Bitcoin minting is thermodynamically perverse

Let me begin by saying that Bitcoin is an amazing project and I am very impressed with the implementation and the goals. From reading these forums it seems to be understood that debate about the design and operation of the bitcoin economy ultimately serves to strengthen it, so I hope these comments are taken in that spirit. EDIT - I have been convinced by further research and discussion that Bitcoin is actually highly efficient compared to most traditional currencies, because the infrastructure required to support a government issued fiat currency represents a much larger investment of resources than Bitcoin’s cpu power consumption. I am leaving this thread active though because it has been generating a lot of interesting discussion.

I believe that the amount of energy input required to the bitcoin economy represents a serious obstacle to its growth. I think in the long-term, transactions may be even more serious than minting in this regard, but I will for the moment discuss minting because it is more precisely bounded and defined. The idea that the value of bitcoins is in some way related to the value of the electricity required, on average, to mint a winning block is generally accepted, but the precise nature of this relationship is contentious.

One argument is that anyone who chooses to generate coins is actually making the choice to purchase bitcoins with electricity/computational resources, and that because some/many people are in fact making that choice, bitcoins have at least that much “value” to the generators, who can be assumed to be maximizing their utility. A contrasting argument is that cost of production is different than market value, and the most objective measure is the current market conversion price to a more liquid and widely traded currency such as the US dollar.

My contention is that both of these arguments miss the point and the real problem, which is the fundamental perversity of wasting large amounts of energy and computations in generating the winning blocks for the minting process. The minting process exists because of the necessity of actually “printing” the currency, and certain desirable properties of crypto-math for making the currency’s behavior predictable. The fact that the current minting process requires a large energy input of computational work is highly unfortunate and has the perverse consequence that bitcoin may actually be “destroying wealth” in the sense of wasting energy producing a digital object worth less than the resources invested in it.

As is often pointed out, a currency does not necessarily have, or need to have, any inherent value - a medium of exchange is a useful tool and can have value purely as a consequence of social convention. The cost of production of bitcoins in electricity consumed represents a waste, a “thermodynamic burden” that the currency has to carry. Consider a hypothetical alternative digital currency called “compucoin”, which purchases cpu cycles from nodes on the network. The market value of this currency would converge very closely with the cost of electricity required to generate cpu cycles. Instead of costing cpu cycles to mint, the value of the cpu cycles the coins could be exchanged for would create a rational basis for the currency’s value and integrate it with an existing market. I imagine that alternatives to Bitcoin (many of them probably sharing a lot of Bitcoin’s source code) will inevitably emerge and Bitcoin’s current minting process makes the currency “expensive” in terms of energy input. I believe this places it at a competitive disadvantage to other currencies and can only hinder its widespread adoption and long-term value. Edit - as mentioned above, I am now much more optimistic about Bitcoin long term. I still think compucoins would be a cool idea, though!

I understand the bitcoin is not INTENDED to be about the minting. The essence of my criticism is that a digital currency SHOULD NOT be “about the minting” but the current bitcoin system works against that goal! My argument is that the current minting system limits the utility of the currency largely because entirely too much attention is focused on “winning the block generation lottery” and the process of choosing these winners is highly inefficient and resource intensive. If potential users of the currency believe that bitcoin is simply a way for botnet herders to convert spare cpu cycles into cash, they are unlikely to participate in the emergence of the economy. The current system could easily result in the perception that bitcoin is basically being used as a vector for the indirect monetization of the theft of electricity via compromised computer systems. I assume most people interested in bitcoin understand that self-interested individuals will obviously seek to exploit opportunities like this, and the design of a popular currency has to prioritize how a prospective user will evaluate its fairness.

Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 09:24:47 AM

I understand the bitcoin is not INTENDED to be about the minting. The essence of my criticism is that a digital currency SHOULD NOT be “about the minting” but the current bitcoin system works against that goal! My argument is that the current minting system limits the utility of the currency largely because entirely too much attention is focused on “winning the block generation lottery” and the process of choosing these winners is highly inefficient and resource intensive.

I think that’s the issue you have though, you think it’s inefficient and resource intensive on purpose when really it’s not. No one is required to generate coins to use the system. If you click the generate coin list, you are basically volunteering your resources to strengthen the network and in exchange, you might get some coin for it. Since coin is in demand to use the system, someone has to generate it. If generation was as easy as “input how many you want, bam, you have 1 million now” it would make the entire system pointless. It’s a chicken and the egg puzzle except there really isn’t a puzzle here. People need bitcoins, they generate them at a fixed rate to make it worth spending the CPU time. There’s no reason to think of it that way, anymore than the local barber is collecting hair to clone an army of super-men for world domination. You have to draw the line somewhere. If someone is going to steal electricity, targeting a 30 watt computer doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I have seen the topic come up here a few times “what if someone seeks to exploit this?” and the answer is the same over and over, it has been designed from the ground up to counter this exact concern. If you want to “game” the system, you need a lot of CPU power. CPU power cost money. The system scales itself to the available CPU power it has so if you bought 10,000 EC2 sessions from Amazon and started a massive bitcoin generating farm, you would never make more money out of it than what you put into it for long because the system would self-adjust against it. If someone throughs a massive botnet at it, the same thing will happen. The system is set for self-feedback, so to try to steal from everyone is to try to steal from yourself at the same time.

Quote from: knightmb on August 06, 2010, 10:51:51 AM

Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 09:24:47 AM

If potential users of the currency believe that bitcoin is simply a way for botnet herders to convert spare cpu cycles into cash, they are unlikely to participate in the emergence of the economy. The current system could easily result in the perception that bitcoin is basically being used as a vector for the indirect monetization of the theft of electricity via compromised computer systems. I assume most people interested in bitcoin understand that self-interested individuals will obviously seek to exploit opportunities like this, and the design of a popular currency has to prioritize how a prospective user will evaluate its fairness.

There’s no reason to think of it that way, anymore than the local barber is collecting hair to clone an army of super-men for world domination. You have to draw the line somewhere. If someone is going to steal electricity, targeting a 30 watt computer doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I have seen the topic come up here a few times “what if someone seeks to exploit this?” and the answer is the same over and over, it has been designed from the ground up to counter this exact concern. If you want to “game” the system, you need a lot of CPU power. CPU power cost money. The system scales itself to the available CPU power it has so if you bought 10,000 EC2 sessions from Amazon and started a massive bitcoin generating farm, you would never make more money out of it than what you put into it for long because the system would self-adjust against it. If someone throughs a massive botnet at it, the same thing will happen. The system is set for self-feedback, so to try to steal from everyone is to try to steal from yourself at the same time.

I think you are rationalizing away a serious issue. Botnets exist, and the owners of botnets seek to monetize them. Bitcoin minting is an available strategy. Saying “If someone is going to steal electricity, targeting a 30 watt computer doesn’t make a lot of sense” is a complete non sequitir. Being in control of a botnet means YOU ALREADY HAVE STOLEN the electricity, the question is - how are you going to make use of it? It is very simple economics that bitcoin production is roughly proportional to energy input, and that therefore the most efficient producers will be those who are able to obtain that electricity at zero cost.

In making an analysis of an economic system, you obviously proceed by determining how self-interested actors will behave in that system. I am completely unconvinced by hand-waving arguments that try to claim people will not behave in selfish and unethical ways, if they see an opportunity for profit. We already KNOW that people are throwing a lot of computational resources into minting bitcoins, the steadily increasing difficulty is exactly equivalent to a steadily increasing computational cost of the system! The more energy invested in the production of the same quantity of coins, the harder bitcoin has to work to deliver value added on that cost.

Again, an analysis of the behavior of self-interested actors is instructive. The most energy-efficient scenario for bitcoin generation in the current regime would be if there was ONE NETBOOK that generated all the coins - the rate of coin production is fixed, so you’d still have the same amount of coins entering circulation. The person who ran that netbook would obviously be in a position to charge a high “rent” from the population that needed bitcoins for their transactions. An examination of this limit case makes it clear that bitcoin minters have a strong incentive to encourage use and circulation of the currency while discouraging additional minting nodes from coming online. This is not any kind of criticism of anyone’s ethics - it is simply an examination of how the game is set up, and what strategies players will adopt.

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.

I had all four of my cores dedicated previously toward the goal of generating bitcoins, but it’s no longer worth the cost to me. I am now only generating using one core but the goal is no longer to generate bitcoins. My current goal is to help maintain the strength of the network and to help the network recover (get to the next block adjustment) when and if a large botnet drops out. Bitcoin was about generating bitcoins, but now it’s not. Now it’s about competing botnets providing a secure and reliable foundation for an open currency. Yeah, they’re stealing the electricity and yeah, they’re profiting, but at least they’re putting their stolen CPU cycles to a useful and accepted purpose instead of more harmful activities that they probably would be engaged in if they had not discovered bitcoin.

Quote from: NewLibertyStandard on August 06, 2010, 07:20:47 PM

I had all four of my cores dedicated previously toward the goal of generating bitcoins, but it’s no longer worth the cost to me. I am now only generating using one core but the goal is no longer to generate bitcoins. My current goal is to help maintain the strength of the network and to help the network recover (get to the next block adjustment) when and if a large botnet drops out. Bitcoin was about generating bitcoins, but now it’s not. Now it’s about competing botnets providing a secure and reliable foundation for an open currency. Yeah, they’re stealing the electricity and yeah, they’re profiting, but at least they’re putting their stolen CPU cycles to a useful and accepted purpose instead of more harmful activities that they probably would be engaged in if they had not discovered bitcoin.

Ok, bravo for an amazingly honest and straightforward answer. That is probably the most overall convincing argument I have seen made in the thread. You are arguing that the overall social utility of Bitcoin is “worth it” - worth both the raw energy cost of the computational work, and worth the regrettable fact that it provides a profit opportunity for botnet operators. I don’t have a proposal for how exactly you measure the costs and benefits, but I entirely agree with your analysis of the bottom line of the situation. You could even make the argument that minting bitcoins as an activity is less harmful than other botnet activities like sending out spam.

Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 07:30:32 PM

You could even make the argument that minting bitcoins as an activity is less harmful than other botnet activities like sending out spam.

I think that he already did.

Quote from: NewLibertyStandard on August 06, 2010, 07:20:47 PM

I had all four of my cores dedicated previously toward the goal of generating bitcoins, but it’s no longer worth the cost to me. I am now only generating using one core but the goal is no longer to generate bitcoins. My current goal is to help maintain the strength of the network and to help the network recover (get to the next block adjustment) when and if a large botnet drops out. Bitcoin was about generating bitcoins, but now it’s not. Now it’s about competing botnets providing a secure and reliable foundation for an open currency.

Well said.

Participation in the network as an honest node helps everyone.

Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 07:30:32 PM

You are arguing that the overall social utility of Bitcoin is “worth it” - worth both the raw energy cost of the computational work, and worth the regrettable fact that it provides a profit opportunity for botnet operators.

I’d rather like to support a system like bitcoin, that i can use myself for value-transaction, than searching for E.T. to make some scientist save cash. That’s a waste of energy and still people do it voluntarily without any benefits.

And i really dont care if some botnet-ops make a profit or not, as long as they don’t bother ME (or anyone else).

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.

Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 04:48:00 PM

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.

Quote from: satoshi on August 07, 2010, 05:46:09 PM

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.

I agree with nearly everything you said, but I disagree, fundamentally, with the bolded. Gold mining is not a waste of energy. It is the opposite of waste, it is the measure of value people place in the ‘utility of having gold as a medium of exchange’ or a store of wealth, jewelry around their body parts or connectors on their home theater system. If there was no demand for gold, the price would be zero. Hence it is not a ‘waste,’ by definition.

I object strenuously to this idea, promulgated by the Monetarists, that the production of money is wasted capital which could be spent on other wealth-building projects. It’s a short-sighted argument which does not fully encompass the value we place in our money.

It’s semantics, yes, but the negative connotations associated with the word “waste” is a tool of the money masters designed to confuse us and elevate their bankrupt system.

Ta,

I really I understood the point of this thread but I guess I didn’t.

I assumed that if you could design to do the exact same thing in the same commodity quantities and at the same protection level, BUT consuming less energy and producing less BTUs of heat, then that would be less wasteful.

You can mine gold in lots of ways, some require less resources than others. If two processes produce the same amount of gold then no point in optimizing anything else?

The power used is not wasteful. It is simply what the owner is willing to commit to the project. Even so, it may be used even as “waste heat”. I am an electritian by trade, and years ago I had the following idea form, while installing a ‘heat trace’ network on insulated sprinkler lines inside an open air parking garage.

The ‘heat trace’ is a fairly expensive cable that has a continuous resistive core to produce low intensity electric heat along the length of the pipe that it’s taped onto. Insulation is then wrapped around this assembly. The best, and most efficient, systems have a temp reactive core; so that the closer to the freezing point that the cable itself becomes at any given length, the lower the resistance across the core becomes, resulting in an increase in heat output along the colder and less well insulated sections.

At the time, I was playing with an early form of distributed computing called “Condor”, which allowed single processes to be exported to other computers upon a network and their disk I/O shipped back across the network to a master server without the process being able to tell the difference. I thought then that a small “computer on a chip” wired upon a flat network cable would be able to effectively perform the same functions of keeping the pipes above freezing with local temp sensitivity while also crunching numbers in exactly the same way that bitcoin requires. Such an idea would require a network that permited quite a bit of power in order to not need an unacceptable number of power points along the pipe, but imagine the usefulness of such a system for companies that have such needs in very high (or very low) latitudes.

What if such a system were retrofitted onto the Alaskan Oil Pipeline, for example, one mile at a time?

The heat from your computer is not wasted if you need to heat your home.  If you’re using electric heat where you live, then your computer’s heat isn’t a waste.  It’s equal cost if you generate the heat with your computer.

If you have other cheaper heating than electric, then the waste is only the difference in cost.

If it’s summer and you’re using A/C, then it’s twice.

Bitcoin generation should end up where it’s cheapest.  Maybe that will be in cold climates where there’s electric heat, where it would be essentially free.