= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on General Bitcoin discussion thread (May 2011) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
Something just occurred to me: is Bitcoin unnecessarily causing itself grief by being promoted as "money"? Once you get it classified as money, all sorts of political (not to mention emotional) baggage gets attached: the government wants to regulate it and such.
What if you kept everything the same, but promoted it as a "social status codification mechanism" or something like that? That is, make Bitcoin ownership a way of accumulating social status (among some sub-community -- Bitcoiners, if nothing else). The more coins you have relative to others, the higher your rank. Of course, nobody knows how much any person has, just how much each address has. But as long as there's the option to reveal your ownership, you have the potential for status.
If it were promoted this way, and had always been regarded this way, it would be harder for its opponents to conceive of it as competing with national currencies and therefore be harder to justify banning or taxing. After all, you don't have to report "accumulation of social status" as income on any tax form, right? You would be able to "trade" the status to buy things -- but since Bitcoin is, at root, a public database ("money is information"), any such transaction can be equivalently represented as someone gaining and someone losing social recognition.
One could no more justify taxing "status payments" than they could justify taxing "promotion to manager" or "popularity".
Just a thought...
That would also apply to people who would otherwise sell real things for bitcoins.
Interesting, and such a thing might be valuable, but that would seem to imply non-existence of currency exchanges and prevent it from serving as both social status and money simultaneously.
Btw, I want to compare Bitcoin mining rigs to supercomputers. I figured a reasonable way to do this would be to find how many floating point operation equivalents per second they are calculating. Since the hashrate is known, all that's left to make this calculation is the number of flop-equivalents it takes to perform a SHA256 hash.
I can't find this information anywhere. Do you know how to derive it or where the information would be?
(hashes/sec) * (flop-equivalents/hash) = flop-equivalents/sec
(Replying to you so someone actually sees this comment.)
I don't think there's a well-defined conversion rate. The main issue is that flops are a measure of floating-point arithmetic performance, but SHA256 hashing is mostly bitwise operations that aren't captured in that metric.
However, you can still figure out how much hashing a supercomputer can do, if you can find out how many CPUs it has and what type they are, and how many GPUs it has and what type they are. The same parts are typically used in both supercomputers and desktops, so you should be able to find benchmarks, and the way they're arranged doesn't matter much. (This is a big difference between mining and the tasks supercomputers normally perform; most of the expense of a supercomputer is the I/O backplane, which will go mostly unused.) I'm pretty sure supercomputers will end up losing badly in hashes per dollar.
All true, but I was thinking about a measure that abstracts away from the parallelism/serialness tradeoff. Obviously, supercomputers aren't going to be optimized for ultra-paralellizable tasks like mining rigs are, and I want a measure that doesn't penalize them for this.
And you don't have to guess about supercomputers being less cost-efficient in hashing -- that's the whole reason that amateurs like me, without any experience building one, can put to gether a cluster that's hugely ROR-competitive with existing rentable computing services (a theme often noted on the Bitcoin forums).
Still, there are a number of necessary operations at the assembly/machine level to perform a flop, and presumably much of the same operations are used when computing a hash. At the very least, you have to move around memory, add values, etc. There should be level of commensurably in that respect, right?
Unfortunately, there isn't; in most architectures, the integer and bitwise operations that SHA256 uses and the floating-point operations that FLOPs measure aren't even using the same silicon, except for some common parts that set up the operations but don't limit the rate at which they're done. A typical CPU will do both types of operations, just not with the same transistors, and not with any predictable ratio between the two performance numbers. A GPU will typically be specialized towards one or the other, and this is why AMD does so much better than nVidia. An FPGA or ASIC won't do floating point at all.
But certainly all of these components can do floating point arithmetic, even if it requires special programming. People could use computers to add decimals before floating-point specialized subsystems existed. And you wouldn't say that an abacus can't handle floating point arithmetic "because it has no mechanism to split the beads".
In this case, the emulation would be going the other way - using floating point to emulate integer arithmetic. This can probably be done, but it'd be dramatically less efficient than regular integer arithmetic. (Note that "arithmetic" in this case means mainly bitwise rotation, AND, OR, and XOR).
I can see why it would eliminate the possibility for currency exchanges, but why couldn't Bitcoin still function as a currency itself: you're just trading your "Bitcoin social status" for goods that someone else has, who in turn will trade the status they gained for other goods.
And I think a currency exchange could still exist, so long as it classified itself as "social status consulting". It would still have to report profits from the sale of status, but at least it wouldn't be a target of laws and regulations for competing with the national currency.