Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[d_eddie]

I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.

Could you elaborate on the bold part?

PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions

I would like an option for semi-full nodes, where they can store fractions of the blockchain bittorrent-like, and above all incentives for them and the full nodes, like a small fraction of the fees.

[d_eddie]

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions

I would like an option for semi-full nodes, where they can store fractions of the blockchain bittorrent-like, and above all incentives for them and the full nodes, like a small fraction of the fees.

A kind of distributed checkpointing? That would be nice, I agree.

However, Bittorrent as a protocol has a lot of back-and-forth chatter, more so if it's trackerless and decentralized (DHT). That's why it just won't play nice with mesh networks like TOR. I don't know anything about the technicals of checkpointing, though. There might be some alternative solutions, but their efficiency needs to be accurately evaluated.

[Icygreen]

 I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?

[d_eddie]

I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?

We're in the same position. Mining has become a hardcore game for big players. It's financially risky and you are subjected to the whims and abuses of people like Jihan. Not to mention the policies of governments. They can't stop bitcoin, but they can stop miners fairly easily, giving the minimum mining farm size of today.

That's another reason why I would love some real decentralization by soft PoW modulation.

[Ibian]

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.

[STT]

I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.

Could you elaborate on the bold part?

PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.

Proof of Stake has coin age to consider, any participant has to first be fully upto date and part of a network for some time in order to then be part of the staking process which even then is randomised not on demand.    Theres only some average rate at which a large holder will stake not that they can force participation.   POS is dangerous if the majority of a crypto currency is liquid on an exchange perhaps, its unlikely to be especially cheap to undermine in this way

I do imagine Proof of stake is going to be part of Ethereum this year as they move to make their transactions cheaper, faster and more efficient.   Vitalik Buterin seems quite focused on avoiding the problems bitcoin transactions had with mining fees and POS is the most viable route ?   I even see BTC could move to a more efficient model, I dont expect them to switch but its possible.  Some speculation there is no choice and energy consumption by the network means it must happen for BTC to stay competitive.   I'm very positive on POS since 2014, I might be biased  I'd like to see it tested by mainstream traffic loads alot more.


BTC price I had drifting below the upper channel.    If you take the overall trend as bullish, its in a value area.  Speculators will likely try to buy it on the lower channel in greater numbers.  Perhaps a return to early Feb prices, 8617 say.

https://stopthefud.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/georgia-bitcoin-taxes/
With a weak dollar still not in an uptrend I see overall BTC prospects quite positive medium term

[mindrust]

I've been considering running a mining rig simply for the education it would offer but I'm on the fence knowing that it may not be profitable and also realizing it will likely change drastically in the short term future. I also don't want to buy from jihan with bcash some overpriced, outdated box.
I mean, I seed my torrents properly and I'd prefer to contribute to BTC pools but where to start today?

I recently started mining with 24tb HDDs and 1 gtx1070. The profits are too low but I don't care much. I'll extend my GPU rig up to 6 cards and then I'll stop.

What I do now is instead of going to the banks, making bank transactions to exchanges; my mining rig gets me bitcoins automatically.

My rig will be a 6GPU-50tb HDD rig when it is finished. Since I was already buying bitcoins with my cash every month to diversify my investments and I am a holder with no intentions to sell any coins, thanks to this rig I basically generate bitcoins without needing anybody else. I consume electricity and in return they give me bitcoins. I can even mine at a loss because I won't be running a huge mining operation and I can afford to pay for the bills unlike the big miners who dump away their coins to pay their bills.

That's a great deal. Plus; GPU's will keep their value like 2 years at least and HDD's will keep it forever as long as they work.

If you are able to mine, you should mine. But never go all in on one thing. I am holding FIAT, crypto, mining equipment and gold. That's what I do.

[itod]

My opinion is that preparing for a soft PoW change would be a good thing. Keywords: preparing and soft.

A monopoly on mining is an evil thing. It keeps decentralization from really taking place. However, changing PoW drastically without a grace period would only alienate the "good" miners - probably ruin them, and piss them off enough to turn them (rightfully) bad.

One way could be to have a PoW that alternates between a few different hash functions - some of which hard to implement on ASICs, probably because of insane RAM requirements although there are alternatives. The alternance should be based on past history; the percentage of SHA-256 blocks could be dynamic, so "good" miners are incentivized to keep their percentage high by maintaining good demeanor. Or there could be a multiple PoW in each block, so that both a SHA-256 proof and some other proof(s) are necessary for validation. Each PoW function should maintain a different difficulty scale, and the difficulties could be combined into some overall metric. Such a system would be highly tweakable, and adapt dynamically.

(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

Any working solution should be designed with game theory in mind, not only the obvious complexity theory. A long check on testnet would be necessary, to figure out at least the complexity part, if not the game theory part.

(Inb4 - Bitcoin is a scam designed to centralize because no digital money can ever blah blah the Joos blah blah gold and silver.)

There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks. As much as most of us hate Bitmain, PoW change can not be justified because someone has market dominance and is in position to attack the blockchain.

There are PoW algos that are ASIC resistant (Cuckoo Cycle), but this is not a technical question at all.

Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.

IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

[Ibian]

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

(your quantum waifu does not love you)

[mindrust]

IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

Core devs can come out and say "We upgrading the btc protocol to keep it safe against Quantum computers so a PoW change is necessary".

Bitmain will have no ground against this. 

[itod]

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

You can not do it mate, if Quantum breaks SHA256 it will be useless. It's not an option. I don't believe it's realistic, but big boys are pouring a lot of money into it and you never know what the results will be.

[d_eddie]

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.

I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.

[Ibian]

Also fuck quantum clowns. We would be using them to mine if they were ever to become more than a nerdish fantasy.

You can not do it mate, if Quantum breaks SHA256 it will be useless. It's not an option. I don't believe it's realistic, but big boys are pouring a lot of money into it and you never know what the results will be.

Like I said NERDISH FANTASY. Show a functional product. I read plenty of sci-fi as it is, don't need more of it here.

[Ibian]

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.

I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.

If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.

And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.

[d_eddie]

I'd posted my reply about PoW change before reading the posts by Icygreen, flipperish, flynn and others.

I, too, would like the full nodes to have a say in the relative distribution of hash functions, but full nodes are too easy to sybyl attack. PoS vote is also dangerous, because established miners have huge availability they could employ to crush GPU- or CPU- friendly functions. That's why we will eventually need to figure out more game theory to have a stable solution.

Could you elaborate on the bold part?

PoS - Those who can prove ownership of coin get more votes.

Short: An established miner has (or can quickly have) lots of coin lying around, so he can steer the voting result more easily than a few hodlers with the same total stake (read: stash).

Longer: Giving each satoshi the same voting weight is a hard problem, possibly unsolvable. What is needed is a hypothetical system of incentives that makes GPU- and CPU- miner owned satoshis as heavy as ASIC-miner owned ones. Is such a system practical to implement? Does it ever exist? I doubt it. That's why PoS is dangerous.

Proof of Stake has coin age to consider, any participant has to first be fully upto date and part of a network for some time in order to then be part of the staking process which even then is randomised not on demand.    Theres only some average rate at which a large holder will stake not that they can force participation.   POS is dangerous if the majority of a crypto currency is liquid on an exchange perhaps, its unlikely to be especially cheap to undermine in this way

That's a good point that I haven't considered fully. Guess I need to read up a bit more.

I do imagine Proof of stake is going to be part of Ethereum this year as they move to make their transactions cheaper, faster and more efficient.   Vitalik Buterin seems quite focused on avoiding the problems bitcoin transactions had with mining fees and POS is the most viable route ?

Buterin would do better to first make sure transactions are irreversible.

[d_eddie]

(snip)

(EDIT - about "softness". The initial conditions could be 100% ASIC-based, 0% others, as it is now. Then in times of mempool storms, or fork FUD, or whatever, the "others" might be gently pushed up until the situation gets back to normal.)

There can not be soft fork PoW change, it's the hardest of all hard forks.

But but... initial 0%? It's as soft as can be. As long as it doesn't budge from 0%, it's still good ol'bitcoin.

Keep in mind that no one would more encourage such a change than Jihan Wu. If such thing happen, he will have a ground to a claim BCash is the real Bitcoin, and he knows that claim is false in current situation. I'm afraid he may even really attack Bitcoin just to make some more incentive for PoW change.

I haven't considered this. It seems a bit far fetched, but not totally out of this world.

IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

Yes, a quantum computing breakout (unlikely for several years to come) would destroy Bitcoin as we know it. Having the necessary machinery for PoW in place could be a safety exit. Just insert Cuckoo Cycle into an "other hashing algos" slot.

[d_eddie]

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.

I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.

If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.

You don't need to be a communist to expect markets to be as efficient as they can be. In fact, market efficiency is not a primary concern in communist utopy. For capitalists, however, monopolies and oligopolies are the primary source of market inefficiency.

And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.

Nothing personal, and probably not too accurate. All right, I apologise. The point is, although you come from very different places, you can end up arriving at the same point. Big blocks, miner power and progressive irrelevance of the network of users (as in "full nodes").

[d_eddie]

IMHO the only thing that can justify PoW change is Quantum computing attack on SHA2, and Cuckoo Cycle is Quantum resistant btw. Doing it now is jumping in the abyss just for the sake of change.

Core devs can come out and say "We upgrading the btc protocol to keep it safe against Quantum computers so a PoW change is necessary".

Bitmain will have no ground against this. 

Just merited you - even with that fuckface avatar 

[Ibian]

People who can't compete always want to change the rules of the game.

Especially if the game is about keeping open competition.

I don't care if there is only one shovel maker. Good for them for being successful at what they do.

I do care, if they can charge whatever they want for their shovels, to the point of suppressing shoveling when they don't want it to happen.

Monopoly is never good, except for the monopolist. Don't jbreher yourself into a corner.

If they raised prices a hundredfold from here, and it was still profitable to buy their stuff, then that's fair game.

The market can bear whatever it can bear. Let's not turn into pretend-communists.

You don't need to be a communist to expect markets to be as efficient as they can be. In fact, market efficiency is not a primary concern in communist utopy. For capitlaists, however, Monopolies and oligopolies are the primary source of market inefficiency.

And why would you compare me to yogi? That makes no sense.

Nothing personal, and probably not too accurate. All right, I apologise. The point is, although you come from very different places, you can end up arriving at the same point. Big blocks, miner power and progressive irrelevance of the network of users (as in "full nodes").

Adam Smith was right. Stop trying to control things and everything works out. So there is only one shovel maker? That means their products are functional and their prices are reasonable. The moment either of those stop being the case, someone else will overtake them.

Green is an ugly color.

As for yogi. If bcash was objectively better than bitcoin then I would be supporting it. I go with what works, not what I would like to work. It's not, so that's the end of that.