Friday, July 7th 2017
On Cryptocoins: I think I know why Satoshi Nakamoto Hides
To all you out there wondering why you can't get a GPU for gaming at a reasonable rate, or why we are using record numbers in energy usage to mint so called "toy money," depleting our planets energy in the process, I have a bit of a statement to make as a former miner and "part of the problem" so to speak.
I'm sorry, it wasn't supposed to be this way. None of it was supposed to go down like this.
That probably requires some justification, yes? I mean mining is an inherently energy expensive operation, right? Well, yes and no, respectively. Yes, it requires justification, and that's precisely because mining is NOT an inherently energy expensive operation, despite public perception. It has become that way due to human greed, and nearly everything bad to come from cryptocurrency has decidedly come from that group: humans. Cryptocurrency is not inherently responsible. The inventors, pioneers, and early miners such as myself never anticipated what was to come, and we did not intend it to be this way. Bitcoin was intended to do good, and in the end, it wasn't cryptocurrency that screwed it all up, it was humans. Human greed, particularly.In the early days of cryptocurrency, Bitcoin was the only player in town, and supply was supposedly fixed and regulated. We (we being the early miners, and to an extent it's anonymous creator, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) did not anticipate so many new players and the "infinite money" problem we face today. We also didn't have much of a network in terms of energy use. Mining was done largely on what I imagine to be a few hundred or thousand (I have no idea what the exact numbers were frankly, I doubt anyone does) computers around the globe. We didn't use GPUs, we used CPUs, and at least in the early iterations it was largely done on a single thread/process. When I started mining, things were already in flux. Someone had made a GPU-miner, and suddenly, the cost-to-benefit ratio went way up. You see, with CPU systems it did not make economic sense to make "farms" because with 1P consumer hardware, it took a whole system per miner, and even quad cores were still really expensive then (2P and 4P systems were around, but cost almost more than 2 cheap 1Ps). GPUs changed that. GPUs obsoleted the CPU "farm-limiting" expenses by allowing miners to strap on as many as 4-6 GPUs per system, and with the CPU irrelevant, they could make the rest of the system very cheaply. Suddenly, the only part that really cost anything was the GPU, and cost-to-benefit ratio went way up. You could mine much more way cheaper. And since it was only one part that was really needed anymore (and lots of that part), the GPU market took a huge hit, as did the energy market.
When I started mining, this impact was still not clear. I entered the market as a miner when Bitcoin was about $20.00 per coin. I began my mining adventure on the CPU of an old Pentium M notebook before quickly learning this was uneconomical, and made approximately 0.02 bitcoins over the course of a week, worth then only 40 cents. The only exchange at the time, MtGox, would not even let me withdraw such a measly amount, and so it sat in their online wallet until MtGox would collapse in the later days of Bitcoin. Interesting to note, if I still had those .02 bitcoins, they'd be worth over 40 dollars today, but ah, thus is the nature of cryptocurrency.
That's the other problem with cryptocurrency, and again, it isn't actually a problem with cryptocurrency itself, but people. People are unreliable. You give your coins over to someone random on the internet, it isn't really the fault of cryptocurrency when it vanishes. This is a very human issue. When people use cryptocurrency to buy drugs online, it too isn't cryptocurrency's fault nor was it our goal for it to be used that way. It is the users fault, the human element again is to blame.
At any rate, I won't go much more into my own mining shenanigans, except to say I got into it big before getting out entirely sometime in the next Bitcoin crash. It has let me look at things somewhat levelheaded with the latest energy figures coming back showing the true cost of the new GPU miners, and such. (ASICs on Bitcoin's part make whole systems even cheaper and more exclusive, so that doesn't help things either). But this wasn't how it was supposed to be. Bitcoin was never supposed to be cheap to mine. Mining was supposed to be a reward for supporting the network on your CPU in your downtime, like a BOINC screensaver. Nothing more, nothing less. If Bitcoin made one huge mistake, it's in trusting people to not abuse the system. It was in trusting humans, not in its goals. Its goals were good. I mean a good cheap money transport for the masses is not an inherently bad thing, right? People ruined that, not cryptocurrency.
I no longer believe in Bitcoin, but I still believe in cryptocurrency. Why? Well, let's look at where Bitcoin went wrong, first.
First off, Bitcoin's Proof of Work algorithm is too simple. It's a glorified SHA hash (which is very, very computationally cheap) done over and over, which honestly, was asking to have an ASIC made for it from day 1. The fact that it didn't become an energy pig sooner is surprising, to be frank. Human greed will always seek more than its fair share, and it was way too easy to facilitate that with Bitcoin's simplistic Proof of Work algorithm. If Bitcoin is a drug, it is both dealer and enabler.
Second, Bitcoin was too trusting. Bitcoin gives people anonymity, and then trusts people to be responsible with it. I believe people to be basically good, but there are always those who are bad and will abuse a system like this. It needs a decentralized name registry, to give people more traceability and identification on the network. I don't believe a truly anonymous cryptocoin will ever have a place here for long, at least not outside the criminal underworld.
What do we need? We need a coin that doesn't trust people. People are the weak link. We need a computationally complex coin that runs on CPUs and restores that old status quo the early bitcoin days enjoyed, that limits the impact of farming and thus, energy usage on our planet. This same coin maybe could even do something with those CPU cycles, what I don't know, but meaningless numbers has always rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe something that contributes to BOINC or similar projects, I can't say. I'm not an architect, more of a philosopher a this point if you will.
I guess what I want you to walk away from this with is the realization that despite the fact that cryptocurrency is here to stay in some form or another, it is not inherently evil. Some of the incarnations of it right now are just plain bad, and I believe Bitcoin is already dying even if it won't be apparent for years (I believe regulation from the government will finally kill it, honestly). But Bitcoin is NOT cryptocurrency in whole. Cryptocurrency is an idea, an idea to provide a cheap money transport free of swipe fees and instability to the masses. Bitcoin failed at this, failed massively on several fronts (it's not cheap as it eats tons of energy for no reason, and it's massively unstable). But I think someday, a coin will take these ideals and improve upon bitcoin, and truly make the world a better place. If only people will give it a chance, and not associate it with the great failure of Bitcoin in its original goals. Maybe it can happen. Maybe.
In closing, I'd like to say I think I know why Satoshi Nakamoto hides. I think he is ashamed of what he has created, of what his child has become. He entered it with what I honestly believe was the best of intentions to improve the world for the better, and what happened? Looking on it now, can you blame him for hiding? Would you want credit for this? I wouldn't.
I'm sorry, it wasn't supposed to be this way. None of it was supposed to go down like this.
That probably requires some justification, yes? I mean mining is an inherently energy expensive operation, right? Well, yes and no, respectively. Yes, it requires justification, and that's precisely because mining is NOT an inherently energy expensive operation, despite public perception. It has become that way due to human greed, and nearly everything bad to come from cryptocurrency has decidedly come from that group: humans. Cryptocurrency is not inherently responsible. The inventors, pioneers, and early miners such as myself never anticipated what was to come, and we did not intend it to be this way. Bitcoin was intended to do good, and in the end, it wasn't cryptocurrency that screwed it all up, it was humans. Human greed, particularly.In the early days of cryptocurrency, Bitcoin was the only player in town, and supply was supposedly fixed and regulated. We (we being the early miners, and to an extent it's anonymous creator, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto) did not anticipate so many new players and the "infinite money" problem we face today. We also didn't have much of a network in terms of energy use. Mining was done largely on what I imagine to be a few hundred or thousand (I have no idea what the exact numbers were frankly, I doubt anyone does) computers around the globe. We didn't use GPUs, we used CPUs, and at least in the early iterations it was largely done on a single thread/process. When I started mining, things were already in flux. Someone had made a GPU-miner, and suddenly, the cost-to-benefit ratio went way up. You see, with CPU systems it did not make economic sense to make "farms" because with 1P consumer hardware, it took a whole system per miner, and even quad cores were still really expensive then (2P and 4P systems were around, but cost almost more than 2 cheap 1Ps). GPUs changed that. GPUs obsoleted the CPU "farm-limiting" expenses by allowing miners to strap on as many as 4-6 GPUs per system, and with the CPU irrelevant, they could make the rest of the system very cheaply. Suddenly, the only part that really cost anything was the GPU, and cost-to-benefit ratio went way up. You could mine much more way cheaper. And since it was only one part that was really needed anymore (and lots of that part), the GPU market took a huge hit, as did the energy market.
When I started mining, this impact was still not clear. I entered the market as a miner when Bitcoin was about $20.00 per coin. I began my mining adventure on the CPU of an old Pentium M notebook before quickly learning this was uneconomical, and made approximately 0.02 bitcoins over the course of a week, worth then only 40 cents. The only exchange at the time, MtGox, would not even let me withdraw such a measly amount, and so it sat in their online wallet until MtGox would collapse in the later days of Bitcoin. Interesting to note, if I still had those .02 bitcoins, they'd be worth over 40 dollars today, but ah, thus is the nature of cryptocurrency.
That's the other problem with cryptocurrency, and again, it isn't actually a problem with cryptocurrency itself, but people. People are unreliable. You give your coins over to someone random on the internet, it isn't really the fault of cryptocurrency when it vanishes. This is a very human issue. When people use cryptocurrency to buy drugs online, it too isn't cryptocurrency's fault nor was it our goal for it to be used that way. It is the users fault, the human element again is to blame.
At any rate, I won't go much more into my own mining shenanigans, except to say I got into it big before getting out entirely sometime in the next Bitcoin crash. It has let me look at things somewhat levelheaded with the latest energy figures coming back showing the true cost of the new GPU miners, and such. (ASICs on Bitcoin's part make whole systems even cheaper and more exclusive, so that doesn't help things either). But this wasn't how it was supposed to be. Bitcoin was never supposed to be cheap to mine. Mining was supposed to be a reward for supporting the network on your CPU in your downtime, like a BOINC screensaver. Nothing more, nothing less. If Bitcoin made one huge mistake, it's in trusting people to not abuse the system. It was in trusting humans, not in its goals. Its goals were good. I mean a good cheap money transport for the masses is not an inherently bad thing, right? People ruined that, not cryptocurrency.
I no longer believe in Bitcoin, but I still believe in cryptocurrency. Why? Well, let's look at where Bitcoin went wrong, first.
First off, Bitcoin's Proof of Work algorithm is too simple. It's a glorified SHA hash (which is very, very computationally cheap) done over and over, which honestly, was asking to have an ASIC made for it from day 1. The fact that it didn't become an energy pig sooner is surprising, to be frank. Human greed will always seek more than its fair share, and it was way too easy to facilitate that with Bitcoin's simplistic Proof of Work algorithm. If Bitcoin is a drug, it is both dealer and enabler.
Second, Bitcoin was too trusting. Bitcoin gives people anonymity, and then trusts people to be responsible with it. I believe people to be basically good, but there are always those who are bad and will abuse a system like this. It needs a decentralized name registry, to give people more traceability and identification on the network. I don't believe a truly anonymous cryptocoin will ever have a place here for long, at least not outside the criminal underworld.
What do we need? We need a coin that doesn't trust people. People are the weak link. We need a computationally complex coin that runs on CPUs and restores that old status quo the early bitcoin days enjoyed, that limits the impact of farming and thus, energy usage on our planet. This same coin maybe could even do something with those CPU cycles, what I don't know, but meaningless numbers has always rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe something that contributes to BOINC or similar projects, I can't say. I'm not an architect, more of a philosopher a this point if you will.
I guess what I want you to walk away from this with is the realization that despite the fact that cryptocurrency is here to stay in some form or another, it is not inherently evil. Some of the incarnations of it right now are just plain bad, and I believe Bitcoin is already dying even if it won't be apparent for years (I believe regulation from the government will finally kill it, honestly). But Bitcoin is NOT cryptocurrency in whole. Cryptocurrency is an idea, an idea to provide a cheap money transport free of swipe fees and instability to the masses. Bitcoin failed at this, failed massively on several fronts (it's not cheap as it eats tons of energy for no reason, and it's massively unstable). But I think someday, a coin will take these ideals and improve upon bitcoin, and truly make the world a better place. If only people will give it a chance, and not associate it with the great failure of Bitcoin in its original goals. Maybe it can happen. Maybe.
In closing, I'd like to say I think I know why Satoshi Nakamoto hides. I think he is ashamed of what he has created, of what his child has become. He entered it with what I honestly believe was the best of intentions to improve the world for the better, and what happened? Looking on it now, can you blame him for hiding? Would you want credit for this? I wouldn't.
98 Comments on On Cryptocoins: I think I know why Satoshi Nakamoto Hides
BOINC is all about science. Berkley won't let non-scientific projects on the network. Visa/MasterCard fees cost less than paying employees to process transactions themselves. It definitely means fewer accountants when Visa/MasterCard can give you a statement of transactions.
I guess you could add a restrictive memory limit, but then only the elite can really "play."
I don't know the answer, honestly. Maybe banks do need to take control of a blockchain, I don't know. My main point in writing this was to show early bitcoin pioneers were trying to bring the world something beneficial for all. For many of us, we are very sad as to what has become of it.
I do not believe bitcoin is a solution to a non-existent problem though. I believe it is the sum of many very legitimate frustrations with the status-quo.
That does not make the basic system any less flawed or sick. Still, best of luck.
The low fees and blockchain tech can be salvaged though.
I'm not sure what you mean by stability? Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have gone through many changes. Their value is directly affected by the decisions powerful people and corporations make, as is any currency. Cryptocurrencies, however, are also directly affected by changes in technology. Because cryptocurrencies are not controlled by a central bank or government, everybody interested has an opportunity to get their own figurative printing press (mining hardware). When everybody has printing presses, difficulty goes up, meaning the printing press now produces less, because if it didn't, the currency would be too easy to get, everybody would have too much and the value would go down. And then a better printing press comes along, allowing you to earn more again, but when too many people get that printing press, difficulty goes up again, because if not, we face the same problem as we did with the first printing press. And the cycle continues. Difficulty goes up and up as mining hardware gets better and better. People keep mentioning greed... does anyone seriously expect somebody not to capitalize on the chance to earn more if they could? I know if I find myself with a pile of mining profits, I'm going after more! Maybe I'll find myself in a situation someday where I can pay off my debts, and afford a decent house and a newer, more reliable vehicle thanks to mining cryptocurrencies. And when I buy that house, guess what I'm gonna put in the basement...?
Anyway, that kinda goes off the point. I'm not sure what Bitcoin et al. intended to achieve in the end game, but as far as I can tell, most people who use cryptocurrencies eventually end up handing them off for X amount of their local flavor of currency which is regulated by their local huge central agency.
having to be fucking joking ...
And yeah, naivety like that permeates the Bitcoin founding fathers.
A lot of purist crunchers wouldn't like this idea. But ask yourself, if it was done, would there be _alot_ more science crunching going on? Wouldn't that a great thing :)
-Governments depend on stable currency so governments manipulate the currency to keep swings small.
-Bitcoin is worth so much right now that access is limited.
-A government, in Bitcoin's situation, would increase the amount of money in circulation to devalue it. It would do this by investing in its own economy (e.g. infrastructure projects).
-When I say "money," I don't mean cloth dollar bills. Those are created and destroyed by a specific institution based on demand for said cloth dollar bills. Fiat currencies can exist in an entirely digital format just like cryptocurrencies can.
-Bitcoin has no physical economy (innate value with constraints), has no effective means to increase/decrease supply/demand in response to conditions, and has no authoritative body to enforce stability.
Decentralized stability isn't plausible. Hell, centralized stability is a struggle. No, a lot more energy would be wasted on cryptography and less on science. BOINC, F@H, etc. are all about donating time and kwh to science. The only way an incentive system would work is if it's monetized in an existing currency: submit a project to the network and you have to pay the network to get accepted then the network pays contributors a share of that money for valid results. Problem with that is if they were interested in paying in the first place, they'd just rent a super computer. Cryptocurrencies can only substitute for an actual currency. If you remove the investment on the front end constraining the system, then chaos is inevitable. The outputs can never be allowed to exceed the inputs.
At this point even I'm starting to get out. There seems to be lots of selling right and I want to get out on the high instead at the bottom. I wanted to replace all of my AMD cards with Nvidia but I decided against that, I stopped buying gpu's all together. I just sold my only rx580 8gb rig for a little over double of what I paid for it. I don't even want to type what the hell I was thinking when this buyer was paying so much for a mining rig that's used for over 4 months at full throttle, that was yesterday and I'm still in shock that I haven't even deposited the cash yet.
I had 21 1070s, that are paid for, on reverse but I canceled that order. I still have 19 rx570s that arent paid for it that I will continue to wait for. I can maybe resell it for a nice profit if I can get it in time. At this time, I am down to 19 mining rigs going at 2.2gh/s. On Sunday I'll put 2 or 3 on ebay and wait for it to sell. I want to sell everything, take the profits from all of that and pay off the entire amount of student loans I have left.
I'll still have mining rigs going. I just want 3-5 rigs with 8 1050ti running making just enough to pay the rent, child support, and food for the month. Taking care of 20 mining rigs spread out over 3 houses and 2 states IS A FULLTIME JOB!!. Some days when a rig does down I have to figure out why it went down, maybe the psu overheated or maybe the overclock was too high or maybe I forgot to turn off the stupid windows 10 update. Last week, some risers at my friends house in another state went bad, I shipped him some new one. They dont have warranty so the cost comes out of pocket for those. This week, 4 1060 3gb cards failed on me, I think I overclocked the memory too far. They have warranty so the cost will only be shipping cost to the manufacture.
But all of this comes at a too high cost for me, I have neglected my ebay business to the point that my sales have gone down by about 20% and just last week I forget to pay one of my suppliers. They sent me a nice 3% payment overdue bill. So time to bail out when the good is good enough.
Pixels = pixels. Not real.
The End. Or so it should have been anyway :)
As to the philosophising, well. As someone else mentioned, grow up (and my apologies for the offense, but really, no other way round it).
We are not equal, nor were we meant to be. We are as such under no obligation to treat each other AS equal, or expect to be treated as such. Biology knows nor allows any equality. That's how this ecosystem survives, for millennia now. Somehow we decided to throw it all out the window and say black=white, strong=weak, poor=rich, pretty or ugly, thin or fat, whatever, all equal.
Wake up.
There will always be disparity, difference. There will always as such be strife. And there will always as such be people that have succeeded, risen from it, or have failed and stand inferior.
To coin a term such as "greed" and attempt (as is the custom of nu-millennials and liberals) to equate everything and/or demonize dissent.. and how do we equate everything? By downsizing.. it's just juvenile.
"Are you telling me we're all juvenile when it's just you being a racist?"
Leave your city. Have a good look around. See for yourself how and why it all still stands. Then if willing, go back to your bubble and believe whatever, just careful with the preaching :)
We are not equal, now shall we ever become. It stands to reason people will covet, people will strive, people will utlimately succeed where others have failed. Succeed because they were b-e-t-t-e-r. Not equal.
Don't focus on the mechanism ("greed"). Focus on what it allows for. Results. It's in our nature.
(as always, just my opinion)
I'll pass on your sickening Marxist positioning and the obvious contradictions on your text; let me just forward some bad news:
your knowledge of the monetary and financial system is null, and digital currency can only be understood in this context. When you're familiar with concepts like the Gold Standard, money as a commodity, Fiat money, fractional reserve banking, money supply... then we can have a chat.
As to the power consumption and the safe of the planet .... :laugh:
But... we didn't see it coming??? Are you mental? 'When I started mining the impact wasn't quite clear'... well you lack some serious insight in anything outside of your own attic then. There's a whole world out there you know? I'm sorry to be so harsh, but that sentence right there disqualified any faith I still have in anything else you wrote. It contains so much naive, I can't even get to grips with it. And you came to terms with yourself and became 'level headed' after a few Bitcoin value ups and downs. Wow... just wow.
The only good thing about Bitcoin is the blockchain tech and that is something we will keep seeing in the future and is a great tool to have especially in a world where digital security matters.
The cryptocurrency by definition and by the way it is mined, should die off really quickly, but validation through blockchain is something that will essentially save us loads of effort and in turn, energy compared to the current way we handle transactions.
Bitcoin was never about power to the people or removing the fat banks and decentralizing control. If you believe this, go eat your tin foil hat. Already the blockchain is being monetized and analyzed by banks worldwide. They will make it theirs, and that's all she wrote.
Oh and this bullshit about proof of work... you're not working, you're just using shitloads of energy to let a machine do processing. The work you do, is paying your energy bill and pressing the on button. Its one of those things that people who sit behind a computer love to think of as work, and it has become some weird form of self fulfilling prophecy for them. Get a life... before that bubble bursts and you'll be back to zero. And about BOINC and putting it towards science - sure, that's all fine, as long as you don't monetize it. Its just like so many other things people just 'like to do' because of emotional reasons - they work as such, and die off once you monetize it.
Maybe we should start that chat. :laugh: No, I mean it was obvious we were burning some energy. What was not obvious was the scale to which this would take off, it's impact on supply and such, etc. I really doubt anyone back then thought bitcoin would top $50.00 and stay there for long, so why would the public care? You're saying we could affect something as big as the gaming market? Pfft. Such thoughts were jokes back then. I do believe being once a miner who bought the cards, and now a gamer who can't get any grants me perspective on this issue, yes. I essentially argue this. Other than a few nitpicks, we are basically on the same page re the rest of your post.