Bitcoin Forum

The current design of Bitcoin is to award only the first miner. This mechanism gives unfair advantage to the miners who possess more computing power. I came up with an idea to split mining reward among several miners. The top 100 miners all receive equal share for the reward and the combine of their hash will be used as the block hash. How practical is this design? What can be its vulnerabilities?

You might as well increase the BTC mining difficulty tenfold.

Why should the mining difficulty be increased? It's still require significant amount of computing power even to become the 100th winner

That's exactly what pooled mining achieves without the absurd complication of finding a fair way to cause block changes at particular times based on 100 miners contributing block solves leading tho 100x the orphan rate and frequent network splits and reorganisations.

 WHY is this unfair?

 Why should someone that does less WORK get paid equally?

Your suggestions are unfortunately infeasible, and pooled mining exists.

Why should the reward be split among the miners when the ones with more hash-rate will generally have a higher chance of acquiring the block(s), and thus it balances out?

Also, pools split rewards within the pool depending on individual hash-rate contribution, that's the closest you'll get to a split in the mining world, and its only within the pool, there are multiple pools.

The system is fair, and regardless of it being chance based to an extent, the higher hash-rate miners will still in the long-term acquire more blocks (well to be fair most of them are pooled, so lets say Bitcoins rather than blocks).

Currently, the majority of blocks are discovered by pools, and then split among the miners depending on contribution.

What you are suggesting is some sort of pooled-mining system where only the top 100 highest hash-rate miners get any kind of reward, why should they share their block if your system would be implemented?

Because Proof-of-work is more like a lottery. The outcome of SHA256 is unpredictable. Therefore some miners might have spent more electricity while got no rewards. Also if someone has advantage of hashing power it could result in centralization

You misunderstand my idea. The time for mining each block varies so that a miner cannot always hold the leader position. A pool-mining system is consisted of a fixed set of nodes, while my idea is to also award miners who found the hash in the second, third till nth place so that their work wouldn't be completely futile.

You got it wrong, when a miner finds a hash miners after that just confirm it in consensus that it was mined in a legit way.
Pools doing the exact same thing unless you want to provide small computational power and be rewarded big?
No works become futile because mining doesn't work the way you think it does.

why would you want to invent a bycicle?
it exists already and is called "pooled mining"
also how would you determine "top 100 miners"?
by their contribution?beauty of their rigs?randomly?
the current system is logical and as close to fair as possible

Just got back from holiday and read this post.


digaran said it best, why would we want to share in all our work with others, are they going to share equally in our electrical cost too.

I'm not familiar with Mining pool. How each miner's share is decided?

i think its depend on how much share they can get with their hashrate power and for the calculation, i don't know the details.

The concept of the pool is that each miner is rewarded in proportion to the share of the work they do.

 Details vary a little on the exact determination of that proportion - mostly on the question of "how many blocks are the share of work counted over".

 The outcome of ANY mining is unpredictable - in the short term.
 Over the course of many blocks it becomes VERY statistically predictable.
 Without the "chance" element, the same pool would be winning EVERY block - the chance element is needed to allow for a distribution of rewards in a FAIR proportion to the work done.
 The "time for mining" has ZERO effect on determining who the "lead miner" is.


 Centraliation is limited by miners looking at a pool getting too much hashrate and moving to a different pool - this HAS HAPPENED before, and may happen again.
 In Bitmain's specific case, they'd cut their own throat if they decided to pull a "51% attack" on Bitcoin - they're too strongly invested in Bitcoin having wide appeal to mine on - and at this point I don't see any other single group having a serious POSSIBILITY of managing to achieve 51% of the total hashrate of the network again.