Mining difficulty increase is the real problem

[pawel7777]

the idea is that mining will become profitable if the bitcoin price goes up. Unfortunately I dont think the price matches the difficulty but I think that will change very soon.

Mining is profitable for those with powerful and efficient mining hardware and cheap electricity. Otherwise they wouldn't be mining.

If you're hoping that the price increase will make your 335 Mh/s USB block erupter profitable again - that's unlikely to happen (unless there's x100 pump before difficulty adjustment).

[1715347434]

1715347434

[Amph]

The real problem is that cheap electricity is generally available only in god forsaken places where no civilized humans live.

As long as 1000W miners are available to consumers people should be able to mine at home as long as they have cheap enough electricity.

what will happen when those cheap electricity places, will be "saturated", and they will be forced to change place, with higher electricity

this will make mining more casual, because electricity will be levelled at some point? or it will kill the mining one day, in the case, obviously, that the value won't rise accordingly?

[zimmah]

I see here all wise guys debating the block size increase causing centralization, and then other groups of people deny that. Its a waste of time debate from the point of view of centralization.

Because all of you fail to see that the mining difficulty increase is the thing that is causing centralization.

The bigger the difficulty, the more capital it requires to mine it, the more centralized it becomes, as only big miners can afford equipment and stay competitive in low electricity countries.

The mining difficulty doesnt affect bitcoin inflation, so there is absolutely no point in having it increase, other than deliberately creating a centralized system, which is foolish


The mining difficulty should have never increased, if we would wanted a real decentralized currency. Because now its a debate of a dog catching its tail.

I cannot believe I`m the only one seeing this, and everybody else is bamboozled with the block increase debate...

Bitcoin will become a miner oligarchy, I`m fine with that, but i think this is not satoshi's true vision of bitcoin.


I`m not a technical expert, but i`m sure it's doable, many other altcoins have non-increasing mining difficulty.

/facepalm

More miner means it's harder to attack the network, more security is better.

As long as a single miner doesn't have a large share of the network it's a good thing the difficulty is high, and the higher the difficulty is the harder it becomes for a single miner to own it.

[ranochigo]

I see here all wise guys debating the block size increase causing centralization, and then other groups of people deny that. Its a waste of time debate from the point of view of centralization.

Because all of you fail to see that the mining difficulty increase is the thing that is causing centralization.

The bigger the difficulty, the more capital it requires to mine it, the more centralized it becomes, as only big miners can afford equipment and stay competitive in low electricity countries.

The mining difficulty doesnt affect bitcoin inflation, so there is absolutely no point in having it increase, other than deliberately creating a centralized system, which is foolish


The mining difficulty should have never increased, if we would wanted a real decentralized currency. Because now its a debate of a dog catching its tail.

I cannot believe I`m the only one seeing this, and everybody else is bamboozled with the block increase debate...

Bitcoin will become a miner oligarchy, I`m fine with that, but i think this is not satoshi's true vision of bitcoin.


I`m not a technical expert, but i`m sure it's doable, many other altcoins have non-increasing mining difficulty.

/facepalm

More miner means it's harder to attack the network, more security is better.

As long as a single miner doesn't have a large share of the network it's a good thing the difficulty is high, and the higher the difficulty is the harder it becomes for a single miner to own it.

More hashing power does indicate a higher security of network by making it harder and expensive for attacker to attack Bitcoin.

However, it can push miners to concentrate in a region with lower electrical fees. Most won't have a UPS since mining costs are too high. What if that region experiences a blackout? The network hashrate would drop immediately. If it's serious enough, blocks would be slower significantly.

[pawel7777]

However, it can push miners to concentrate in a region with lower electrical fees. Most won't have a UPS since mining costs are too high. What if that region experiences a blackout? The network hashrate would drop immediately. If it's serious enough, blocks would be slower significantly.

Don't worry about that. There are thousands of teenagers around the world with obsolete miners/graphic cards and "free" electricity (bills paid by parents), they will keep the network going if that happens

There's bigger centralisation threat from pools (we've already seen ghash going above 50% for a short period) or manufacturers (someone could develop mining hardware vastly outperforming current miners). There will always be some risks/threats.

[ranochigo]

However, it can push miners to concentrate in a region with lower electrical fees. Most won't have a UPS since mining costs are too high. What if that region experiences a blackout? The network hashrate would drop immediately. If it's serious enough, blocks would be slower significantly.

Don't worry about that. There are thousands of teenagers around the world with obsolete miners/graphic cards and "free" electricity (bills paid by parents), they will keep the network going if that happens

There's bigger centralisation threat from pools (we've already seen ghash going above 50% for a short period) or manufacturers (someone could develop mining hardware vastly outperforming current miners). There will always be some risks/threats.

As I said, the miners who have low electricity rates do already own a huge part of the network. Blocks would be much slower if the hashrate drops slowly. I doubt it would be profitable for home miners to even mine at that time.

IMO, manufacturers would sell their miners at sky high prices than wasting money on hosting the ASICs themselves. It can take months for it to ROI and other companies would have released ASICs in big batches.

[RealBitcoin]

/facepalm

More miner means it's harder to attack the network, more security is better.

As long as a single miner doesn't have a large share of the network it's a good thing the difficulty is high, and the higher the difficulty is the harder it becomes for a single miner to own it.

So you think the few billion computers around the world cannot generate enough mining power than a few thousand ASICS?

Small difficulty doesnt mean that the asics would not be useful, it means that they would make less, and small guys could mine too with a laptop.


It would be a true decentralized system, and the mining capacity will be much more in aggregate.

[pawel7777]

So you think the few billion computers around the world cannot generate enough mining power than a few thousand ASICS?

Few billions? You expect every computer in the world to mine BTC?

Current hash rate: ~ 500,000,000 Gh/s, average CPU hash-power: ~0.05 Gh/s (optimistic). You'd need ~10 billion CPUs to match the current hash rate.

Small difficulty doesnt mean that the asics would not be useful, it means that they would make less, and small guys could mine too with a laptop.

It would be a true decentralized system, and the mining capacity will be much more in aggregate.

Why would you run expensive ASIC if you could earn the same by mining with your old laptop?

[pedrog]

You're not the only one to see it, and it was always meant to be like this from the beginning.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-67.0-83.14

[RealBitcoin]

Few billions? You expect every computer in the world to mine BTC?

Current hash rate: ~ 500,000,000 Gh/s, average CPU hash-power: ~0.05 Gh/s (optimistic). You'd need ~10 billion CPUs to match the current hash rate.

Sure but the average PC would not steal more from the miners, if the miners want to mine more they would use ASIC.

So the Average PC + ASIC would be added cumulatively, and the hashing power would be even higher.

Small difficulty doesnt mean that the asics would not be useful, it means that they would make less, and small guys could mine too with a laptop.

It would be a true decentralized system, and the mining capacity will be much more in aggregate.

Why would you run expensive ASIC if you could earn the same by mining with your old laptop?

Greed? Why would you buy 2 ASIC if you can buy 1?

Dont u understand, if the difficulty is near to 0, the miners would still buy ASICS to get a bigger slice of the mining income.

However it would also let average PC people mine it, thus the mining capacity would be higher than now, and more evenly distributed.

[RealBitcoin]

This is still the biggest problem in my opinion.

Mining difficulty doesnt correlate with network size, in fact it would be negatively correlated.


If the difficulty were easy, we would have more competitions. In addition to all ASICS, we would have home PC's running it, and the average Joe would get a bigger pie of the game, to be motivated to run bitcoin node at home.


So

LOW OR NO MINING DIFFICULTY =  MORE NODES, MORE MINERS, MORE MINING POWER, BIGGER NETWORK, MORE DECENTRALIZATION


INCREASING OR HIGH MINING DIFFICULTY =  LESS NODES, LESS MINERS, THE NEED OF POOLS, LESS MINING POWER IN LESS PEOPLE HANDS, GREATER RISK OF 51% ATTACK, OLIGARCHIC MINING CARTELS, CENTRALIZATION


Sorry but Bitcoin fucked this up, severely!!!

[icezer0z]

the idea is that mining will become profitable if the bitcoin price goes up. Unfortunately I dont think the price matches the difficulty but I think that will change very soon.

are you saying that when the halving occurs BTC will rise?

[ranochigo]

This is still the biggest problem in my opinion.

Mining difficulty doesnt correlate with network size, in fact it would be negatively correlated.


If the difficulty were easy, we would have more competitions. In addition to all ASICS, we would have home PC's running it, and the average Joe would get a bigger pie of the game, to be motivated to run bitcoin node at home.


So

LOW OR NO MINING DIFFICULTY =  MORE NODES, MORE MINERS, MORE MINING POWER, BIGGER NETWORK, MORE DECENTRALIZATION


INCREASING OR HIGH MINING DIFFICULTY =  LESS NODES, LESS MINERS, THE NEED OF POOLS, LESS MINING POWER IN LESS PEOPLE HANDS, GREATER RISK OF 51% ATTACK, OLIGARCHIC MINING CARTELS, CENTRALIZATION


Sorry but Bitcoin fucked this up, severely!!!

If the difficulty does not increase, due to the large hashpower of the network, the blocks would be much much faster. This wouldn't allow for the capped supply that Bitcoin features. Orphaned blocks would also be much more often and thus allow for a higher block reorg. We won't ever be see a confirmation to be safe. In addition, your logic is flawed. With no or low difficulty, bigger players can still generate blocks much much faster than an average joe. This would benefit them even more.

Low difficulty does not mean that most would be solo mining. People can still use a pool and get similar payouts.

[RealBitcoin]

If the difficulty does not increase, due to the large hashpower of the network, the blocks would be much much faster. This wouldn't allow for the capped supply that Bitcoin features. Orphaned blocks would also be much more often and thus allow for a higher block reorg. We won't ever be see a confirmation to be safe.

I`m not sure about those claims, i`m no expert. So can anybody else confirm or deny this?

It seems plausible at least.

With no or low difficulty, bigger players can still generate blocks much much faster than an average joe. This would benefit them even more.

Low difficulty does not mean that most would be solo mining. People can still use a pool and get similar payouts.

Of course, but the average joe would have larger share for himself. Right now how much can an average joe mine?

1 satoshi/ day? With a low difficulty you could mine as much as a faucet give you for example.

So when newbies still ask on the beginner section how to mine bitcoin wit PC, you could give them a way to join bitcoin for mining.

Nobody knows if the mining dificulty curve is good or bad, perhaps it could have been increasing later.

Bitcoin should have had a bigger inflation in the first years, to attract many people via mining, and much less inflation later when serious developers join it to safeguard funds.

[notabeliever]

Yes the mining difficulty is my problem because my S5 feels like the S1 I used to have. I wonder if the difficulty is forced to increase  do to the fact that halving will happen . Litecoin halved and was quiet for awhile. Can you imagine bitcoin halving and the difficult along with it?

[ranochigo]

With no or low difficulty, bigger players can still generate blocks much much faster than an average joe. This would benefit them even more.

Low difficulty does not mean that most would be solo mining. People can still use a pool and get similar payouts.

Of course, but the average joe would have larger share for himself. Right now how much can an average joe mine?

1 satoshi/ day? With a low difficulty you could mine as much as a faucet give you for example.

So when newbies still ask on the beginner section how to mine bitcoin wit PC, you could give them a way to join bitcoin for mining.

Nobody knows if the mining dificulty curve is good or bad, perhaps it could have been increasing later.

Bitcoin should have had a bigger inflation in the first years, to attract many people via mining, and much less inflation later when serious developers join it to safeguard funds.

With low difficulty, Bitcoin would be easier to get. The price would be much much lower or even be worthless and mining wouldn't be profitable for small players nonetheless. Mining Bitcoin places unnecessary stress on the GPU and the better way to test it out is to get a cheap USB block erupter. By shorterning the block time or difficulty, it is easier for people to double spend and would scare people away from Bitcoin easily.

Don't you think faucet is a much better way for users to test out Bitcoin instead of wasting electrical fees and potentially damaging their components if they have poor PSU which are unbranded and dangerous.

[johnyj]

If the mining cost can be continuously pushed down below bitcoin's exchange rate, then all the buyers will eventually go to mining to acquire bitcoin, and raise its difficulty until the cost is close to market price again. So mining difficulty increase means rising mining cost, it is a positive sign of capital inflow

Another possible reason that mining difficulty increases all the time is that large capitals are fleeing china through buying mining hash power and get bitcoin to spend in another country. Money laundering is very feasible through mining: Kncminer's bank account just been shutdown, I guess that has something to do with flagged suspicious money sending to their account purchasing mining hash power

[crazyivan]

I see here all wise guys debating the block size increase causing centralization, and then other groups of people deny that. Its a waste of time debate from the point of view of centralization.

Because all of you fail to see that the mining difficulty increase is the thing that is causing centralization.

The bigger the difficulty, the more capital it requires to mine it, the more centralized it becomes, as only big miners can afford equipment and stay competitive in low electricity countries.

The mining difficulty doesnt affect bitcoin inflation, so there is absolutely no point in having it increase, other than deliberately creating a centralized system, which is foolish


The mining difficulty should have never increased, if we would wanted a real decentralized currency. Because now its a debate of a dog catching its tail.

I cannot believe I`m the only one seeing this, and everybody else is bamboozled with the block increase debate...

Bitcoin will become a miner oligarchy, I`m fine with that, but i think this is not satoshi's true vision of bitcoin.


I`m not a technical expert, but i`m sure it's doable, many other altcoins have non-increasing mining difficulty.

This is correct, the only think which affects inflation is block halving. All mining diff does is redistribute mining rewards from one user which slower miner to another user with faster miner.

HOWEVER, how would you solve the issue of people adding tons of miners to the market. They all want their shares so I d say this is an elegant solution which fosters competitions and competition fosters innovations and development.

[GODLIKE]

Bitcoin will become a miner oligarchy, I`m fine with that, but i think this is not satoshi's true vision of bitcoin.

It's possible but I wouldn't be so sure about that.
There's a roof that is not being useful to pass about spending on hardware to mine Bitcoin.
On top of that, mining hardware will slowly become too expensive, and mining itself as well for electricity consumption.
And last but not least, there will come a time when no more BTC will be available to mine.
People will mine only for fees, it will be distributed.

[nonbody]

Why is it a problem? The network is automatically adjusting the difficulty and hash power, fairly distribute the mining reward between miners proportional to their hash power. If the mining is still profitable, miners will continue to add or upgrade their asic miners,  and maintain current hash power. They just try to compete with other miners for more rewards. As difficulty and hash power increases, the network becomes more secure.