Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
holy cow.. ok now i see any further discussion is meaningless .. i didn't made any "claim", i KNOW how it works lol :-) Almost at the level i would be capable to make my own cryptocoin network, believe me. I can talk for hours explaining this topic so deeply that most people would fall asleep during listening me. I tried to explain it to you in very very simple basic way, but ok. I failed. I'm not good teacher.
Wasting of time. For both of you. At the end it doesn't matter.
Peace, no hard feelings from my side !!
No> @wim said:
No, I'm kidding! You're quite correct to question everything! It has really made dive in, and a lot of preconceptions I have have been upended.
These places that mint NFTs – why can’t I do that whole process myself?
What do I need to be able to mint my own NFTs with no outside services or dependencies at all?
It is possible to mint them yourself https://forum.openzeppelin.com/t/create-an-nft-and-deploy-to-a-public-testnet-using-truffle/2961
I would think that eventually a better system will be invented that will allow people to own an "actual" digital copy of the encrypted image on the blockchain and not just a token which represents it and NFTs will suddenly lose their value.
OK, @dendy here's a sincere question about energy use of Bitcoin mining. It seems to me that the competitive nature of Bitcoin mining does indeed force increased energy use, or at least to ensure it will never come down. As I understand it, the more efficient mining becomes the more the difficulty rate of solving the problem required to validate a Bitcoin transaction is raised.
Doesn't this sort of ensure that the energy use will never come down ... at least for Bitcoin transactions?
Thanks, that’s interesting. It looks as though there’s a relatively weak link between the nft.tokenURI() and whatever is actually contained in that JSON server’s served doc at that URI. It looks possible to change the content of the thing ‘linked’ to at a later date?
Yes, that's exactly right (be sure to read the quoted thread):
https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/
Here is no simple answer. Yes and no. Yes, from some point of view every industry energy needs are rising - that's price for growth of our civilisation. Our goal is to find cheap and renewable sources wih low impact on enviroment. Industry segments, where costs depend more on electricity price than on other things, are in general those who are pushing on developement in this area most.
Important is to put numbers in context, not just take some random arbitrary statement like "bitcoin consumes electricity of small state". What is also needed, is discuscussion about what is efficiency of using that energy (it's conversion ratio, how many of energy is transfered in something meaningful and how many is just lost in form of heat for example, waste, etc). Here BTC mining wins over basically every idustry, except of heat losts most of used electricity is directly converted to monetary information.
There is no causality between scalabily of network (eg number of processed transactions) and electricity consumption. This is one of biggest misunderstandings, repeatw again and again across mainstream media. It originates from lack of knowledge how PoW network works and what exactly is mining. Ok, in theory there may be small corelation (especially when network is in early stage, like we still are) but no causality, which is super important. If network upscales 100000x, electricity may easily stay same and nothing happens.
To be very precise, what bitcoin network needs, to be safe - to be resistant agains so-called 51% attack(*) - is not directly electricity, but high hashrate (computing power). In theory, if in future somebody develops chips with super low energy needs still capable deliver needed hash power, miners will be super happy to lower their costs for electricity and increase their profit by using those chips. Actually some biggest minig operation are investing into developement of new less energy hungry chips and cheap renewable energy resources. Simply to lower their operational costs.
All serious mining operarions are on constant hunt for cheap electricity. It's basically only part of their operstional costs which can be lowered, which are variable. All miners wants to use less electricity and they are doing everything possible for achieving it.
Back to hashrate. You can calculate what is treshold for hashrate, to have network secure. It basically depends on bitcoin price (**), and it works pretty well as self-rebalancing system - as price goes up, more miners are interested in mining, but as more miners are minimg then they got smaller portion of rewards so they stop mine if their profit goes low. If price goes down, some miners shut down their mining, and so on. System which still searches for equlibrium.
So as you see, electricity costs are totally decoupled from number of processed transactions. You can scale Bitcoin network 1000000x and you still don't need increase mining power. It depends just and only on price.
Advantage of this industry is, that miner can turn OFF machines anytime hewant with almost zero loses. That's why mining is great for stabilising usage of energy sources with high fluctuation of produced power (like wind, solar, hydro) - when there is low demand from grid, mining can use abundant energy, which would be otherwise wasted, for something meaningful (it basically converts electricity back to money, which is pretty unique feature), if demand from grid is high, you can simply turn off mining operation for a while. This is not theory, this is actually what is happening, lot of big mining companies are working exactly this way.
(*) for 51% attack you basically need more than half of computing power of whole network, then you can alter transactions in block, for example you can spend same money double times
(**) you can calculate how much would cost you tomperform 51% attack (price of used machines + electricity + some additional minuscule costs) - so it has to be profitable for you. Even with 51% of hash power you cannot ovverride "whole blockchain - whole history of transactions" - just recently created block.
Humm ... thanks @dendy for the detailed response. I still think I see a flaw in that logic:
It seems to me that logic says, and the trajectory of the mining growth so far affirms, that rather than simply leading to increased profit per energy unit, cost savings lead to increase in hash rate requirements and therefore non-decreasing energy consumption. See, the more transactions one can generate, the more odds of "winning" the chance of solving the problem needed to validate a transaction. The leap in computing capacity resulting from ASICs led to an expansion of transaction capacity, since that is the motivation (balanced by cost of course). This leads to an increase in the complexity needed to "solve" the needed problem in order to keep anyone from dominating the network. So, any increase in efficiency, will never lead to a decrease in energy consumption. Or am I missing something fundamental?
I get the rest of the arguments (and tend to agree with them because essentially they make sense), but I'm stuck on this one point, and it bothers me. In order to keep from ever increasing the burden on this poor rock we call home as population and quality of living rise, I'm always encouraged by technology that is going to accomplish more for humanity. I'm not liking the idea that the blockchain explosion is at best static, and at worst could be increasingly bad for our poor old planet.
This aspect seems to me like walking on an moving sidewalk that speeds up every time you start to move forward. It seems like a fundamental disconnect.
On the other hand ... as a truly wise person said earlier, this is a moot point. Blockchain is here to stay. There's not a damn thing we can do about that, whether or not we think it's good.
I just hope there's a way forward that continues to decrease environmental impact, discourages the continuing trend toward only those with deep pockets being able to profit, and drives down costs for those wanting to use (as distinct from supply) this technology.
wait, i'm not sure i'm correctly understand what you mean with "transaction". I'll try explain how it works, what is transaction and why number of processed transactions is unrelated to power consumption.
Transaction is simply me sending BTC to you. There is network of nodes, to some of those nodes my wallet propagates information about transaction. At nodes, this transaction is stored into somethig called "mempool" - it's like queue of waiting transactions for being added to blockchain.
This has still nothing to do with miners. Nodes are just interconnected network of computers (very popular is this ine: https://getumbrel.com , running on raspberry pi) every one contains whole blockchain file. This is backbone of Bitcoin blockchain network.
Now, miners are coming into game. They are trying to solve some cryptogeaphic puzzle, defined by nodes. When some miner solves it, it gets right to build new block. He gets some amount of transactions from mempool (amount which fits into block, it's around 2700 transactions because block size is fixed to 1MB), it build the block with rhose transactions and it propagates block back no network of nodes.
This repears every 10 minutes (approximately).
It doesn't matter if you have 1000000 asics consuming 1000 GW of electricity or 1 notebook runing on batery as miner - you can alway during every round fit just around 2700 transactions into block. Rest is waiting in mempool for being processe in next round (transactions can competite by using bigger fees, if you as user send btc to other user you have possibiliry choose bigger fee, miners are processing transactions with higger fees sooner - they can cherrypick which transactions from memory pool they pack into block)
So, miners, by adding more computing power, are not processing more transactions, and by using less power, they're not processing less transactions. By increasing hashpower they just increase likelihood of solving that mathematical puzzle and getting the right of compile next block. So yes, this is where they're competing and naturaľy trying to have bigger hash rate than competitors, but it's unrelated to network scaling, hashpower is completely unrelated to number of transactions. If you have network overloaded with transactions, they're just waiting in mempool longer for being processeed by miners and attached to next block.
Scalability (often discussed by mainstream and werongly connected with increases electricity consumption) is solved by layer above blockchain - so called "Lightning network". This is network where many small transactions are first paired in between and only once per time period they are "commited" to to bottom level blocchain (to nodes). Som let's say 1000 small transactions on Lightning network are send as one big transactions to nodes. (very very simplified explanation, but you got the point)
This helps scale up maximum possible transactions (with Lightning it's in theory up to millions per second) and reduce fees almost to zero (fees on lightning are basically few satoshis).
whole this energy consuption is big missunderstanding.. mainstream media and no-coiners narrative is "wasting". But what is wasting.. inmy opinion for example wasting is using clothes dryers, because your washed clohes would dry also without electric dryer - it would just take a bit longer time. That's wasting because people are lazy to wait. Yet clothes dryers are consuming almost 2x as much electricity as bitcoin network. What a wasting !
Or electricity spent for warm bathtubes. That's fucking wasting in my opinion. Still coparable to bitcoin mining consumption - and for what ? Just for some dude to sit in warm water and drink some champagne. Wasting. Useless.
Or gold mining. It produces tremendous enviromental problems, it really destroys land, lot of electricity used and lot of toxic chemicals are released to enviromend. Not talking about high expenses for distribution and storing of gold. Yet people are buyinh gold jewelry and they do not care about enviromental impact of gold mining - which is way much bigger thsn bitcoin mining.
Or electric cars.. there is direct dependency - more electric cars - more needed electricity. Not speaking about toxic materials used for producitng batteries - try google cobalt mining in China. (and i'm very concerned about batteries after end of their lifespan, all that lithium stored od wasteyards, feels bad)
Not speaking about electricity lost during transport - up to 10% of world wide produced electricity is lost in transportation wires !!! That is really horible wasting compared to bitcoin minkng which uses less than 1%. And it will NOT exponentially grow as described above, the growth is even not linear (theee is more reasons why in future it will not grow thst much like in orevious 10 years, one of them is we reached 5nm limit for chips)
Oh and when we are discussion about enviromental impact in general - just 15 biggest cargo ships on world are producing more greenhouse gasses than ALL personal transportation over the whole world. Yet nobodas problem with ordering cheap stuff from China - which is delivered exactly in such big cargo ships.
So - let's concentrate on true issues, true wasting and stop beign hypocrites. We should stop hunting for bogus issues, because clock is ticking, we need to work on real issues.
People are making lot of mess, unforunatelly. We need better energy sources with less enviromental impact, we need take a care about reducing wasted wnergy and carbon footprint (*). But definitely bitcoin is wrong place where to start. It takes atrantion of mainstream from real problems.
(*) This is another nonsense narrative common in mainstream media. Bitcoin produces carbon dioxide. Fucking no. Bitcoin mining directly produces just hot air in amount which is totally minuscule compared to how much is air heated by high amount of concrete surfaces in big cities. And hot air doesn't cause global warming.
And last post - common narrative "Bitcoin uses mostly fossil fuels". This is absolute nonsense. They are imaging that bitcoin miners are searching for fossil fuel powered power plant and then they connect to it, or what ? Minig is using power grid available in given area. Same power grid like others (other industries, households, even electric cars power stations).
The source of electricity for power grid is in state's competence. If government is iresponsible and invests into fosil fuel powered plants, it is bad. But then not just bitcoin mining but also all OTHER (lot bigger) electricity consumers in that state or area are running mostly on fossil fuels. It's fail of government. Not end users. And as i said, miners can always pack whole operations and move to different areas which cheaper, more clean, electricity. Most of industries can't do that, and some of them which are consuming a lot more electricity than bitcoin mining (like aluminium production) are in addition producing also horrible chemical waste.
You’re kinda scaring me a little buddy. Maybe take a nice walk, go get some fresh air?
Seriously though, thanks for your answers @dendy. Energy debate, which I feel is irrelevant, aside, I’m just trying to get my head around this technology which is all new to me. Your posts have been very helpful.
Hasn't all art been this way, always? It was just never so baldly specific before.
The whole arc of technological and economic progress is based on the premise of increasing productivity and efficiency.
Bitcoin neatly reverses that process, by becoming increasingly inefficient as it becomes more widely adopted. A technological revolution!
Another thing about the current crypocurrency hype is that RTX GPUs and equivalent are almost impossible to buy unless at similar inflated rates because they are being mass bought to mine.
They go out of stock instantly. nVidia are trying to restrict some cards so they can't be mined with easily but it's frustrating if you need one to make art and also to use with gaming. Some shop websites go offline as soon as a card becomes in stock because of the amount of people trying to buy them at once...
haha.. i'm ok, 2x per day going to walk outside with my son for 1 hour.. so i have enough fresh air
))))
Based on what you think it is increasingly inefficient as it becomes more widely adopted ? Because i think it's exact opposite
Curious how you get to that, elaborate please ..
But GPUs are used just for Ethereum mining (and few random unimportant shitcoins) .. Bitcoin mining doesn't use GPUs ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
no, they can be used for Bitcoin mining as well and are very profitable at the moment which is the problem. The RTX cards in particular are very good for Bitcoin mining.
It's pretty obvious: as the price of Bitcoin goes up, more miners are incentivised to mine it, so it requires increasing levels of computational power and energy to mine each coin. The more popular Bitcoin becomes, the less efficient the mining is. It's the exact opposite of progress.
so based on this logic basically EVERYTHING on this planet is more and more ineffective with increasing adoption :-))
Name 1 industry or any technology based activity, where energy/resources consumption goes down with adoption/usage increasing :-)
Hint: Effectivity is not about absolute amount of energy used, it's about conversion ratio - how much energy is converted into something useful and how much is lost in form of waste (heat, physicsl waste, etc).
No, they can't ... ok technically you can, in reality you will be always in negative profit.. Nobody sane would do it because your will pay more for electricity than you mined :-))
ratio between energy consumption and maximal hashrate is waaay much negative for all existing GPUs, and always will be, when it comes to bitcoin minimg (or basically any coin minig which uses algorythm for which reliable and cheap ASIC miners are available - it's not just Bitcoin but also Litecoin and few other currencies)
GPUs ale no go in reality for direct bitcoin mining.
There are services like "Nicehash" where you use GPUs to mine any random altcoin and then it automatically convers everything what you mine, into bitcoin - but that is not bitcoin mining. It's just that they are saving your time from switching all GPU mined altcoins into bitcoin on exchange.
Btw you can check here average guesstimated profitability on various coins based in which GPU you have:
https://whattomine.com
GPU minable coins are slowly dying, last big one is Ethereum and this will die 2-3 years from now when PoS will be activated. (Ok i think Ethereum will die anyway, even with PoS, but that is different topic lol)
Oh and GPU shortage is not just becsuse of miners. It started sooner than current bullrun - it was caused already last year by Apple, because they booked for themselves a lot of chip production capacities for whole 2020 and 2021 ... They have enough money to overpay competitors, including NVidia ...
The argument is not about adoption, it's about efficiency and productivity.
Technology allows us to be more productive: 20 people using diggers and bulldozers are far more effective at building a road than 200 people using pick-axes and shovels.
The entire arc of technological and economic progress is based on this concept of increasing efficiency and productivity. This is the reason we are materially richer than our ancestors.
Bitcoin does this in reverse, over time it becomes less efficient. It's Moore's Law in the Upside-Down world.
So it's bitcoin. Mining started with CPUs which was least effective. Then it moved to GPUs which was significantly more effective.. Then it moved to FPGA chips - again lot more effective than GPUs.. then into ASIC chips .. and it's for sure not last step, it's no reason to think evolution of computing now stops ... every genenerstion was many orders of magnitude more effective than previous, so yeah, it's exactly your example with buldozers and 200 people
Also more people are using network == more transactions processed has NO imparct on electricity need (i explained above, why it is). So technicaly if you increase number of transacrions by 100x, consumption of electricity will increase just relative to increase of price. And nobody is really expecting bitcoin price grow from 50k to 50M in next 20-30 years, but 100x (and more) number of transactions (or even 1000x on 10000x Lightning network layer) is very likely... So with rising adoption, relative effectivity will grow significantly - even not just lineary but exponentialy, which is unseen in any other industry.
Also in terms of conversion energy to useful work, minimg (like all kinds of computing) is basically most effective way of co version which exists.
Sorry, but you're not engaging with this argument in good faith. You know full well that Bitcoin is designed to use more resources when the price goes up. It takes way more computational power to mine each new coin. There is no rational way to pretend that this is somehow increasing efficiency over time, because anyone can see that it's exactly the opposite.
well ok, so you may be mining alternate cryptocurrency and converting but it's still profitable, otherwise people wouldn't be doing it and nVidia wouldn't need to take action. so yes it is affecting the GPU market in a big way at the moment.
Yes it's Ethereum mining that is causing the GPU shortage. Currently you simply cannot buy a GPU in the UK.
The price of Ethereum closely follows the price of Bitcoin, so let's hope the whole thing crashes so that we can build computers again. My 15-year-old son wants to build a new computer but we're waiting on the GPU.