Common hashrate

[cromex]

Hi all, have a technical question concerning mining a coin
If let us say there are 100K miners on the network and each have a hash rate of say 1k h/s what would happen to the network? Lets use bitcoin for this example.

[DannyHamilton]

Hi all, have a technical question concerning mining a coin
If let us say there are 100K miners on the network and each have a hash rate of say 1k h/s what would happen to the network? Lets use bitcoin for this example.

I don't understand the question.

Nothing would "happen to the network".  Nodes would still connect to peers, transactions and blocks would continue to be validated and relayed.

As for the miners...

Mining difficulty would adjust such that there is an average of 10 minutes between solved blocks.

Each miner would have a 0.001% chance of solving the next block.

Each miner would solve (on average) one block every 22.8 months.

Most miners wouldn't be willing to wait so long to solve a block, so they would mostly join mining pools.

[cromex]

Sorry my question was not readily understood. What I am trying to get at is having a blockchain that miners all have same hash rate use about 10 watt the most, and all have equal chance of mining a block.
What effect would that have on the security of the network.
Would be like the lottery and the more miners on the network the more secure it would be (what I have read so far). So anyone that can afford 10 watts can have a chance.

[DannyHamilton]

Sorry my question was not readily understood. What I am trying to get at is having a blockchain that miners all have same hash rate use about 10 watt the most, and all have equal chance of mining a block.
What effect would that have on the security of the network.

Anyone that can control as much (or more) hashpower as the combined rest of the world would be able to mine 100% of the blocks, and would have complete control over which valid transactions get into the the blcokchain and which transactions don't.  This is true regardless of how you split up the rest of the hash power.

Would be like the lottery and the more miners on the network the more secure it would be (what I have read so far).

It is "more secure" with more miners because it is more difficult for any of those miners to control more hashpower than everyone else combined, but only so long as the total amount of hash power is high.

As an example, if you have only 100 miners that each have 1 kilohash/second, then a single miner with 1 megahash/second could gain control of the blockchain.  However, if those same 100 miners each have 1 terahash/second, then a single miner would need to gain control of 1 petahash/second of hash power if they wanted to be able to reliably gain control of the blockchain.

So anyone that can afford 10 watts can have a chance.

If mining was only 100,000 users with 10 watts, then a single attacker could gain control of the blockchain with 1,000,000 watts.

Additionally, anyone with access to 20 watts could earn twice as much as any other user, so they would have an incentive to secretly run two 10 watt miners.  Then anyone with 40 watts could earn twice as much as the person with 20 watts, so they would have an incentive to secretly run four 10 watt miners.  This incentive would result in all miners running as much equipment as they could afford to and difficulty would increase.  As such, miners that weren't profitable at the increased costs would stop mining.  The total hash power would grow and the number of miners would decrease until eventually we'd be right back where we are today.

[cromex]

So anyone that can afford 10 watts can have a chance.

If mining was only 100,000 users with 10 watts, then a single attacker could gain control of the blockchain with 1,000,000 watts.

Additionally, anyone with access to 20 watts could earn twice as much as any other user, so they would have an incentive to secretly run two 10 watt miners.  Then anyone with 40 watts could earn twice as much as the person with 20 watts, so they would have an incentive to secretly run four 10 watt miners.  This incentive would result in all miners running as much equipment as they could afford to and difficulty would increase.  As such, miners that weren't profitable at the increased costs would stop mining.  The total hash power would grow and the number of miners would decrease until eventually we'd be right back where we are today.

That much I understand, so my aim is to figure out how to limit hash power. Just wanted to understand what would happen if there is a common hashrate. if none then (may be wasting my time) try to figure out how to do that.

[cromex]

If mining was only 100,000 users with 10 watts, then a single attacker could gain control of the blockchain with 1,000,000 watts.

Additionally, anyone with access to 20 watts could earn twice as much as any other user, so they would have an incentive to secretly run two 10 watt miners.  Then anyone with 40 watts could earn twice as much as the person with 20 watts, so they would have an incentive to secretly run four 10 watt miners.  This incentive would result in all miners running as much equipment as they could afford to and difficulty would increase.  As such, miners that weren't profitable at the increased costs would stop mining.  The total hash power would grow and the number of miners would decrease until eventually we'd be right back where we are today.

Let me get this, the combined hashrate of the network is what increase the difficulty?
I thought it was the hashpower of the winner of the last block.

[DannyHamilton]

Let me get this, the combined hashrate of the network is what increase the difficulty?

Effectively, yes.

I thought it was the hashpower of the winner of the last block.

No.

The difficulty is adjusted once every 2016 blocks.

The amount of time it takes for 2016 blocks to be created depends on the total amount of hashpower in the world attempting to create the blocks. Therefore, the difficulty is adjusted based on the total amount of time that it took for the entire world's hashpower to add those 2016 blocks to the blockchain.

If those blocks took less than 20160 minutes, then they happened too fast and difficulty is increased proportionally so that the next 2016 blocks will be created more slowly.

If those blocks took more than 20160 minutes, then they happened too slow and difficulty is decreased proportionally so that the next 2016 blocks will be created more quickly.

Furthermore, it is not possible to know for certain how much hash power a person, pool, or the entire world actually has.  Instead, any website that reports an amount of hash power is ESTIMATING the amount of hash power that entity has based on the amount of time it takes for that entity to mine blocks at the difficulty at the time.  All that is actually known is the difficulty, and the time that blocks are added to a blockchain.

[cromex]

DannyHamilton Thanks, Trying to come up with a way that every one in the network stands a chance of gaining and reduce the chance of centralization.

[DannyHamilton]

DannyHamilton Thanks, Trying to come up with a way that every one in the network stands a chance of gaining and reduce the chance of centralization.

Good luck.  It will be difficult to prevent sybil attacks.

If someone wants to exceed any limits you create, they can just pretend to be more than one person.  Since the system is decentralized, there is no authority to "register" with, and nobody to restrict the behaviors of others. All you have is blocks received from a peer.  There is no way to know for certain who created the block, how much hash power they have, or how many blocks they have created in the past.  Anyone can lie about any of those things, and there isn't a good way to know if they are lying or not.

[cromex]

DannyHamilton Thanks, Trying to come up with a way that every one in the network stands a chance of gaining and reduce the chance of centralization.

Good luck.  It will be difficult to prevent sybil attacks.

If someone wants to exceed any limits you create, they can just pretend to be more than one person.  Since the system is decentralized, there is no authority to "register" with, and nobody to restrict the behaviors of others. All you have is blocks received from a peer.  There is no way to know for certain who created the block, how much hash power they have, or how many blocks they have created in the past.  Anyone can lie about any of those things, and there isn't a good way to know if they are lying or not.

I am going to keep at it

[hpmp]

DannyHamilton Thanks, Trying to come up with a way that every one in the network stands a chance of gaining and reduce the chance of centralization.

Good luck.  It will be difficult to prevent sybil attacks.

I am going to keep at it

are you trying to create a mining algorithm for small (like cellphones) devices?

[cromex]

DannyHamilton Thanks, Trying to come up with a way that every one in the network stands a chance of gaining and reduce the chance of centralization.

Good luck.  It will be difficult to prevent sybil attacks.

I am going to keep at it

are you trying to create a mining algorithm for small (like cellphones) devices?

Not really but hope can.
Trying to make something that nearly every one in it stands a chance, something more like chance, not necessarily  having the biggest guns.

[hpmp]

but you want to spread chances equally and prevent "luck amplification" with mining plants like that on the picture?

[cromex]

Yes. That operation wins on raw power
What I want is a game of chance. Like the lottery you can buy $1M worth of tickets, does it guarantee you winning?

[kiddikoddi]

Dude i don't really understand what you mean but an average asic is doing about 3-10 th's and computers are only mining a fraction of that, the best bet is to mine with many cpus some kinda cpu based coin but not bitcoin that is based on sha because the difficulty is so high now...

[aliashraf]

Yes. That operation wins on raw power
What I want is a game of chance. Like the lottery you can buy $1M worth of tickets, does it guarantee you winning?

Yes it does! Practically.

As I understand you are seeking a 'one person, one chance' solution for the pow algorithm, which is not feasible with current technology and I can't see any near future development to help this.

For instance suppose we can use some kind of a biometric enabled proof then what? Most people will simply 'sell' their votes to each other and spend their money somewhere else instead of mining and we will have again miners with an unjustified power (bought or rented) who can mess with the network.

From another perspective I'm more optimistic tho, basically this problem, among a lot of other ones, that computing and networking technologies are facing with them, are symptoms of a very deep characteristic which is considered to be 'normal' or 'obvious' falsely: computers are black boxes that can not be categorized provably. They can be good or evil, they can do anything on behalf of their owners, they can generate any amount of any garbage they wish unlike any other object human beings have been dealing with in the history. The thing is it is neither 'normal' nor necessary IMO, and I think it is time to end this shit as it has pushed to its limits and we are in a dramatic dead end situation. Just think about it, the brilliant idea of a public blockchain has been ruined definitively, what else can survive?  

People solve, or try to solve, the problems that they have generated by their own mistakes. We first destroy the planet and then try to figure out the ways out of the crisis, no ways out of course.

Now we are trying to build trust in a trustless world saturated by digital signals generated by unknown devils we have made by our own hands, impressive, entertaining, but pointless! Why in the hell we had to make such monsters in the first place?!

[cromex]

Dude i don't really understand what you mean but an average asic is doing about 3-10 th's and computers are only mining a fraction of that, the best bet is to mine with many cpus some kinda cpu based coin but not bitcoin that is based on sha because the difficulty is so high now...

You are missing the point I haven't settled on an algorithm yet, but my aim is to make the large hash rate from individual miner unnecessary, just enough to solve the problem in 2 to 5 minuets. Any one with a large farm will have to set up each miner individually.That is each running at say 10 H/S. What I am thinking of if you put a 1 TH/S machine on the network you loose money, put several that comes up to that amount of hash might work. Each machine must act as one machine. not on hash power but on chance. I just want to know what is the minimum amount of hash it would take to make a block.     

[cromex]

Yes. That operation wins on raw power
What I want is a game of chance. Like the lottery you can buy $1M worth of tickets, does it guarantee you winning?

Now we are trying to build trust in a trustless world saturated by digital signals generated by unknown devils we have made by our own hands, impressive, entertaining, but pointless! Why in the hell we had to make such monsters in the first place?!

Because it is a trust-less world we attempt to build a system that does not require trust. And with each person in the system trying to secure his property secure the property of others.
We are alive, while we are we move forward. Solve problems as they come along, whether they are man made or otherwise. 

[aliashraf]

Yes. That operation wins on raw power
What I want is a game of chance. Like the lottery you can buy $1M worth of tickets, does it guarantee you winning?

Now we are trying to build trust in a trustless world saturated by digital signals generated by unknown devils we have made by our own hands, impressive, entertaining, but pointless! Why in the hell we had to make such monsters in the first place?!

Because it is a trust-less world we attempt to build a system that does not require trust. And with each person in the system trying to secure his property secure the property of others.
We are alive, while we are we move forward. Solve problems as they come along, whether they are man made or otherwise. 

It is not a 'trust-less' world! The world is full of trust. I trust my eyes when I see a cat, I know it is not an elephant or a nuclear missile but one thing is trust-less: a computer that is running Windows or pretends to be running Linux, damn, I have no clue what the hell is it, I mean it, I have no clue at all, nobody does!

And good luck with your 'Do what you are obliged to do' approach I prefer the 'Ask Why' version.

[cromex]

Yes. That operation wins on raw power
What I want is a game of chance. Like the lottery you can buy $1M worth of tickets, does it guarantee you winning?

Now we are trying to build trust in a trustless world saturated by digital signals generated by unknown devils we have made by our own hands, impressive, entertaining, but pointless! Why in the hell we had to make such monsters in the first place?!

Because it is a trust-less world we attempt to build a system that does not require trust. And with each person in the system trying to secure his property secure the property of others.
We are alive, while we are we move forward. Solve problems as they come along, whether they are man made or otherwise. 

It is not a 'trust-less' world! The world is full of trust. I trust my eyes when I see a cat, I know it is not an elephant or a nuclear missile but one thing is trust-less: a computer that is running Windows or pretends to be running Linux, damn, I have no clue what the hell is it, I mean it, I have no clue at all, nobody does!

And good luck with your 'Do what you are obliged to do' approach I prefer the 'Ask Why' version.

Don't think I am getting your logic. On the other hand I might not be a fast learner.

Thanks