It’s not the most elegant system AIUI. The artificial difficulty is to minimize the chances of two systems clearing the same transactions at the same time and introducing competing ground-truths. However, the artificial difficulty also affects the rate at which transactions are cleared.
I believe, but please correct me if I’m wrong, that the Bitcoin process tweaks the complexity of the hash problem so that a transaction will take about 5 - 10 minutes to resolve. In the early days, it was simpler, and a desktop computer could mine bitcoins. Now that a lot of people are in it, you need a supercomputer to do any mining, because the problem to solve is harder. But it still takes about the same amount of time.
That’s right (I’m not so sure about the timeframe, but the point that it’s intended to be constant over time is correct). The “extra zeroes” problem I mentioned is the way they increase the difficulty. If blocks start getting too easy, add another zero to the requirement.
Note that this is all statistical in nature. Any computer can make an attempt. It’s just that slow ones are unlikely to win (like buying just one lottery ticket).
10 minutes, IIRC… this is all in the 2008 paper by “Satoshi Nakamoto” and specifically related to Bitcoin, not any cryptocurrency that is not based upon the principles described in that paper (which do not describe an instrument designed for either instant or high-volume payments, that’s clear from the specs)
So the value of cryptocurrency is based on excessive energy consumption? Great, our planet is getting too warm and the crypto-bros are hurrying it on its way.
Most are, though. Any cryptocurrency operating on proof-of-work will have something analogous, if not identical. Proof-of-stake is somewhat different, though. And they’re all still blockchains.
It’s fundamental to any system using “proof-of-work” to ensure the integrity of the blockchain, and yes, it sucks. Ethereum at least has moved to “proof-of-stake”, which basically says that “one coin = one vote” as to whether a transaction is legit. I’m not sure if anyone has analyzed the difference in power use yet.
Any idea what the size of that is?
437 GB:
Pretty small by modern standards. Note that not all validation nodes actually need the full blockchain.
After reading, and sometimes re-reading much of this, I’ve come to the realization I know less about Crypto than I did when I started this thread. Safe to say NOVA didn’t decode shit for me.
I forget where but I read that proof of stake will use 99.98% less power.
My rule is: If they’re selling an investment in the mall, you don’t want any part of it.
My mall has crypto machines.
Those crypto machines are frequently for converting cash into crypto so the person can do a crypto-based transaction. They’re not really for investments. It’s kind of like going to an arcade where you give them $XXX for a game card with YYY tokens on it because the machines only take tokens. For example, some websites only take crypto as payment, like some VPN sites. You take $XXX to the crypto ATM and get a wallet ID with that much in crypto. Then you pay for the VPN using that crypto wallet. I know at a long time ago that process was totally anonymous. You exchange cash for crypto without having to enter any personal details. I’m not sure if that’s anonymous anymore. The government may require the machines to get details about the person before converting to crypto.
About 15 years or so ago, a friend told me about this ‘investment’ thing he was involved with. Something about running some program on your computer that did… something… and you just let run 24/7 and somehow, you got money put into some account ‘somewhere’. Made no sense to me back then, but it sounded like a scam to me. Now, this was the guy that fell for every pyramid scheme, Nigerian Prince, the ‘let me buy your car with this check, send me the change’ trick (he actually had a Western Union guy refuse to wire money for him, knowing the scam well), Rainbow vacuums - you name it, he fell for it. I knew it had to be a scam.
He kept telling me how much money he was making, how great it was (he never could give me a real idea of what was happening). Then one day, he tried to cash out. Poof! Gone! Nothing! He couldn’t explain that, either.
Now I wonder if he was trying to mine Crypto?
By one estimate Bitcoin consumes 0.55% of all electricity produced in the world, equivalent to Sweden.
It was common for people to pool their computers into groups for mining. If any computer in the group mined a coin, the coin was split among the group’s computers. So rather than using your computer hoping for it to mine a coin, you joined a group of 100’s computers hoping at least one of them would mine a coin. You’re trading a small chance of getting a whole coin for a larger chance of getting a fraction of a coin. But whether you actually got your coins depended on whoever was running the group. The mined coins were likely going into a single wallet. When you wanted to remove your coins, then it was up to the person running the group to put your share into your own wallet. If that person was a scammer, then they would keep your share of the coins. I’m not sure if this is what your friend was involved with, but it was something that used to be done with bitcoin.
That just means that you understand crypto better than most people, including and especially those who invest in it.
It’s the people who think they know how it works you have to look out for.
We really need to segregate “how it works” technologically from “how it works” business-wise, social-wise, & legal-wise.
The former is simple enough, if rather arcane. And quite reliable.
The latter is classic “Bad Actors Drive out Good => Wild West Capitalism / Gangsterism”. With an extra dose of “No Real Law So No Practical Law Enforcement.”
Heheh, the convenience stores around here have Bitcoin ATMs. No way I’m buying my investments in the convenience store, that’s for beer and cigarettes.
I’m not sure where they’d spend it in the mall. And the machines were more about “get into crypto” than money conversion.
They don’t explicitly say investment, but that would be illegal. Maybe. I hope.