News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin. Parent comment

Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin by chc on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:17PM (#7279158)
How do you make something incapable of being energy-intensive but still difficult? The more computers have to work at something, the more energy they use. I'm not the world's leading expert, but I don't see a way around that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin by tromp on Friday February 21, 2014 @04:28PM (#7279549)
You get around it by slowing down the computation with memory latencies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory#Memory_wal...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin by Crito on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:41PM (#7279278)
There is being energy intensive, and then there is being CPU intensive.

You could imagine a hypothetical coin that somehow uses proof of data storage and retrieval instead of proof of work. Producing and running tons of harddrives would still require power, but it would be a less.. direct.. requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin by heydenberk on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:44PM (#7279294)
Short answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin by tlrobinson on Friday February 21, 2014 @04:59PM (#7279726)
Could you explain this a little more, I'm having a hard time seeing how it applies to mining.
[ Parent | on HN ]