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

[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.

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

I understand what you are saying...  I'm just trying to clarify that the price is not defined only by the cost of mining.  The cost of mining sets a floor for the price, and demand can potentially pull the price to any level at all above that floor - and the price of mining will be pulled up at the same time, as it will be profitable (and ultimately necessary) for miners to spend more money to mine, no matter what the mining mechanism is (CPU, GPU, ASIC, whatever).

[1715106175]

1715106175

[1715106175]

1715106175

[1715106175]

1715106175

[1715106175]

1715106175

[johnyj]

I understand what you are saying...  I'm just trying to clarify that the price is not defined only by the cost of mining.  The cost of mining sets a floor for the price, and demand can potentially pull the price to any level at all above that floor - and the price of mining will be pulled up at the same time, as it will be profitable (and ultimately necessary) for miners to spend more money to mine, no matter what the mining mechanism is (CPU, GPU, ASIC, whatever).

Usually the serious demand always first go to mining, since that is the lowest cost and will give them freshly mined coins. Only in case there is a sure anticipation of huge jump in difficulty due to new mining technology, they will go to exchange

If you have so serious problem inside bitcoin that you even need to change PoW, the chance that the demand would still rise around the fork period is almost 0

[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?

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.

IMO, changing the PoW is not something to be done except as a last resort to protect the blockchain from a ~51% attacker.

But in a doomsday scenario, with an ongoing contentious hard fork causing unacceptable risk of catastrophic consensus failure, I'd appreciate having some good 2nd strike options having been presciently filed away on the shelf for future consideration in exigent circumstances.

It's like having a fire hose behind glass.  Not a good idea to play with most of the time, but if there's a fire then it's time to break the glass and deploy emergency countermeasures.

In your opinion, is Bitcoin married to SHA-256 like it's married to other control variables like the 21e6 coin emission schedule, 10 minute block target, and 1MB blocks?

Is there a better way to resolve a (messy, scary, dangerous, mutually destructive) fork war than by one of the chains moving to another PoW?

I don't see Bitcoin as being defined by SHA-256; IMO the particular PoW (while carefully chosen as the best fit for the job) isn't an intrinsic feature of the Nakamoto Consensus protocol.

Is there something special about SHA-256 that other functions cannot do as well or better?

[-ck]

In your opinion, is Bitcoin married to SHA-256 like it's married to other control variables like the 21e6 coin emission schedule, 10 minute block target, and 1MB blocks?

That's cute, equating limiting to 1MB blocks to being married to sha256. Don't try and take my one line comment as the opener for something completely unrelated on a completely different scale. This thread is about changing PoW, and I said clearly contentious is not the same as absurd.

[iCEBREAKER]

In your opinion, is Bitcoin married to SHA-256 like it's married to other control variables like the 21e6 coin emission schedule, 10 minute block target, and 1MB blocks?

That's cute, equating limiting to 1MB blocks to being married to sha256. Don't try and take my one line comment as the opener for something completely unrelated on a completely different scale. This thread is about changing PoW, and I said clearly contentious is not the same as absurd.

Well of course changing PoW in anything but the most dire circumstances would be "absurd."  But that is the SHTF scenario a ToominCoin 51% attack forces us to confront.  So let's hope for the best while we plan for the worst.

Are you saying sha256 is a 'less arbitrary/more intrinsic' feature of Bitcoin than 1MB blocks?

I have no problem sacrificing sha256 in order to preserve 1MB blocks, unless you can demonstrate PoW change is more of a threat to our diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network than >1MB (2MB or whatever) blocks.

It seems you have reached the opposite conclusion, and say that 1MB blocks may be sacrificed in order to preserve sha256.

Is that correct, or was something lost in my translation from the Australian?   

Characterizing Guy Corem & Co's POV as "absurd" only tells the rest of us you disagree with it, while leaving your audience wondering what your exact points of contention are.

[-ck]

In your opinion, is Bitcoin married to SHA-256 like it's married to other control variables like the 21e6 coin emission schedule, 10 minute block target, and 1MB blocks?

That's cute, equating limiting to 1MB blocks to being married to sha256. Don't try and take my one line comment as the opener for something completely unrelated on a completely different scale. This thread is about changing PoW, and I said clearly contentious is not the same as absurd.

Well of course changing PoW in anything but the most dire circumstances would be "absurd."  But that is the SHTF scenario a ToominCoin 51% attack forces us to confront.  So let's hope for the best while we plan for the worst.

Are you saying sha256 is a 'less arbitrary/more intrinsic' feature of Bitcoin than 1MB blocks?

I have no problem sacrificing sha256 in order to preserve 1MB blocks, unless you can demonstrate PoW change is more of a threat to our diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network than >1MB (2MB or whatever) blocks.

It seems you have reached the opposite conclusion, and say that 1MB blocks may be sacrificed in order to preserve sha256.

Is that correct, or was something lost in my translation from the Australian?  

Characterizing Guy Corem & Co's POV as "absurd" only tells the rest of us you disagree with it, while leaving your audience wondering what your exact points of contention are.

Changing the proof of work that secures the system from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining hardware (whatever you make of the degree of centralisation) for a multi-billion dollar economy into one that will start again from scratch in the hands of a few thousands of dollars worth of GPUs at peoples' homes is as disruptive as increasing the block size?

It's a shame that you make me spell it out like this, clearly baiting me. I get sick of these discussions very quickly for that exact reason. I'll go hide in my mining corner while everyone continues their endless debate on that note.

[Carlton Banks]

Changing the proof of work that secures the system from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining hardware (whatever you make of the degree of centralisation) for a multi-billion dollar economy into one that will start again from scratch in the hands of a few thousands of dollars worth of GPUs at peoples' homes is as disruptive as increasing the block size?

It's a shame that you make me spell it out like this, clearly baiting me. I get sick of these discussions very quickly for that exact reason. I'll go hide in my mining corner while everyone continues their endless debate on that note.

Well, this is the third time in this thread that you've made a very arrogant assertion of fact, in the actual expectation that the audience simply accept what you say due to your erudition. Not the case. It's possible you have a really good reason to make your statements, but no-one except you knows what it is. You have "spelled out" precisely zero.

Are you trying to tell me that a fork to Keccak (tomorrow) would be as disruptive as a fork to 1TB blocks, tomorrow? C'mon Con. Your superiority can't confer you the luxury of making generalised statements like that, and expecting to project a more specific meaning onto them, can it?

[iCEBREAKER]

In your opinion, is Bitcoin married to SHA-256 like it's married to other control variables like the 21e6 coin emission schedule, 10 minute block target, and 1MB blocks?

That's cute, equating limiting to 1MB blocks to being married to sha256. Don't try and take my one line comment as the opener for something completely unrelated on a completely different scale. This thread is about changing PoW, and I said clearly contentious is not the same as absurd.

Well of course changing PoW in anything but the most dire circumstances would be "absurd."  But that is the SHTF scenario a ToominCoin 51% attack forces us to confront.  So let's hope for the best while we plan for the worst.

Are you saying sha256 is a 'less arbitrary/more intrinsic' feature of Bitcoin than 1MB blocks?

I have no problem sacrificing sha256 in order to preserve 1MB blocks, unless you can demonstrate PoW change is more of a threat to our diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network than >1MB (2MB or whatever) blocks.

It seems you have reached the opposite conclusion, and say that 1MB blocks may be sacrificed in order to preserve sha256.

Is that correct, or was something lost in my translation from the Australian?  

Characterizing Guy Corem & Co's POV as "absurd" only tells the rest of us you disagree with it, while leaving your audience wondering what your exact points of contention are.

Changing the proof of work that secures the system from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining hardware (whatever you make of the degree of centralisation) for a multi-billion dollar economy into one that will start again from scratch in the hands of a few thousands of dollars worth of GPUs at peoples' homes is as disruptive as increasing the block size?

It's a shame that you make me spell it out like this, clearly baiting me. I get sick of these discussions very quickly for that exact reason. I'll go hide in my mining corner while everyone continues their endless debate on that note.

There's no trick question here or lurking 'gotcha' waiting to pounce on you bro.  I only asked you to spell it out because your highly-informed expert opinion is one of the most valuable to me.

I'm not sure you are getting what I'm saying, because you reference "hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining hardware" that, in a contentious fork war, would have stopped being an asset to Bitcoin and started being a liability (or at least may have entered a grey zone where sha256's value is unclear and possibly zero or negative).

Catastrophic consensus failure would entail that Bitcoin must "start again from scratch."  And facing headwinds of terrible publicity to boot.

In a DEFCON ZERO situation, by switching PoW we would have little to lose (despite the intrinsic chaos involved in moving from one stable state to another), much to gain by defending the blockchain from adversity, and maybe even mitigate the ASIC centralization problem in the process.

Perhaps where we disagree is on the impact of increasing block size on Bitcoin's antifragile aspect.  IMO antifragility is an emergent property of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, and anything over 1MB tx + SEGWIT blocks are too risky.

I know that's a controversial opinion, but being out on the fringe isn't so bad when I am in good company with the 'let's consider DECREASING max_block' crowd, to whom I am sympathetic in that I'd rather set max_block at too low a value than too high.

Thanks for stepping into the endless debate to LMK your POV.  I think I got it now, so you can go back to making Bitcoin more awesome!   

[iCEBREAKER]

xpost:

A new challenger emerges.

TLDR: it's Wild Keccak modified to be even more ASIC resistant.  I'm calling it "Feral Keccak."   

the sugar daddy of bitcoin: http://qntra.net/2016/02/popescu-offers-condition-for-accepting-future-hard-forks/

http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/

Summary :

All blocks must include a SHA3i-512 digest calculated over a bitfield composed out of the nonce-th byte out of every preceding block, wrapped.

Rationale :

The issues being resolved have been discussed at length in #bitcoin-assets, whose logs you are invited to read - right now, and in integrum.

This notwithstanding, an unbinding summary is that the miner-node divisioniv is both an unintended consequence of the poor design and inept implementation of Bitcoin by its original author as well as the single known possible threat to its continued survival. This measure heals that rift, by making it impossible for miners to mine without nodesv) ; and by giving nodes a directly valuable piece of information they can sell.vi

Excellent suggestion.

It fixes the glaring problems with the current reward structure, which is producing malallocation of resources (centralized ASIC farms sucking up all the block subsidies) and perverse incentives (externalized node costs, hacky SPV mining).

IIRC, this PoW is called Wild Keccak and has been used successfully by Boolberry for over a year.

Now who is going to code it up and get it into the BIP process/hard fork wishlist?

[P-Funk]

Divisiveness won't do anything but harm Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

Divisiveness won't do anything but harm Bitcoin.

Such process concerns belong at BitcoinObituaries.com.

Nothing harms Bitcoin, which always has and always will run on drama.

It's antifragile, so adversity like "divisiveness" only makes it stronger.

[af_newbie]

...
Suggestion for GPU only PoW change for Core
...

You are forgetting that nobody will be interested in doing "51% takeover" on worthless coin, just like today big farms or pools are not pointing their hashing power to mine sha alt coins, taking over their networks and double spend worthless coins.

They have invested a lot of capital into mining BTC,  time is money for them.  If they all agree on mining "classic coin" they will not waste time with "core coin".

If you have more miners mining 'classic' flavour, the longest chain wins.  Period.

The worst part of this whole saga is that "end users" will decide how to solve technical issues.  This does not bode well for long-term viability of bitcoin.

Miners, retailers, end users will all lose if that hard fork happens.  This hard fork is really dangerous now, especially when bitcoin community is already split BEFORE the hard fork.  So yes, I agree, we'll have two coins for a while.

[Jet Cash]

I read most of this thread, and it seems to me that there are a few misconceptions. It is not the miners who determine the price, but the consumers. These are investors, speculators, traders and people who want a convenient money transfer system. If the price drops below the cost of mining, then miners start to sell up. One example of this is the oil industry at the moment. A fracking well in N. Dakota is having to pay to dispose of its oil - they won't be in business for long.

What will happen to Bitcoin? Well imho, it depends on the direction that the full nodes take. There is no point in mining blocks that will get chucked out by the consumers. Also, I haven't seen any comments on the block hijacking that seems to go on between miners. If a block is rejected by the nodes, will another miner be able to grab it, re-populate it, and submite to the core chain? I don't know enough about mining to know if that is feasible or likely, but it does seem as if opportunistic miners could benefit by staying with the core fork.

[Carlton Banks]

If the price drops below the cost of mining, then miners start to sell up. One example of this is the oil industry at the moment. A fracking well in N. Dakota is having to pay to dispose of its oil - they won't be in business for long.

Except that economics would have to be the only consideration in order for that to happen: it isn't (in either North Dakota fracking wells or Bitcoin mines). That is, to some extent, why what you're talking about isn't happening either.

What will happen to Bitcoin? Well imho, it depends on the direction that the full nodes take. There is no point in mining blocks that will get chucked out by the consumers. Also, I haven't seen any comments on the block hijacking that seems to go on between miners. If a block is rejected by the nodes, will another miner be able to grab it, re-populate it, and submite to the core chain? I don't know enough about mining to know if that is feasible or likely, but it does seem as if opportunistic miners could benefit by staying with the core fork.

What fork? There is no fork, and the way things are going, there isn't likely to be a fork any more significant than the orphaned blocks we see every day.


But you seem to be basing alot of your present-day planning around an assumption that the blockchain will fork; to wit, your signature. You have a few misconceptions yourself about the overall picture, I would argue.

[Jet Cash]

It was news a few days ago that a N. Dakota well had to pay for its oil to be removed. It's low grade, and the transport + refining costs made it uneconomic to process. I agree that it's not quite the same. A Bitcoin is a Bitcoin (ignoring ageing and unspent premiums), so there is no significant variation in price between coins.

re. my sig. I'll stay with Bitcoin whatever happens, but I support SegWit, and my sig is a puny attempt to support the true Bitcoin camp, rather thsn the usurpers.

[Carlton Banks]

It was news a few days ago that a N. Dakota well had to pay for its oil to be removed.

I know.

It's low grade, and the transport + refining costs made it uneconomic to process. I agree that it's not quite the same. A Bitcoin is a Bitcoin (ignoring ageing and unspent premiums), so there is no significant variation in price between coins.

No, I would disagree with your contention that it's "not quite the same"; the operative principles are the same. That's why you drew the analogy to begin with, and that's why I suggested an extension of your metaphor to encompass the full range of factors that affect propensity to sell in either market.

re. my sig. I'll stay with Bitcoin whatever happens, but I support SegWit, and my sig is a puny attempt to support the true Bitcoin camp, rather thsn the usurpers.

That's cool, but can you see how your sig actually undermines confidence unnecessarily? If people took you seriously they might assume:

• There is a serious risk that the blockchain will fork (there is only a small risk of that)
• 2MB hardfork is in serious contention amongst the devs (it isn't)

There is an unfortunate mob of forum hounds who spend all day, every day, spreading misinformation like the 2 bullet points above. The intention is to do a "Billie Jean": the lie becomes the truth, because everyone is so used to hearing the lie. Watch out for those people, and their rhetoric.

[Jet Cash]

Well my intention wsas to nail my flag to SigWit. I really believe that it is essential to move Bitcoin into a mature phase (and some other changes of course). I know I'm not a significant voice, but multiply my voice a few hundred times, and it might have an effect. What would you suggest as a better sig?

[Carlton Banks]

well, I'm not suggesting I actually want you to change it to something else, but just to give it some more thought. I like what you said about multiplicity of voices, and it's more than welcome to get new people coming to bitcointalk, so don't be offended if I come across a bit didactic. But as I said, and as it seems you already know, we have a problem with very insidious bankster trolls over here.

[Cconvert2G36]

well, I'm not suggesting I actually want you to change it to something else, but just to give it some more thought. I like what you said about multiplicity of voices, and it's more than welcome to get new people coming to bitcointalk, so don't be offended if I come across a bit didactic. But as I said, and as it seems you already know, we have a problem with very insidious bankster trolls over here.

A problem?... It's a downright infestation of bankster trolls up over here. Some have even been lying in hibernation for near half a decade, just shows you how super cereal our opponents are... A quick way to identify them is if they talk about "native scaling", or "outright suicide" if you have your head screwed on straight.

A PoW change may be necessary to shed the fleas for good, via decentralization and censorship resistance.

[YarkoL]

What will happen to Bitcoin? Well imho, it depends on the direction that the full nodes take. There is no point in mining blocks that will get chucked out by the consumers. Also, I haven't seen any comments on the block hijacking that seems to go on between miners. If a block is rejected by the nodes, will another miner be able to grab it, re-populate it, and submite to the core chain? I don't know enough about mining to know if that is feasible or likely, but it does seem as if opportunistic miners could benefit by staying with the core fork.

What block hijacking? If a miner changes something in a block,
he will have to compute a new proof-of-work.