Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW - Spondoolies CEO Guy Corem

[iCEBREAKER]

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

So, as I write these words, it seems that Classic has a good chance of meeting its activation Threshold. Jonathan is aiming for Classic to be activated when 75% of the last 2,016 (currently coded 1,000 but he said in the interview that he might increase to 2,016) mined blocks indicate support of the Classic fork, meaning the miners that mined them are ready to do a 2MB Hard Fork and leave behind everyone on Core.
What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

Will Classic activation mean the end to the Core chain ?
Not necessarily; Careful planning on behalf of Core will allow it survive.

I believe that Core developers will split into three camps: Some will join Classic Chain (and fork), some will quit Bitcoin altogether, and some will continue development on Core Chain (and fork).

I tend to believe that most Core developers will remain and implement the Core scalability road-map as planned. I simply don’t see Core following Classic’s governance model in which the users vote on issues.

Mainly, Core needs to replace its PoW function, preferably to a function which make any effort to create ASIC for it economically nonviable. I’ll discuss such a proposal below.
The other thing Core needs to do is to change the Transaction ID, in order to create a complete split of coins.

By implementing the above, upon Classic activation, each Bitcoin will be split to ClassicCoin and CoreCoin. Each coin will be transact-able separately and will have a different market value. Most of the exchanges will probably support both Chains, hence each Coin will have different market value based on supply and demand.

From the user perspective, she will needs to install both wallets (Core and Classic) and import the old private key into both wallets. It makes sense that multi chains wallets will be created, so the user will be able to transact easily with wallets on both Coins. These wallets may even present the following arithmetic: 1 CoreCoin + 1 ClassicCoin = 1 BTC, so if you have 80 CoreCoins and 73 ClassicCoins it would show up as 73 BTC + 7 CoreCoins. It might be able to transact in that way as well, sending CoreCoins and ClassicCoins with one wallet “Send” action to the receiver.

....


Suggestion for GPU only PoW change for Core

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all or Core chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from Classic miners. I purpose the following, in order to prevent mining centralization, and prevent the possibility of such a governance coup in the future:

    Core will prepare a large set of cryptographic hash functions, at least 100 or more initially. Any simple (not memory hard) function will do

    Every 3 months (12,096 blocks), the PoW change automatically, by random data hashed from the last block before the change

    A selection of 10 or more functions is made from the large set, selected deterministically from last block data

    If the functions have tunable parameters and or constants then those are also selected deterministically from the last block data

    Those 10 or more functions are constructed in a stack (e.g. X11)

    The Stack of functions with their new constants and parameters (all selected deterministically by hashing last block data) is the NewPoW

    In order to prevent Hash-Rate oscillation (very bad…), The OldPoW and the NewPoW coexist for one month (4,032 blocks)

    Each PoW function actually serves for 5 months:

    - One month of Phase In period in which it co-exists with it’s predecessor

    - Three months in which it serves alone as the only PoW

    - One month of Phase Out period in which it co-exists with it’s successor

    During the Phase In period, the NewPoW difficulty is set initially to a very low value, to incentivize miners to mine it.

    However, During the first 252 blocks (1/16 of the phase in period), only one block with the NewPoW is allowed every 16 blocks. If more then one block with the NewPoW is mined during this period, the rest will be discarded.

    There will be a lot of miners trying to mine the new PoW since its difficulty was set to a low value, there will be a lot of soft forks. To avoid it, the block with NewPoW with minimum BlockHash is accepted as the winner, all the rest are discarded.

    In the next 252 blocks (second 1/16 of the phase in period), only two blocks with the NewPoW are allowed every 16 blocks.

    Every subsequent 252 blocks of the phase-in period, one more block with NewPoW will be allowed.

    After each 252 blocks of the phase-in period, the difficulty of the NewPoW will be adjusted based on the time it took to create blocks with NewPoW from the beginning of each 16 blocks period.

    By the end of the phase-in period, the OldPoW will be retired and the only acceptable blocks will be blocks with the NewPoW


This proposal if implemented correctly, will bring a never ending GPU mining on Core chain. It will also reduce the hash-rate oscillation between each PoW change. In order to make sure an ASIC effort will be uneconomic, the initial set of functions needs to be large enough. In addition, on every future Hard Fork of Core Chain, additional hash functions need to be added to this set (assuming CoreCoin price increase).

....

Thanks goes to:

    Adlai Chandrasekhar for suggesting the automatic method of replacing PoW parameters using Blockchain data
    Benny Gorlick for suggesting to select the next PoW from a large set of predefined functions
    Emin Gün Sirer for suggesting the mechanism to prevent hash-rate oscillation after each PoW change
    James Hilliard for creating a tool that generates a transcript from the WeChat group “MinerInWorld”
    Vitalik Buterin for reviewing the proposal
    Luke-Jr for reviewing the proposal

[monsterer]

Seems to me that GPU mining is centralisation in one form. Ideally, you want a branching-hard PoW which cannot easily be ported to GPU (or baked into an ASIC) with any performance increase over plain CPU.

[nichu]

wonderful changes ,looking forward for that, i liked to concept of GPU mining ,which everyone can participate rather than big mongers who owns huge number of ASICS 

[Carlton Banks]

10 stacked hash functions, randomized from a set of 100? Rotated every 3 months? Lol plan delivers

wonderful changes ,looking forward for that, i liked to concept of GPU mining ,which everyone can participate rather than big mongers who owns huge number of ASICS  

And the most well motivated to come up with algorithmic shortcuts (==moreMiningBTC) for the latest hash-stack monster will always be the most deserving; young, bright, hungry and
with loads of time to spare (day-to-day and long term). The Blockchain "Alliance" can stick that in their respective crackpipes.

[iCEBREAKER]

10 stacked hash functions, randomized from a set of 100? Rotated every 3 months? Lol plan delivers

wonderful changes ,looking forward for that, i liked to concept of GPU mining ,which everyone can participate rather than big mongers who owns huge number of ASICS  

And the most well motivated to come up with algorithmic shortcuts (==moreMiningBTC) for the latest hash-stack monster will always be the most deserving; young, bright, hungry and
with loads of time to spare (day-to-day and long term). The Blockchain "Alliance" can stick that in their respective crackpipes.

I'm not sold on super-complex functions with Byzantine rules (despite the fact when I tried to write one, it looked a lot like what Guy came up with)!   

More complexity just raises the barrier to entry for ASIC manufacturers, exacerbating the centralization we already see with fairly simple SHA-256.  Not that working at 16nm is simple...but still, buying proprietary IP for up to all 100 isn't going to be cheap!   

Since we can't defeat all ASICs, perhaps we should try to encourage as much competition as possible and KISS.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not sold on super-complex functions with Byzantine rules (despite the fact when I tried to write one, it looked a lot like what Guy came up with)!   

More complexity just raises the barrier to entry for ASIC manufacturers, exacerbating the centralization we already see with fairly simple SHA-256.  Not that working at 16nm is simple...but still, buying proprietary IP for up to all 100 isn't going to be cheap!   

And even with ASIC designs for all 100 algorithms, they still can't outcompete thousands (or possibly even hundreds of thousands next wave) of GPUs and FPGAs, and certainly cannot be as quickly up-and-hashing. And what then happens when 100 becomes 101? 

Since we can't defeat all ASICs, perhaps we should try to encourage as much competition as possible and KISS.

Not convinced about that logic when current ASIC overlords are trying to act like they have a gun to Core's head, but we'll see to what extent the credibility of their threat unravels soon enough.

[plorph]

wonderful changes ,looking forward for that, i liked to concept of GPU mining ,which everyone can participate rather than big mongers who owns huge number of ASICS 

I don't understand. Whatever the algorithms are, there will always be specialized chips made with enough time. If a change allows regular GPU mining for now, I'm sure it won't be long until specialized GPU's that maximize mining efficiency will come out.

[johnyj]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

[xyzzy099]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

I think you have it backwards.  The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin.

[Carlton Banks]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

Is that your case for "why bitcoin will appreciate forever", Jonny? In any case, your assertion doesn't withstand a basic reality test: if it were true, it's conceivable that mining costs would be way, way higher than at present. Seeing as it would provoke a 3rd (4th?) mining gold rush.

[Dogedarkdev]

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

So, as I write these words, it seems that Classic has a good chance of meeting its activation Threshold. Jonathan is aiming for Classic to be activated when 75% of the last 2,016 (currently coded 1,000 but he said in the interview that he might increase to 2,016) mined blocks indicate support of the Classic fork, meaning the miners that mined them are ready to do a 2MB Hard Fork and leave behind everyone on Core.
What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

https://coin.dance/nodes


there's hardly any nodes running classic.. what do you mean it has a good chance?

[-ck]

The increasing number of people smoking some bad juju and coming up with this pipe-dream shit astounds me.

[Erkallys]

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

So, as I write these words, it seems that Classic has a good chance of meeting its activation Threshold. Jonathan is aiming for Classic to be activated when 75% of the last 2,016 (currently coded 1,000 but he said in the interview that he might increase to 2,016) mined blocks indicate support of the Classic fork, meaning the miners that mined them are ready to do a 2MB Hard Fork and leave behind everyone on Core.
What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

https://coin.dance/nodes


there's hardly any nodes running classic.. what do you mean it has a good chance?

This is a nice website you submitted us. I think that it should be the nodes + the miners that should be able to decide to fork or not, not only the miners.

[Dogedarkdev]

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

So, as I write these words, it seems that Classic has a good chance of meeting its activation Threshold. Jonathan is aiming for Classic to be activated when 75% of the last 2,016 (currently coded 1,000 but he said in the interview that he might increase to 2,016) mined blocks indicate support of the Classic fork, meaning the miners that mined them are ready to do a 2MB Hard Fork and leave behind everyone on Core.
What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

https://coin.dance/nodes


there's hardly any nodes running classic.. what do you mean it has a good chance?

oh i see now, there are no intentions in Classic to change the algo, it is strictly about block size increase from 1mb to 2mb.. OP was misleading..

[iCEBREAKER]

The increasing number of people smoking some bad juju and coming up with this pipe-dream shit astounds me.

Are you talking about XT/Classic style contentious hard forks, having a backup plan to change the PoW if necessary, both, or neither?

[johnyj]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

I think you have it backwards.  The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin.

Do you know arbitraging? This has been discussed for years in the economy forum, I thought it is already a basic knowledge, just search for it there

Put it simply, if it cost $1 to mine one bitcoin and the market price is $400, everyone will mine and immediately sell, no one will buy; and those who want to hold coin will immediately sell their coins and mine it back at a much lower cost. That is $399 profit for every $1 spent, 399x return on investment. No matter how large the market demand is, the arbitraging will make sure the price keep dropping until it reaches the current mining cost

So, unless the mining cost quickly rise up to $400 overnight, a new pow coin with neglectable initial mining cost will just crash to zero in a very short time

[-ck]

The increasing number of people smoking some bad juju and coming up with this pipe-dream shit astounds me.

Are you talking about XT/Classic style contentious hard forks, having a backup plan to change the PoW if necessary, both, or neither?

Change PoW.

Contentious is not the same as absurd.

Note this is not a vote for anything in particular and should not be taken as such.

[xyzzy099]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

I think you have it backwards.  The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin.

Do you know arbitrage? This has been discussed for years in the economy forum, I thought it is already a basic knowledge, just search for it there

Put it simply, if it cost $1 to mine one bitcoin and the market price is $400, everyone will mine and immediately sell, no one will buy; and those who want to hold coin will immediately sell their coins and mine it back at a much lower cost. That is $399 profit for every $1 spent, 399x return on investment. No matter how large the market demand is, the arbitraging will make sure the price keep dropping until it reaches the current mining cost

So, unless the mining cost quickly rise up to $400 overnight, a new pow coin with neglectable initial mining cost will just crash to zero in a very short time

You are assuming no real demand for bitcoin except speculation, which I expect will not be the case forever.  If there is real demand, the demand will drive the price, and the cost of mining will rise to the value set by demand - not the other way around.  If, on the other hand, demand remains purely speculative, then you would probably be correct that the price will fall to the floor established by the mining cost.

[johnyj]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

Is that your case for "why bitcoin will appreciate forever", Jonny? In any case, your assertion doesn't withstand a basic reality test: if it were true, it's conceivable that mining costs would be way, way higher than at present. Seeing as it would provoke a 3rd (4th?) mining gold rush.

That will be the case, the mining cost should always be close to bitcoin's market price, otherwise arbitraging will happen to make them equal

Due to that the block reward are less and less, you might be able to maintain the same cost while have price double every 4 years, in case block space are always plenty thus the fee income is always a small part of the block reward

[johnyj]

Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case

I think you have it backwards.  The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin.

Do you know arbitrage? This has been discussed for years in the economy forum, I thought it is already a basic knowledge, just search for it there

Put it simply, if it cost $1 to mine one bitcoin and the market price is $400, everyone will mine and immediately sell, no one will buy; and those who want to hold coin will immediately sell their coins and mine it back at a much lower cost. That is $399 profit for every $1 spent, 399x return on investment. No matter how large the market demand is, the arbitraging will make sure the price keep dropping until it reaches the current mining cost

So, unless the mining cost quickly rise up to $400 overnight, a new pow coin with neglectable initial mining cost will just crash to zero in a very short time

You are assuming no real demand for bitcoin except speculation, which I expect will not be the case forever.  If there is real demand, the demand will drive the price, and the cost of mining will rise to the value set by demand - not the other way around.  If, on the other hand, demand remains purely speculative, then you would probably be correct that the price will fall to the floor established by the mining cost.

Of course there is market demand, but if I need one bitcoin, and it takes $1 to mine but $400 to buy, should I mine or buy? Maybe I don't have the necessary tools to mine, but I'm quite sure there will be plenty of miners who are willing to sell to me at $10, which already bring them a 1000% profit immediately

Maybe there are many people who are so stupid that they blindly buy at $400 a coin because they don't know the PoW has changed. But if there is only one guy knows this, he will immediately borrow as much coin as possible and at the same time buy as much hash power as possible, and dump the coin on exchange and mine them back, and in a few days everyone knows how to get rich quick