原始文献 / 论坛帖 / Re: Bitcoin minting is thermodynamically perverse
Re: Bitcoin minting is thermodynamically perverse
Bitcointalk · 2010-08-07 17:46:09 UTC
这和黄金与金矿开采的情况一样。黄金开采的边际成本往往贴近金价。金矿开采是一种浪费，但这种浪费远小于拥有黄金作为交换媒介所带来的效用。
我认为比特币也会一样。比特币促成的交易所带来的效用，将远远超过所耗电力的成本。所以，没有比特币才是净浪费。
【引用 gridecon 于 2010年8月6日 16:48:00（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721.msg7889#msg7889）】
"总的来说，我也不同意"生成币的巨大计算负担是当前系统的必要条件"这一说法。据我理解，货币创造本质上是以时间为度量的——如果时间是根本的控制变量，那为什么每个人还要在给定的时间段内"尽可能多地掷骰子"？"币所有权和交易的"证明链"并不依赖于生成币的方法。"
每个节点对网络的影响力与其 CPU 算力成正比。向网络证明你有多少 CPU 算力的唯一办法，就是真正用起来。
如果还有别的每人拥有量有限、可以用来实现一人一票的东西，我想不出来。IP 地址……比 CPU 容易弄到大量得多。
我想也许可以在某些时刻测量 CPU 算力。比如，CPU 算力挑战平均每 10 分钟只运行 1 分钟。这样不用一直运行，也能在给定时刻证明你的总算力。不过我不确定这怎么实现。一个当时不在场的节点没法知道，过去的链到底是在带 9 分钟休息的工作周期里生成的，而不是连续生成的。
工作量证明有个很好的特性：它可以通过不可信的中间人传递。我们不用担心通信的保管链问题。不管是谁告诉你最长链，工作量证明自己会说话。
英文原文
It's the same situation as gold and gold mining. The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay near the price of gold. Gold mining is a waste, but that waste is far less than the utility of having gold available as a medium of exchange.
I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin. The utility of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of electricity used. Therefore, not having Bitcoin would be the net waste.
【引用 gridecon on August 06, 2010, 04:48:00 PM（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721.msg7889#msg7889）】
"As an overall point, I also do not agree with the idea that the very high computational burden of coin generation is in fact a necessity of the current system. As I understand it, currency creation is fundamentally metered by TIME - and if that is the fundamental controlling variable, what is the need for everyone to "roll as many dice as posible" within that given time period? The "chain of proof" for coin ownership and transactions doesn't depend on the method for spawning coins.
"
Each node's influence on the network is proportional to its CPU power. The only way to show the network how much CPU power you have is to actually use it.
If there's something else each person has a finite amount of that we could count for one-person-one-vote, I can't think of it. IP addresses... much easier to get lots of them than CPUs.
I suppose it might be possible to measure CPU power at certain times. For instance, if the CPU power challenge was only run for an average of 1 minute every 10 minutes. You could still prove your total power at given times without running it all the time. I'm not sure how that could be implemented though. There's no way for a node that wasn't present at the time to know that a past chain was actually generated in a duty cycle with 9 minute breaks, not back to back.
Proof-of-work has the nice property that it can be relayed through untrusted middlemen. We don't have to worry about a chain of custody of communication. It doesn't matter who tells you a longest chain, the proof-of-work speaks for itself.