Even if, by some fluke, the Bitcoin community — developers, miners, and users — agreed to the hard fork, such a change would then open another can of worms. Now that the Bitcoin network would be able to identify a particular block's miner(s) at the consensus layer, and now that the Bitcoin community has been emboldened by a successful hard fork that supposedly mitigated the centralization of mining power, what's there to stop Bitcoin from undergoing new forks (soft or hard) that prevent certain miners from mining new blocks once they are deemed to have too much mining power? While this may seem like a good thing on its surface — mining pools would be further disincentivized from amassing more than 50% of Bitcoin's mining power — this essentially introduces an element of censorship into the network at the consensus layer and sets a precedent for further censorship. Mining pools would, of course, evade such censorship by splitting up their mining power to appear to the network as multiple discrete entities — i.e., a Sybil attack.
Thanks. I didn't know there are so much issues when we need to know hash power and pool details. |
|
|
|
|
As I said this started with the assumption that it's possible to know hash power and pool details. If that's impossible then this solution is useless in its current form.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
|
|
|
|
The block has to be accepted by all nodes (consensus). Proof-of-work is one such consensus scheme: nodes on the Bitcoin network verify that block hashes are valid and meet the required difficulty. You're suggesting proof-of-bottom-50% for the altcoin reward but there is no viable verification method for it.
E.g. if Antpool mines a block Coinbase has to accept it otherwise you wouldn't be able to transact those mined coins with Coinbase.
block_1 - antpool mines this altcoin block, because they mined bitcoin block_1 block_2 - pool-x mines on top of block_0, because they will check last 144 blocks and see antpool already mined say, 20% blocks. top 50% pools consist of 3 pools; antpool (20%), pool-y (16%), pool-z (15%). antpool really gains by splitting into 2? I am not arguing. just clueless. This is an altcoin, with its own consensus and enforcing nodes. |
|
|
|
The point is that any criteria for the "bottom 50%" or "top 50%" has to be independently verifiable by any node and there doesn't seem to be any feasible way to do that.
Not nodes. This altcoin reward goes to Bitcoin block producers only. |
|
|
|
How exactly would you verify this? And how would you prevent the largest pools from bypassing this scheme by splitting up, or by pretending to split up?
No idea. We need to know few things about pools, beyond doubt. If mining pools collude, isn't that like stealing from their pool miners? |
|
|
|
|
Assumption is we know who's mining for which pool. Whenever a known pool / solo miner finds a block, he also builds this altcoin block. He uses same coinbase as in Bitcoin main chain, and rewards himself with 12.5 altcoin. We can check last 24h blocks to verify this.
If this block (alt) is valid (miner/pool isn't among top 72block producing pools) btc miner who finds next block (btc) will also builds on top of this.
I checked pool stats for last 365 days.. top 50% (57.84%) are btc.com, antpool, btc.top and viabtc.
This altcoin reward can be distributed from block-0, btc genesis block.
As we use same coinbase, I think anyone can build blocks and no pow mining is required for this alt. I'm not sure.
I know this is a half-boiled solution, but I think it's quite possible. If done right, this should force hash power to distribute well among pools.
To get this reward miner has to find at least one bitcoin block. Finding BTC block is prerequisite to building this alt block.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously it's not bcash.
Only bottom 50% bitcoin mining hash power get to mint this new coin.
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know your views on this solution.
Solution to bitcoin mining centralization; Reward bottom half of mining power with an altcoin. only bitcoin miners mint / receive this new altcoin. They use same coinbase address as in Bitcoin main chain.
Top 50% bitcoin miners (who found half of blocks for the day/month, etc.), won't get anything. Other 50% gets as much altcoin as bitcoin they mine on Bitcoin mainnet. There should be effectively 10.5M of this altcoin. This altcoin will have non-zero value in open market. This altcoin should subsidize and force hash power to distribute well.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
19pFvrt16HNkFbbdmpFmS1gtMFimR1ou1G
|
|
|
|
I asked the same question on reddit ethereum sub, I got this. In your scenario they (ethereum team) would then have both BTC and 50% of ether... but, they can donate BTC now or few months later.. They can't. Here is why: (taken from https://www.ethereum.org/pdfs/TermsAndConditionsOfTheEthereumGenesisSale-preview.pdf[1] ) 18) EthSuisse Will Not Purchase ETH During Genesis Sale and Until the Creation of the Genesis Block. EthSuisse warrants that it will not purchase ETH in its own sale. Furthermore EthSuisse warrants that it will not purchase ETH from any third party, or acquire ETH in any manner, or acquire future control of ETH, during the period of the Genesis Sale and until the creation of the Genesis Block. they can buy at the end of genesis sale (over a year of time, or so) with all the BTC they raised. |
|
|
|
Guys, I was not joking. Can someone please explain what's wrong with the approach I suggested?
Don't spend BTC. Buy ethers now, spend later.
IMHO, Ethereum team / devs holding 50% (May be, 49%) is not bad.
Ether devs probably have enough. They wanna diversify like everyone else. And I'm sure they know BTC is gonna go way up next year so they're prefer to hold it mostly in BTC kinda like a savings account. I would do the same. no jokes. some serious answers please.  |
|
|
|
|
Guys, I was not joking. Can someone please explain what's wrong with the approach I suggested?
Don't spend BTC. Buy ethers now, spend later.
IMHO, Ethereum team / devs holding 50% (May be, 49%) is not bad.
|
|
|
|
Hi Ethereum Team, You should stop spending BTC from the genesis sale. Instead, buy ether at the end of sale and spend them when ether goes online. It shouldn't be a problem then. just an idea, but downside, you would then hold 50% of ethers..  |
|
|
|
just now bought some 2600+ ETH @ 1970.  |
|
|
|
Ethereum raised almost $6 million now.. All the best! Would it be $20 million / 55000 - 60000 BTC, by the end of the ether sale..?! |
|
|
|
Hi KNC, just wondering you still delay your miner deliveries just to protect the network?  |
|
|
|
Hello, no payouts from May 4.  From May 4, I received 13 mbtc, from another 0.6 btc groupbuy; That means, from this 2.6 btc group buy, I should receive 56.333 mbtc by now. are we also doing any merged-mining?! |
|
|
|
My post was deleted, in mining group. |
|
|
|
|
Posted to mining. Thread ends here.
|
|
|
|
|
Consider this.
Bitcoin is now 8 years old. 10 million people (1 thousandth, or 0.001% of total 10 billion) are in the ecosystem; mining, hoarding (FBI?) and spending. More than, 75% of the bitcoins, 15.75 million BTC would already have been mined.
What would happen if,
We do a hardfork, and devide all Bitcoin balances by 10, and distribute remaining 9X bitcoins (14.175 million) over next 20 years (1,050,000 blocks), 13.5 BTC as additional per block mining bonus, in addition to regular 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.5625 and 0.78125 BTC block rewards.
Of course, BTC exchange will immediately go, 10X as bitcoins in system goes X/10. No one would hurt, as they have 10th of bitcoins and they value 10X more.
We're also introducing some inflation, near term (20 years). Bitcoin Quantitative Easing?
What else could go wrong? Will this generate new interest among then-new miners?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
