Deleted

[-ck]

You miss the point if you think changing the proof of work will fix the problem. The problem is not what the proof of work algorithm is, the problem is simply that work can be pooled. Anything can be made into an ASIC given enough financial incentive, and any type of work can be pooled. What really is needed is to make it impossible to pool work. Find a solution for that and you have progress.

[Carlton Banks]

It's well known that Bitcoin PoW can be pooled.


And the solution to pooling is tree-based blockchains instead of linear based blockchains. This is about buying time to implement that solution, not solving it altogether.

[talkbitcoin]

and how do you think miners will react to this talking about POW change and practically killing their investment?
and i am not just talking about mining farms, pools or whatever but i am talking about the whole 100% of the hashrate including all the individuals that have invested in buying an ASIC,... to mine bitcoin?

[Carlton Banks]

It's well known that Bitcoin PoW can be pooled.


And the solution to pooling is tree-based blockchains instead of linear based blockchains. This is about buying time to implement that solution, not solving it altogether.

Do we even know that this can be done? I much rather see it proven before making a huge game changing decision, rather than just changing algorithm pissing off the industry and botnets making it rich during the beginning of a change.

Peter Todd and Sergio Lerner have independently developed tree-chain proof of concepts, but hard implementations even for testing aren't available as far as I know (and you could predict that some alternative cryptocoin would have implemented it by now if that were the case)

The principles are sound though. Basically, instead of having a main chain, with everyone working only on the next block, there are multiple strands to the chain. Similar to the side-chain idea, but without a main-chain > sub-chain hierarchy. Every separate strand of the chain is equal.

Done that way, the system can be designed to mainatain a balance of the number of chain-strands needed to serve the amount of mining demand. Pooled mining becomes pointless, as difficulty on each strand is kept low enough to allow anyone to mine a whole block to themself.

[rico666]

You miss the point if you think changing the proof of work will fix the problem. The problem is not what the proof of work algorithm is, the problem is simply that work can be pooled. Anything can be made into an ASIC given enough financial incentive, and any type of work can be pooled. What really is needed is to make it impossible to pool work. Find a solution for that and you have progress.

While formally you are 100% right, changing the PoW would "reset the system" for a while. Also, I believe any ASIC vendor would refrain from doing a Keccak (or whatever) ASIC if he knew there might be a change again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) - don't worry about the link I'm an atheist, it's just to demonstrate how I see a PoW change.

It actually may give us "normalization time" until a true solution as you point out might be found.


Rico

[AngryDwarf]

People will just re-program their FPGA's. There's quite a few of them around mining different crypto currency algorithms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

[BurtW]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0

what the hell is up with this new fascination to "change bitcoin"?!!!

ever since this stupid block size debate has started, i keep seeing everyone trying to add lots of changes to bitcoin and change what has been working so far and is still working perfectly and will continue to work!
started with classic which was shitloads of change and then xt and then BU and segwit!
and now this!!!

if you are so unhappy then start a new altcoin and apply the changes, whatever they are in that altcoin and leave bitcoin alone.
this is what litecoin and half the rest of them did and are still doing.

You must not have been here very long.  As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin.  They come and then they go.  None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen.  It is just so much bluster, FUD, and opinion.  It give people something to talk about.  Meanwhile Bitcoin just keeps on keeping on and it will continue to do so as all these posting battles rage on.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin at this point and has no need to change - so it won't. 

[Carlton Banks]

People will just re-program their FPGA's. There's quite a few of them around mining different crypto currency algorithms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

Yep, except

• FPGA's are general purpose processing chips, available to anyone, not just monopolistic manufacturing specialist as is the case with ASICs
• With the right choice of hashing algorithm, FPGAs don't really improve hashes per watt of electricity anyway

[pooya87]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0

what the hell is up with this new fascination to "change bitcoin"?!!!

ever since this stupid block size debate has started, i keep seeing everyone trying to add lots of changes to bitcoin and change what has been working so far and is still working perfectly and will continue to work!
started with classic which was shitloads of change and then xt and then BU and segwit!
and now this!!!

if you are so unhappy then start a new altcoin and apply the changes, whatever they are in that altcoin and leave bitcoin alone.
this is what litecoin and half the rest of them did and are still doing.

You must not have been here very long.  As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin.  They come and then they go.  None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen.  It is just so much bluster, FUD, and opinion.  It give people something to talk about.  Meanwhile Bitcoin just keeps on keeping on and it will continue to do so as all these posting battles rage on.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin at this point and has no need to change - so it won't. 

I liked your answer since this is mostly what i believe too.

and no i haven't been "exactly here" very long, only since 2014 and for the most part of it i never cared about things like this, and never even get involved in the arguments.
i only "use" bitcoin as a currency and trade sometimes.
but lately it seemed (at least to me) that the fascination has grown!

[Carlton Banks]

You must not have been here very long.  As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin.  They come and then they go.  None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen.

You must not have been here very long either.

Every change proposed and implemented to Bitcoin has been accepted up to Segwit, BIP is an abbrevation for Bitcoin Improvement Program, and how many BIPs have been implemented in version 14 of Bitcoin, Burt? More than a dozen, right?


What you're really saying is "hard forks aren't the original design". Thanks for enlightening us (except we knew that already).

Who's going to continue the bugfix maintenance fork of Bitcoin Core version 14, you? If the Core Bitcoin devs propose a hard fork, and it gains sufficient support, you can kiss your immutability dynamics goodbye, son

[BurtW]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0

what the hell is up with this new fascination to "change bitcoin"?!!!

ever since this stupid block size debate has started, i keep seeing everyone trying to add lots of changes to bitcoin and change what has been working so far and is still working perfectly and will continue to work!
started with classic which was shitloads of change and then xt and then BU and segwit!
and now this!!!

if you are so unhappy then start a new altcoin and apply the changes, whatever they are in that altcoin and leave bitcoin alone.
this is what litecoin and half the rest of them did and are still doing.

You must not have been here very long.  As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin.  They come and then they go.  None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen.  It is just so much bluster, FUD, and opinion.  It give people something to talk about.  Meanwhile Bitcoin just keeps on keeping on and it will continue to do so as all these posting battles rage on.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin at this point and has no need to change - so it won't. 

I liked your answer since this is mostly what i believe too.

and no i haven't been "exactly here" very long, only since 2014 and for the most part of it i never cared about things like this, and never even get involved in the arguments.
i only "use" bitcoin as a currency and trade sometimes.
but lately it seemed (at least to me) that the fascination has grown!

Yes, the level of the "we must change Bitcoin" bluster is extremely high right now.  I think it is all part of the grieving process.  Many are grieving the fact that Bitcoin cannot and will never become whatever their personal idea is of what they wanted it to become.  Bitcoin is what it is and that is not what many here thought, believed or hoped it would become.  Hopefully, eventually, they will get through the steps in the grieving process and this will all die down.

[BurtW]

You must not have been here very long.  As long as I can remember there have been proposals to change Bitcoin.  They come and then they go.  None of these proposed changes (BU, Segwit, change PoW, etc.) will ever happen.

You must not have been here very long either.

Every change proposed and implemented to Bitcoin has been accepted up to Segwit, BIP is an abbrevation for Bitcoin Improvement Program, and how many BIPs have been implemented in version 14 of Bitcoin, Burt? More than a dozen, right?


What you're really saying is "hard forks aren't the original design". Thanks for enlightening us (except we knew that already).

Who's going to continue the bugfix maintenance fork of Bitcoin Core version 14, you? If the Core Bitcoin devs propose a hard fork, and it gains sufficient support, you can kiss your immutability dynamics goodbye, son

Carlton,

All I am saying is that in my opinion, despite your hundreds of posts, none of the major changes you are proposing are going to happen.  Sorry.  On the up side, none of the changes you hate with a burning passion are going to happen either.

I could be wrong.  All of this posturing/posting from all sides could have some effect.  But I do not think so.

[Carlton Banks]

You're already wrong, or else the Bitcoin network would still be running version 0.1


Feel free to make any coherent arguments

[rico666]

I could be wrong.  All of this posturing/posting from all sides could have some effect.  But I do not think so.

Great - so "we" have no voice and the decisions are being made by someone else somewhere else?
Hey! I have a great idea: Let's just abandon Bitcoin altogether - no?

Rico

[dinofelis]

Carlton,

All I am saying is that in my opinion, despite your hundreds of posts, none of the major changes you are proposing are going to happen.  Sorry.  On the up side, none of the changes you hate with a burning passion are going to happen either.

I could be wrong.  All of this posturing/posting from all sides could have some effect.  But I do not think so.

I am exactly of your opinion.

[ImHash]

What are you guys talking about? I hope you realize that what you're doing is heresy if bitcoin was a religion imo any 51% attack is the action of a m*ron individual, having 51% or even more of the total hash power means that you could mine more than others and a network safe/secure/with community support will cause the price of what you now are mining more than others to increase. unless you are mentally re*arded and not capable to think about the future consequences of your actions.

[BurtW]

You're already wrong, or else the Bitcoin network would still be running version 0.1


Feel free to make any coherent arguments

Major changes, specifically Segwit, BU, the "poison pill" proposal being yelled about, and any change to the PoW algorithm that breaks current mining operations will never be implemented.

You know all the arguments against all these things.  You have seen them all many, many times.  I am not going to waste my time or your time repeating them here.

I am just going to sit back, watch my Bitcoins appreciate over time, and watch all these major proposals never happen.

Many small improvements have been made, can be made, and will be made.  Not the point.  The point is all this continual bluster over major fundamental changes that I believe will never happen.

No need to argue about it.  Time will tell.

[Carlton Banks]

This wouldn't stop people like Bitmain though, let's say this happens with a new algorithm and they are able to create an asic, they just don't tell anyone and split there machines across each of chains. Sure they'll make difficulty increase but they are still going to be able to Target these other chains. If it is cpu bound then we have tons of cpu servers popping up and server rooms focusing on it and still able to spread the hash upon different chains. It seems to me the idea is that yes they wouldn't be able to get the full block but someone could most likely still dominate most chains, making this all a moot point.

I'm not sure if you understand exactly why Bitmain have such a monopoly.

ASICs are proprietary technology, i.e. Bitfury & Bitmain's designs are a trade secret.


General purpose computers (like CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs) are freely available to anyone. Sure, those with better access to cheap electricity, warehouse space and the money to pay for those still have a competitive advantage, but there are diminshing returns while any economic activity scales-up. A combination of ASIC resitant PoW and changing the blockchain from linear to a tree would stop miners leveraging the advantages that monopolised ASICs give them.



@Burt that's a hell of a lot of words and sentences to say "because". Try and fit some actual content into your posts please, you're wasting space in the debate if you're going to take up that much space to say "No need to argue"

[BurtW]

Great - so "we" have no voice and the decisions are being made by someone else somewhere else?

Correct - if by "we" you mean the user that are not miners with a boatload of hashing power.  Nothing you say matters.  Nothing I say matters.  Nothing Carlton says matters.  Nothing said here on bitcointalk.org or reddit matters.  The decision will be made by the miners.  If they all agree that raising the block size will make them more money - they will do it (they won't).  If they all agree Segwit will make them more money - they will do it (they won't).  If they all agree changing the PoW algorithm will make them more money - the will do it (it will not, they won't)

Hey! I have a great idea: Let's just abandon Bitcoin altogether - no?

Your choice.

[Carlton Banks]

"The decision will be made by the miners"


That's right Burt, but not nuanced enough


If we change PoW, we change who the miners are. Don't you like that idea? I do