target. If a new ASIC would make calculating hashes twice as efficient, the network would make hitting the target twice as difficult, effectively counteracting the efficiency. The goal is to always have 6 successful calculations per hour on average.
In the case of PoS or PoW it is spent to establish global consensus.
It’s certainly waste if there is no other productive work is done by the network that wouldn’t have been done without it.
Then hype up the coin. Make people bid it up endlessly just like they do other coins. Post lots of #moon #hodl crap on Twitter. Get the flock of sheep moving.
Sell hype, use the proceeds for CO2 reduction.
"THE BITCOIN NETWORK FUNCTIONS AS A UNIQUE ENERGY BUYER THAT COULD ENABLE SOCIETY TO DEPLOY SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SOLAR AND WIND GENERATION CAPACITY. THIS DEPLOYMENT, ALONG WITH ENERGY STORAGE, AIMS TO FACILITATE THE TRANSITION TO A CLEANER AND MORE RESILIENT ELECTRICITY GRID.”
If it moons even higher I could move to a more energy-efficient apartment with double-paned glass and all.
I'm sure modern, all digital, methods like Venmo or PayPal use even less.
The problem boils down to "How can I control superior AIs through mere power of inferior humans?".
The assumption is that the superhuman nature means there is no way disable a superhuman AI because deactivation will not fulfill its cost function and therefore must be avoided at all costs, the superhuman AI will always outsmart humans and prevent deactivation, the same way a skilled soldier will always beat an untrained civilian in combat.
We have solved it for humans by accepting that the victor gets to lead humanity. Can we accept AI rule? Probably not.
So gold mining is only 90% waste, whereas Bitcoin mining gets close to 100% waste.
Then again, perhaps printed dollars could perhaps also be considered highly wasteful?
Not everyone needs a GPGPU, but everyone need NAND and SSD. And it already causes price hike for SSD we will soon see something similar to chip shortage. The DRAM Fab which could be quickly retooled to NAND will be part of this equation as well.
This is not good.
Nah. The expected ROI on a given TiB of storage is halved with each doubling of Netspace. The current return is ~$1.50/TiB/Day. As the expected return declines, farming CHIA will become less attractive than other crypto 'investment' opportunities, and the whales will turn their attention elsewhere.
I'm guessing that netspace starts to level out after another doubling or two--assuming the exchange rate remains the same.
I'm bearish on Chia, but I can see why it's attractive at this price point. I thought the profitability was much worse, but I did the calculations myself and it looks like around ~1.30/TiB/Day.
At the $20/TiB price point for HDDs that seems like you'd be in the money after ~16 days (excluding plotting costs and farming power usage). The big problem is the lottery, which could be smoothed out by pool farming.
Yes, the rewards are getting worse by the day, so it's hard to predict where things will be at in 16 days time, but again, pool farming should theoretically smooth that out a lot.
The only benefit is that storage can be repurposed very easily, thus booms and busts may cause temporary oversupply of storage.
I have a pile of old spare 512GB SSDs and it looks like I would able to make something like $2/day. Not even enough for a coffee.
Same with Ethereum. Tried to mine with my Titan V. 31 MH/s. Also not even enough for a coffee.
This is meaningless, and cryptocurrencies are effectively centralized around mining farms with ASICs.
50K/year is impossible at this point with a consumer rig.
You cant project time to win without knowing how many plots a farmer has. You've gotta have 100+ TB plotted (prolly closer to 140actually) at this point to have a chance at winning every 3-4 months.
A single plot would put you closer to 7 years.
Farming status: Farming
Total chia farmed: 0.0
User transaction fees: 0.0
Block rewards: 0.0
Last height farmed: 0
Plot count: 2
Total size of plots: 202.674 GiB
Estimated network space: 7357.090 PiB
Expected time to win: 20 years and 1 month
3-4 months is currently around 18 TB.
EDIT: 100 TB would get a coin every ~ 18 days on average.
That number does't account for how many more Chia farmers will exist in 1,2,3 months. It doesn't even account for linear extrapolation of total plots in the world, let alone exponential.
Seriously, anyone compared the capacity of Chia and beloved cloud providers?
Chia plots are unique. Producing two copies of one isn't just pointless, but undesirable; it means that someone else might get a copy and reap the rewards instead of the person who plotted it.
That said it needs to be cheaper than HD, as the SSD is apparently only used to build the plot, so maybe impractical indeed.
Curious that the plotting hasn't already moved to DRAM, apparently 256GB is needed to build a plot which is not too wild on server-class computers.
... like flash memory?
Flash storage has been heavily optimized. You're not going to do any better than that with custom silicon.
> Curious that the plotting hasn't already moved to DRAM, apparently 256GB is needed to build a plot which is not too wild on server-class computers.
My understanding is that people have done the math, and using an SSD ends up being cheaper, even considering the fact that it'll wear out prematurely. (And, in the case of hosting services like Scaleway, the miner isn't concerned -- their hosting provider is the one burdened by this usage.)
These above mentioned consumer drives, when written to in massive amounts (I believe even the lower sized Chia plots thrash the SSD to the tune of at least a couple terabytes of write usage) cause it to degrade at a significantly higher rate.
Long story short, consumer SSDs aren't designed for super high write tasks, while enterprise and higher-end ones are.
This is still only a couple hundred 100GB plots (the smallest possible size).
"Chia SSDs" being made are something like 12000TBW.
The standard plot size uses 1.2TB of writes.
You won't wear out your SSD in a few weeks with Chia...you just won't. If you use a 120GB one, maybe...but no-one is doing this.
You could theoretically plot on a RAMdisk to avoid this problem, but the necessary amount of RAM would be incredibly expensive, so it's unlikely that many people will do it.
No one is claiming that Chia is burning hard drives. He is intentionally being misleading. Chia absolutely destroys consumer SSDs.
If they are used to produce many orders of magnitude more plots than could fit on them. His point is you don't need SSDs to plot, and can reasonably make them directly on the spinning HDD on which you'll store them. I know, because I'm doing this. I make one plot in about 10 hours on the 7200rpm commodity drive in my home media server. It may take me longer to fill up my space than it would with an SSD, but compared to the amount of time in the future I'll be able to farm the plots it doesn't really matter. Cranking out plots as fast as possible probably only helped for the first week or two.
People are burning out SSDs since they're buying into the arms race and trying to get/stay ahead of the netspace growth, hoping for some "easy" XCH, but that's a choice they're making, using poor (or more likely no) ROI calculations and outdated information.
I need to look into this more, but I think this is an implementation issue. It should buffer in RAM to require only one write pass.
Edit: I was wrong. They set a minimum k that wouldn’t easily fit in ram.
Ok Chia is stupid but this means that you are not pricing your SSD I/O properly.
Useful Proof of Storage cryptos like Siacoin or Filecoin should be more incentivised. They store meaningful data.
I mean, in this case, you really just need engineering (in the traditional sense) influence. Engineering as a discipline covers considering this sort of thing.
What is plotting? How does farming a plot work?
Edit: Why do people plot with SSDs? Is there a speed element to it?
Plotting: you fill your free space with bingo cards. You need 300-400GB of free temporary space and TBs of writes in that space. This uses a lot of compute and eats SSDs for breakfast.
Once you have filled your space (assuming you don't go out and buy more disks), you can stop plotting. This is where the claimed "greenness" of Chia comes into play: you eventually stop using compute resources. Of course, there are whales who are adding drives to their servers daily.
is this like pre-computing the values to a hash function against different inputs? Where is the write thrashing coming in? If you only need X hundred gigs, why do you write terabytes? Because you can't store intermediary values in RAM (since ram is expensive and small in comparison)?
I get how bitcoin style block-chains use hashing to secure the transaction chain, and the POW factors into hashing... how do responding to the challenges factor into a currency?
This happens during plotting (not farming). The plots are sorted, which is where the write thrashing happens. Once you've completely plotted a farm, it is never written to.
Everything else you said is basically spot-on.
Plotting is an compute- and IO-intensive process which eventually generates a ~100 GB block of data after a large number of read/write operations to that data. This is the part of the process that involves (and destroys) SSDs.
Farming is a slower process which is performed on those blocks of data, which involves occasional read operations on small sections of that data. The data blocks are typically transferred to slower bulk storage (like hard disks) for this.
Is this true? Back in 2015, techreport tested a bunch of SSDs to failure and it took 18 months to kill them all. This was a while ago, but I'd been lead to believe write endurance had only improved since then.
Judging by the graph in the article, it was 1 exabyte in late April, under a month ago. Wow.
It is really just speculation fever?
On Scaleway and Hetzner, there is unmetered 100Mbps bandwidth.
On Linode, Vultr, and DigitalOcean, there is a 1-month 1TB limit.
Translation: Scaleway didn't take SSD wear into account when designing their cloud.
Chia farming is allowed on Scaleway Object Storage providing prior request has been both made and authorized by our sales team
Translation: They can't expand their object storage fast enough to keep up with demand.
I don't think many cloud providers expect all their disks to fail every 1-3 months, which is what happens when you mine Chia on a SSD/NVMe.