I have an idea if you create a hard fork and bind one node to only one address, and then during mining, those who have thousands of nodes will simply not be profitable to keep such a number of addresses, since most of them will be in the same conditions as others miners, since most of them will simply work idle. after all, in fact, then only 4,536 nodes per day will have a chance to find a block and all miners will be in the same state. since even if there are one hundred thousand nodes, the chance for each of them will be 1 out of 4536 per day and will depend on the power of the equipment and the hash rate for multi-core mining. and then even if a pool is created, it will simply not be possible and not profitable to register such a number of addresses for one miner.

404 not found

Sherlock please check mail I want to move seed nodes provided by me on other server. Send You details in mail. Cheers

The purpose of this coin is anti-mining pools and to achieve that we need more nodes to join the network, and to for that you need to create more awareness of this project maybe by signature campaign but destroying those coins will not achieve anything.

And why there was no voting on this?

why do we need make a proposal public there? dev is not on discord server, he mostly active on this threads, why dont i suggest him to have the bounty and how to use the premine on this threads?
its would help the threads getting bump and get more miners jump on this coin to, if are dev already on discord knock me, im leave discord server  right after i know that the dev is not there.

An immature idea, if the upper limit of the luck value is introduced, for example, if the luck value exceeds a certain value, blocks are not allowed to be produced by that miner, can it limit the unlimited expansion of large miners?

I see your point of view: the nodes.

Here is mine: the coins.

Maybe you fixed the node problem pools have, but you have a new problem - all the coins goes now to a single owner, instead of multiple owners. This is why I've said is worst than traditional PoW, instead of a pool getting 50% of mined coins (which will be spread among all individual miners) now we have 1 miner getting 50% of the coins, but we are pool free.

And not to be negligible, with this approach the scenario can go like this: Let's say I mine solo (because there are no pools involved) but since is not profitable for me because 1 single miner gets 50% of all block, I leave. So will do all the small miners, if is not profitable anymore and this will lead him to mine more and more blocks until probably he will mine 100% of the blocks.

Now tell me, where is the decentralization?

It also may be some mining pool. For example when many people are mining to the same address, it will be no difference between one miner owning 1000 CPU's and 1000 miners mining to the pool's address. And since Ethereum has an account-based system, all inputs to the same addresses are automatically merged, so they have less size. Also, it is very convenient to do this merging at a coinbase level, because it has less bytes than a normal transaction and is also cheaper, because there is no risk of getting transaction fees by someone else.

But there is no solution to this problem. For example everyone can start mining to the same address, what then? Banning some address is not a solution, since it will be against freedom. People start trying making pools the simplest possible way, just when anyone can notice it. If they will be punished, the situation will be the same, just people will try making pools in a different ways.

Also, what if there is some hidden sidechain under the hood? And what if mining to this address is necessary to get access to some coins on this sidechain?

I saw this today in Discord that a single address is mining 50% of all blocks, confirmed also by a support member of Luck coin.

What you should do?
My suggestion is not to beg the miner to reduce the number of nodes/miners, but for the dev to find a solution to this issue, since the whole purpose of this coins is now doomed.

"A new consensus algorithm to eliminate large mining pools" - the consensus may be eliminated for the large pools but not for the large miners.

"one-CPU-one-vote" vision - if someone is mining with 1000 CPUs over a 2000 nodes (CPUS) network, this consensus is not better than the clasic POW one, is even worst.

My 2 cents!

That's a great effort you put there, but I have to sadly inform you that this isn't going to work IMO at least.

You are trying to solve an economical issue rather than a technical issue, this whole "one-cpu-one-vote" is highly misunderstood and I am having a very hard time believing that Satoshi didn't see large pools coming, according to Satoshi:

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

Everything that has to do "money" will always end up in the hands of a few players, this is just how the universe works, bitcoin mining has even a worse issue where the less profitable it becomes to mine -  the less "decentralized" it gets, and as block rewards keep going down, it only gets worse.

Mining is pretty fair the way it is now, it doesn't favor anybody and nobody has any patented/exclusive methods that give them any advantages over other miners.

Another thing that many people seem to be missing is that running your own node is freaking difficult and cost a lot of money despite of the small block size, let alone having to run a dozen of them.

Forcing miners to run their own nodes will only lead to fewer miners (as people) and eventually, mining will not only be "pool" centralized, the hashpower itself will be centralized, that is an issue that we currently don't have and it would be best not to create.

I don't want to hijack this thread with my own "proposal" to solve this economical problem, but as the old saying goes "if you can't beat them, join them", and to do that, we should push for a "community mining pool" that is competitive enough as a way of protection against large pools.

Facts:

1- The majority of individual miners want to make the most money most simply and cheaply. (current plug-n-play system works perfectly)
2- The majority of individual miners DON'T want luck to be in their way and they want steady and stable payouts. (PPS pools do the job perfectly)

You take that away from them, and they will be gone.

There is, however, a large portion of miners who would be willing to shift their hashrate to a "trusted" pool in order to give it more power to compete against all other "untrusted" pools given that the "trusted" pool works exactly as the other pools, the majority of them are NOT willing to set up their own node/s and go through all the trouble, a good percentage of them don't know how to do it in the first place, but you know who has the money, skills and skin to do all that? large cooperations and farms, so your proposal might just be a great push towards more centralization.

well i saw there is premine about 300k luck, when the coin will be planned to use or will we have any bounty to promote the coin on this forum, because i dont think that people know enough about this coin, signature campaign is the best for now to spread about the luck coin to bitcointalk community like how idena coin did, i hope there is planned bounty in short time, ive seen the premine only has been used about 600 luck for the guys who contribute seeds.

Sherlock, any chance to release the complete code with these news seeds, so we can build from source, i know several of us arent a big fan of running binaries...

Don't trust, verify!  Remember?

Thanks alot!

Hello everyone
We are still looking for seed node providers. As the number of nodes increases, according to our estimation, we need to start 6-8 seed nodes in the near future. The configuration of the seed node server is as follows:
CPU: 2 core or more.
RAM: 4GB or more.
HardDisk: 100GB
Other: Public IP, open port 30009.

For users who provide seed nodes, we will give each node a continuous reward of 100luck/month.
Users who provide seed nodes can email us individually with the server's IP and login permissions, we will have professional engineers to deploy it.  Thank you.

Is it posible to ellaborate mining in windows with several instances?

Let's take this to the logical conclusion. Communism.

No mining rewards at all. Purely deflationary currency. Transaction fees go to nobody. Hodlers are incentivized to mine blocks of transactions because it increases the scarcity value of their own hodlings.

However, there's a tragedy of the commons because your hodlings go up in scarcity whether you mine or not. There's nothing new under the sun. Perhaps this can be solved by purging any account that doesn't contribute enough signed mining shares.