Bitcoin Forum

"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
Satoshi nakamoto


http://i.piccy.info/i9/70b4d72ad73779efdc614e0f6d4aaf34/1575883335/60010/1351639/riched.jpg

As we all know, mining is now completely centralized. Big money buys expensive equipment in the form of ASIC / GPU / FPGA devices and deprives everyone else of the right to participate in the issue of cryptocurrencies.

Questions:

Does the modern cryptocurrency community need this principle of Satoshi Nakamoto?

Maybe it's time to abandon it and admit that ONLY money should always release new money?

???

No they don't need all of Satoshi's principles, his system isn't perfect, no system is. Bitcoin wasn't designed to last forever, it was a proof of concept for Blockchain, and an alternative financial system to traditional banking, why do you think the entire project is open source?
 It's open source so that others can build upon or off Blockchain and Bitcoin protocol, to enhance it and add to it, making it better. Bitcoin is only the prototype protocol. There are better Blockchains and cryptocurrencies on the market.

you thinking some way doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same and it certainly doesn't mean it is correct!



it is not that expensive to need "big money". and nobody is preventing YOU from buying an ASIC and mining bitcoin with it. the only problem is that others who buy ASICs believe in bitcoin whereas YOU don't and because of that you don't want to make that kind of investment!

First of all. Satoshi is smart enough to have come up with bitcoin. But let's not forget that Satoshi is, well, human. Just like us! Stop looking at him/her/them as someone who is all-knowing and someone that doesn't make mistakes.

Also, again with the "mining is centralized" argument. Can you expound more on that so we would know how you came up with that conclusion? Sure it became more centralized due to it being harder to mine on personal computers due to ASICs, but calling it "completely centralized" is just pure bullcrap. Have you been listening to Peter Schiff or Nouriel Roubini?

I completely agree with you. However, what do you think of the principle that is indicated in the topic? Is it necessary to comply with it, or let the entire billionaires who own the largest mining farms carry out the entire issue of cryptocurrencies?



Apparently you live in a very rich country and do not know how people live in those countries where the monthly income is $ 100. How many years will I have to starve to buy a miner? Count ...

Yes. He was an ordinary person, just like me and you. And he was not able to calculate everything during his lifetime, so the Bitcoin protocol is not perfect, and we need to work on it.

But I did not ask about the protocol, I asked about the implementation of a specific principle, which was indicated at the beginning of the topic. After all, this principle was not provided by the Bitcoin protocol. Therefore, I am interested - does the crypto community believe that this principle needs to be implemented?

At the same time, I ask the inhabitants of rich countries to refrain from thinking that they are the only ones in the world. In the world there are many people who live in poor countries, but they are the same participants in the system and have the right not only to use cryptocurrencies, but also to participate in their emission.
I am wrong?

The real principles of Satoshi are still debatable. Though he imagined bitcoin to be a currency and a decentralized one, it due to its rarity became an valuable asset for rich people to buy and control the supply. The price is actually how low the holders sell rather than the value of the coin.
1 vote a CPU is still an ideal for a decentralized coin.

Wow! A much needed discussion is finally starting now! So OP is literally saying the community to move to the POS algorithm and scrap the POW algorithm that miners are using now! I am sure, a lot of big companies will be unhappy after seeing this because these companies have invested millions to set up their mining operations.

But the argument is very valid because only a handful of people/companies are handling the entire mining operations of bitcoin where a commoner like us don't stand a chance at all! So if bitcoin moves to POS, a lot of common people will be happy as they will have better chance to earn bitcoin and make their dream come true!

But wait! What about the rarity of bitcoin? It will be killed if the network moves to POS. Also, if there is a minimum holding requirement given, it will be again controlled by few whales where again commoners won't stand a chance! So this kind of change may become disastrous for the community!

I personally wouldn't want bitcoin to move to a different algorithm because things are now slowly shaping up for bitcoin! It's just a 10 years old currency and still have a long way to go! I believe it's better to maintain the current model because this is how Satoshi designed and developed it!

This is false. PoS coins become expensive the moment people want them. You need a small fortune to operate a masternode, so its again give all the chance to those with the most money, and no chance to those without. In fact, i think mining gives a bit more of a chance to those without money rather than staking coins that can never be afforded (or would be too few to be worth anything).

Unless you bought them already when nobody wanted them. Which is exactly what happened to bitcoin ten years ago. You now hope somehow those worthless coins would get a bit of a price hike if people switched to them, and try in vain to "influence" the market, but the market isn't budging.

I omit entirely the part of Bitcoin moving into PoS, as this is never happening. Go elsewhere if you want to play with PoS. So far it has been a complete failure, and if they have to be inflationary like fiat, then its even less worth.

Large mining operations will cease to be profitable in the coming years, there is nothing changing that. And those people you point your fingers at will either move to other business or cease operating. The remaining miners will be those with free electricity and hobbyists who don't care (or want to warm in winter, etc). This happens because the speed the price of bitcoin prices slows down over time, and does not go up in parallel to profits in mining. You can clearly correlate the historical data and see how every day mining becomes less and less profitable, in spite of more efficient asic technology.

So whatever argument you may have against mining, will solve by itself naturally. As for deflationary money, it works with Austrian economics. Bring another inflationary coin to the table and you are only encouraging the eternal dominance of the flawed Chicago school of eternal debt and bubble pops.

Do I understand you correctly? Do you think that Bitcoin took place exactly in the form in which it is now. What exactly is it that is valuable and needed right now. Need to rich. And the principles that Satoshi originally declared need to be implemented in another cryptocurrency - in the new Altcoin.
Is that all right?

No. The POS algorithm does not change anything. It is based on the fact that the rich have more opportunities to get coins than the poor. The POS algorithm does not solve this problem. The POS algorithm only reduces energy costs for the extraction of coins. That's all the benefits of it.
But the problem can be solved by using a different POW algorithm. An algorithm that blocks the ability to use any specialized device for mining coins - GPU, ASIC, FPGA ... In this case, everyone will have equal chances. One processor = one vote.

But this is self-deception. Bitcoin is NOT developing. Long time. He stands still. He got stuck in a conservative position. To go a path, you need to go on it. But Bitcoin is not going anywhere. He stands still.

It is true that Satoshi designed Bitcoin like this. And the way he designed it is described in his Whitepaper. But he did not develop it in the same way as was originally described in the project. We can see it now. Satoshi could not see this at the time when Bitcoin was developing. But now we can already see that the POW algorithm that Satoshi proposed contradicts the principles that Satoshi announced in his Whitepaper.
That is, the POW algorithm that Satoshi developed does not perform the functions that are conceived in the Bitcoin project. Now the rule is "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote" broken. It does not work. And I believe that this should be fixed. We need to make sure that the new POW algorithm meets the initial requirements of the Satoshi project !!!

no i don't. i actually live in a third world country ;)
but that is irrelevant. the problem is that you are  confusing bitcoin with some sort of charity which it is supposed to let anybody earn it for free without any "work".
not to mention that whether or not some poor people can mine bitcoin or not has NOTHING to do with centralization of mining and "satoshi principles" that you are talking about here.... and that was my point.

If you want to make the market happy you cannot change the base protocol every now and then and have a blind eye on the investors who spend millions to build farms to support the network from any attack and thereby earning the incentives and none of the algorithm are perfect and hence i do not want to see any change in the algorithm.
 
@OP i have no idea what Satoshi would have done if he knew that ASIC machines will be rule the mining industry and hence i cannot make a comment on that but my concept is that they are helping the network against attacks and that is the important thing in my view.

So only miners with lots of money can determine Bitcoin's future now... ???  I always thought FULL Nodes have a say too...  ::)  People are obsessed

with the "centralization" of Bitcoin mining and also the Chinese dominance, but other people from other countries are free to compete with them.

Why should the Chinese have all the dominance, when giant corporations in other countries can compete with them on a level playing field. The

developers and manufacturers in Silicon Valley are fast asleep, when there are huge potential to catch up with the Chinese.  >:(  Where are all the

GPU Manufacturers (Intel & AMD with their GPU/Mining combo cards?)  ::)

I kinda feel the same, this world is turning to a centralized world and only people with big money will rule everything. But it isn't end yet, Satoshi has given the idea of decentralization and invented Bitcoin as a little proof of his idea.

Now, it is our job to think how to improve and make the his idea as a complete real product.

And what kind of work was done by those who today contain the largest mining power? Did you buy or mine Bitcoin on time when it wasn’t worth anything? Is that the whole point?
Do not be fooled - this is not a "work". I have 18 years of experience in quarries - I know what real work is!

This is what is at stake. I can show you billions of people who cannot mine Bitcoin. And they never will can, because they do not have money to buy a miner.
Do you think that they do not have the right to do this because they are poor? But many who became rich on Bitcoin in 2011 - 2017 were also once poor. According to your words, it turns out that they did not have the right to mine Bitcoin and become rich.
Therefore, your views are contradictory and not sincere.

If ordinary computers (CPUs) will work in the network and there will be many of them, then they will also perfectly protect the network. But then they will not devour 8% of ALL electricity on Earth!

Ok
What do you say if I tell you that I came up with and developed such a POW algorithm that solves all these problems?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207996.0

My take on this issue is that those who took mining serious in early days (when Bitcoin can be mined using CPUs) get reward because of putting there trust on something that was struggling to get acceptance. Those who joined mining when Bitcoin got fame and acceptance have to invest huge money to get the benefit.

Your starting point is wrong, so, all the deductions is wrong as well. If you want to see the hash rate distribution, well, that's public information, so feel free to take a look at:

https://www.blockchain.com/pools

Until you see a pool with more than 51% of the network you can say mining is centralized.

Statistically it can be considered centralized. It all comes down to what that pool is doing with that majority hashrate. If they follow the economical model and don't inflict harm to the network, not much changes.

Only when they abuse their position in the network it becomes a problem. There is too much to gain by just following the rules of the economical model than to fuck up once and be a bad guy for ever. It's not rewarding enough.

You cannot call it a centralized process as anyone can join the mining process if you are able to spend money to participate in the issue of BTCitcoin and you cannot expect to have the share of the incentive without doing anything and if you want to participate you can still run the full node  ;).

You should create a time machine to go back and earn that right if not it is a capitalist market and you have to deal with it :P.

I think that you do not understand what centralization of mining means. It's about the right to issue Bitcoin. This is a matter of economic and social level. Bitcoin was not invented in order for several billionaires to become multi-billionaires. It was invented in order to free ALL MANKIND from the Central Banking System.
Now Bitcoin is like an ordinary Bank: big commissions, long transfers, Big Brother control ... This violates the principles that Satoshi announced in his Whitepaper.
And it needs to be fixed!

It has already happened once and can happen again.

It requires a lot of money. I have a computer, but I can not afford a miner. And many people in the world too. I do not refuse to have my computer do the calculations all day. He is already on around the clock. For example - torrent works constantly. Distributes ... But I can not connect to mining, because for this I need an expensive ASIC.
For this reason, I consider some people’s statements that “anyone can connect” are hypocritical. Not everyone lives in rich countries and has a large salary. However, the rich will never be sympathetic to the poor, which is why I asked a question. What are we doing? Resigning ourselves to what rules the rich have set for ALL? Or do we make the same rules for everyone ?? Did not Satoshi show in his Whitepaper that he was striving to make the same rules for EVERYONE?

1) Yes you are right. But the important thing is not that rich people can buy a lot of computers and mine a lot of coins. The important thing is that this does not make it impossible to mine the coins of all other people in the world! But now mining is available only to those who have a lot of money.

2) No. CPUs are being monopolized ALREADY. Moreover, a long time ago - long before the birth of Bitcoin.
It is much more important here that mining will no longer take away the lion's share of all produced electricity from the whole world.

3) You are mistaken ... :)
Look at what scheme a regular pool works:

http://i.piccy.info/i9/8d33c9eaf61c59d208a63fc91ad137ee/1575903340/133252/1351639/pools_1.jpg

Here, ordinary users are forced to look for a Hash in the WHOLE range of nonce values. And users who are connected to the pool search only in the selected segment. Hence the gain in the speed of finding a suitable hash and a greater total reward.

And now see how the pool will work if the POW algorithm is based on my algorithm:

http://i.piccy.info/i9/ed4eb9307e66b1433c782fc855c0d6d6/1575903500/138262/1351639/pools_2.jpg

Are you see? Ordinary users search EXACTLY in the same range of values as users who are connected to the pool.
So - there will be no gain from pool.

I'd say the same thing I always say.  Write the code, put it on a testnet, let people actually use it and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what you claim.  Until then, no one is seriously going to support a change of algorithm to something unknown and totally untested in the wild.

Normal people see it as an expensive item while business-minded people can see ways on getting that hardware on different ways without braking the bank. From buying second hand rigs to repairing them they can do anything on what they currently have just to participate on having a piece of that pie. Yes big mining farms are getting all the big pieces but they aren't the only ones benefiting from each block and lot of early adopters have gotten the biggest slices in the Bitcoin industry. If you still think that you can't afford to mine Bitcoin then I think it would be better for you just to buy them in an exchange and ride the trend for you to profit.
 

Mining is completely centralized. Now I'm going to ask you a question. Why are powerful miners gaining more? I think a system can be established where everyone will be equal. If each IP address gets a certain share. A system like this already exists. Lightnin Network. LN may be popular in the future. Not everyone has access to expensive mining equipment.

"One CPU one vote" just refers to voting on the current consensus, regarding the best blockchain. It's not a "vote" in a particularly meaningful or political sense. Miners are just abiding by the protocol, publishing blocks based on rational incentives. You would do exactly the same if you were a miner, so you're really not missing out on anything.

The industrialization of mining just means that for most of us, directly buying bitcoins is usually a better way to invest.

Am I not suggesting the same thing? Am I asking for a change?
Now it’s just about working out this algorithm and using it to fix all the flaws. Moreover, I think that no one will really change the core of Bitcoin, so my algorithm, most likely, can only get life in the form of Altcoin. However, we are talking about the fact that this Altcoin should become the new reincarnation of Bitcoin. Not the Bitcoin that we have now, but the one who saw Satoshi in his view.
In fact, I have already done a lot of work on this algorithm. If I continue to work on it alone, I will need a lot of time. Therefore, I turned to the community for help. I need specialists who can help implement this algorithm in Bitcoin, as well as a little financial support. For this reason, I’m trying to understand how much the modern crypto community needs it ... Is it ready to do something for the sake of improving Bitcoin ... Or it all ended with the banal desire to make more money from trading cryptocurrencies and mining.

I live in a country where there is a war and a severe economic crisis. I've already lost everything - property, housing, business. All that I have is my inventions and developments. Now I need to look for a way to survive. I have two options - either I will find financing for one of my projects, or I will have to leave for labor emigration to another country.
Therefore, the question is simple: is the modern crypto community ready to support the continuation of this development or not?
If I leave to work, I will spend 12 hours a day on hard work, for the sake of $ 500 a month salary. I will not have the strength to continue developing this project. He will stop.

In general - I made my contribution. I have devoted a lot of time to this issue over the past 3 years. I found the perfect solution for the POW protocol, which can change everything in the world of cryptocurrencies. And I would be glad if there were those who are ready to support this development.
Now I work alone and I need very little money to survive. And I am ready to limit myself to this and work on this project further. But without support, I cannot continue.
I hope for your understanding...
Thank you all.

Why not launch a gofundme campaign? Tell us more about your educational background etc. Also, Publish your code on github just like @DooMad said it will allow people to review your code and even improve it, Just like you want. Remember if your algorithm is really that good then expect donations and support from the community. Right now you sound disparate, you may have something which could change the mining scene but you need to be open about your work. You can't claim things without letting others review it. I wish you the best of luck, its a tough world out there.

Satoshi invented bitcoin. Satoshi showed a way. I'm thinking now. Have we been able to take Satoshi's philosophy forward? So are the developments positive or negative? Or are we still where we started? More people know about the blockchain. So which problem did he solve?

Lets say its true.
Bitcoin is people actually. People tend to forget that. There are 3 sides of this, Developers, Miners, Nodes operators/community. Each side works to benefit Bitcoin, if something is flawed or need fix/rework. People will do this, one of these groups or all of them at once.
Its perfect because its adjustable like people are, and thats why people succeed and they adapt to do so all the time.

What constitutes as the modern cryptocurrency community? The traders? Whales? Or a small bunch of developers and enthusiasts who actually care about the protocol? To be honest, the vast majority of the bitcoin community doesn't have the mentality to change anything or even follow what's being written by Satoshi. Take CoinBase for example. His solution is perfect? No. He gave you the basic architecture to start with? Yes! It's upto you to develop on top of it.

Or you can just stop using bitcoins and create your own coin or use one of those shit-coins out there? Speak for yourself.

I get what you're saying, but bitcoin wasn't created to move wealth from the rich to the poor. Whatever we do, people with more wealth will almost always have more opportunities. Found some opportunity to make more money? You bet they're going to grab that opportunity; and yes it applies with bitcoin mining. And not only with bitcoin, but with other cryptocurrencies too; and not only that, it's the same even with proof of stake!

Am I talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? No, I'm just saying that the poor must have a real opportunity to mine the cryptocurrency.
I’m not even saying that the rich could not mine anymore. Let thousands of computers buy and mine a lot of coins. But let the poor have the opportunity to mine at least what a single computer or smartphone that a poor person, or a poor family, can buy.

Can't you see what is happening now? Now the problem is that poor people can’t mine at all. A rich person just buys a miner and he already has a lot of cryptocurrencies. And the poor man cannot mine it, he can only buy it from the rich. And buy at the price that rich people put up on the crypto exchange. And they act in collusion and regulate prices in such a way as to extract everything from the poor to the last penny.

Don't you understand what I was talking about?

What is wrong with having a poor person mine cryptocurrency?
For example, I am poor. I have an incentive to do something useful. I have many inventions that I cannot realize because I am poor and rich people do not want to invest in high technology - they are looking for financial pyramids and various fraudulent projects with expensive advertising.
What will be bad if I can mine coins, which will bring me a little income, and at the same time, I can do development work useful for all people?
And now I do not have such an opportunity. I have to work stupid and hard work all day to earn a piece of bread. As a result, no one benefits from what I do.

Now ask yourself - will a rich person engage in development that is useful to all of humanity? To invent? Come up with? To create?
Not! He has no incentive. He is rich without it. He has everything. He only wants more money, but he does not want to create, to invent, to develop something.

But doesn’t it become better for rich people to live if poor people come up with something new? Why don't the rich allow the poor to at least slightly weaken the slave chain so that poor people can do more good for everyone?

I checked your idea. GoFundMe does not work in my country. Same issue with Kickstarter and Indiegogo. I can create a company, but I cannot withdraw money to my account.
I have many developments and inventions. I’ve been thinking about crowdfunding for a long time. But for now it is not available to me. I do not have good friends abroad who can accept money into their account and then transfer it to me. Therefore, I can not use the full power of crowdfunding platforms.

For me those characteristics are essential for a coin that want to reach the mass. It seems to me lots of people who went into bitcoin first is because they could mine it with their own hardware, and benefits from it even a little bit relatively to the total hash rate of the network. There was no exchange or KYC or anything, just need a cpu able to compute hashes at decent rate, and you could get some bitcoins.

Im not sure if Its only a problem of pow algorithm, but it seem fixing this would be a good step in the direction.

You sure this is correct ?

The stratum protocol add more nonces in the coinbase tx, with one unique nonce per worker, and the rolling happen in another nonce, the two are in the coinbase tx, additionally to the block header nonce.

All miners works on a full range nonce2, and have a unique nonce1 in the coinbase. So They all work on slightly different blocks with a full 32bits nonce range.

Not sure it affects the decentralisation principle or the main reasonning though :)

You're a newbie and clearly don't understand the point of mining. Hint: it's not creation of new coins, that's just a nice little side effect. The point of mining is synchronizing the network in such way that cheating is impossible, because it's unsustainable. It really doesn't matter how many entities are mining, they have no choice but to follow the rules of the network and don't try to cheat with forks. In fact, one CPU - one vote is less secure, because its easy to create botnets and attack the network for free with stolen hashpower.

Sure it's definitely unfortunate no doubt about that. But going back to my point, there's really nothing we can do about this. If a poor person can mine through a cellphone, what's stopping a rich person from mining through a thousand cellphones? If a poor person can start one business, what's stopping a rich person from opening a hundred businesses that can rival the poor person's business? Just examples. Unless you're going to KYC every single miner so  you can really know that you're limiting your users to a number of devices to limit the hashrate they're using, you really can't fix this, especially in a decentralized manner.

Why not tell us more about yourself here? Create a thread about yourself, your educational background and post it in the Project Development board. Your idea is a noble one. But I do see some problems with this concept. What if tomorrow AMD and Intel decided to hike up their CPU prices? The mining again will get out from the reach of the "poor". Basically you can't control the top 1% they will always end up in the power as they have the means to do so... Just look at the GPU shortages as an example. During the peak, the GPUs were going for almost double the standard price and it can happen with CPUs as well, that's what essentially happens in "Free-Markets". Supply and demand dictate the price. Even if you made your algorithms only to work on P4 (Pentium 4), The rich will get their hands on more P4s and we will end up in a similar situation. Some of my suggestions will be to create a milestone list, get an escrow a trusted one from the forum and let them handle your donations. So that they will release the donations once you reach your listed milestones. Again Good luck!

Normally the only thing they have power on is resolving double spents or delaying/censoring transaction.

pow is still good way to manage coin emission, and block reward is necessary if miners have to engage some operative cost to mine a block.

Already if he needs to buy 1000 smartphones to have 1000x the power of a smartphone its a win compared to scale effect of mining farm.

The cost/hash is totally unfair between ASIC/mining farm and common hardware today. If the cost/hash stay more linear with the investment cost its already something.

After its doesnt necessarily mean the network is "more secure" or more efficient compared to having centralized mining farm with the lowest cost/hash possible, with all the enterprise strategy behind each transistor for this dedicated purpose.

Even to me it seems making it less scalable in term of cost/hash will decrease the total hash power for a given block reward, but its also what can make it more profitable for those with small non scalable computers, who are not necessarily going to invest much into bitcoin or xcoin either.

Absolutely sure. It doesn't matter how much nonce is used during hashing. The main point. In my algorithm for EVERY miner, there is a cyclic range of values ​​that he needs to sort out. Therefore, the pool does not bring benefits. It is very important that this range is FIXED for each new hash. In the case of Bitcoin, this range is one for all. Even if you have selected a small part in it, it allows you to distribute the calculations on several machines, dividing this range into parts. But in my algorithm there is nothing to distribute and separate. Each checks ONLY his own range.


Oh, judging by your words, you are a "newbie." :)
You have the status of "legendary", but for all these years you still could not figure out what and how it works. And most importantly - you did not understand why Bitcoin was created at all.
Accept my sympathy.


It seems you do not want to understand the main thing. Well, I will try to explain as accessible as possible ...

Now only rich people can mine Bitcoin. ONLY THE RICH !!! And the poor can not !!!
Do you understand?
That is, the RICH now interfere with the POOR.

My suggestion is NOT that the rich have no right to buy 1000 computers and mine 1000 coins. My suggestion is that BOTH - the rich AND the poor have the opportunity to mine bitcoins.
Do you understand or not?


Yes, I will do as you say.

As for the processors. In fact, the problem is that no one wants to create their own product, everyone is used to being lazy. Everyone just wants to go to the store and buy. But Intel is not lazy - they do. Therefore, they can set market rules and dictate prices.
I have developed a CPU with a more productive architecture since 2004, then I won the first round of the inventors' competition in my country. But she is not interesting to anyone. Nobody wants to invest in this. And I'm too poor to pull such a project alone.
Want fast and cheap processors? No question - I have something to offer. Although at the moment, I would like to continue working on my neural processor - this topic is more interesting to me and it is more in demand on the market. Especially because there are no analogues in the world. (Do not consider tensor accelerators - this is not a neural processor).

Jeebus. Wasn't what I said clear enough? I never said that the rich and the poor shouldn't have equal opportunity to mine bitcoin. Re-read what I said. The rich will almost ALWAYS have better opportunities than the poor. That's how LIFE works; especially talking about decentralization. Yes, I don't like it either, but there's almost no way to circumvent this.

P.S. Also, the poor can still mine bitcoin. Just mostly not through home computers and most definitely not on smartphones. They just need better hardware and they need to be in a country with cheap enough electricity.

I think in this sense i understand, stratum just offer a bigger range to distribute over many miners, but with your algorithm its not possible to partition the work between different miners like a pool does. Not sure how much it affects the chance of finding a block for small miners but ok.

Pools can be a good thing too no ? They also allow small miners to earn more regulary no ?

My story.

My name is Vitaliy Viktorovich Monastyrskiy. I was born in the USSR in 1977. My father was a World War II veteran. In this war, he was seriously injured and became disabled. Therefore, he had a lot of time and opportunity to engage in my development and education. When I was 1.5 years old, he taught me to read and count. At 3 years old, I already knew how to compose poetry. At 4, I learned to solve various mathematical and logical problems. Since then, I have loved the exact sciences.
In 1984, I entered the Lyceum of Information Technology. At the Lyceum we studied computer science, algorithmic language, DOS operating system, programming languages Basic and Pascal. I took part in olympiads in physics, mathematics and programming, I won chess tournaments. In 1990, I was the representative of my republic at the international conference of pioneer children, which was held in Artek. Then I thought that my life was determined and the future was known. I planned to engage in theoretical nuclear physics and become a famous scientist ...
But life turned out differently.
In 1991, when I was still studying at the Lyceum, the USSR was destroyed. In my country, poverty and hunger have come. All education became paid and was very expensive. Only the children of wealthy parents could enter good institutions and universities. Therefore, when I finished studying at the Lyceum in 1994, I had no other way and I went to work in a quarry like ordinary stonecutter. After 1 year, they took me to serve in the army. In our country, it is forced.
After the army, I again had to work in the quarries in order to survive. But I wanted to change my life and the lives of other people. Therefore, I began to develop a new ideology that would help people change their lives, global world order and save humanity from self-destruction. In the day I went to work in a quarry for a piece of bread, and in the evening I went to the library, took interesting books, studied and thought - how to change the world for the better.
In those years, my country was in a very difficult economic situation. But it allowed to earn a lot of money if you engage in banditry, steal and deceive people. I could not afford it. So I was looking for a way - how to make money honestly. Already at that time I had several inventions and I decided to take part in the competition of inventors, which was in my country in 2004. It was called "Have an Idea." I was able to win the first round of this competition and hoped that the sponsors of the competition would notice me and want to finance my inventions ...
But at the end of 2004, a revolution was made in my country. And all my plans collapsed.
Then I decided that I should finance my inventions myself. It needed a lot of money. Therefore, I began to work more to open my own business. And I began to succeed. I was able to make money and buy my own tool. Thanks to this, I was able to open my small business. I began to work for myself. At that time, I already had a car that I bought on credit, and I began to assemble my first CNC machine. I planned to start their production and sale. I thought I could work a little more and I could secure my inventions. The business developed and I even took one assistant to me ...
But in 2008, the global financial crisis began and I became bankrupt.
For many years I repaid debts to banks. There was little work and it was difficult to earn. But in 2012, things began to improve. At that time, the first 3D printers began to appear. I understood that this was a breakthrough in technology. All 3D printers were amateur at the time. Large companies also made 3D printers, but they were very expensive. I knew that anyone who could develop a cheap but very high-quality industrial-grade printer would become a millionaire. And I was able to develop such a printer, which in its characteristics could be the best at that time. I collected the last money, borrowed a part from my friends and bought components for its assembly. It seemed to me that this time I would definitely succeed, because my StartUp at that time was on the crest of a wave ...
But in 2013, a new revolution began in my country. And this time she came not alone. She took war with her.
I actively protested against the war and therefore I was sent to prison. For 2 years I was a political prisoner. During this time I sold everything that I had - business, property, housing, and special services confiscated my computer equipment.
When I was released in 2016, I had nothing - just clothes ... It's good that I had good friends who helped and settled down me to live with one of my friends.
The war continued and created an ever stronger economic crisis in the country. And I was already old, my health was undermined by hard work in the quarries and the term in prison, so I could no longer work in the quarries. I needed to come up with a way - how to quickly earn a lot of money in order to immediately solve many problems. And it was at this time that ICOs became popular ...

It was a good chance to get start-up capital in order to develop your own business. Then I decided to submit one of my developments, which could interest the crypto community on the ICO.
At first it was a stable-coin project that contained unique algorithms to solve the problems of a large blockchain, which occupied hundreds of gigabytes. I called it VenusGEET. I again asked my friends for help and they raised a small amount of money so that I could start developing this project. But when I finished making the site, the project’s symbolism and the project’s token, it was already the end of 2017, Bitcoin collapsed and at the same time funding for ICO projects stopped.
You need to understand that the project of this stable coin was not commercial and could not bring direct profit to anyone. He had a all-people orientation. Therefore, we could not collect a single cent.

Then I thought that maybe investors will become more generous if they are offered a project that will allow them to earn a lot of money in a short time. And then I submitted one of my inventions to the ICO. It was the development of the fastest Bitcoin miner in the world - the VenusMINE project. In it, I applied ideas from my processor, which I proposed back in 2004 to the competition of inventors. A technical calculation showed that these miners can be 3 times faster than Bitmain or Canaan miners.
But it was a revolutionary architecture and no one was able to understand its advantages. Therefore, all that we were able to collect was $ 5000, of which about 3000 were given by our friends and relatives, and another $ 2000 by business angels. This money allowed me to finish developing the kernel architecture and port it to Verilog code. But then things stopped, because further the project required large investments - $ 200,000, which are needed to order test chips at the factory in Taiwan. Nobody wanted to invest so much money in this project. All investors chose to donate their money to a financial pyramid called BitConnect and other fraudulent projects like Envion.
I don’t know why, but investors consider my project “scum”, although it shows an innovative idea and development. At the same time, frank fraudulent schemes that are clearly visible, which have no innovations, no inventions, no development, but only expensive advertising and empty promises, are considered by investors to be “cool projects”.
I don’t know why this is happening ... Apparently rich people who easily earned their money want to lose it just as easily.

OK.
Summarize.
My miner project was frozen due to lack of funding. My friend, who helped me do it, was forced to leave for another country to earn money. In my country, war is still going on and the economic situation is getting worse. Millions of people leave their homeland and flee to other countries in order to survive.
And now I have a choice:
or I will find financing for one of my projects,
or I will have to leave for labor emigration to a foreign country in order to survive ...

And I decided to use the last chance ...
So, I have 3 good projects.

1) This is VenusMINE - the fastest miner in the world. This project requires $ 200,000 investment. I know that no one wants to invest it, but anyway, I have to mention it, because it already exists.

2) This is a POW algorithm that can solve the problem of mining centralization. This project is not commercial; it cannot bring profit to investors. But this project can bring good to many poor people around the world.

3) FPNA - a programmable neural processor that allows you to test any architecture of neural networks. This is the technology of the future. Now, not a single large company in the world (Intel, AMD, IBM, Samsung, Google, Tesla, etc.) has been able to come to this idea. Now they make only tensor accelerators of neural networks. But this is a weak idea. There is no future for them.
I'm talking about technology that the world already needs, but which does not yet exist. Smart cars and planes need it in order to create a better autopilot. It is needed by human-like robots so that they can replace people in hard work. Ordinary gamers need it to make artificial intelligence in games look like a real person ...
And I know how to do it. I have already begun work on a behavioral model.

So, what do I need to continue working on these projects. For this, a little funding of about $ 500 per month is enough for me. If the crypto community can provide me this money, then I can continue to work on these projects.

Now you have 3 options:
1) If you hate me personally, you can just put the label "scumer" on me and forget about it.

2) If you are ready to help and do not want anything in return, you can transfer a small amount to one of my wallets. I will be very grateful for your support.

3) But if you want to take part in the creation of future technologies, you can fix your investments with the help of tokens of our project.
I propose the following scheme. Every month I will put out 500 tokens at $ 1 per token for sale. Thus, I can receive investments, but at the same time, each investor will have confirmation of their investments.
You ask - what is the use of this?
OK. I will tell. In exchange for these tokens, you can become the first recipients of the technologies that I will develop. For example, when I finish work on the bitstream for FPGA chips, you can be the first to get it and by buying an FPGA card you can start experimenting with neural networks. This is very interesting, I assure you.
Then, when we make real chips, you can get the very first PCI cards for your computers for our tokens. It will be similar to how some people bought the first computers in the 70s. Only this time you will buy the first brains for artificial intelligence.

I think such a scheme is very good. You do not need to invest a lot of money. While development is under way, a fairly small salary is for me. Token will be stable = $ 1. Every month you can see the results of the month. This will allow you to make sure that I am honest. All your deposits will be stored with you in the form of tokens, so no one will forget about your investments. You will be the first to know about the success of our startup. And you will be the first to get the right to test products, prototypes and real samples.

OK.

Now you need proof that I am a real person. To do this, I’ll shoot a short video where I will show all my documents and give confirmation that this is my project. OK?

You also need evidence that I can really do what I say. To do this, I will post here my kernel source files for VenusMINE. You will see that I did not spend the money of investors in vain. I did a great job - there are 25130 lines of code. And it works!
I will also post my algorithm code for POW. However, for this I need a little time, since my code is now in a messy form. You must understand - this is working code. I will collect it together, give comments and post it as soon as it is ready. OK?

I think my offer is honest and open. As soon as I post the POW code, you will have everything you need to decide whether you will finance my development or not.

Ok This is the source code of my miner core. You can make sure.
I’ll take off the video now, post it on YouTube and give a link ...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lN33I01WPafyQy8mJ3Pa1sC6jauDPmqM/view?usp=sharing

First and foremost, I don't really think I agree with you on the argument that mining is centralized. Do you really understand how the entire system of mining works ? please you need to eleborate the basic reasons why you thing is centralized in the first place. Because I think a lot of people on this forum wanna know what exactly you have seen to finally conclude on this.

Myself introduce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN5lilgqm9E&feature=youtu.be

It’s hard for me to understand what you cannot understand in the word “centralization”. All mining is in the hands of a small group of very wealthy farmers. Farmers are controlled by the government of the country in which their mining farms are located. The governments of different countries are controlled by the international government. This is centralization.
So that mining is not called centralized, it must be decentralized. Decentralized mining is when anyone can participate in mining using their own computer or smartphone. This cannot be controlled. The government here is powerless.

If you do not agree with this, I can do nothing about it. A rich man who does nothing useful but sits on a big mountain of gold can also call himself a “hard worker”. But the truth is that the real workers are those who mined this gold from the mine. And one lazy person cannot get a whole bunch of gold. Therefore, when one farmer owns a mining farm of 1000 THash, and millions of people around the world cannot even get 1 satoshi, then this is not fair. And Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin to overcome this problem. But this problem overcame both Bitcoin and Satoshi.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter to me whether you agree with me or not that Bitcoin is centralized. It is centralized. It is a fact. But you can not admit it, you have the right to it.

You obviously don’t understand what it means to be poor. You think that the poor one is the one who drives an old car and receives $ 2000 per month, from which he can allocate $ 500 to buy an old unprofitable miner ... But this is your misunderstanding.
A poor person is one who thinks every day what to buy food for. But you will not understand. I propose to stop discussing this issue. You are too far from the real situation in the world.

You are absolutely right, I have already talked about this. Pools needed. Moreover, an ideal network should work as one large pool, otherwise each miner will be able to receive a reward no more than once every few years. But this technology will not allow to gain an advantage in computing using the pool.

I think i understand a bit now, i answered also in the other thread.

From what i understand the chain is constructed in sort that there can be only one long sequence of operation for a given block height, so its not based on scanning a rangé of value with a statistical chance each round, but a deterministic set of rounds to solve the problem, and no partition can be computed in parrallel as each round dépend on the precedent one, it cant be made faster by breaking the work on different miners who can work in //.

I think the picture is wrong actually :) its not even based on hash.

That's a nice idea, but it clashes with basic economics and the incentives underlying Bitcoin. The fundamental premise of proof-of-work mining is that miners engage in a costly and time-consuming process which can be easily verified. The whole point is that it's expensive for miners to produce POW but nearly free for users to verify.

Take that model to its natural conclusion. Increased competition leads to lower margins and higher costs, as difficulty rises. This forces smaller, "poorer" miners who cannot scale up their operations out of the market.


It's not up to us. It's a market mechanism. Miners are driving the hash rate up because buyers are bidding up the price of bitcoins. If demand for bitcoins keeps rising, so too will mining expenditures.

OK. Let's count.
At the moment, the Bitcoin network has a capacity of 100 EH/s. This number is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 H/s. Antminer T9 has 11.5 TH/s = 11 500 000 000 000 H/s.
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 / 11,500,000,000,000 = 8,695,652 miners.
Each T9 miner consumes 1690 watts.
8 695 652 * 1690 = 14 695 652 173 W/h.
Now multiply by hours and days.
14 695 652 173 * 24 * 365 = 128 733 913 043 478 W/h/year.
But this is not an exact figure, because miners are different. The network still has a lot of old miners that consume much more electricity than the T9 or S9.

Now add to this number the mining of other cryptocurrencies. The farms on the graphics cards are so hot that some people use them as heating in the winter. Even if we just assume that this is the same consumption as the Bitcoin network, then we get that the total energy consumption that is used for mining = 128 733 913 043 478 W/h/year.

World output as of 2016 = 24,816,000,000,000,000 W/h/year. Transmission loss is about 20%. Thus, total consumption cannot be more than 20,000,000,000,000,000 W/h/year.
To division ...
20,000,000,000,000,000 / 128,733,913,043,478 = 155 parts.
100% / 155 = 0.65%

That is, now at least 0.65% of all the electricity that is consumed in the world goes only to mining. And this number is constantly growing. After 2 years, it will grow to 5%. After 10 years, up to 30%.

Now, if we completely turn off all the miners, and all the network maintenance work will be assigned to computers that are constantly working (because we already use them for other tasks), then all these energy costs can simply disappear.

No, you just do not understand it correctly. Ok, when I have time, I will redraw this diagram more clearly + add numbers. Maybe then you will understand.

This is a simplified representation of the difference between a regular pool and a pool that will work with my algorithm.
Ok, I understand that everyone wants a more detailed explanation. Let me finish the code, publish it, and then explain in more detail what is happening. OK?

You wanted to say that it contradicts the capitalist economy, in which all interests are concentrated on the needs of the rich? Yes! :)
You wanted to say that it violates the incentives of Bitcoin? No!
You do not understand the reasons why Bitcoin was created. This is the philosophy of crypto-anarchists, not bankers and merchants.

Bitcoin was amazing years ago as everything until it gets abused, once it gets abused, it losts it's magic. In past bitcoin had very low fees, you could use exchanges and etc without KYC documents, mining was profitable at home, in overall everything was amazing, even anonymity (now they know more).
In overall money was always releasing money.

Buying 1-2 asic miner isn't that expensive but here he talks about mining farms, the ones which Bitmain and Bitfury has. Well, they deserve this at some point cause they invest in more researches to build better miners and in overall they create this miners. But I can't agree with you when you say that they believe in bitcoin, no man, they don't care about it, the only motive here is money that they can get with this business. There aren't bitcoin supporters.

I would like everyone who says so to try to do this in practice, living in countries where the salary is $ 100 per month with a 12-hour working day ...

Pools are centralized, but one can switch pools easily.

No one has a "right" to participate.  If you have something of value to offer, then it is a permission-less entry, if you have nothing of value to offer, no one should be forced to let you participate at their cost.  If you want to mine, earn money and buy miners.

If mining is truely centralized the way you described it, the best option would be to decentralize or ban mining completely, otherwise the central forces will move to other things to centralize.

I'd prefer a situation where mining is suspended for the time being and maybe replaced with better alternatives. One of my favorite alternatives is rewarding the new miners with non-financial incentives like points/merits, ranking up in decentralized communities, more privileges etc. The rewards like points should only be used within the bitcoin communities.

"Well fed is not a friend to one who is hungry."
Russian folk proverb.

I understood your idea. Your idea would be good if it would solve another problem: how to carry out the issue of coins? That is, if we do not issue coins as a reward for block mining, then how to issue them in the economic circulation environment? Who and by what rules will these coins receive? Have you thought about this?
At the moment, Bitcoin is a comprehensive solution that takes into account both technical implementation and economic tasks. In the case of “intangible rewards,” economic challenges are lost. Therefore, your solution is not comprehensive.

Im also studying different system for this, originally i come from distributed system, and blockchain is a very Nice way to solve the byzantine problem while keeping the system decentralized and without relying on trusted party.

For me the area where blockchain are supposed to be king is for digital economy, everything that can hold value and being digitalized can be put into a blockchain environment.

With this idea there can be many way to earn outside of mining. And coin price would be adjusted to the price that services provider require for their service.

Someone sent me a pdf also where it shows how this economy could work with token emission based on value of services/goods available throught the blockchain. Its the only economic model that really make sense to me. And it fit better into a classic share scheme, as share value grow with the network.

For energy grid or such the model can become relatively simple without requiring mining to emit token.

But it needs an economy outside of only trading coin exchange market.

The mining is then only to force chain progress and select branches.

Taking the biggest example on Satoshi will be the same as you innovate and try something different from his principles.

His actions, implementations, changes on this cryptocurrency world made everyone think about it in many different perspectives.
You have real life modifications / situations adopting the network changes such as security, cryptocurrencies usage and many more.

Those are the biggest principles he left us and we shouldn't forget.

This people made me laugh, what do they think of Satoshi? a god? who is omniscient? Nakamoto is very clever for doing such a digital currency, we are having it right now but it has flaws coz there is nothing in this world created perfectly or to be perfect. There will and there will be imperfect things that can do the work and that made us human.


I guess what he meant for centralized is some kind of group mining. He might listened or reading Peter Schiff shitty articles lol.

We can't say there is a single farm that is controlling all the mining. In fact, there are hundreds of farms that are doing bitcoin mining. So i completely rule out the fact that mining is centralized. Mining is still open to everyone who is willing to invest his time and money into it.

I'm not entirely convinced satoshi did get it wrong.  I think people are just taking those words too literally.  Note the use of the word "essentially".  To me, that implies satoshi was merely outlining a general concept, not issuing some sort of decree that it had to mean each user could only use a single CPU.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been anything in the code that attempts to restrict usage in that way.

True, it's likely satoshi didn't envision Pools, GPU mining or ASICs happening quite as rapidly as they did.  Mining did become an arms race rather suddenly.  But I'm sure those words were never intended to be some sort of mantra to explicitly follow.

At the beginning its still this way it was understood by lot of users, that mining is equal to voting, and its what made bitcoin attractive to large public, not that it become a sort of mining oligarchy who extract all the profits.

What satoshi wanted and in which measure he anticipated how it turned is never very clear , but few years ago when it started to soar its mostly like this it was presented even if maybe satoshi already anticipated that mining would become a specialised industry.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13494495#msg13494495 thread resurection :)

Bitcoin mining will use itself up after a while because Bitcoin has a mining limit. Bitcoin is the top coin because of self-confidence, but not because of all of Satoshi's principles, his system isn't perfect. If you want something better use altcoins

I think the entire crypto industry agrees to a larger extent that Proof of Work is definitely not the best of blockchain consensus mechanisms due to the possibility of its being easily centralized. For this reason even Ethereum one of the world's popular blockchain has switched proof of stake mechanism as this makes the blockchain network very decentralized and void of any centralization. We need to improve upon what Satoshi built folks.

The whitepaper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) explains why Bitcoin was created:


Bitcoin was created to cut third parties (like banks) out of financial transactions. Miners are just a means to that end. Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated, but Bitcoin's design doesn't lend itself to that.

At least we are "identifying" that mining has become "concentrated", The top mining pools will BTW disagree with your statement :P The 1st step towards fixing something is identifying something is wrong... The worse thing which could happen is we let these things slip by till its too late to fix. Although I believe with "code" its never too late.

BTW I don't see anything wrong with OP's idea of everyone being able to mine. Mining if his algo works and that is a big if at this point, becomes a mere game of luck compared to what is now a current display of One's fortune, unfortunately. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, although bitcoin's original motive wasn't redistribution of wealth, it was to take power away from the top 1% or "Centralization" in a nutshell... Moving towards an algo which is more based on "Luck" than what we have now could help with Redistribution of wealth aswell.
 
Giving it a second thought I wonder how the price would react if bitcoin mining becomes a game of mere luck compared to what it is now. Right now one could argue bitcoin's price is directly linked with how much energy it is required to mine them, what happens when it becomes a game of luck rather than a competition of who has the more hashing power...

The biggest "if".  Considering things may not have turned out quite as envisioned with how Bitcoin has evolved over time, there can be no guarantees that any any new algo would hold to its intended purpose either.  Incentive has a curious way of shifting the balance and discovering new paradigms.  It could unfold entirely in contrast to how any of us might imagine it playing out, assuming it was ever changed.  That said, there are those who (arguably quite wisely), see a change of algorithm as a nuclear option.  Something we only do as a last resort if all else has failed.  But there's certainly no reason why alternative algos can't be developed and thoroughly tested as a precaution.

Whether it's even a problem at all is an eternal question. In 2014, GHash.IO exceeded 51% of the hash rate. There was no 51% attack, but the community took it as a wake-up call and GHash.IO's share of the hash rate perpetually fell thereafter.

For years, trolls have been fearmongering (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201630.msg53080551#msg53080551) about the likelihood of collusion among the top pools to attack Bitcoin. Yet, this threat has never materialized.

Miners can quickly leave malicious pools, and mining pool administrators have strong financial incentives not to destroy their business with such an attack. These economic realities have been enough to secure the system thus far.

Remember also, 51% attacks don't give miners that much power. At worst, they can censor transactions and perform difficult-to-coordinate double spend attacks -- at great cost.

Indeed. As for the rest, I agree with you. We can never be certain about how things will roll out but having "Backups" doesn't hurt anyone which is why things like "Quantum resistant" algos are being developed.

---

@squatter it doesn't have to be 51% attacks, Just look at what happened with the bitcoin tx fees when we were "mooning". Miners can definitely extort whatever fees they want... They can basically hold the network hostage. It has nothing to do with being a troll... Dismissing them won't resolve what's currently possible. Also, Past behaviour isn't a really good point to argue from iyam. "Just because we saw 1000 black swans doesn't mean white swans don't exist."

For a 51% attack its not really a problem, as long as mining interest is aligned with user interest, its not a problem.


Eventually it make it weaker against government control, raids or so, if bitcoin really needed mining farm to work Well it would still be vulnerable To crack down censorship like Napster.

And the other problem is mining profitability for small miners and the politics of it.

It's not miners who are driving fees up. They have strong incentive to fill blocks as much as possible. Due to limited block space, fees will always rise as transaction volume increases.

It's users employing horrible fee estimation -- including exchanges like Bitmex (https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490591264497664) -- that drives fees up so much. Lots of exchanges weren't batching transactions in 2017 (and still aren't), which greatly exacerbated the congestion.

In theory in more decentralized mining you could increase the chance of a tx with small or no fees to be mined at some point, either because some miners dont have the same txs, or because they dont sort the memory pool on tx fees, because they are not mining 100% for maximizing profits etc

In time of congestion the fees are almost the only way To establish a priority on transactions, and miners who have entreprise mentality on block mining Will always seek To maximise their profits, if mining work can be capped like this proposal, driving mining cost down and forcing it low, or at reasonable cost on common hardware, its not the same pressure on profitability either.

Guys, I'm sorry I don't answer. I am now busy creating explanations for my algorithm and source code. Therefore, I will answer everyone who wrote to me when I finish this question. OK?

Today I added a few pictures to the description of the main topic according to my algorithm, maybe this will help you better understand my algorithm.

Next, I plan to post the first video in which I will show the code of my algorithm and explain how it works. Wait a bit and I will do it. I think I’ll be in time today.

The principles and traditions of cryptocurrencies must be preserved, we must remember Satoshi.

Well, that's one way to put it but the reality is the pools do decide which TX goes through and which doesn't, Just look at how many Transaction Accelerators exist already today. They are essentially acting as "Banks" if you are willing to pay "Top dollar" your transaction gets through within minutes. It isn't far-fetching that these pools can decide not to accept transactions below X amount of fees once the mining reward goes down... There is nothing stopping miners to extort fees if they want...

Ring Bit Function. 1 part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-G6itsHpU&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-G6itsHpU&feature=youtu.be)
An explanation of the new POW algorithm, which I call the Ring Bit Function (RBF), with C ++ code examples.

I'm not sure that's a function of mining centralization. I think it has more to do with how capital-intensive mining is, which in turn is a function of market demand for bitcoins.

The extreme example is when Bitcoin was CPU-minable and the mining costs were almost imperceptible. Profitability is not a concern when sunk costs barely exist. That dynamic drastically changes when it costs thousands of dollars just to buy a single miner, not to mention the other overheads involved. Naturally, hobby miners get forced out of the market, and a purely profit-motivated industry emerges.

like any business would, miners are maximizing their revenue and profit. that's why they are miners at all---to make money. we shouldn't blame them for that. bitcoin was intentionally designed to leverage this greed to prevent censorship and interference by 3rd parties. we pay miners to mine our transactions.

in turn, users compete with one another to get their transactions confirmed. when more and more people are racing to get confirmed in the next block, they start bidding higher and higher fees.

can you blame the miners for taking them? :D

if they really wanted to extort higher fees, they would implement fee minimums and soft limits on block size. instead, they consistently mine full blocks, including 1 sat/byte transactions.

For me its the product of total hash rate skyrocketting, above the level of what the total hash rate of the users of the network would be, which is only possible due to centralisation of the mining power.

The thing is the mining cost for those who have the specialised hardware is probably very low, so its not like the mining really is more expansive in the absolute, its expansive on general purpose hardware.

Whatever is better and whatever is beneficial to all, I think that is what we need to do. Satoshi Nakamoto's principle is good but it is a fact that it is not perfect. If we can come up with something that somehow still have the original idea but enhanced and improved, I am sure that it will be a better one.

@figmentofmyass That's really a skewed way to put it. Miners can't solo mine, that's a fact. In the current environment, Miners are being forced to work in the pools. I would rather question why no one has challenged this "pool" concept so far. It's the 1st step towards centralization iyam. Once these people form alliances what I have stated before becomes a reality. These pools can/already dictate which TXs go through and which don't. That is too much power for something which is technically decentralized...

As for filling the blocks that's not really a strong argument. Once the chunk of miner's earning is coming from the Fees there is literally nothing stopping them to only include transactions which they want. Consider this in the future. Let's say Coinbase becomes "huge" in the future and they make a "deal" with these pools that they will only include Coinbase's TXs into the blocks they form and will reject any other TXs. It leads to further Centralization of Bitcoin, what's currently stopping this to happen? As far as I know, there is no mechanism in place which will prevent this from happening...

I think you've pointed out why -- because solo mining is untenable for most miners. Not all, but most.

P2Pool (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool) emerged as a way to challenge mining centralization by allowing for hash pooling without centralized payouts. It never caught on for multiple reasons covered here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921093.msg10118511#msg10118511
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921093.msg10126962#msg10126962


In practice, pools operate as expected. They order transactions based on fee rate. That's exactly how Bitcoin was designed -- with transaction revenue rising to replace the mining subsidy as incentive for honest mining. I don't see the problem here.

Miners have always had the power to decide which transactions get confirmed. It's not just pools.


There was never anything stopping them from doing that.


That seems unlikely. Coinbase doesn't want to pay more than the market demands, and mining pools don't want to give up fee revenue if they don't have to.

Anyway, miners should include whatever transactions they want. That's how the protocol works.

Ring Bit Function. 2 part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir9Ptfg0Nbg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir9Ptfg0Nbg&feature=youtu.be)
In this part we make a chain of RBF rings.



The point is not how motivated the mining industry is. It is also not a matter of how much the miner bears the costs in order to start mining coins. Many of you miss the most important understanding that mining in modern Bitcoin is precisely the extraction of coins. But in conceptual Bitcoin, mining is EMISSION technology. Do you understand what emission is? Why is it needed? By what rules should it be conducted?
That is the whole point.


Has already! :) I developed it. It remains only to implement in cryptocurrencies.


We can make a reasonable move. We can restart Bitcoin from scratch. For all. As it was with Monero. But already with my POW algorithm. And after some time it will be possible to see how much ASIC farmers will earn ... :) When all the users who fill it with real money leave the centralized Bitcoin, ASIC farmers will immediately understand the real value of this idea. Then no one will keep users on a short leash ... and Satoshi will be able to sleep peacefully ...
What do you think about this?

No there isnt.

Name one.

OK. I suggest restarting Bitcoin with the CPU_ONLY POW algorithm.

http://i.piccy.info/i9/bc169c2bbd12abf2b4f2b227e373901c/1576316901/284341/1351639/new_bitcoin.jpg

What do you think - what name should we give to him?

My options are:
New Bitcoin
ReStrart Bitcoin
Bitcoin RS (from ReStart)
Bitcoin 2020 (date to start since)
Bitcoin FEB (from "For EveryBody")
Bitcoin 4eb (like variant)
NewBit
Bitcoin CPU

Which option do you like more? Or offer your ...

@squatter, But the real world suggests otherwise. Monopolies in real-world do all sorts of shady stuff to eliminate competition. Things like Price slashing, Preventing competition to emerge, do happen in the real world. Just look at Intel for an example. They had a monopoly in the CPUs market but now when AMD is coming back with Solid stuff, They have slashed their prices by almost 50%. So in my scenario, Coinbase paying a premium to eliminate competition is quite possible and just like you said there is nothing which can prevent this, In real world at least there are regulators which monitor this sort of behaviour, but with Bitcoin, there is nothing monitoring this. I feel like this is an area which can be further developed.

I will expand on my example, Let's say Coinbase in the future decided to eliminate the lighting network. It makes a "deal" with the pools to not accept any "closing" TX from the Lightning Networks to establish itself as an instant way to send bitcoin payments with current mechanism this can happen. I feel like a better model can be developed or a mechanism can be developed which will prevent this.

What are you suggesting -- regular hard forks like Monero that will brick ASIC miners? That would swap mining centralization for development centralization and greatly diminish Bitcoin's POW security.


Sure, I just don't think that applies in this case. There is no monopoly here.

You're suggesting that exchanges and miners would collude to form a monopoly. For the reasons stated above, that would go against the financial interests of both parties.


Why would Coinbase pay a premium when a whole network of miners will do it at the market price? ???


There is no incentive for miners nor Coinbase to enter into a deal like this. The fee market is the optimal way for miners to maximize fee revenue. It's also the optimal way for users to minimize fees paid.

You can pay 10 satoshis per byte to get in the next block, or you can pay 1 satoshi per byte and let higher paying customers go ahead of you. The choice is yours as a user.

Miners are much more predictable. They will operate by profit motive. This is a feature, not a bug.

Why do constant hard fork? My POW algorithm cannot be used advantageously on ASIC / GPU / FPGA. There is no need to change it. It will work without changes throughout the life of New Bitcoin. Check out the gist of my algorithm:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207996.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207996.0)

There are other alternatives to Proof of Work which will eliminate the monopoly currently experience in Bitcoin mining. One such is being provided by ELROND where everybody has a chance to propose with random mechanism and requires just 2GB with 2 core CPU to run.

It need not to be original at all, because all of the improvements that we have currently on the market right now is mainly a product of all mixed ideas combined to generated better outputs. Bitcoin might not be the best crypto that could handle the most efficient transaction, but with the time we have, there still always a chance to develop a cryptocurrency that could handle the insufficiency that bitcoin has.

And to say, everyone needs satoshi principles, and also, satoshi's bitcoin also need the principles of others for the sake of development and improvement of what we have right now.

Ring Bit Function. 3 part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7NmuZXbdU&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7NmuZXbdU&feature=youtu.be)
An explanation of the new POW algorithm, which I call the Ring Bit Function (RBF), with C ++ code examples. In this part we will masking our chain of RBF rings.


Proof of Stake is not a solution for all people. This is a solution for the rich. In addition, the main essence of money is that it should work, not lie dead weight. Proof of Stake makes people stop using cryptocurrencies or real money and just keep them in real estate. This is the death of the economy.

Therefore, Elrond will not really help anyone solve the problems of modern cryptocurrencies. This is a half measure. In addition, there are limitations to using Elrond that require the minimum necessary processing power.

For my algorithm, there are generally no restrictions on the used computing power. It can even be performed on an Arduino. This is REAL EQUALITY of all people in the world.

Interesting. I don't understand the technical details well enough to judge, but I'm inherently skeptical of the claim that the algorithm cannot be parallelized and thus that ASICs would be impossible.

I'd like to see what some of the experts in Development & Technical Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0) have to say.

It cannot be parallelized, and its hard to make specialzed hardware who can beat a 1 cycle instruction, that would be really splitting hairs, and clock frequency its pretty much capped to common hardware.

There can be other problems with it, but i think they can be solved with good security.

Not sure if it can all work out together but it worth a try :)

But this is true - it cannot be solved in parallel.
But I sent a request for technical expertise to where you asked.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5209849.new#new (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5209849.new#new)

The moderators deleted this thread, so I can no longer help you with your question. Now you must find out yourself what some of the experts in Development & Technical Discussion think about it.

I don't know what we are arguing about, I think we are on the same page but we are viewing it from a different perspective. While we agree that miners are motivated by "Profit", this can be used to create a monopoly that's all I'm suggesting. I never said this is a bug but rather can act as a means to create something which does not ascribe to the values of decentralization. For example, Exchange X wants to monopolize itself as the only exchange where you can Buy/Sell Cryptos, it can by simply making an "agreement" with pools to not even include TXs from Exchange Y, even if Exchange Y is willing to pay the same amount of fees. That's where I see the issue is. That's where the centralization can happen. By Allowing miners to select which payment goes through and which don't, it basically facilitates the way for centralization to happen.

Today I will finish with my POW algorithm and make a proposal to restart Bitcoin. In this new implementation, I will propose fixating commissions for transactions and the problem with greedy miners will disappear.

No, money prints money, but in cryptocurrency it is different. Bitcoin will always be recognized as the investor’s favorite business, the present. Bitcoin does not attract money, it creates them.