CPU

ggf31416

Bitcoin mining uses SHA256 calculations, there is nothing that prevents running many such calculations in parallel. A "core" can only run a single operation at one time. CPUs only have a few cores. Even a lowly RTX3050 has 2560 "CUDA" cores capable of general processing, albeit each one is slower than a CPU core, so a GPU can process parallelizable operations much faster than a CPU. A Bitcoin mining ASIC only has circuits to calculate SHA256 hashes, so they can run millions of calculations in parallel, so they will outperform any GPU. ASIC resistant algorithms need a resource that can't be duplicated easily, e.g. Ethereum mining takes large amounts of fast memory, while GPU resistant algorithms use complex algorithms that GPUs are not good at. As GPU miners recently discovered there only a certain amount of demand X for any coin, mining more won't magically increase the demand. With POW you basically get X * ( your_hashpower / global_hashpower) so it's almost pointless to mine with your CPU any coin that is not resistant to GPU mining as your individual contribution to hashpower will be insignificant.

IWillKillPutin2022

Low profitability + risk of damage to CPU. I personally *do* CPU mine since I’ve got free electricity. I don’t think there is any risk of damage to the CPU since I run it fairly cooly

JustDownInTheMines

"Now that little cpu is making half the profit of the entire gpu farm." Please elaborate. Just because GPU mining is no longer profitable, doesn't mean CPU mining is all of a sudden profitable. Including electricity costs, you will only earn cents if anything.

Don-QueHotas

I thought CPU mining was not profitable at all. I mined with my 3090 and it wasn’t even worth it.

CointestAdmin

#Monero Pro-Arguments Below is an argument written by MrMoustacheMan which won 1st place in the Monero Pro-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > #Monero Pro Argument (Part 1/2) > > - Copying from my [previous entry](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ovmttk/rcc_cointest_coin_inquiries_monero_proarguments/h7d1e6i/). > > - *Disclosure: I currently hold a position in XMR, ~2% of my current portfolio value* > > - **TLDR**: Privacy is a human right and Monero is the leading project aimed at protecting that right. Optional privacy is not sufficient for anonymity. If exchanges delist privacy coins, Monero will still be able to meet market demand through p2p channels and atomic swaps. > > ##Monero: Built different > > **Monero (XMR) is a cryptocurrency focused on private and censorship-resistant transactions** > > - Privacy is a [human right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy), recognized by the [UN Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). Even if you have '[nothing to hide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument)' you should still care about privacy, as [I argued for the Cointest Privacy - Pro argument](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pfopc9/rcc_cointest_general_concepts_privacy/hf5o1sv/). > > - Monero has many of the attributes that people find valuable about Bitcoin. However, it also improves on some key aspects to align more with [the original vision of Bitcoin](https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/morrpp/satoshi_talking_about_privacy_features_that_got/) and the original [cypherpunk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk) vision of cryptocurrency in general: > > - Monero was created by an anonymous dev: like Satoshi, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Monero was created by an unknown entity, [Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=233561;sa=showPosts). > > - Monero is a fork of Bytecoin, outlined in [Nicolas van Saberhagen's 2013 white paper ](https://bytecoin.org/old/whitepaper.pdf) which argued that "Privacy and anonymity are the most important aspects of electronic cash" and proposed areas to improve upon Bitcoin's design. > > - Like Bitcoin, Monero is an 'OG' PoW coin (2014 mainnet) with no premine or ICO > > - Monero does not have a hard capped supply like Bitcoin. > > - Monero *does* have a decreasing block reward schedule like BTC - but it doesn't trend towards zero over time. Instead, [the block subsidy will trend toward a fixed amount to incentivize participants to keep mining blocks](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-monero). The current [annual inflation is 1.45% and decreasing until "tail" emission kicks in around 2022](https://moneroj.net/inflation/). > > - [Proponents regard this as an improvement over Bitcoin](https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3z527f/does_monero_have_a_maximum_cap_like_bitcoin_21/). It's unknown if, in the future, transaction fees will supplant the mining incentive that secures BTC's blockchain once the block reward becomes extremely small > > - Unlike Bitcoin, Monero [does not have a fixed cap for block size](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-monero). Instead, it has a dynamic block size, meaning that blocks can expand or shrink to accommodate demand. > > - *[Mining](https://moneroj.net/hashrate/)* > > - Unlike Bitcoin, Monero is designed to be ASIC-resistant with an intent to reduce the dominance of mining pools running specialized, high-performance mining hardware > > - Monero can be mined somewhat efficiently on consumer grade hardware such as x86, x86-64, ARM and GPUs > > - Moreover, Monero's updated PoW algorithm (from CryptoNight to RandomX) favors CPU mining and weakens GPU effectiveness > > - *[Fungibility](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/fungibility)* > > - Fungibility is a key property of currencies - at a high level it means that one dollar bill is equivalent to and interchangeable with another dollar bill. > > - Well 1 BTC = 1 BTC right? Yes, at the protocol level there isn't any distinction made between each BTC unit. > > - Fungibility is more ambiguous at the social and political levels. [Some bitcoins have a 'tainted' history due to being used for illegal purposes, confiscated, etc.](https://sethsimmons.me/posts/fungibility-graveyard/) Exchanges and other institutions can then blacklist coins using chain analysis. > > - If 'clean', freshly mined coins are seen as more valuable than older 'dirty' ones, then that undermines Bitcoin's fungibility. > > - Privacy > > - Monero's **private by default** protocol preserves the fungibility of the asset by obscuring transaction sources, amounts, and destinations. > > - Most blockchain networks today reveal information about your holdings and transactions: > > - "[Bitcoin is only semi-private; the protocol doesn’t know your real name but transactions can still be linked to you in a myriad of ways.](https://medium.com/human-rights-foundation-hrf/privacy-and-cryptocurrency-part-i-how-private-is-bitcoin-e3a4071f8fff)" > > - Blockchain analytics firms ([like Chainanalysis](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/chainalysis-doubles-valuation-to-2-billion-with-benioff-backing.html)) specialize in deanonymizing crypto activity and sell this data to corporations and law enforcement agencies. > > - In contrast, Ring signatures, stealth addresses and RingCT (Ring Confidential Transactions) make Monero unlinkable and untraceable. > > - If you [search for an address in the Monero block explorer](https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/41mT1gUnYHK6mDAxVsKeB7SP9hVesbESbWcupd7mMYC73GL4nSgsEwTGKHGT7GKoSEdMKvs8Fdu1ufPJbo5BV4d1PfYiEew), you'll see that you can't tie any holdings or transactions to it. > > - I would argue that privacy by default makes Monero more valuable vs. [optional privacy implementations](https://www.wired.com/story/harry-pottery-cryptocurrency-privacy-zcash-monero/) like [Litecoin's MimbleWimble upgrade](https://twitter.com/DavidBurkett38/status/1356469626511712258), Dash's PrivateSend or more direct competitors like Zcash (ZEC) > > - ZEC uses zk-SNARK proofs, which are not fully trustless: "[zk-SNARK proofs are dependent on an initial trusted setup between a prover and verifier, meaning that a set of public parameters is required to construct zero-knowledge proofs and, thus, private transactions.](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/zk-snarks-and-zk-starks-explained)" > > - If users do not shield their ZEC transactions - and most do not - a third-party can uncover shielded transactions through process of elimination. > > - If you give people optional privacy they don't really use it - thus [Monero's month-over-month increase in transactions surpassed all shielded Zcash transactions *ever*](https://twitter.com/JEhrenhofer/status/1380566462344101899). > > - In September 2020, the US IRS criminal investigation division (IRS-CI), posted a [$625,000 bounty for contractors who could develop tools to help trace Monero](https://decrypt.co/41411/the-irs-is-offering-you-625000-to-crack-monero). However no team has provided convincing evidence of their success. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/qk4ybr/coin_inquiries_round_monero_proarguments_november/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Monero) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

madosch

I'm not sure what you are talking about. ETH is not mined anymore, and a single CPU can't even remotely provide as much revenue as a mining rigg did for ETH miners before the merge.

sloe-berry-brain

Do humanitarian scientific research on your CPU through BOINC and get rewarded in Gridcoin. Better than wasting hashes for no payback.

Maxx3141

It's very intense. I would recommend to under-volt the GPU a bit, but I couldn't go as low as when mining (that may be an OS thing though, since I was mining on HiveOS). Also if you do both CPU/GPU, you can compare their points/day and if it may be worth going GPU only. Kalium is a nice mobile wallet, banano folks love it like mad.

Julian_0x7F

is XMR mining with a gaming pc CPU profitable?

na3than

"we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the **block** until a value is found that gives the **block**'s hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the **block** cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later **blocks are chained** after it, the work to change the **block** would include redoing all the **blocks** after it." The Bitcoin white paper doesn't use the word "blockchain" but the chain-of-blocks description is unmistakable.

InevitableDizzy1019

A ledger is basically a signing device. You send the transaction hash to the device and it returns a signature. The keys never get exposed to the computer you connect the device to. Storing the seed in a USB key is a different story. You need a software wallet to load the key to generate the signatures from it, directly on the computer's CPU. If the computer is compromised, the key is compromised.

CointestAdmin

#Avalanche Pro-Arguments Below is an argument written by ExchangeEnough7821 which won 1st place in the Avalanche Pro-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > AVAX Pros: > > What is Avalanche? > > Avalanche is a cryptocurrency that uses smart contracts in order to host a large number of blockchain projects. It is one of the many coins that potentially could rival Ethereum. The two main priorities and focuses of the AVAX project are the speed of transactions of this coin, and the scalability of this coin and its infrastructure. Finally, the avalanche is completely open source, so all users can add to or just look at the code that makes up AVAX. > > What are the pros of Avalanche? > > Most notably, Avalanche has a very quick transaction processing speed, So far, AVAX can handle 4,500 transactions per second, a large increase compared to Ethereum’s 15 per second - seemingly tiny in comparison. Therefore, Avalanche has a greater ability to scale large amounts – it can handle large demand and interaction that comes with a popular network. > > One of the things most valued by those using the AVAX blockchain and invested in the avalanche coin is the rewards given for processing AVAX transactions. This reward structure is so attractive particularly due to its low system requirements- only 4GB RAM and a 2GHz CPU are needed, making this reward structure accessible to everyone, in turn making the user base of AVAX larger. By rewarding participation, it encourages users to get involved with the avalanche network. > > Finally, Avalanche uses 3 compatible and interoperable blockchains that, when used together, can overcome issues faced by other blockchains. The first of these is the X-Chain, which is responsible for creating and exchanging the AVAX assets and of course coins. Secondly, there is the C-Chain (the contract chain) which is for hosting the decentralised applications and smart contracts. Finally, the P-Chain keeps track of active subnets, and easily creates new ones. When all of these are combined, the AVAX blockchain is well rounded and with few flaws. > > In conclusion, the main pros of the Avalanche network is its incredibly fast processing speed, rewards scheme and the interoperable blockchains that overcome issues faced by many other ones. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2n2h/top_10_avalanche_proarguments_january_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

MilesPower

To add to this from a post on Quora: >I wrote a Python script to iterate through the BIP39 wordlist with 2048 words, one missing seed word and one known BTC address created early in the wallet’s lifetime. >It took me approx. 7 hours and 30 minutes to try every possible iteration (2048 words) and generate a BTC address that matched what I gave the program. I ran the script offline (no internet access) with 6GB RAM laptop and 8-core CPU. >I must note that I couldn’t use my laptop for other tasks and the 7hrs 30mins landmark doesn’t include the frequent times the laptop crashed but at the end, it was really worth it 😂 So yes, it would take a lot longer than the above example given the added complexity of two missing seed words but it would be absolutely brute forceable with moderate hardware and in a "reasonable" amount of time. If you built a machine specifically to do this, hey those mining GPUs you aren't using just became valuable again!, you could brute force this pretty quickly.

CointestAdmin

#Monero Pro-Arguments Below is an argument written by MrMoustacheMan which won 1st place in the Monero Pro-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > #Monero Pro Argument (Part 1/2) > > - Copying from my [previous entry](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ovmttk/rcc_cointest_coin_inquiries_monero_proarguments/h7d1e6i/). > > - *Disclosure: I currently hold a position in XMR, ~2% of my current portfolio value* > > - **TLDR**: Privacy is a human right and Monero is the leading project aimed at protecting that right. Optional privacy is not sufficient for anonymity. If exchanges delist privacy coins, Monero will still be able to meet market demand through p2p channels and atomic swaps. > > ##Monero: Built different > > **Monero (XMR) is a cryptocurrency focused on private and censorship-resistant transactions** > > - Privacy is a [human right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy), recognized by the [UN Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). Even if you have '[nothing to hide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument)' you should still care about privacy, as [I argued for the Cointest Privacy - Pro argument](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/pfopc9/rcc_cointest_general_concepts_privacy/hf5o1sv/). > > - Monero has many of the attributes that people find valuable about Bitcoin. However, it also improves on some key aspects to align more with [the original vision of Bitcoin](https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/morrpp/satoshi_talking_about_privacy_features_that_got/) and the original [cypherpunk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk) vision of cryptocurrency in general: > > - Monero was created by an anonymous dev: like Satoshi, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Monero was created by an unknown entity, [Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=233561;sa=showPosts). > > - Monero is a fork of Bytecoin, outlined in [Nicolas van Saberhagen's 2013 white paper ](https://bytecoin.org/old/whitepaper.pdf) which argued that "Privacy and anonymity are the most important aspects of electronic cash" and proposed areas to improve upon Bitcoin's design. > > - Like Bitcoin, Monero is an 'OG' PoW coin (2014 mainnet) with no premine or ICO > > - Monero does not have a hard capped supply like Bitcoin. > > - Monero *does* have a decreasing block reward schedule like BTC - but it doesn't trend towards zero over time. Instead, [the block subsidy will trend toward a fixed amount to incentivize participants to keep mining blocks](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-monero). The current [annual inflation is 1.45% and decreasing until "tail" emission kicks in around 2022](https://moneroj.net/inflation/). > > - [Proponents regard this as an improvement over Bitcoin](https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3z527f/does_monero_have_a_maximum_cap_like_bitcoin_21/). It's unknown if, in the future, transaction fees will supplant the mining incentive that secures BTC's blockchain once the block reward becomes extremely small > > - Unlike Bitcoin, Monero [does not have a fixed cap for block size](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-monero). Instead, it has a dynamic block size, meaning that blocks can expand or shrink to accommodate demand. > > - *[Mining](https://moneroj.net/hashrate/)* > > - Unlike Bitcoin, Monero is designed to be ASIC-resistant with an intent to reduce the dominance of mining pools running specialized, high-performance mining hardware > > - Monero can be mined somewhat efficiently on consumer grade hardware such as x86, x86-64, ARM and GPUs > > - Moreover, Monero's updated PoW algorithm (from CryptoNight to RandomX) favors CPU mining and weakens GPU effectiveness > > - *[Fungibility](https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/fungibility)* > > - Fungibility is a key property of currencies - at a high level it means that one dollar bill is equivalent to and interchangeable with another dollar bill. > > - Well 1 BTC = 1 BTC right? Yes, at the protocol level there isn't any distinction made between each BTC unit. > > - Fungibility is more ambiguous at the social and political levels. [Some bitcoins have a 'tainted' history due to being used for illegal purposes, confiscated, etc.](https://sethsimmons.me/posts/fungibility-graveyard/) Exchanges and other institutions can then blacklist coins using chain analysis. > > - If 'clean', freshly mined coins are seen as more valuable than older 'dirty' ones, then that undermines Bitcoin's fungibility. > > - Privacy > > - Monero's **private by default** protocol preserves the fungibility of the asset by obscuring transaction sources, amounts, and destinations. > > - Most blockchain networks today reveal information about your holdings and transactions: > > - "[Bitcoin is only semi-private; the protocol doesn’t know your real name but transactions can still be linked to you in a myriad of ways.](https://medium.com/human-rights-foundation-hrf/privacy-and-cryptocurrency-part-i-how-private-is-bitcoin-e3a4071f8fff)" > > - Blockchain analytics firms ([like Chainanalysis](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/chainalysis-doubles-valuation-to-2-billion-with-benioff-backing.html)) specialize in deanonymizing crypto activity and sell this data to corporations and law enforcement agencies. > > - In contrast, Ring signatures, stealth addresses and RingCT (Ring Confidential Transactions) make Monero unlinkable and untraceable. > > - If you [search for an address in the Monero block explorer](https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/41mT1gUnYHK6mDAxVsKeB7SP9hVesbESbWcupd7mMYC73GL4nSgsEwTGKHGT7GKoSEdMKvs8Fdu1ufPJbo5BV4d1PfYiEew), you'll see that you can't tie any holdings or transactions to it. > > - I would argue that privacy by default makes Monero more valuable vs. [optional privacy implementations](https://www.wired.com/story/harry-pottery-cryptocurrency-privacy-zcash-monero/) like [Litecoin's MimbleWimble upgrade](https://twitter.com/DavidBurkett38/status/1356469626511712258), Dash's PrivateSend or more direct competitors like Zcash (ZEC) > > - ZEC uses zk-SNARK proofs, which are not fully trustless: "[zk-SNARK proofs are dependent on an initial trusted setup between a prover and verifier, meaning that a set of public parameters is required to construct zero-knowledge proofs and, thus, private transactions.](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/zk-snarks-and-zk-starks-explained)" > > - If users do not shield their ZEC transactions - and most do not - a third-party can uncover shielded transactions through process of elimination. > > - If you give people optional privacy they don't really use it - thus [Monero's month-over-month increase in transactions surpassed all shielded Zcash transactions *ever*](https://twitter.com/JEhrenhofer/status/1380566462344101899). > > - In September 2020, the US IRS criminal investigation division (IRS-CI), posted a [$625,000 bounty for contractors who could develop tools to help trace Monero](https://decrypt.co/41411/the-irs-is-offering-you-625000-to-crack-monero). However no team has provided convincing evidence of their success. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/qk4ybr/coin_inquiries_round_monero_proarguments_november/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Monero) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

CointestAdmin

#Avalanche Pro-Arguments Below is an argument written by ExchangeEnough7821 which won 1st place in the Avalanche Pro-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > AVAX Pros: > > What is Avalanche? > > Avalanche is a cryptocurrency that uses smart contracts in order to host a large number of blockchain projects. It is one of the many coins that potentially could rival Ethereum. The two main priorities and focuses of the AVAX project are the speed of transactions of this coin, and the scalability of this coin and its infrastructure. Finally, the avalanche is completely open source, so all users can add to or just look at the code that makes up AVAX. > > What are the pros of Avalanche? > > Most notably, Avalanche has a very quick transaction processing speed, So far, AVAX can handle 4,500 transactions per second, a large increase compared to Ethereum’s 15 per second - seemingly tiny in comparison. Therefore, Avalanche has a greater ability to scale large amounts – it can handle large demand and interaction that comes with a popular network. > > One of the things most valued by those using the AVAX blockchain and invested in the avalanche coin is the rewards given for processing AVAX transactions. This reward structure is so attractive particularly due to its low system requirements- only 4GB RAM and a 2GHz CPU are needed, making this reward structure accessible to everyone, in turn making the user base of AVAX larger. By rewarding participation, it encourages users to get involved with the avalanche network. > > Finally, Avalanche uses 3 compatible and interoperable blockchains that, when used together, can overcome issues faced by other blockchains. The first of these is the X-Chain, which is responsible for creating and exchanging the AVAX assets and of course coins. Secondly, there is the C-Chain (the contract chain) which is for hosting the decentralised applications and smart contracts. Finally, the P-Chain keeps track of active subnets, and easily creates new ones. When all of these are combined, the AVAX blockchain is well rounded and with few flaws. > > In conclusion, the main pros of the Avalanche network is its incredibly fast processing speed, rewards scheme and the interoperable blockchains that overcome issues faced by many other ones. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2n2h/top_10_avalanche_proarguments_january_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds.

Big_Effective_9174

What concerns me, in my limited knowledge ÷ intelligence (I have a negative IQ) is that someone produces a processor capable of quickly cracking the cryptography. I'm reassured by the idea that something as powerful as a quantum CPU that can do just that can be counteracted by vastly increasing the encryption difficulty but will there be a transition period where the earliest quantum computers can rifle through all this sensitive data at ease?

Kelketek

A government can ban something while also being unable to stop it. It is very unlikely that any government could stop Monero. It is possible for a government to slow it down-- it could imprison/kill the developers or make use of it illegal. However, not all the developers are publicly known, and you can expect that some countries won't ban it, and VPNs will still allow its use. Even countries as locked down as China haven't been able to stop cryptocurrencies-- just large farming operations. Monero doesn't support large farming operations very well, due to RandomX making them impractical (CPU bound with lots of memory, GPU confers little to no advantage, nor ASICs.) They recognized that this kind of centralization would make the currency too easy to control. Basically, the Monero dev team continues to focus on functionality that makes Monero harder and harder to ban, and you can expect they'll continue to do so.

Ohlav

Monero can be mined by GPU also, but it will spend more energy for no additional return. CPU mining is enough and the recommended.

coldfusion718

High CPU usage shortly after the epoch boundary switch over. This is normal and happens every time, but the one time that poster mentioned lasted longer than usual.

HEATHENSCENT

Better start cutting holes for ventilation, especially for CPU mining :P

aFungible

Thank you for the interesting insight there. I understand where you're coming from and what you say looks logical. We aren't sure how it may play out eventually though. I have a few pointers: 1) When I meant free and unlimited energy, I meant that on a commercial scale, energy will be so cheap that it'll be surplus. It won't ever be free but given it's so cheap, it will incentivize new miners into the mining ecosystem, increasing hashrate and thus security of the network, increase mining difficulty adjustment, and each miner can actually make "some money" irrespective whether it is small OR big player. That is why, hunt for Bitcoin reward may actually end up incentivizing green energy. e.g. Solar (green), Nuclear Fusion (green) and Nuclear Fission (non-green) via Nuclear Reactors. 2) Unless the above scenario plays out, mining would be done by big farms, big companies and nationalized governments. By 2060, given Bitcoin is so popular that most hold a few satoshis at least, is at $5 Million/BTC. Mining can only be profitable by bigger players, would be completely centralized, censored and likely under government control. Moving money (is already) and then, will become a nightmare, esp. moving larger sums of money. 3) You assume, there would be 400,000 transactions per day on base layer. On what basis? If lightning is the future, why wouldn't I use lightning for both moving larger sums of money and "privately"? What stops me from it? I would rather use base layer ONLY for opening/closing channels. I think this reasoning is more closer to reality. Your reasoning is agreeable, IF lightning is not a thing by then. If most people stick to layer 2, security of layer 1 will come into question. So, the ONLY way I find Bitcoin could survive is it becomes a black hole for money, it becomes a geopolitical tool and all nation states have an incentive to secure the network by keeping their mining rigs on. That is why, in order for miners to be even a bit profitable, energy need to be thrown out of the equation. Energy need to be surplus and be ~free. The world by 2060, would need to transform itself to TYPE-1 Civilization (look up Kardashev scale). Energy is the key, else no one wants to lose wealth mining and cheap affordable energy is what may hold the key, to keeping Bitcoin "decentralized". Remember the days of 2011, energy for mining Bitcoin was literally free on CPU, it was decentralized then. Today, not anymore the decentralized Bitcoin that was known for back then. Over'n out!

medatascientist

Which is mined which was available to anyone in public with a simple CPU and an email address. Vitalik had it premined. Totally different things.

pescennius

Before I respond, thanks for not behaving like a troll like others in this thread have. Even if we walk away disagreeing I'm not going to feel like you were desperately trying to defend your bags like many others around here do. I'm familiar with the linked post, I keep up with what Vitalik puts out. First off the core problem he outlines in his example about forking doesn't apply to Algorand because of the Algorand consensus. Algorand never forks(well probability is 10⁻¹⁸ but that's as good as never), [here is a short summary of why](https://www.algorand.com/technology/immediate-transaction-finality) and a [more technical one if you are inclined(it addresses forks)](https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorands-core-technology-in-a-nutshell). Because the network can't fork, in Algoland we aren't as concerned with regular users running the infrastructure of the network, just consensus. Or to put it another way, the compute that makes the network scale (relay nodes) has been decoupled from the compute that validates transactions (participation nodes), such that compromising one doesn't compromise the other. If the entire relay system was one relay node it does not have the ability to forge transactions because it has no means of forking the chain. That is why Silvio has claimed to solve the Trilemma. > Anyone can claim it isn't centralized because they could run one, but what matters is if everyday people are running them, and that they are as widespread as possible - for example running from peoples houses. That is what makes a network decentralised That is why the nodes are split into two types. Consensus requires a lot less compute (especially Algorand consensus) and so can be decentralized fairly easily. Consensus nodes are cheap and can be run on commodity hardware (Some people are using raspberry pis) which fulfills Vitalik's requests around CPU (no stated requirement but 2-4 cpus seems to be a rule of thumb), storage (under 250GB SSD), and bandwidth (100mbps). Bandwidth is where we aren't hitting the targets but I think that's the least important of the 3 given the amount of people on earth who do have access to internet at those speeds. > With blockchains there is a tradeoff between decentralised and scalability. Think of it like a line, on one end you have decentralised, and on the other end you have scalable. Networks can sit anywhere on this line. So I am not saying that the network is fully scalable and not decentralised like I would an SQL database, but I can see that it sits on towards end of the line. Mostly agreed here. What Algorand has done is split the tradeoff between two components of the system. So consensus is fully decentralized today while scaling is much more centralized. Now I've argued that the relays are de jure decentralized since anyone can technically run a relay node but you have validly pointed out that they aren't that de facto decentralized because people aren't doing it in practice. I 100% agree that the de facto situation can improve but the de jure situation is more important when it comes to risk of using a chain because its the difference between nobody can step in if the relays fail and the community can take the helm if the relays fail. That is a big difference. > With all of that being said, I am interested in what they have planned to make the network much more decentralised, and to remove the reliance on these paid nodes or to make running them as common as you would say a Bitcoin or Ethereum node. Right now there are no innate rewards on chain for running these nodes (participation or relay), the team pays a set of relay operators to keep their nodes running until 2030. The plan is to develop a system that rewards relay node operators from network fees enough so that they break even on the costs of running a relay node. A decentralized system for relay node discovery also has to be developed. In the talks I've watched, Silvio always seemed keen to leave participation nodes without rewards. It seems he thinks that if the nodes are cheap enough to run people committed to the ecosystem will just run them. Projects will have an incentive to since the chain is their livelihood and holders of Algo will because securing the chain is what makes people want to use it, because ultimately that is the point. More people using it is more fees and more fees are more money that Algo holders can allocate through governance, in the long term back to themselves as a dividend. Now there is definitely a debate about whether this becomes a "free rider problem" where Algo holders are banking free riding off a minority of holders who will actually secure the network. Personally that is the biggest hole in the plan and the one I'm most interested in debate on.

Flynn_Kevin

Monero isn't really mined on GPUs. You can, but it's horribly inefficient. You'll burn 3x the power for 1/2 the performance of a CPU.

igadjeed

> ASIC resistant algorithms The result of Monero switching to a CPU-only algorithm is that all miners own a $7000 CPU, just to mine Monero. Maybe ASIC mining makes more sense. The boxes are cheaper

FXOjafar

Not really easier. I make more profit after power with less than $10k worth of CPU mining rigs than 32eth staked.

igadjeed

The main privacy coin has CPU-only mining. The effect of that change was that all the miners use a $7000 CPU. Your cloud credits could be useful for that. Google bans cryptocurrency mining on their cloud

nullama

You can't mine Bitcoin with a CPU or GPU. You need an ASIC.

Paskee

Thing is, ETH is second largest crypto. They cant afford buch of random validators. Jackie with his ADSL and i7 CPU to run a validator node. They opted for high quality validators. Much like Solana. So big CEX-es will be main validators.

B1t1nat0r

IMHO this is more concerning than I thought. If we assume there's 1 million public keys that are generated over all big blockchains that's one right seed a year with a normal CPU. With a bit of optimization by using modern equipment in bulk you could probably bring the cost by key down by a factor of 10. And with every year it will only get cheaper. I don't know what the average amount found would be, but if we assume 100 dollars for a year of running and maintaining a CPU comes dangerously close to being efficient.

DrinkMoreCodeMore

Should calculate using a modern GPU or multiple GPUs instead of CPU.

LitesLiger

Yeah so this is Bad faith article mostly, but let me break down few things - Firstly not all use the same model as Ethereum does, Cardano, for instance, punishes more centralized validators by dropping rewards for them, there are some other chains that have run through this model too. You can create limits on how much X validator can have X amount of coin staked, or slash rewards by % of centralization compared to other pools. ETH having a shitty PoS model, is not an argument against PoS in general. - Secondly, you can stake low as 0.01 ETH via Gnosis or Lido for one, the 32 ETH amount is not set in stone and can be changed in the future. - Thirdly, most of the staking infrastructure is not out there yet for ETH once it is, more decentralization will happen. - Fourthly, PoW has centralization issues too. As of right now 98% Of all ASIC machines, GPU's and CPU's are manufactured in China & Taiwan - this is inherently problematic, given especially the nature of countries like China, who could just start installing spyware on ASIC's or just take over whole manufacturing companies. China simultaneously also enjoy much lower electricity costs than most of the first world countries. PoW has a fundamental geographical bias to it and that creates centralization. PoS is highly modifiable just because you see few bad versions of it, doesn't mean that's the facto limit of the system.

pet2pet1982

Ethereum doesn’t have smart contracts too. It has “smart” contracts (in fact fool contracts) because main mistake is PoS less centralised. Ethereum coins are NFT concentrated in a few hands and monitored by all the state regulators. You can’t simply buy ETH anymore and start staking. You have to prove your ETH are clean and not mixed via services like Tornado Cash. Censorship seems low, but it is growing with high speed. In Bitcoin you have to buy ASICs. It is bad. But not so bad like to buy ETH in Ethereum. You still can buy ASICs or even organise its manufacturing using old school fungible, untraceable paper cash, not ETH coins on a fully transparent blockchain. In Monero, PoW is so perfect, all you need ordinary street laptop (CPU without GPU) to start mining e.g. enter the game. And nobody can ban you. And of course there is decentralised p2pool to close 51% into history.

SenatusSPQR

*The Bitcoin system is only secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.* *The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.* Those aren't my words, that's Satoshi. It's not that nodes have no role to play whatsoever, but there's good reason that we have proof of work. Nodes are cheap to spin up - proof of work is not. [There are currently ~15,000 nodes](https://bitnodes.io/). The cost to spin up a node is less than $100. That means I can get a (vast) majority of all the nodes on the network for $10 million. Getting >50% hashpower is far more expensive, and is the important factor.

Vipu2

Miners want to get as much power as possible with the least heat as possible. If some miner company comes up with some new tech to achieve that, then CPU, GPU and other tech companies can get some help and ideas from that. Also I didnt mean hardware progress only, but also the whole renewable energy progress. Im very interested to see what will happen with the methane farming at some point soon.

devilsgospel666

Ever since I learned how delegation and staking truly functions, those coins have started to fall out of favor for me. Honestly I'm inclined to agree with a lot of your points despite being invested decently in staking/passive rewards. I recall seeing governance polls completely manipulated in favor of the wealthier holders and devs with some projects and it just reminds me of banks. I mean look no further than ETH right now, 2 entities own half the network (I know they don't own it but they certainly have more control than most and can potentially exercise some of it over users). Kinda defeats the entire purpose of crypto for me. Also what is alarming to me is the fact that there is a concentrated effort to abolish PoW with the admittedly weak argument it destroys the environment (despite a study I read finding that clothes driers collectively use more energy than BTC mining). PoW is much, MUCH harder to cheat and inherently more decentralized and I truly believe that's the real reason authority figures want it gone so badly. I have a rule that I'm using only PoW coins to store or transact value, if I'm using a PoS coin for that I may as well go give that money to Fidelity or a bank. I'll say this forever and to everyone about crypto: Monero is king. I think every coin should work like XMR, with CPU mining it seems like it's harder for any one entity to mine better than anyone else.

Justin534

Feel like if the expectation was that the merge would make Ether more valuable I really don't see why people would have thought this. Right now the merge doesn't have a whole lot to do with scaling or bringing down fees. It does in a sense that its something that needed to be done on the roadmap before shading can be implemented. But the merge itself? It doesn't do that. There's arguments that PoW cant scale but I don't get the argument. Want faster block times? Just lower the difficulty. I really think its just a technical difference in achieving consensus and until I hear a decent argument regarding why PoW is less scalable than PoS Ill continue to believe that scalability isn't a feature of PoS. PoS does achieve much more consistent block times. Though I'm not sure how much that affects things on a practical level. But I'm also sure there's plenty of cases where a train that always runs on time is more beneficial than one that doesn't. Im also not sold on the idea that PoW is more decentralized than PoS. We've all seen that as a PoW network increases in value mining just consolidates into a couple large mining pools. The age of someone just using a regular desktop CPU went out the window a long long time ago. And while the cost of entry for Ethereum validation is 32 Eth, the cost of entry for PoW mining are very expensive ASICs or high end graphics cards. But if hash power is high on a network because its valuable then just having one ASIC or high end graphics card wont do much for you - you'll probably need a decent sized server farm. At this state is seems like the most important feature of PoS, at least as far as I can see, is not needing to expense large sums of electricity just for the network to operate. Which means that even if most electricity use for PoW systems comes from renewables all that renewable energy is now available for the rest of the grid - which it isn't as long as miners are using it. I'm all ears for someone to enlighten me more about PoS vs PoW but it seems to me thats the major difference that actually matters - energy consumption. That's the win for me anyways and now you'll have less demand from Ethereum pushing energy prices up in areas where miners operate and that renewable energy that was being used by miners are now available to everyone else on the grid.

MidnightLightning

Mining uses power because it causes the GPU/CPU to constantly be doing "work" as fast as it possibly can (it's a race to beat everyone else to the next block solution). Running a validator only requires "work" to do network communications and assemble blocks. Hence a lot less wattage of power gets used. So, running 5 validators on super-beefed-up hardware that used to GPU mine will not use 1,000 watts.

BMXROIDZ

> The amount of electricity required to mine is determined by electricity prices and the mining difficulty. Even your follow up first sentence is wrong, regardless of the hash difficulty the CPU/GPU will run at 100% regardless. A lower hash rate just means you get more attempts in a shorter time frame but the operational cost is still them same. It's hilarious you're trying to tell me how mining works.

Nows_a_good_time

BTC runs on CPU's not GPU's. No other comments other than that small technical point.

kathigitis

How would you realize that one "entity" has more than 50% of computational power? It's not one CPU that could achieve that. Essentially, the reason that works is because it's extremely hard to get more than 50% of computational power. If it was one IP = one vote, it would be easier for a single entity to get more than 50% of IPs.

Spacesider

You can get away with a 1TB ssd, but 2TB is recommended so you don't have to potentially replace it at a further date should it fill up. There are plans to make Ethereum stateless though. The CPU usage is only high during initial sync, once the node has caught up it sits at a pretty low level. Also you definitely can restart all you want, you don't need 100% uptime. If you are offline for one day, you will make it back after being online for one day.

taurusresearch

I don’t know if this is still done, but some websites would use you computer through the browser to mine crypto. Possible alternative to ads, but usually they run your CPU and/or GPU to almost the max, making everything run very slow.

BonusCyberTelemetry

“3. Timestamp Server The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.” “4. Proof-of-Work To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts. The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash. For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it.” “To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they're generated too fast, the difficulty increases.” Here’s a link to the code repositories, if you want a more granular look. https://github.com/bitcoin Hope this helps a little bit. I may have misunderstood the question.

life762

> and essentially all PC”s we have today are rendered obsolete like a Commodore 64 A quantum computer isn't a faster traditional computer. QC isn't even aiming to replace traditional computers. A quantum computer is a theoretical device that can solve certain types of problems more quickly than a traditional computer. Like how a GPU can solve certain problems faster than a CPU. Notice how CPUs still exist, because a GPU can't do everything that a CPU can. As to what effect the availability of real, working quantum computers might have on Bitcoin, this has been asked and answered so many times. I'd answer it again, but I'm tired after having refuted your first faulty assumption. I recommend you just use the search function.

JustDownInTheMines

BTC and Doge are ASIC mined and XMR is CPU mined (possible on GPUs but incredibly unprofitable). RVN is the only coin you mentioned that is genuinely a GPU mined coin.

upboatsnhoes

Unless your CPU was way too big for the 970, you'll need to replace the whole thing...fyi. GPU bottleneck is very real.

mr_sarve

here are the requirements you need: Ubuntu 18.04 (required) Dedicated machines only - the machine shouldn't be doing other stuff while rented Fast, reliable internet: at least 10Mbps per machine. 10-series Nvidia GPU (AMD not yet supported, older Nvidia not recommended). At least 1 physical CPU core (2 hyperthreads) per GPU. Your CPU must support AVX instruction set (not all lower end CPUs support this). At least 4GBM of system RAM per GPU. Fast SSD storage with at least 64GB per GPU. at least 1X PCIE for every 2.5 TFLOPS of GPU performance. All GPUs on the machine must be of the same type. An open port range mapped to each machine.

Wendals87

Monero uses CPU and is barely profitable BTC hasn't been profitable with GPUs for years

MoneroArbo

good friend, have you heard of Monero (: early inflation curve similar to BTC but with a flat tail emission like Doge PoW, CPU minable only :D

Explodicle

This part? > They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism. UASF/Segwit2X clarified that miners are enforcing the economic majority's rules, not deciding the validity rules by themselves. They didn't agree with either "vote" outcome, but wanted to keep getting paid.

unduly-noted

Gotcha. I just read a GPU/ASIC mining rig can have 1000x+ the hash rate of a CPU. So I guess $2k-20k mining rig can get 1000-10,000x faster than CPU. Meanwhile, you can get a cheap PC for maybe $200. Thus spending $2k-20k on mining would only get you 10-100x. Numbers aren't accurate but order of magnitude is probably close. I can see how it levels the playing field.

be_bo_i_am_robot

The answer is to make GPU- and ASIC-resistant POW, like that famous privacy coin currently does. I really wish Bitcoin would do that. Relying on CPU *only* for POW *really* levels the playing field, big time! No deep-pocketed ASIC farmers hogging all the resources, and no deep-pocketed stake-holders hogging all the ownership. Just CPU cycles fairly evenly-distributed amongst the common man, regardless of bag-size, the way Satoshi intended. Have computer, willing to compute.

UnrulySasquatch1

>coin with the absolute highest hash rate I think it's worth adding some nuance. The highest hashrate is important, but the highest for each type of mining. ASIC, GPU and CPU mining can each have their own niche. But also worth adding that four coins each with close to 25% hashrate doesn't make the one with 26% inherently better. I think a supermajority of available mining equipment is important

phreakwhensees

No, computers work in layers also. You have the firmware, which lets your hardware components talk to each other, you have the CPU instruction set, which tells your processor how to run, you then have the operating system like windows, then you have individual driver software to run your components like video cards and keyboards, and then finally you have your programs like a browser, which lets you tap into all the other layers of the internet. Our digital world is incredibly complex and it only works because these individual layers and components can interact and talk with other layers and components that are built. It would basically have been impossible for one company to build and design everything for a modern computer to work and it would be much more fragile to attacks, bugs, and centralized corruption.

Kaffikup

what happens when the govt shuts down massive validators? do they decrease the amount necessary to stake the same when in POW if the difficulty gets low enough you can mine with something as simple as a GPU or CPU instead of ASIC

ebaley

> The dollar is speculated on as much. > Whenever the supply of dollars in the system decreases (QT), like the USD(DXY) relative to the EUR lately, it absolutely does go parabolic. It doesn't 1000x because the USD isn't some micro-cap shitcoin. It's why the stock market (especially tech) runs inverse to the DXY, almost everyone is speculating on the dollar right now. It's because the supply is constantly inflated. No one believes it could even double in price in relation to the Euro. >Can I build an app using Segwit that users can access with their BTC? Or do users have to give up custody of their coins? no one would do that If I have to build my utility 100% off-chain I'll just take collect all the fees for myself. Are you confusing Segwit with L2 or sidechains? >Look into RandomX. It's what Monero uses. Simply it randomizes the POW instruction required each block, so there's no way to build an ASIC for it. The most efficient way to mine it is with a home CPU. Yes it's easier for the elite to run 100,000 home computers than it is me. But it's even easier for them to run 10 ASICs too. There's no Monero mining farm. Find one. Monero is fading away. >They'd need to have 67% of all ETH to succeed in attacking the network. The coins aren't that concentrated, even from ICO buyers. If that happened the network would quit working and social consensus would vote on removing them via slashing mechanism, then everyone could continue on the new fork as if that never happened. With 51% they can only censor transactions, but the other 49% will still propagate them so it's more annoying than a threat. They'd still be slashed for doing that, so would need to accumulate the full 67% before attempting. There's also a queue to stake. If you wanted to stake 30% of ETH it'd take over 2 years, so it would take ~5 years for you to stake 67%, a lot of time for someone to notice or to purpose a slash. And what if you've enough that you can change the slashing rules? >One halving we went 30x. Then 10x. Last cycle was 6x. Next cycle we may go 4x. Then 2x. Then 1x? Diminishing returns are a thing in all emerging markets. Or why else couldn't we surpass 100k last cycle, during a time more money was freely thrown around than ever in history? Because lower figure Bitcoin will always rise more in percentage. This has nothing to do with the cycles. >I don't think ASICs were planned when building the game theory. I guess as long as Taiwan is a US ally nothing can go wrong? None of the externalities in mining are free markets or else it would make perfect sense. I think the whole ASICS thing is outright FUD. >I don't know why people would ever think a digital gold doesn't require any upkeep. Where's the upkeep in real gold?

Soi_Boi_13

Of course this CPU is bearish. Who ever said otherwise?

CoinCorner_Sam

That's correct. Everyone could easily mine Bitcoin but here's the thing. Your CPU was going at 100% speed, making your fans going at 100% at all time. For what? A fairy dust you couldn't see nor touch that is completely worthless. Many people turned the miners down after a short while, including Hal Finney.

Giga79

>Why isn't the dollar speculated on as much? Why doesn't it go up 1000x in a year? The dollar *is* speculated on as much. Whenever the supply of dollars in the system decreases (QT), like the USD(DXY) relative to the EUR lately, it absolutely does go parabolic. It doesn't *1000x* because the USD isn't some micro-cap ~~shitcoin~~. It's why the stock market (especially tech) runs inverse to the DXY, almost everyone is speculating on the dollar right now. >You don't answer what would happen to security if there was no speculation. If there's not enough price speculation, supposing the price of BTC only increases 1.5x every 4 years instead of 2x, it would make it to $170,000 per coin after 18 when it *should* be $700,000 had it 2x. Miner rewards would be just 25% what they are today. In that case either 75% of miners leave, production centralizes into some zero-cost energy, or else BTC is over-secure by ~2x today and miners leaving is a nonevent. The third one is ill defined and will be tested each halving. If the price of BTC jumped to $500K and crabbed for the 10 years (diminishing returns, lengthening cycles) the same things would start to happen. Next halving half of miners would be out of profit etc. Until inevitably the security of the network starts to be affected. The reason BTC goes over 2x is because of the supply shock. Demand *remains the same* while supply is halved, and the market plays catchup before finding a new equibilirum around the last cycles ATH. Last halving that meant 900 fewer BTC reaching the market each day. In four halvings we will go from 56 to 28, which isn't as shocking if the price hasn't expodentially increased in parallel. Say we're at $150K (over 1.5x) when we halve rewards from 56 to 22, that's $4M fewer BTC hitting the market each day vs $9M when we'll go from 900 to 450 or the $10M the halving before. If the supply shock is half as impactful ($4m vs $9m), it will take the market twice as long to catch up (buy all existing market orders), eventually putting BTC into a 'super cycle' where it halves before a supply shock can commense, and the price begins to stabilize at some point. Over time we experience diminishing returns / lengthening cycles, as all new assets have experienced (aka an s curve). Another way of looking at it is, why hasn't BTC gone 1000x in some time, even 10x? The only thing that can sustainably maintain miner income are blockspace *sales* / fees, otherwise they're gradually working for nothing. >Segwit allows 2-4mb blocks so obviously it has happened. Can I build an app using Segwit that users can access with their BTC? Or do users have to give up custody of their coins? no one would do that If I have to build my utility 100% off-chain I'll just take collect all the fees for myself. Something needs to be built that makes people *want to* spend their BTC. Even a physical payment card like Strike has, except done on-chain in a non parasitic way. BTC was meant to be a P2P *currency* after all (source: the whitepaper). Like wBTC makes up 30% of all circulating BTC and it's contributing to Ethereum's security instead through fees instead of BTC. That's not good for BTC and the wrapper bridge is a massive risk, so not good for anyone, but what else can people do.. >Doesn't make sense. If anyone can take part then it makes it far easier for the "elite" to do so. Look into RandomX. It's what Monero uses. Simply it randomizes the POW instruction required each block, so there's no way to build an ASIC for it. The most efficient way to mine it is with a home CPU. Yes it's easier for the elite to run 100,000 home computers than it is me. But it's even easier for them to run 10 ASICs too. There's no Monero mining farm. Find *one*. >And what if someone who got ether for free in the pre-mine or has borrowed or stolen it decides to attack the network? They'd need to have 67% of all ETH to succeed in attacking the network. The coins aren't that concentrated, even from ICO buyers. If that happened the network would quit working and social consensus would vote on removing them via slashing mechanism, then everyone could continue on the new fork as if that never happened. With 51% they can only censor transactions, but the other 49% will still propagate them so it's more annoying than a threat. They'd still be slashed for doing that, so would need to accumulate the full 67% before attempting. There's also a queue to stake. If you wanted to stake 30% of ETH it'd take over 2 years, so it would take ~5 years for you to stake 67%, a lot of time for *someone* to notice or to purpose a slash. >There's no good reason to think that will happen. One halving we went 30x. Then 10x. Last cycle was 6x. Next cycle we may go 4x. Then 2x. Then 1x? Diminishing returns are a thing in all emerging markets. Or why else couldn't we surpass 100k last cycle, during a time more money was freely thrown around than ever in history? >There doesn't have to be effort to keep it decentralized it's built into the game theory. I don't think ASICs were planned when building the game theory. I guess as long as Taiwan is a US ally nothing can go wrong? None of the externalities in mining are free markets or else it would make perfect sense. I do hope the experiment works. BTC still has a decade or two to entice people into buying blockspace, plenty of time. Ethereum wouldn't have done it without jpgs fcs, I really don't know what to expect. If the *hodl* meme continues though as far as I'm concerned it's dead in the water. I don't know why people would ever think a *digital gold* doesn't require any upkeep.

bawdyanarchist

Monero CPU mining is probably the most egalitarian opportunity for reward now. The last unique usecase PoW coin that gives everyone an even opportunity for participation.

CarbonCG

So with crappy CPU that is technically possible, although unlikely. Since mining is probabilistic - no one knows when a “good” hash will be found. It’s kinda like lottery where large miners just have more tickets. It could be found very first hash of a shitty cpu while a 100th machine could spend its whole life running and never find a the right hash:)

velhamo

I've seen people saying you can win a block with a Z80 CPU... is it actually possible?

Smiling_Jack_

Don't worry I already use Norton Extreme Suit 720. It never uses less than 70% of my CPU, so I know it's actively protecting me against threats.

DuncanDickson

Now taking the same excellent analysis remove ASICs from the equation. How does that change the entire landscape of POW centralizing pressures? That is why I believe CPU PoW is the best system built yet.

everygoodnamehasgone

This was written before pools were considered. It's no longer 1 CPU = 1 vote (or even 1 GPU/ASIC = 1 vote) it's 1 pool operator = 1 vote.

MoneroArbo

Monero mining for a few reasons remains resistant to large mining farms. Being CPU only means it's accessible to mine to most anyone and also that scaling is more linear. Plus it's marginally profitable at best, which discourages large investments in mining infrastructure. It's more people mining with their otherwise unused CPU cycles.

vinibarbosa

You've made a lot of valid arguments, but most of them just don't answer to what OP has said. OP is not discussing energy efficiency and some of the theoretical benefits of the mining activity (that I mostly see as a "broken window fallacy, but that's another topic"); but how all these incentives creates centralization overtime. And they do. It's observable. You've valid arguments for a strawman, and not for what was firstly stated. But sure, all valid different PoV for a deeper discussion on bitcoin incentives in general. About: "To clear your confusion about nodes and miners. Miners are working class citizens of Bitcoin." If you want to understand more about role of miners and nodes at a slightly more technical level, I would recommend you to read the **Bitcoin Whitepaper**: *"The Bitcoin system is only secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.* *The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains."*

vinibarbosa

The Bitcoin system is only secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.

skipperJoey

Monero just incentivizes botnets to take over other's CPUs. This is even done with websites that just spin a few cycles for Monero each click you make. To the point most individuals can't even profitably mine Monero legitimately. Because the hashrate is so bloated do by stolen CPU power.

Chazmer87

There had to be *something* to make btc rarer. Satoshi envisioned millions of people with little CPU miners, everyone making a little bit of BTC in securing the network. Instead it evolved into what we have now, with specialized asics doing the work of millions of computers

SenatusSPQR

Adding this comment in for those that want to claim "but it's about the nodes, not the hashpower". It's not. *The Bitcoin system is only secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.* *The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.* Those aren't my words, that's Satoshi. It's not that nodes have no role to play whatsoever, but there's good reason that we have proof of work. Nodes are cheap to spin up - proof of work is not. [There are currently ~15,000 nodes](https://bitnodes.io/). The cost to spin up a node is less than $100. That means I can get a (vast) majority of all the nodes on the network for $10 million. Getting >50% hashpower is far more expensive, and is the important factor.

Whole_Visible

On the energy usage. The gotchas bitcoiners try to use of any bitcoin mining using renewable energy as an argument to people that don't believe bitcoin mining is a good usage of energy. Bitcoin at best, energy wise, will be using excess renewable energy rather than increasing total energy production requirements which realistically won't be the case, energy needs will increase; but if some ideal scenario happened where bitcoin mining didn't increase need for energy production it'd still have all the waste created for the mining ASICs. At least GPU/CPU's are easily repurposed to general computing tasks. Mining ASICs are just soon to be computer waste. It's my main issue with Chia on the environmental impact argument and why it and bitcoin has no strong argumentative power in the general public from an environmental standpoint. They're made to be inefficient usages of hardware and power at a non-fixed coin price point. Everytime the coin becomes more valuable the allowable ceiling of inefficiency is raised

pet2pet1982

PoS is always either scam or traditional financial institution. It comes from the fact, new participant can’t easily enter the staking/mining game like in good ASIC-resistant PoW. Once coin migrated to PoS, only few (typically some 10) participants can profitably stake the money. If there is no coins to sell, you can’t buy. You can’t go the plain PC street store and just purchase a CPU to start mining like in Monero for example. All the coins I observed last decade, after migrating to PoS are getting scammed. What is PoS actually, in practice? It is just replicated centralised database. Ok, there will be some 10 severs with copies of that database.

Stetto

CPU and GPU manufacturers are already doing that at full capacity irrespective of miners mining or not. But increasing efficiency will literally achieve nothing. When mining becomes cheaper, the profig margin increases and more people will start mining. The problem is requiring miners to perform increasingly difficult arbirtrary calculations. In case of Bitcoin, this is unfixable.

igadjeed

Nodes maintain a simple list of IP addresses of banned nodes and refuse to connect to any IP address on the list The ban rules are numerous and diverse, and poorly documented. There's some discussion in the Wiki, and the details are in the source code https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Denial_of_Service_.28DoS.29_attacks In general, there's no punishment, but the rules are for protecting against DoS - traffic which might flood a node's network connection, or transactions which might overload a node's CPU

Gold5nMonk5y

xmr is for CPU mining .. my farm is mostly GPUs :(