Changing the PoW function is pretty crazy. It may be. The state of Bitcoin mining is also pretty crazy. The state of Bitcoin mining is also pretty crazy. |
|
|
|
You keep referring to it as a threat. I believe that the remaining devs in Core will do it. We went through it in our chat yesterday. You agreed on 75% chance that it will happen. So if they will do it, I think that they should do it in a way which will prevent ASIC-ization. Memory bound hashing is very good suggestion: https://github.com/tromp/cuckooGuy |
|
|
|
Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ? My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group. http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQI'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core. Please take the time to read it and comment. Guy I think the problem you are trying to solve isn't real. I think Core and Classic will converge to friendly competition, and be on the same blockchain. There will not be an actual work between these two groups. My 2 cents. So, My estimation is that Core team will split. Some will continue to work on Core but on Classic chain, buy some will prefer to do PoW (and Transaction ID) change rather to submit to the new governance. Guy Edit: Interesting times. I think that two competing Chains is the favorable outcome. Each will be entitled to the name "Bitcoin" since both came into existence after hard-fork. |
|
|
|
In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all.
Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.
Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.
Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard. I have to agree, I was wondering about the mental state that led to a belief the above would occur, but I that's different from whether the ideas are interesting or not. Not terribly impressed by the central committee of hash. Yes, I'm working to improve it. Not easy. |
|
|
|
In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all.
Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.
Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.
Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard.  I'm not drunk. Think about it for a while. |
|
|
|
|
As Olivier Janssens told me: “Competition is good”. So let the market decide.
We’ll have an interesting dichotomy:
Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.
Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also working on a non manual way to do it, but it's much harder.
|
|
|
|
|
In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all. I purpose the following, in order to prevent mining centralization, and prevent the possibility of such a governance coup in the future:
Rotating PoW change. Every 3 months (six difficult adjustments), Core will change (via hard fork) it’s PoW algorithm. There will be one month (4032 blocks) of overlap after each change, in which blocks created by both PoWs will be accepted. This will give enough time for upgrade after each PoW change. Every PoW change will reset the clock on any ASIC-ization effort. It will be madness to try to create a matching ASIC, when the PoW is changing every 4 months (1 month for the grace period).
This will completely eliminate the current situation in which two companies (BitmainTech and BitFury) can control over 90% of the hash-rate.
The mining playing field will be leveled again and the barrier of entry for mining will lowered. Everyone with money and access to low cost electricity will be able to mine. There will be no need to buy 16nm ASICs from BitFury at $13 per unit, when BitFury cost is $3 per ASIC (my estimation).
In order to avoid corruption in the selection of PoW algorithms, I also suggest that a committee of 5 individuals will be formed, with each individual serving a term of four algorithm changes (one year), with staggered cycles so the committee is not changed all at once. The preference will be to use complex algorithms, with multiple sub algorithms (e.g. X11 style), and the constants in each should be selected randomly from the block-chain data leading up to each rotation. As this is merely a suggestion for community consideration, I do not presume to define selection criteria for the committee members.
What about BotNets ?
Back in 2012 it was a real issues. These days there are entities with huge amount of GPUs. BotNets will be just another player. In my estimation they will be one of the smaller ones.
|
|
|
|
Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ? My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group. http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQI'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core. Please take the time to read it and comment. Guy |
|
|
|
Nice 2 blocks in 3 days... with ~45 TH/s @marto74 any update from TechnoBit??? Nice |
|
|
|
Beware, the original post links to a scam
|
|
|
|
|
Repeat - SCAM ALERT - There is no such product as an SP40!
Pay extra caution and look our for incorrect URLs
|
|
|
|
Damn! Now that is sophisticated. That "news release" site is also fake!
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en-US"><!--<![endif]--><!-- Mirrored from coinreport.net/strong-start-bitcoin-blockchain-technology-week/ by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:25:23 GMT --><!-- Added by HTTrack --><!-- /Added by HTTrack -->
<head>
miningreport.net
Created on 2015-11-04
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://miningreport.net/ |
|
|
|
|
SCAM ALERT - There is no such product as an SP40!
Pay extra caution and look our for incorrect URLs
|
|
|
|
All this of course assumes an intelligent designer. I would never make such an assumption. This is very grim when we can't assume an intelligent designer even in the Spondoolies' thread. I was sort of OK, when the Chinese mining chip vendors weren't able to hire or contract the actual design talent. China is undergoing a period of extra-fast growth and there are plenty of competing opportunities there. But I'm getting scared if a Jewish company can't find an intelligent Jew to stay with them even part-time to tell the ins-and-outs of hardware engineering. What does it mean for Bitcoin if the really intelligent Jews avoid it and the only Jews that deal with Bitcoin are the ones that skew towards being criminally optimistic? Am I criminally optimistic Jew ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
