From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F61C013A for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A6187123 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:07:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0awwHQcRdTXB for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:07:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lkcl.net (lkcl.net [217.147.94.29]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AEA28618C for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:07:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lkcl.net; s=201607131; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=NMGxMtBx9Fg77OoocQO9uJWM9CUUtLgW46RxQ6qbSoc=; b=En5xcudGsShl5T9z2Pvg09gZAeWYaPUnaUbHOjBp+Y4Nv7hw91MKnmROQVQhUCDTZSixQF+WOb4QDNT6h87gKc2UVe/yrJa/Mv3uWHzMJ/gLRAQPEGnfOE78g61+xbxcXaWXHaOc/AW81MBhelqMvw/mEgDermdYQOyFbrI5XVI=; Received: from mail-lj1-f169.google.com ([209.85.208.169]) by lkcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Ior-0003c1-Tk for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 14:07:46 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f169.google.com with SMTP id u4so26898207ljh.6 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 06:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532d19YPau2W5P4LFCaduovxaoZlS1OgCQ4YDWI+jzimGT9HEtgF chbpBOgm64xof9R89nCXTcwiiovUhmmFRCBcLAs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyG11t5tXhjzDJXtwOomb0GWsOkLC72guMAFs9O4zTWsVl47wBhxMhRvfzdxBxiK1TAfBLy/nmYepaipjRxcnM= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:585:: with SMTP id 127mr1812680ljf.131.1612361244957; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 06:07:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6520:2f95:b029:bc:bc2b:60bb with HTTP; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 06:07:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:07:24 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000041625905ba6f1b72" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 14:14:10 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libre/Open blockchain / cryptographic ASICs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 14:07:48 -0000 --00000000000041625905ba6f1b72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wednesday, February 3, 2021, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning again Luke, :) > If you mean miner power usage, then power efficiency will not reduce energy consumption. > Thus, any rational miner will just pack more miners in the same number of watts rather than reduce their watt consumption. yes, of course. the same non-consumer-computing-intuitive logic applies to purchasing decisions for beowulf clusters. > Thus, increasing power efficiency for mining does not reduce the amount of actual energy that will be consumed by Bitcoin mining. arse. and if everybody does that, then no matter the performance/watt nobody "wins". in fact a case could be made that everybody "loses". my biggest concern here is that the inherent "arms race" results in very few players being able to create bitcoin mining ASICs *at all*. i mentioned earlier that geometry costs are an exponential scale. 3nm must be somewhere around USD 16 million for production masks. if there are only a few players that leaves the entirety of bitcoin open to hardware backdoors. l. -- --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 --00000000000041625905ba6f1b72 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good mo= rning again Luke,

:)

> If you mean miner power usage, then= power efficiency will not reduce energy consumption.


> Thus,= any rational miner will just pack more miners in the same number of watts = rather than reduce their watt consumption.

yes, of course. =C2=A0the= same non-consumer-computing-intuitive logic applies to purchasing decision= s for beowulf clusters.


> Thus, increasing power efficiency f= or mining does not reduce the amount of actual energy that will be consumed= by Bitcoin mining.

arse.

and if everybody does that, then no= matter the performance/watt nobody "wins". =C2=A0in fact a case = could be made that everybody "loses".

my biggest concern h= ere is that the inherent "arms race" results in very few players = being able to create bitcoin mining ASICs *at all*.

i mentioned earl= ier that geometry costs are an exponential scale. =C2=A03nm must be somewhe= re around USD 16 million for production masks.

if there are only a f= ew players that leaves the entirety of bitcoin open to hardware backdoors.<= br>
l.






--
---
crowd-funded eco-conscio= us hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

--00000000000041625905ba6f1b72--