NVIDIA Launching "CMP" Cards For Professional Mining, Limits RTX 3060 Mining Potential

[cl333r]

moron, just compare transaction price of bank vs cryptoscam. they have staff because staff speaks with clients. cryptoscam doesn't speak with clients and it has orders of magnitude more servers which produce zero value except they boil oceans

Well if in your world "oceans boil" and mining crypto is seen as one of the main reasons then I'm glad you're butthurt because you truly deserve it.

[geearf]

An interesting move to produce mining cards targeted at eth when it's supposed to move to POS in a year or so.

[qarium]

An interesting move to produce mining cards targeted at eth when it's supposed to move to POS in a year or so.

for companies like Nvidia this just dos't matter they want to sell hardware. and if you need to be incompetent to sell hardware they are as incompetent as possible be sure.
if you read the commend here in this topic then you see the people really believe that the purpose of blockchain technology is to drain power.
these people are as uneducated and misguided as possible.

even the claim that proof of power is only to drain power is wrong.

if you calculate the number of power per hash at the start of bitcoin compared to the same hash today then you can say for sure today they use 1000 times less power than at the start of bitcoin.
they only cry and claim it is much power drain because the hash rate today is much higher but they just don't get the point compared to the number of money stored in the blockchain and compared to the mass of transaction the has rate today is very low compared to the hash rate at start of bitcoin.

this means for the same number of money and same number of transactions they already decrase the power consumsion at a factor of 1000...

but the people are stupid they just see the high number of power consumsion and claim it waste power

NO ONE OF THESE PEOPLE DO STATISTIC AND CALCULATE THE NUMBERS IN RELATION TO THE MONEY STORED AND THE TRANSRACTIONS DONE....

but yes Proof of Stake lowers even this number another 95%...

[geearf]

Well the Bitcoin protocol, as well as other cryptocurrencies are designed with algorithms to make it as computationally expensive as possible. These algorithms could be fast, and run on the CPU, but they are designed to be slow so you need really powerful and power hungry hardware to run.

Actually that's not really the case. The Bitcoin contract is to create a new block every 10 minutes on average, whether there is a lot of miners or few that time should not change (the difficulty auto-adjusts every now and then), so Bitcoin does not directly necessitate high power but it's the high number of miners that does. I see no reason why Bitcoin Hashcash's SHA-256 could not still run on CPUs, it's just highly inefficient compared to what others are using.

For people that don't know much about this topic, maybe this analogy could help:

Imagine you have a race where people can use whatever means they want to race, it's just the first person after 10 minutes that wins. At first the reward is very little so there are few people and they slowly walk (little CPU mining), eventually more people join and now the racers have less chance to win so they try harder (better/more CPU mining), but as the rewards get better people start to want to have a bigger edge over the others and start bringing bikes, skates, etc they own (beginning of GPU mining) and then they buy the equipment for this specifically (later GPU mining). Eventually the rewards get so great, that people keep wanting to up one another and race with jets, rockets, etc (ASIC mining). Had the rewards not changed, the cost of those better equipments would never have been worth it, but it's also kind of moot, as the big racers lost their edge when their competitors got the exact same equipment anyway... (which is kind of why some say that the only people that really make money with ASICs are the ones receiving the first batches.)

Of course all this is Gen1 with POW, and things will improve over time (unless like in any other field bringing wealth, the powerful do not want the world to...).

[uid313]

Actually that's not really the case. The Bitcoin contract is to create a new block every 10 minutes on average, whether there is a lot of miners or few that time should not change (the difficulty auto-adjusts every now and then), so Bitcoin does not directly necessitate high power but it's the high number of miners that does. I see no reason why Bitcoin Hashcash's SHA-256 could not still run on CPUs, it's just highly inefficient compared to what others are using.

For people that don't know much about this topic, maybe this analogy could help:

Imagine you have a race where people can use whatever means they want to race, but at first the reward is very little so people only slowly walk (little CPU mining), eventually more people join and now the racers have less chance to win so they try harder (better/more CPU mining), but as the rewards get better people start to want to have a bigger edge over the others and start bringing bikes, skates, etc they own (beginning of GPU mining) and then they buy the equipment for this specifically (later GPU mining). Eventually the rewards get so great, that people keep wanting to up one another and race with jets, rockets, etc (ASIC mining). Had the rewards not changed, the cost of those better equipment would never have been worth it, but it's also kind of moot, as the big racers lost their edge when their competitors got the exact same equipment...

Of course all this is Gen1 with POW, and things will improve over time (unless like in any other field bringing wealth, the powerful do not want the world to...).

Well it doesn't really matter what in theory it doesn't necessitate high power, in the real world, Bitcoin is consuming huge amounts of energy and that is a bad thing.

[geearf]

Well it doesn't really matter what in theory it doesn't necessitate high power, in the real world, Bitcoin is consuming huge amounts of energy and that is a bad thing.

Yeah I agree that is bad, but I think it's important to know that it's a result of the valuation and not just the technology, and maybe then some people can force scale it back, with moving to POS for instance (or maybe something better will come before Bitcoin moves to another PO system as it's not the fastest crypto at trying new stuff).

Also once all the coins have been mined, will the transactions fees be as rewarding as the coins are today? If not, miners will leave and drop the electricity used.

[qarium]

Actually that's not really the case. The Bitcoin contract is to create a new block every 10 minutes on average, whether there is a lot of miners or few that time should not change (the difficulty auto-adjusts every now and then), so Bitcoin does not directly necessitate high power but it's the high number of miners that does. I see no reason why Bitcoin Hashcash's SHA-256 could not still run on CPUs, it's just highly inefficient compared to what others are using.
For people that don't know much about this topic, maybe this analogy could help:
Imagine you have a race where people can use whatever means they want to race, it's just the first person after 10 minutes that wins. At first the reward is very little so there are few people and they slowly walk (little CPU mining), eventually more people join and now the racers have less chance to win so they try harder (better/more CPU mining), but as the rewards get better people start to want to have a bigger edge over the others and start bringing bikes, skates, etc they own (beginning of GPU mining) and then they buy the equipment for this specifically (later GPU mining). Eventually the rewards get so great, that people keep wanting to up one another and race with jets, rockets, etc (ASIC mining). Had the rewards not changed, the cost of those better equipments would never have been worth it, but it's also kind of moot, as the big racers lost their edge when their competitors got the exact same equipment anyway... (which is kind of why some say that the only people that really make money with ASICs are the ones receiving the first batches.)
Of course all this is Gen1 with POW, and things will improve over time (unless like in any other field bringing wealth, the powerful do not want the world to...).

also the node of the chips also count it startet with 65nm... today in 5nm...
and the development from CPU to GPU to ASIC combined with 65nm to 5nm this all reduce the number of power consumsion by factor 1000 for the same number of hashes

but people still claim the purpose of blockchain and bitcoin is to drain electric power... so why they reduce the power consumsion by factor 1000 ?

so next claim is: thid dosn't matter because the hash rate did go up in the same time...

this is also wrong because today the number of money stored in the blockchain is 1 million times higher and the number of transactions also did go up.

if you calculate it then the result is the number of electric energy used to store money and do transactions did also go down by factor 1000...

[geearf]

also the node of the chips also count it startet with 65nm... today in 5nm...
and the development from CPU to GPU to ASIC combined with 65nm to 5nm this all reduce the number of power consumsion by factor 1000 for the same number of hashes

but people still claim the purpose of blockchain and bitcoin is to drain electric power... so why they reduce the power consumsion by factor 1000 ?

so next claim is: thid dosn't matter because the hash rate did go up in the same time...

this is also wrong because today the number of money stored in the blockchain is 1 million times higher and the number of transactions also did go up.

if you calculate it then the result is the number of electric energy used to store money and do transactions did also go down by factor 1000...

Yeah obviously specialized hardware consumes less power, I think anyone reading phoronix should expect that. Well I hope.

I don't believe we do have the same hashrate today compared to 2009 or so, that seems highly unlikely as that would mean to have a lower difficulty to make up for the much bigger network, but in all honesty I did not verify this.

As for the money stored in blockchain, yeah with Segwit I think it can store more coins in a single block and that probably has négligeable effect on mining time.

[qarium]

Yeah obviously specialized hardware consumes less power, I think anyone reading phoronix should expect that. Well I hope.
I don't believe we do have the same hashrate today compared to 2009 or so, that seems highly unlikely as that would mean to have a lower difficulty to make up for the much bigger network, but in all honesty I did not verify this.
As for the money stored in blockchain, yeah with Segwit I think it can store more coins in a single block and that probably has négligeable effect on mining time.

No of course we have like 1000 times higher hasrate today thats why the people believe it purpose is only to consume electric power.
but what the people don't see is: in 2009 a bitcoin was like 0,10€ and today it is 50 000€
also the transactions also did go up.

if you don't see it per hash rate instead you see it per dollar stored in the blockchain and transactions it turns out the power consumtion today is 1000 times lower than in 2009...

[geearf]

in 2009 a bitcoin was like 0,10€ and today it is 50 000€

Sure but that only matters when you convert it, the goal of Bitcoin was to be usable on its own I believe so I wouldn't really count that; like I wrote before the valuation/speculation has little to do with the actual technology.