But again you are forgetting that the decline in Bitcoin generation does not go away suddenly. Its progressive over time and wont end until 2040. Miners have plenty of time and also the incentives to adapt.

What you are proposing is a fixed level of fees depending on a set of conditions that you think are the best. But how is this fixed system that you are proposing not more dangerous and less adaptable than a system where the miners, the people with the experience and the information, decide at every moment the best strategy? Imagine the percentage or rules you propose are too much or too little? That would hurt Bitcoin big time. Its better to leave the miners decide what they need to charge to be in business.

EDIT:


Already answered to him. See above. Competition does not work the way he is portraying it. According to him/her competition is a tragedy of the commons. If that were true, the human race would have disappeared long ago.

Thank you for pointing out that this thread is just a rehash of another thread. Why not continue the discussion there, instead of making everybody repeat the same arguments? Propagandizing or trolling are the only two options I can imagine.


No, this if false. It is true that the inefficient miners will be pushed out of the market, but that does not mean reducing difficulty in a meaningful way. What will happen is that the more efficient miners will take the place of the less efficient miners, and probably a part of the less efficient miners will learn how to become more efficient.

The failure of what you are saying is that a extremely efficient miner with very little hash power, will take very long to get a block thus taking away very little fees from the other miners. Unless the efficient miner starts expanding and adquire more hasing power it would not represent a thread to the rest of the miners. Therefore you already have more hashing power appearing.


See above.


I though the Bitcoin community was dogmatic. Now the problem is too many opinions? Some people are never happy.


I dont see how you have answered to my points.

1. You are ignoring initial investment.

It might not be profitable to buy more hardware because the rate of return is so low that it will take too long to recover, but it might still be profitable to keep the hardware running. Miners will hardly stop mining as long as the income is slightly above the price of electricity. So maintaing a certain hashing power once the network has gotten there is not that difficult.

2. The value of Bitcoin creates incentive both ways.

If Bitcoin value goes up incentivates more cheaters, but it also makes mining more profitable atracting more hashing power. Also, Bitcoin has been created to be used widely, so it will generate a big amount of transaction and therefore transaction fees. The initial compensation for block is a way to jumpstart the system and at the same time distribute the currency.

3. What you are proposing is already posible

The "solution" to the no-problem is already in place. Miners can decide which transactions they process and which transactions they dont. If they feel they are not being payed enough they can decide to not process transactions with a fee that does not met a certain percentage of the bitcoins being transfered, for example a 0.5%. So if someone with a lot of bitcoins wants to transfer them the miners can decide not to unless that person pays a fee that pleases them.


And last, this has been discussed already. Why keep opening threads discussing the same again and again?

You wrote:


I answered. Stop messing around.

Cunicula is a troll.

Do you really think that cheap discussion tactics are going to get you anywhere? Not even trying to argue my points. Just repeating talking points. Sad.

Its easy to pove that what you repeat about me is true. Im discussing openly with you. Refute my points and prove to everybody that Im what you said. Otherwise you are just making everybody loose their time. Its your opportunity to stick it to a mod.

I would suggest that if you want to have a rational conversation you stop saying things like:



Its insulting.

Second, this post is the best example of cunicula being a troll, for example:


This is just ridiculous and FUD. Forking is a reality, and in fact happened at the beginning with a bug in the client.


This is a bunch of bullshit. Creating additional nodes is very easy, specially if you are going to profit from gaining more votes. If you are going to create a voting system you need to identify people, which is a bit contradictory if you want to have a pseudo-anonimous currency. This type of bullshit is what you call "thinking people".

Also, the above statment is just trying to create "class warfare" mentality. People is not forced to use Bitcoin, if they dont like it or think its unfair they can go and use another currency or even create their own. Bitcoin is open source so you only need to change a few lines in the code and you are set to go. The Bitcoin community has done all the work for you. It does not get easier than that. How is that creating a domination elite?

The guy is a troll, and not very intelligent at that. For example, BubbleBoy was a troll but one you could be entertained with because he was intelligent.

The DDOS part is easy to avoid. Have two or three (or more) proxies.


I dont see how you would get an increase in 14% earnings. Imagine a proxy of three pools. The proxy emits a new block mesage and you properly guess its coming from that proxy. Now you move your miners proportionally (the way you preffer) to the three pools connected to that proxy. You might be gaining by connecting to the pool that just found a new block, but how do you know that the other two pools are not in a bad strike and you are hashing low profitable shares? It might increase a bit your earnings, but not close to 14%.

But even that can be avoided. The pools could have several proxies and rotate among them randomly. That would stop also the DDOS attacks (or make them more difficult). Now the groups are not defined but change randomly. How could you attack such system?


Costumers are free to complain to the business owners about the service and go away if their complaints are not met. If the clients keep returning to the business it means they dont care that much about it. If the owners feel it would improve the service they can decide to change the way their business operate to accomodate some of the complaints of the costumers. If other costumers dont like the changes they can complain and/or go away as well. I dont see the big deal.

Cunicula is a known troll. This was his lame attempt at starting a "class war". He is always very insulting and puts other peole down.

What about a SMPPS without negative memory? There would be some loses when there is a bad strike at first, but eventually, because of probability compensating, the pool would have enough saved to whether most bad strikes without going into negative.

Yes, the problem is that the systems you propose (money that rots f.e.) produce discordination in the economy and if imposed exclusively would lead to poverty.

There is nothing bad in interests. If you have a car and rent it, you are getting a profit because you are renouncing to its use for a while. Same with money. You rent it out and get a profit because you are renouncing to its use for a while. I fail to see the difference and why you consider one ok and the other not.

So you leave and go to another place to get your burger. If enough clients dont like how the fast good burger place is operated it will loose a lot of the clients and it will close. So far, it seems the majority of the BTCGuild users like the changes. Nobody is stopping from creating your own pool if you think you can do better.

No, because it would be a private proxy, where only 2 or 3 pools have their bitcoind connected.

1) You can still DDoS their bitcoind now. Just because groups of 2 or 3 pools join together doesnt change the game much.

2) You could not connect, it would be a private proxy only used by the bitcoind of the selected pools. Read too quick. I think if someone did something like this, it would be considered spam and some measure would be taken to avoid those clients or IP's.

3) Whats your beef against proportional pools?

Its in its way of happening then. If BBB was a government agency there would be no way to "fight back". You would have to finance it through taxes and shut up.

Yes, but what if someone hacks the browser and sends a send to order to the client? Browsers are very hackable, they are very expose and do a lot of stuff.

A solution might be to have a mode in the client where all the RPC transactions have to be confirmed manually. Im still fearful of connecting the client to the browser but that might work.

Yeah, Im curious too about the exploits for SMPPS.

So I was thinking in a way to stop this and I think its easy: Just have deepbit, BTCGuild and maybe others bitcoind client connect to the Bitcoin network throught the same proxy. The pools would still have the same chance of propagating when a new block is found because they are using the same proxy, but the pool hoopers would not know from which pool is coming because all they see is the messages coming from the same source.

Ideally pools would join in groups of 3 and 4 and create several proxies so there would be less chance of cheating and it would be more decentralized.

Thoughts?

But with the speed and the start time they can get a good enough stimate. What they really need is the start round time. If they dont know when the round started they can not pool hoop. If they know, they can stimated and even if they cant get an stimate getting early and leaving at some random point is still profitable. The point of pool hooping is to get in at the beggining of the round of each pool to get a bigger change of getting shares of the short rounds and avoid the shares of the long rounds.

I went to another pool because of the pool hooping problem here.

I dont see how removing the "share in round" solves anything. As long as they know when a new block was solved they can jump in at the beggining. Or what am I missing?

EDIT: There you go: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26866.msg374692#msg374692

Are you guys sure you want to connect your browser to the bitcoin client and allow it to send it orders? That would be a hackers paradise.

I have, the version with the molex to get the energy directly from the psu. I have two 5870 running with those cables. Not a problem, no reduction of speed.