Could mining shares be distributed more balanced?

[Aztec]

What if you were placed into small pools that had an equal distribution of power. So you had 20-40% really fast rigs and the rest normal gpu rigs and then divide the spoils more equally between the pool that found the block. Like different teams. The shares could still be stacked at a higher percentage for the faster rigs but even with 40% of  share the gpu miners might get a more decent payout.

If you were in a lucky team you could get a decent return for a change. I'm not good with figures but I'm sure someone could come up with the numbers to make it work.

People with big rigs obviously wouldn't like this but I think it would benefit bitcoin to have a fairer distribution of coins. Give the little man a chance for a change. After all it's about sticking it to the man.

What do you think?

[Aztec]

The silence says it all. Conspiracy 

[Foxpup]

You seem to have a funny definition of the word "fair". As far as I'm concerned "fair" means "if you do more work, you get paid more". How is it "fair" to pay miners equally regardless of how much work they do?

[Aztec]

You seem to have a funny definition of the word "fair". As far as I'm concerned "fair" means "if you do more work, you get paid more". How is it "fair" to pay miners equally regardless of how much work they do?

Maybe the word I should have used is "Even" or "sensible". For BitCoin to go mainstream demand will need to be there. As it stands the only people with any BitCoins to spend are a tiny amount of the population. There is no demand for BitCoin services until lots have people have them to spend. Demand will dictate supply.

As it is, Amazon and other major online players don't have to support BitCoin because nobody has any anyway. It's not good for BitCoin to just have a few people hoarding the coins.

Give the miners a more even return and more people will have spending power to drive up demand. I'm not saying it should be shared equally just more evenly. Miners who have invested more would still have the lions share. An analogy could be that a slow miner would still get about the same as the work he's putting in but he also might have a slim chance of finding a huge nugget from time to time.

People might end up sitting on a heap of monopoly money if it doesn't go mainstream and every miner is helping BitCoin to go mainstream

[Gator-hex]

Fair is a PPS pool. I recommend 50BTC or Bitminter.

If you want to mine with old kit try LiteCoin instead, competing against ASICs on Bitcoin is going to get more unfair!  

[Aztec]

Fair is a PPS pool. I recommend 50BTC or Bitminter.

If you want to mine with old kit try LiteCoin instead, competing against ASICs on Bitcoin is going to get more unfair!  

I've heard a few people say the same. I might do that when I finally mine a Bitcoin. It's taken me 3 weeks to get 0.6. (0.1 of that generously donated I might add) I'm just a bitter miner haha. I still think there's legs in what I'm talking about though.

[momagic]

It's taken me 3 weeks to get 0.6. (0.1 of that generously donated I might add) I'm just a bitter miner haha.

This.

+1

We all want Bitcoins for free.

[BigJohn]

I agree that it could be more distributed. The fact that it relies on how many hashes per second your equipment can do, and that you can buy better equipment, means that there's a race to get the best equipment possible. Since there are only so many bitcoins to be mined per block, really all that's being decided is who gets them. And that's the people with the best rigs.

Technically there's nothing wrong with that. Because the best rigs also buy the network more security. But it does seem to go against the decentralized notion of Bitcoin. Eventually the only way to mine would be to own massive equipment that can yield lots of hashes per second. Which means it would be done by fewer people. Which means it's easier to shut down.

Or not, who knows. This is all far in the future.