I'm pretty sure if Monero has a way to obscure transactions without anyone know who is sending transactions or how much they are, they can obscure the fees too.
Fees are a mechanism for letting miners prioritize transactions and weed out spam; thus the amounts need to be visible to miners. |
|
|
|
2 - Privacy by default.
3 - Transaction fees should be a percentage IMO.
These two are in direct conflict with each other. A privacy protecting coin reveals no information about transaction amounts, and therefore cannot make fees dependent on them. 3 is really a bad idea... |
|
|
|
What exactly does a perfect Bitcoin upgrade look like? Obviously some form of Anonymizing tech would be required, something to help speed up transactions and yet another upgrade to help spread out miners in a more decentralized fashion...
You may want to read up on MimbleWimble :-) http://mimblewimble.cash/ |
|
|
|
don't think anyone has any use for sha256 hashes of random data.
People do have a use for (cost/speed/energy-efficient) improved random-access-memory technology however, so a proof of work that makes random memory access, rather than hash computation, the bottleneck, will provide the right incentives for that... |
|
|
|
Hi everybody,
What i really don't like about bitcoin is the waste of computing power (= waste of resources) it needs to secure the network, and how things would get worse the more bitcoin becomes successful.
Because of this I was wandering which are, actually, alternative mining alghoritms that you are aware of, and possibly their pros/cons.
I'd mantain such list in this OP and maybe group them up in a website if it could be useful, and discuss about mining alghoritms here to maybe come out with a new greener mining alghoritm or best block generation approach
If a post like this already exists (or website links) then please point me to it
thanks
There is http://cpucoinlist.com/cryptocurrency-algorithms/for supposedly CPU-friendly proof-of-work schemes, but I believe it's no longer maintained and somewhat outdated. |
|
|
|
As you can see, this system would preserve most of the current Proof Of Work characteristics of bitcoin mining but with a twist that allow the mining pools to put their system to rest for a significant period of time, thus saving energy and money. I've chosen the duration of the two phases in an arbitrary manner, so that, for every day of competition we'd 10 have days of minimal energy consumption.
While I can't see any major drawbacks to this system, I know how tricky game theory can be, so I'd love to hear your feedback on the idea.
Except that if you reduce all miner's energy costs by 90%, they will all use their vastly increased profits to buy many times more hashpower to maintain their share of the pie. You end up with 10x more hashpower sitting idle 90% of the time. In the end, you'll always have: cost of total energy spent on mining = block reward + fees ... |
|
|
|
By then, the slow start period would have ended
It already did... |
|
|
|
ASICs are good at number crunching, not number fetching  DRAM is quite fetching :-) |
|
|
|
On a more serious note: if you state the performance is now at 80% of theoretical maximum, we're basically there, right? ETH miners also peak at about 80-85% of the theoretical maximum. Does the same rule apply here?
I still have some work to do before I write my own miner from scratch. I like to *really* understand the problem before I start writing code, and there's still some parts of the GCN architecture that I'm figuring out. Hi, nerdralph! Would you be interested in going after my Cuckoo Cycle bounties? https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo |
|
|
|
I've only spent about $1200 so far, and the $5000 is (mostly) backed by people who contributed to the Cuckoo Cycle Bounty Fund. It's far from certain that it will all be spent. Wouldn't it better to invest that $5000 in something with a future that can appreciate in value?
Most of the $5000 is held in BTC, and should appreciate just fine. Or do you see uses for that outside of blockchains?
As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system shows, a proof-of-work may serve well for preventing spam and denial-of-service attacks. I went down that rabbit hole with you and I concluded there can never be a stable CPU proof-of-work.
IMO Cuckoo Cycle has the best odds of being an unprofitable-for-everybody proof-of-work. |
|
|
|
Cuckoo Cycle is an instantly verifiable memory bound Proof-of-Work, whose run time is dominated by memory latency. I invite anyone to try claim one of the following bounties for performance doubling of my C++/CUDA solvers: CPU $2000 TMTO $2000 GPU $1000 or half the above bounties for a sqrt(2) performance improvement. Details at https://github.com/tromp/cuckooHappy bounty hunting... |
|
|
|
Cuckoo Cycle is an instantly verifiable memory bound Proof-of-Work, whose runtime is dominated by memory latency. I invite anyone to try claim one of the following bounties for performance doubling: CPU $2000 TMTO $2000 GPU $1000 or half the above bounties for a sqrt(2) performance improvement. Details at https://github.com/tromp/cuckooHappy bounty hunting. |
|
|
|
It's called the Founder's Reward... |
|
|
|
CPU solving us highly memory and clock frequency bound and doesn't scale with cores well at all.
It scales reasonably well, althouh obviously sublinearly. 1x dev1 = 6.2 Sol/s 8x dev1 = 25.6 Sol/s on a 4Ghz i7. So more than a 4x increase from using 8 instances. |
|
|
|
Even so, QCs cannot do preimage attacks on hashes, they can only brute force them faster. For mining, that just means that the difficulty will increase and blocks will stay the same. For addresses, that means that they still cannot find the associated public key because they still can't find the preimage.
It means that the PoW will change from being practically optimization free, as currently the case with near-optimal ASICs, to becoming extremely optimization prone, with huge advantages available only to the most advanced and well-funded organizations (like your favorite 3-letter agency). That is, mining power will go from fairly decentralized to absolutely centralized. A post-quantum bitcoin will need to move away from Hashcash to some asymmetric PoW. |
|
|
|
also why this coin is not known?
Maybe because it's not the least bit decentralized?! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
