I hope I clarified your doubt to you.
Yes i think i get it, still need to give it more thoughts but it looks interesting. So the rounds can still be distributed but they still need to be computed sequentially even if its by different miners to share the work, and needs a limit on the addresses that can be used for mining. IP is not very good for this because it can become cheap and it would require that IP and its not possible for everyone to check if the Ip match the address, would be better with a solution that doesnt depend on IP. But maybe need to find a way to register address for mining in way that cannot be spammed easily. Or another way to identify individual miners that would be costly to réplicate i think its not impossible though. Im thinking if every miner has it own different ring path that depends on his address in sort that it would cost something to start mining from a new address because of cumulated proof of work on a specific path that depends on an address. Or some way that would penalise changing address for the pow. You bolded is contradictory as latency would factor in to such an extent that a sequential system cannot be timely distributed. Whether or not this effects what is trying to be achieved here is beyond me but I figured i'd point that out. Edit: OK, I see that each portion or these rings must be sequential and then they can be combined. Weird wording, maybe I'll delve into this later I have no time today. The total workload can still be distributed even if each round or ring is computed sequentially by different miners. The goal is not To scale the workload to the moon using // processing, on the contrary its To limit it using sequential computation. I think the logic hold because sequential computational power is not increasing, asic are not especially fast in term of clocking and sequential processing, even google use same processor clocks than what you have in common computers, They just have millions of them, if the work load is limited To what can be computed sequentially it doesnt give a big advantage to group who can put together lot of computational power exploiting // processing. As mining is a relativist game, the absolute amount of work doesnt matter, what matter is that an attacker cant beat 51% of the network power, it seems to be an interesting idea in this regard using determinist sequential proof of work. The distribution is only To spread the cost and reward, not To increase the total work load. |
|
|
|
GαsEdit
Gαs activates the cAMP-dependent pathway by stimulating the production of cyclic AMP (cAMP) from ATP. This is accomplished by direct stimulation of the membrane-associated enzyme adenylate cyclase. cAMP can then act as a second messenger that goes on to interact with and activate protein kinase A (PKA). PKA can phosphorylate a myriad downstream targets.
The cAMP-dependent pathway is used as a signal transduction pathway for many hormones including:
ADH – Promotes water retention by the kidneys (created by the magnocellular neurosecretory cells of the posterior pituitary)GHRH – Stimulates the synthesis and release of GH (somatotropic cells of the anterior pituitary)GHIH – Inhibits the synthesis and release of GH (somatotropic cells of anterior pituitary)CRH – Stimulates the synthesis and release of ACTH (anterior pituitary)ACTH – Stimulates the synthesis and release of cortisol (zona fasciculata of the adrenal cortex in the adrenal glands)TSH – Stimulates the synthesis and release of a majority of T4 (thyroid gland)LH – Stimulates follicular maturation and ovulation in women; or testosterone production and spermatogenesis in menFSH – Stimulates follicular development in women; or spermatogenesis in menPTH – Increases blood calcium levels. This is accomplished via the parathyroid hormone 1 receptor (PTH1) in the kidneys and bones, or via the parathyroid hormone 2 receptor (PTH2) in the central nervous system and brain, as well as the bones and kidneys.Calcitonin – Decreases blood calcium levels (via the calcitonin receptor in the intestines, bones, kidneys, and brain)Glucagon – Stimulates glycogen breakdown in the liverhCG – Promotes cellular differentiation, and is potentially involved in apoptosis.[21]Epinephrine – released by the adrenal medulla during the fasting state, when body is under metabolic duress. It stimulates glycogenolysis, in addition to the actions of glucagon.GαiEdit
Gαi inhibits the production of cAMP from ATP. eg. somatostatin,prostaglandins
Gαq/11Edit
Gαq/11 stimulates the membrane-bound phospholipase C beta, which then cleaves PIP2 (a minor membrane phosphoinositol) into two second messengers, IP3 and diacylglycerol (DAG). The Inositol Phospholipid Dependent Pathway is used as a signal transduction pathway for many hormones including:
ADH (Vasopressin/AVP) – Induces the synthesis and release of glucocorticoids (Zona fasciculata of adrenal cortex in kidney); Induces vasoconstriction (V1 Cells of Posterior pituitary)TRH – Induces the synthesis and release of TSH (Anterior pituitary)TSH – Induces the synthesis and release of a small amount of T4 (Thyroid Gland)Angiotensin II – Induces Aldosterone synthesis and release (zona glomerulosa of adrenal cortex in kidney)GnRH – Induces the synthesis and release of FSH and LH (Anterior Pituitary)Gα12/13EditGα12/13 are involved in Rho family GTPase signaling (see Rho family of GTPases). This is through the RhoGEF superfamily involving the RhoGEF domain of the proteins' structures). These are involved in control of cell cytoskeleton remodeling, and thus in regulating cell migration.GβEditThe Gβγ complexes sometimes also have active functions. Examples include coupling to and activating G protein-coupled inwardly-rectifying potassium channels.
Hlm ok  Still its mostly empirical study In a study of 203 male and female university students, participants with short (308-325 bp) vs. long (327-342) versions of RS3 were less generous, as measured by lower scores on both money allocations in the dictator game, as well as by self-report with the Bardi-Schwartz Universalism and Benevolence Value-expressive Behavior Scales; although the precise functional significance of longer AVPR1A RS3 repeats is not known, they are associated with higher AVPR1A postmortem hippocampal mRNA levels.[9] |
|
|
|
Fleas is in reference to "fees" lol
Bitcoin fees have been dropping which is really nice
Holy...! So that is it. I didn't know it was also referred as that. Okay..  [/quote] I was a bit worried, on a cat i know how to remove fleas, but on bitcoin  |
|
|
|
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.
"Well fed is not a friend to one who is hungry." Russian folk proverb. 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.
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. |
|
|
|
Ok i thought a bit more into it, in fact as long as it stay "solo mining" as un every miner compute the whole rings, it doesnt really matter if there 1000 merkle root and address because ultimately only one path get the reward and have more or less same deterministic computation time, and the work put in // is only wasted. Maybe there can be margin gain with // processor but the reward is not going to scale with the number of // units, where the cost will still scale linearly. Its only when the work become distributed in several miners than one with many address could get a bigger share by computing several round. But in fact is this really a problem ? Because anyway if you have something like ouroboros to select which address are going to be selected for sharing the work of the next block, creating many address can give more chances to have a share of the work and more reward, but anyone can create also many address so as long as the mechanism to select address is fair it doesnt really matter that every miner has a single address or not no ? Even Someone with lot of // processing unit still cant get a huge advantage no ? Especially that there is supposedly a limited number of round at a given difficulty so spamming with more address will not really give that much of an advantage to // processor anyway. Maybe im wrong though  Im still trying to find the way to force a fair distribution of the work but i think its possible. |
|
|
|
I hope I clarified your doubt to you.
Yes i think i get it, still need to give it more thoughts but it looks interesting. So the rounds can still be distributed but they still need to be computed sequentially even if its by different miners to share the work, and needs a limit on the addresses that can be used for mining. IP is not very good for this because it can become cheap and it would require that IP and its not possible for everyone to check if the Ip match the address, would be better with a solution that doesnt depend on IP. But maybe need to find a way to register address for mining in way that cannot be spammed easily. Or another way to identify individual miners that would be costly to réplicate i think its not impossible though. Im thinking if every miner has it own different ring path that depends on his address in sort that it would cost something to start mining from a new address because of cumulated proof of work on a specific path that depends on an address. Or some way that would penalise changing address for the pow. |
|
|
|
3) You are mistaken ... Look at what scheme a regular pool works:  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:  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. Based on your image, pool miners look for different value range, which means parallelization is still possible and there's gain from joining mining pool. If it's wrong, then the image illustration is wrong. 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. |
|
|
|
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 ?
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. |
|
|
|
Ok so if i understand correctly the first part, the idea is to use cyclic algorithm like rings, who have a known cycle length before it comes back to the initial number, and the miner need to provide the result at N-1 of the final result, prooving he has computed all the other values in the cycle before, and those rings can be combined to make longer proof that are still easy To check because only the last Step has To be computed by validator , is this correct ? and it cannot be parallelized because its lot of small sequential steps that depends on the previous result. The third part the idea is to solve long range attack ? Like there only a single determinstic "seed" for each block height, which is also why its pool resistant as you explained in the other thread , because there can be only one problem to solve at each block height , so a huge mining rate doesnt give a big advantage for long range attack , as the only solution for this block has already been found before ? The problem i would see with this approach is it mean if all miners have equal mining power, it would mean they will all find the block at the same time if they all have the same amount of computation to do no ? With the original btc solo mining, all nodes have different tx in the mempool and work on different blocks with non linear solving time, so there is more chance one find a block before the other and make it easier to settle on longest chain. It would be harder to get to a longest chain if all mining work is perfectly equal between all miners no ? The non linear solving time with the hash function still make it easy to have winners of the longest chain even with equal hash power. And game theory incitate to stay on the longest chain. With your algorithm it is linear amount of computation for all miners no ? Maybe using the 4th part also on the address to select the ring algorithm and forcing address change on each block. Maybe it could get less linear solving time. Is it still supposed to work with constant block target time with the difficulty adjusting to keep time between blocks constant ? |
|
|
|
Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. You are saying it as though it is an invalid conclusion. They identified the gene variation: AVPR1A RS3 327 bp allele. Everything in science is validated experimentally. Not sure what your objection is, or is there? They identify it empirically, not structurally. Science is also axiomatic reasoning. A collection of statistics never made a science. Almost anything can be proven with empiric method and enough cherry picking.
I still stand with edelman when he says the influence of genetics on the brain is not clear, and genetics doesnt code for brain développement. So that mean selfishness is not dependant on the brain, which seem contradictory with things like mirror neurons Who seem to take part in "empathy" or certain social behavior. Really? Objectively? Are you sure you know how science works? Can you prove that Atum exists? Which protein this gene code for, how this protein affect selfishness ? Correlation doesnt mean causality. Like absurd reasoning of socrates. Its like testing a program with unit test vs formal proof. The first doesnt prove a lot. Already with epi genetic its not always meaningful to isolate a gene, because there can always be inhibitors or other genes that will affect a behavior as well. Saying that there is an isolated gene responsible for such complex behavior seems a bit bold thats all. Is it like magic thinking or something ? |
|
|
|
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 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. 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 ? |
|
|
|
Many people want to see their governments adopting crypto currency and using it to replace fiat in their daily life. If it happens futurely, it will be in a centralized way of course. Governments will create their own crypto currencies and force people use it.
But my main concern is: why would they do this if there is already digital cash?
Isn't a centralized crypto currency the same than digital cash? What is the difference, if there is any?
Share your thoughts, please.
I talked to Someone Who was working on private blockchain for institution like this, i dont really understand the advantage of blockchain when it rely on trusted parties anyway. Maybe it can be an easy way to have a distributed database with cryptography but there are system that are more cost effective for this. Maybe they have their own use case but government are more relying on precise legal code and status and legal identity associated with keys in private consencus protocol, for the archiving aspect of such. But in any case its a different model than common crypto currencies that you can find on exchanges etc |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Maybe it's time to abandon it and admit that ONLY money should always release new money?[/b]
it's not creation of new coins, that's just a nice little side effect 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. 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. |
|
|
|
What if that term became famous just like the HODL guy? I already heard many things about bitcoin but that he had fleas no  |
|
|
|
... Look at what scheme a regular pool works: 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. 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 |
|
|
|
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? 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. |
|
|
|
I don't understand what you are saying let alone talk about "Bitcoin fleas"
Maybe he called his cat bitcoin no ? |
|
|
|
I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?
Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.
Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion. If that really is the case then that's good that both groups are outliers and the "normal people" outnumber them. I'm still a bit skeptical though, I think empathy/selfishness is a trait separate from intelligence. For me intelligence is the same thing as empathy/consciousness. Its the ability to be aware of your surrounding. Some says the developpment of intelligence is more related to ability to live in large groups of individual rather than understanding physics with asperger syndrome. Not necessarily. A psychopath might be intelligent enough to understand and predict people without feeling empathetic for them. I don't dispute that we became increasing intelligent to handle the complexities of larger society but it alone does not explain empathy. I would dare say empathy came first coz without it we wouldn't have formed groups in the first place. For me a psychpath is not intelligent He only think he is, and only focus on some narrow understanding of some part of people and consequences. Psychopath can be defined as not really conscious of the consequences of his action, so no fully intelligent. They still rarely end up as happy persons. Even empathy in itself doesnt mean sympathy and ability to improve someone happiness its a passive thing, like intelligence is also a passive thing. There is this concept also of cognitive empathy, which mean more or less ability to conceptualize empathic feeling, and also give more context on how to act on it, like they explain the example with a cat, if you see it meowing you can sense a disconfort with empathy but if you dont know what he eats, how to get it etc, in itself its not very useful either. Its also why intelligence comes with more complex languages, and ability to conceptualize more "states" and more complex situations and elaborate more complex cooperative strategies. |
|
|
|
|
For me a random process is when it starts with very similar initial condition and end with very different result. In mathematics maybe non linear is a better definition. Linear system have for characteristic that they can be reversed, and you can deduce initial conditions from the end result. With non linear process they cant be reversed. But there can still be a pattern to it, even if the pattern is too complex to have a clear relation between initial condition and result.
As far as i know hash fonctions in cryptography have non linear components to make them non reversible using linear functions. Doesnt mean there is not a pattern to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
