Is it time for Bitcoin to bite back against clonecoins and scamcoins?

[lucasjkr]

My main complaints with the alt-coins is that most of them don't really bring anything new of value to the table, nor do they really have the developer support needed to do so.

The blockchain idea doesn't need to be reinvented. Just as the little arrow for a mouse pointer seems to be well adopted across all operating systems. I know, vastly different amounts of work went into both of those, but point is that Bitcoin presents some great ideas that other people are now wanting to build upon

Sure some have done some interesting things like scrypt but what does that really do for the currency? How does it make it better?

To me, scrypt democratizes the network. Which means more than just coins are spread around from generation more than they are currently. It means that the network is trully distributed. Think about it - in a few more months, what will the difficulty be? And suppose the price of bitcoin has stayed the same - how many GPU's will be out there mining when it's a losing proposition for the owners? And as much as people say that ASIC's will be distributed, right now, the simple fact is they're not. So you lose all the GPU miners, and then either an attacker goes after ASICMiner or ASICMiner simply has difficulties outside their ability to control and is forced offline for a week, two weeks. How will transactions be confirmed during that period? 

Seems to me that sticking with SHA and the accompanying ASICminers is far worse for the overall security of the network than Scrypt (or something along the same lines as it) that has the effect of keeping the GPU crowd involved means that the network doesn't have a single player who, if taken down, can cause detrimental effects across the entire network.

Instead of looking at things as they now are and how they've been, let's look forward along the trajectory we're on and see where that takes us. It's taking us to an incredibly centralized network with one or two single points of failure. Not good at all. Not something that any of us ever would have become involved in if we knew that going in, I'd bet.

[amincd]

^ You're kidding yourself if you think scrypt won't be mined by only ASICs/highly-specialized-rigs if it ever becomes a big enough business. Mining is a competitive activity, and therefore will be dominated by specialists over time. That's the nature of 'proof of work', and it's pointless railing against it.

[AliceWonder]

The average persone doesn't care about mining. Hell, I don't care about mining. Differences in ability to mine isn't going to make a difference to anyone but miners and if the majority of your users are miners then your currency is a failure.

[lucasjkr]

For these clones to gain any attention at all due to the hard work and revolutionary ideas of Satoshi Nakamura is offensive.

You don't know Satoshi, just as I don't.

But I know he released his paper and his source code so that we could all learn from it and build on it.

And I do know that the title of his paper was "Bitcoin: A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System".

Personally, I think he would be much more offended the centralization of the network than he would that others are doing with his open-source project just as was intended, give the license he used. Afterall, he chose to use the MIT license that allows others to not only make their own derivative works, but to make them closed source if they so choose.  He'd also probably be offended that rather than use his system the way he originally devised (as the means to spend money) most participants in the ecosystem simply hoard their coins hoping their value will continue going up and up.

So, let's not get all religious and say we're fighting for Satoshi's honor - he/she/they chose the license that it was released under, and even more importantly, if it TRULLY irked them that much, he/she/they are more than capable of saying so.  

[amincd]

The average persone doesn't care about mining. Hell, I don't care about mining. Differences in ability to mine isn't going to make a difference to anyone but miners and if the majority of your users are miners then your currency is a failure.

Exactly. The entire impetus for the BTC-alts is to give miners who find BTC too difficult to mine a source of income. Providing earnings to miners is just a means to an end though, which is to provide security to a currency. It's not supposed to be the end purpose of the cryptocurrency.

He'd also probably be offended that rather than use his system the way he originally devised (as the means to spend money) most participants in the ecosystem simply hoard their coins hoping their value will continue going up and up.

This is just anti-Bitcoin FUD. Spending in the BTC economy is growing exponentially.

[AliceWonder]

Now, if an alt-coin offered a truly novel way to recover lost coins from hardware failure or something, that might be an improvement.

For example, that guy early on who had 900 coins, sent 1 to himself and lost 899 because he restored from backup and 899 was change not backed up - maybe an alt coin could come up with a way to flag change and other things such that they could be recovered if lost because a key is lost. e.g. he owns the sending key and the receiving key for the 1 and the 899 was flagged change he could recover it.

There are things like that, perhaps other currencies could work on solutions to those problems. Are they? Not that I see.

[Brunic]

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not familiar with the video game crash of the 80's.

Tons of bullcrap businesses were flooding the market with bad games. Quality of product was horrible and the customers lost faith. The market cleaned itself from the crap by bankrupting businesses and gave a lot of place for Nintendo to come by, transform the video game market and revive it like no other before.

To give you an idea how video games reputation was completely at the bottom, when Nintendo came in the USA to sell their console, they bundled it with a toy robot (named R.O.B) so they could convince distributors that their console was a toy, not a video game and that they were a toy making business, not a video game business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983

Crashes can be good. It helped Nintendo become one of the most profitable business per employee in the world and become this absolute beast of a company that is still dominant today in a market where tons of competitors failed in the last 30 years.

Thanks for the info and link.

I'm old enough to remember that era, but I wouldn't have been aware of any market forces. I also remember R.O.B.!  That thing may still be in my parent's attic. Very cool introduction by Nintendo. Duck Hunt and R.O.B were the days, some serious fun.

I totally agree crashes can be good. I don't see the problem there. The market got flooded, bankrupted those that produced crap, and what emerged was something with superior value/quality, as evidenced by Nintendo's success.

It's my pleasure. I spent a lot of time reading about this company, Nintendo is like my "dream girl" of a business.

What they did during the Nintendo era and the Wii era is absolutely amazing from a business point of view. They've been making money for 30 years in probably the most competitive and cut-throat market in the world while taking on two technological behemoths in Microsoft and Sony. Businesses like Time Warner, Apple, Phillips, Electronic Arts, Nokia and Sega have all tried and failed to stay in that market.  

It's even more awesome when you consider that they don't sell TV or OS on the side. Their only revenue is through video games and derivatives products. Nintendo is one bad-ass business that you can learn a lot from.

Anyway, I'm out, I don't want to hi-jack the thread.  

[amincd]

There are things like that, perhaps other currencies could work on solutions to those problems. Are they? Not that I see.

It's more profitable to tweak a couple of Bitcoin's parameters, give the new BTC-based blockchain a new name to obfuscate the fact that it's a near-clone of Bitcoin, and then hype up the differences to earn a lot of money on easily acquired and useless clonecoins.

[lucasjkr]

^ You're kidding yourself if you think scrypt won't be mined by only ASICs/highly-specialized-rigs if it ever becomes a big enough business. Mining is a competitive activity, and therefore will be dominated by specialists over time. That's the nature of 'proof of work', and it's pointless railing against it.

Scrypt may not be the be-all, end-all answer, but it's a step in the right direction, I think. And so long as its even a moving target (changes being made to the algorithm on a consistent basis), that alone would be enough to keep the "specialists" away - changes to the algorithm that just makes it so that software miners need to update to the latest version won't have any problems with getting adopted - but with Bitcoin, the ASIC crowd will be rabidly against any slight tweaks simply because those changes could have the effect of putting their specialized hardware out to pasture.

The over-riding point is, as platform/system that's likely be attacked time after time (either by hackers, banks or governments), the centralization that ASIC's are causing is not a good thing. It's changing the network from being a peer-to-peer one to, basically, a client server network. I have to think that the currency itself would be far more secure if the mining was as widely distributed as possible, otherwise, it'll just be too easy to take down should an interested party decide to do so.

[defaced]

Satoshi Nakamoto gave bitcoin as OPENSOURCE software.. /thread

[AliceWonder]

but with Bitcoin, the ASIC crowd will be rabidly against any slight tweaks simply because those changes could have the effect of putting their specialized hardware out to pasture.

That is a good point, with the current setup, too small of a group (the miners) have too much control over the network.

[amincd]

Scrypt may not be the be-all, end-all answer, but it's a step in the right direction, I think. And so long as its even a moving target (changes being made to the algorithm on a consistent basis), that alone would be enough to keep the "specialists" away - changes to the algorithm that just makes it so that software miners need to update to the latest version won't have any problems with getting adopted - but with Bitcoin, the ASIC crowd will be rabidly against any slight tweaks simply because those changes could have the effect of putting their specialized hardware out to pasture.

The over-riding point is, as platform/system that's likely be attacked time after time (either by hackers, banks or governments), the centralization that ASIC's are causing is not a good thing. It's changing the network from being a peer-to-peer one to, basically, a client server network. I have to think that the currency itself would be far more secure if the mining was as widely distributed as possible, otherwise, it'll just be too easy to take down should an interested party decide to do so.

It's futile to try to stop specialists from taking over the production of hashes, for the reason I mentioned: it's a competitive enterprise and specialists outperform generalists in any set activity. Even continually changing the mining algorithm wouldn't help, because then you would have specialists who are good at regearing FPGAs, or creating new ASICs, to quickly adopt a new algorithm. You would also have the element of manipulating/guiding the selection of the 'next' algorithm, which insiders could use to get an advantage over more casual miners.

Also, scrypt could make mining MORE centralized, not less, by increasing the cost of setting up a production line to manufacture specialized mining hardware, and thereby decreasing the number of manufacturers of specialized mining hardware.

[jackjack]

Satoshi Nakamoto gave bitcoin as OPENSOURCE software.. /thread

So you see no problem that all scrypt coins go to litecointalk, right?

[lucasjkr]

It's futile to try to stop specialists from taking over the production of hashes, for the reason I mentioned: it's a competitive enterprise and specialists outperform generalists in any set activity. Even continually changing the mining algorithm wouldn't help, because then you would have specialists who are good at regearing FPGAs, or creating new ASICs, to quickly adopt a new algorithm. You would also have the element of manipulating/guiding the selection of the 'next' algorithm, which insiders could use to get an advantage over more casual miners.

Also, scrypt could make mining MORE centralized, not less, by increasing the cost of setting up a production line to manufacture specialized mining hardware, and thereby decreasing the number of manufacturers of specialized mining hardware.

I see.

"Resistance is futile".

I don't care so much about "specialists" taking over the hashing, after all, that's essentially everyone with a graphics card that doesn't play games (myself included). But specializing versus centralizing are two different things - and centralization is what has happened. And again, I have to believe that even if Scrypt isn't it, there is or should an algorithm that is sufficiently expandable so that it can stay a step ahead of specialists attempting to centralize. I wonder what Ron Rivest, Adi Shamier or Bruce Schneir would say on that topic.

I really don't see how you can argue that Scrypt could make things MORE centralized - again, in another couple months, GPU miners will be out of the game completely leaving only ASICMiner, Butterfly Labs' customers and the few lucky owners of Avalon equipment as those able to mine.

I know that people with vested interests in the system remaining the same due to significant investment in equipment that can't be repurposed will be opposed to any thing that would upset that balance. But outside of that, I can't think of an argument to defend the status quo, as it shaping up to be.

One one hand, we could have a network with tens if not hundreds of thousands of participants all taking part in mining/verifying transactions - very hard to attack.

On the other hand, we could have a network where the mining/verification process is done mostly by a single entity. Right now, they've been kind enough to stay at below 51% of the network power, but who knows - maybe one day they'll have so much spare capacity they'll just ask and say "hey, you all trust us right? Mind if we put this extra capacity online?". Either way, with 40% of the capacity of 51%, they become an extremely juicy target for someone looking to disrupt the networks operations. And this is a network with lots of friends in the common people, but lots of enemies that are well armed - banks, governments, etc.

What good is having a high hashing power for the network if it's a single target that can be taken down with ease?

[amincd]

I see.

"Resistance is futile".

Yes, resistance to the nature of competition is futile.

But specializing versus centralizing are two different things - and centralization is what has happened.

Where is the evidence that it's centralizing?

I really don't see how you can argue that Scrypt could make things MORE centralized -

How about instead of four different ASIC makers, and more SHA256 ASIC makers coming soon, you have only one scrypt ASIC maker, with no more on the horizon for years to come. That would make things more centralized. By increasing the cost of setting up a production line to manufacture specialized mining hardware, scrypt can result in a fewer number of manufacturers of specialized mining hardware.

In other words, relatively small companies can develop their own line of ASICs for SHA256, whereas that might not be the case with ASICS for scrypt.

[Vivisector999]

The average persone doesn't care about mining. Hell, I don't care about mining. Differences in ability to mine isn't going to make a difference to anyone but miners and if the majority of your users are miners then your currency is a failure.

The currency is also a failure though if you don't care about the miners, especially in a Proof of work system like Bitcoin.  The coin's security doesn't have anything to do with how high the hash rate is.  It has to do with how much of the hashrate is sitting in different pools.   For example, This is purely fictitious, but if ASICMiner's output went up to 1 Petahash/sec, and all the other miners decided they were turning their miners off because the cost of electricity was costing them more then they made, would Bitcoin's security be higher or lower then it would be if the hash rate was 100 Terahash/sec and there were thousands of small pools mining away?  

The answer is the 100 Terahash/sec network would be vastly more secure, because in the first case, ASICMiner has more the 51% of the network's hashing power and can do anything they want with the coins.  Or someone could attack ASICMiners network, then with their miners being the only ones left on the network, they would have full control of the coins in the Blockchain.  The reason scrypt is around is to try to keep the network power spread to as many miners as possible, as it makes 51% attacks that much harder to complete.  This isn't saying scrypt is ASIC proof either (or 51% attack proof), as I know people are already trying to design a scrypt based ASIC miner.  But if/when that happens then scrypt based PoW altcoins will be in the same boat.  One great innovation is the Proof of Stake (POS) security some of the altcoins are testing out, as it makes taking over the chain that much more difficult, as you need to not only take over the hashing power of the network, but also have the majority of the coins age to attack it.  Things like that are some of the innovations having alt-coins bring to the table.

[warpio]

Scrypt may not be the be-all, end-all answer, but it's a step in the right direction, I think. And so long as its even a moving target (changes being made to the algorithm on a consistent basis), that alone would be enough to keep the "specialists" away - changes to the algorithm that just makes it so that software miners need to update to the latest version won't have any problems with getting adopted - but with Bitcoin, the ASIC crowd will be rabidly against any slight tweaks simply because those changes could have the effect of putting their specialized hardware out to pasture.

The over-riding point is, as platform/system that's likely be attacked time after time (either by hackers, banks or governments), the centralization that ASIC's are causing is not a good thing. It's changing the network from being a peer-to-peer one to, basically, a client server network. I have to think that the currency itself would be far more secure if the mining was as widely distributed as possible, otherwise, it'll just be too easy to take down should an interested party decide to do so.

It's futile to try to stop specialists from taking over the production of hashes, for the reason I mentioned: it's a competitive enterprise and specialists outperform generalists in any set activity. Even continually changing the mining algorithm wouldn't help, because then you would have specialists who are good at regearing FPGAs, or creating new ASICs, to quickly adopt a new algorithm. You would also have the element of manipulating/guiding the selection of the 'next' algorithm, which insiders could use to get an advantage over more casual miners.

Also, scrypt could make mining MORE centralized, not less, by increasing the cost of setting up a production line to manufacture specialized mining hardware, and thereby decreasing the number of manufacturers of specialized mining hardware.

Well, the thing with bitcoin was it rocketed up in value way too fast, and that drove people to fund specialists to create ASICs.

If litecoin doesn't go up that fast, and scrypt mining always stays on the edge of "just barely profitable", then it won't have that same problem that lead to sha256 getting ASICs. There will never be enough of an incentive to pay for specialists to take over scrypt mining.

[amincd]

That won't prevent investments being made to develop ASICs. If producing hashes earns $1 billion a year in revenues, then investors will look at ways to produce hashes more cost-effectively than the competition, and that will lead to specialized hardware and professional mining operations.

[acoindr]

Well, the thing with bitcoin was it rocketed up in value way too fast, and that drove people to fund specialists to create ASICs.

If litecoin doesn't go up that fast, and scrypt mining always stays on the edge of "just barely profitable", then it won't have that same problem that lead to sha256 getting ASICs. There will never be enough of an incentive to pay for specialists to take over scrypt mining.

It's not only that. It's harder to optimize for Scrypt mining, which is the whole point. Scrypt intentionally "gums up" the works making computation costly by requiring, specifically, large amounts of memory.

SHA-256 ASICs had a relatively low barrier to entry. All you have to do is analyze the problem then custom tailor a chip to optimize the solution process. It's like going out and finding the smartest kid in school to ace a test. If you don't have the smarts you can hardly compete.

However, the Scrypt analogy is you have to not only be the smartest, but also the longest distance runner, for example. It adds another dimension to the problem, making relevant others who may not be the smartest (ASIC wise) but who may for example excel at running.

[ecliptic]

Altcoins have a great purpose : Do you think the bitcoin blockchain should be responsible for EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION ANYONE WANTS TO DO ONLINE?

If you're moving 50 cents worth of coins, it's a waste of blockchain space to do it on bitcoin.  And some day transaction fees might make it a bad/dumb idea to move small amounts of money when the TX fee required is large

to this end there is purpose for at least one alt coin.