|
They've also handwaved away that they will solve the traveling salesman problem efficiently. That is a really classic example of a simple problem that is so hard we cannot solve it despite working on it for a century+. But bitcoiners will don't worry. Lightning is Novel but I don't expect it will actually amount to anything in practice.
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:They don't need to solve the TSP though, just the shortest/cheapest path, which can be done pretty trivially with A* or something. Unless I'm misunderstanding the principle, as I didn't study in too much detail. I thought the problem was if they want to update a wallet change they now need to propagate that change across the entire network since they don't know how to otherwise make sure the right nodes don't have the ability to double spend (or maybe the reverse, lockout funds, I don't remember). It's not quite Traveling Salesman, but the last time I saw the question "Isn't this an NP Hard problem? How are you solving it?" the answer was essentially "We're smart enough to see the true potential of the blockchain, we're smart enough to solve that." I didn't really study it either, but it seemed like a big, fundamental thing to handwaive. Edit: Yeup, their Prototypes are still hub-and-spoke with no solution so far for path finding. This means it's either going to require to be run through only specific vendors (DECENTRALIZED!) or it'll scale worse than the existing blockchain. The 2nd option means flooding the network with transaction meaning it'll ALSO be somehow less private. https://twitter.com/lopp/status/932...ralizing_hub%2F Lockback fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:they are both hynix so something else must be at play. They were bought new at the same time but maybe had a different production date and bios version? Same Bios? Using monitoring tools do they both have the same clock while mining? A small difference I'd expect, but that's a pretty big difference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
diapermeat posted:12k? insane $12k and does not include the power supply.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Tapedump posted:Wanna help me argue with a someone I know who's son has got her running a SmartCash node (with a daughter in law trying to lease space in a mining operation) about these events? I mean, she is kinda right (except for the persecution complex of thinking there is a shady cabal trying to bring down bitcoin). The Guardian article was about a link, and storing a reference != storing content. There is a pretty legit open question (that she does not answer) about how you go about dealing with content that we as a society have deemed illegal to possess when you have a trustless store of content?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Alzion posted:If your have a Pascal GPU and willing to run your box 24/7 you should consider renting out your processing power for cloud computing. That looks far more interesting, though boo to paying out in crypto.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:unless they somehow neuter the 11xx GPUs in mining only I can only forsee another GPU drought. Luckily the 10xx are still more than overkill for most games The drop in demand for GPUs has way more to do with the market though. Nearly all coins will just adjust difficulty to the amount of hashing power anyway. If a bunch of people run out and buy 11xx series cards their output will just end up being the same as the 10xx series they are unloading right now. There will be a spike in demand, but unless the market heats up with another big rise in coin value you probably won't see the same kind of GPU drought like you did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Disco De Soto posted:I was reading bitcoin energy consumption and how proof-of-stake algorithms use way less energy compared to proof-of-work algorithms that bitcoin currently uses. Do you think it's likely that bitcoin could switch? Proof of stake is just getting rid of any pretense that this isn't just a straight ponzi scheme.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Normally supercomputers charge by computational time, which captures what you described. But it's very easy to spoof that to be whatever you want, if you exclusively own the hardware. They pay by CPU hour, which is by computation. You can pretty easily instead attach a computational amount to each piece of work and then pay out based on what you complete. The tricky part won't be tracking what you've done, it'll be ensuring that you actually did it vs just made up something random. No plan would care if it took you 6 seconds or 6000 and pay you by that, they'd just pay you based on what you churned out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 02:04
|
|