Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 09:53:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Paying to Reduce Mining Diffuclty?  (Read 2509 times)
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 19, 2013, 06:49:24 PM
 #1

Today all miners get the same payout and produce the same level of effort.   What if a miner was willing to work for only 12.5 BTC reward?  Could you reduce the difficulty by 50% without affecting the economic incentive to mine?   Lets assume that the difficulty would still adjust so that on average 1 block was produced every 10 minutes.

Someone mining for half the fee would effectively double their probability of finding the block which would mean that on average they would see the same rate of return as someone mining for the full fee at twice the difficulty.

What would be the financial incentive to mine at the higher difficulty vs the lower difficulty?   From what I can tell, those who own a significant number of BTC and feel the network is secure enough could benefit from a lower inflation rate.   While those who don't own BTC would benefit from a higher inflation rate that transfers them more money.  Where this balancing point is depends upon what percent of the hashing power you own vs the number of BTC you own.   If you own 0.001% of the hashing power, but 0.002% of the money supply you are better off mining at the lower reward rate than the higher reward rate because your holdings would see less devaluation via inflation on average.

The consequence of this approach is that 51% attack can be achieved with just 25% of the hashing power that would be available at the full mining reward, *assuming* there was no profit motive.    Now considering that we already have organizations with 25% of the hashing power... what does this mean?    I would submit that these organizations could have achieved 51% of the hashing power if they wanted to already, but market forces compel them to decentralize their hashing power and take pro-active efforts to avoid hitting even 40% because if they ever did achieve 51% then they would undermine the value of the bitcoins they are so heavily invested in mining.    If we reduced the 51% 'attack threshold' to 25% then hashing power among honest individuals would probably decentralize at 15-20% rather than risk any one party getting to 25%.

There is another factor here and that is if all miners opted to mine for 50% of the fee, you would have the same difficulty as you have today.   The only thing you will have done is reduced the profit from mining and thus the resources committed to it.  Of course, this is all complicated by factoring the added value-per-mined-bitcoin as a result of the lower inflation rate.

In my prior thread on reducing the mining difficulty toward 0 it was submitted that you needed to have significant proof of work to prevent creating fraudulent  chains and that if the proof of work were too low then anyone could spoof a chain.  I would submit that once you get above a certain threshold, the profits from an attempted spoof would be far less than the profits from mining.  I also submitted that a 51% attack by a non-profit seeking organization is an entirely different threat model and that even with today's level of hashing power would be insufficient.  In the event of a 51% attack by a non-profit-seeking organization (such as a government) an alternative means of choosing which nodes to extend the chain could be adopted which would prevent Denial of Service attacks.

There is a sweet spot in hashing difficulty that causes profit seeking individuals to mine rather than scam, and beyond which provides decreasing economic utility.  Finding a way to allow market forces to establish this in a decentralized manner would have great benefits to everyone using the crypto-currency as well as for the environment.  Economic resources that are currently being dedicated to providing too much security could be reallocated to somewhere more productive.

Thoughts?

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711662801
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711662801

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711662801
Reply with quote  #2

1711662801
Report to moderator
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
July 23, 2013, 04:21:24 PM
 #2

I don't understand what you're talking about. If everyone switched off half their equipment, they would all still make the same amount of money, 25BTC per block, and the difficulty would be 1/2 what it is now. The problem is there would be no way to coordinate everything. A miner who cheats would get 2x as many blocks.

The block reward is going to drop to 12.5, and then 6.75, then 3.375, etc over time anyway. It's already dropped from 50 to 25.

bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
 #3

I don't understand what you're talking about. If everyone switched off half their equipment, they would all still make the same amount of money, 25BTC per block, and the difficulty would be 1/2 what it is now. The problem is there would be no way to coordinate everything. A miner who cheats would get 2x as many blocks.

The block reward is going to drop to 12.5, and then 6.75, then 3.375, etc over time anyway. It's already dropped from 50 to 25.

The point is that not everyone would switch off at the same time.  Furthermore, those who accept a lower fee only have to do half the work, so they are 2x as likely to win the block.   No need to coordinate anything, each player could choose which is better for them: reduced inflation or increased mining payout.    Those with large holdings and small hash power would want reduced inflation.   Everyone else would want increased mining payout.

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
tymothy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 24, 2013, 02:21:06 AM
 #4

The point is that not everyone would switch off at the same time.  Furthermore, those who accept a lower fee only have to do half the work, so they are 2x as likely to win the block.   No need to coordinate anything, each player could choose which is better for them: reduced inflation or increased mining payout.    Those with large holdings and small hash power would want reduced inflation.   Everyone else would want increased mining payout.

I don't understand. If you set blocks to 12.5 a piece and halved the difficulty, blocks would be solved twice as fast and the bitcoin generation rate would remain essentially unchanged. There would be no reduction in inflation.

Additionally, even if inflation actually is reduced by your plan, who cares? More than half of all the bitcoins that were ever in existence have been created, and a portion of those have been and will be lost due to data destruction. And the creation of bitcoins is constant, so people know exactly what the supply will be like in the future and price this into their value. Plus bitcoin creation will basically slow to a trickle by 2017 or 2021. Even if all 21 million bitcoins were suddenly mined today, supply of bitcoins would less than double we'd expect bitcoins to remain above $50. I guess that's something, but this is spread out across many years and inflation of the Bitcoin money supply will soon be less than any other fiat currency.
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2013, 02:30:54 AM
 #5

The point is that not everyone would switch off at the same time.  Furthermore, those who accept a lower fee only have to do half the work, so they are 2x as likely to win the block.   No need to coordinate anything, each player could choose which is better for them: reduced inflation or increased mining payout.    Those with large holdings and small hash power would want reduced inflation.   Everyone else would want increased mining payout.

I don't understand. If you set blocks to 12.5 a piece and halved the difficulty, blocks would be solved twice as fast and the bitcoin generation rate would remain essentially unchanged. There would be no reduction in inflation.

There would be 'two' difficulty levels, one exactly half of the other.   The highest difficulty level would adjust until the block generation rate was every 10 minutes regardless of the mining reward.

If you accepted half of award, you would be able to submit a block at the 50% difficulty level.   If everyone moved to half the block reward then you would still get 1 block every 10 minutes at what ever difficultly level exists based upon competition of miners for 12.5 vs 25.

Quote
Additionally, even if inflation actually is reduced by your plan, who cares? More than half of all the bitcoins that were ever in existence have been created, and a portion of those have been and will be lost due to data destruction. And the creation of bitcoins is constant, so people know exactly what the supply will be like in the future and price this into their value. Plus bitcoin creation will basically slow to a trickle by 2017 or 2021. Even if all 21 million bitcoins were suddenly mined today, supply of bitcoins would less than double we'd expect bitcoins to remain above $50. I guess that's something, but this is spread out across many years and inflation of the Bitcoin money supply will soon be less than any other fiat currency.

The point of this discussion isn't for bitcoin per-say but for the theory of crypto-currency rewards with an eye toward adding value to chains.    If the market can adjust the amount of effort put into mining based upon the need for security rather than some arbitrary 'fixed price' level of security then you could balance the investment in hashing power against other kinds of investment because there is no algorithm paying insane amounts of money for every block produced. 


https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2013, 07:13:41 AM
 #6


There would be 'two' difficulty levels, one exactly half of the other.   The highest difficulty level would adjust until the block generation rate was every 10 minutes regardless of the mining reward.

If you accepted half of award, you would be able to submit a block at the 50% difficulty level.   If everyone moved to half the block reward then you would still get 1 block every 10 minutes at what ever difficultly level exists based upon competition of miners for 12.5 vs 25.


There is no point in doing that, everything would be exactly the same - miners would make as much money and the same amount of hashing would be done.

bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2013, 07:32:29 AM
 #7


There would be 'two' difficulty levels, one exactly half of the other.   The highest difficulty level would adjust until the block generation rate was every 10 minutes regardless of the mining reward.

If you accepted half of award, you would be able to submit a block at the 50% difficulty level.   If everyone moved to half the block reward then you would still get 1 block every 10 minutes at what ever difficultly level exists based upon competition of miners for 12.5 vs 25.


There is no point in doing that, everything would be exactly the same - miners would make as much money and the same amount of hashing would be done.

The rate of block production would be the same, every 10 minutes, but some percent of the miners are working for 'half pay'  and thus there would be less mined.   These miners work for half pay because they make more money via reduced devaluation of their current holdings due to inflation.   This is 'intangible' but still real.   Everything else being 'equal' the total hash power would be the same and all you would do is change the distribution of wealth... except... the miners working for half-fees are undermining the profits of those working at higher fees because the lower-fee miners have an alternative means of making money indirectly (reduced inflation) that is not available to the higher fee miners.   In fact, if you own enough Bitcoin and have a small enough hashing power, you would make more money by mining for 'free' than mining in a pool or solo.   

Lets work this math out:   Lets assume I own $1 Million in BTC and the money supply is $1 Billion in BTC growing at 10% per year.   This means that in one year (all else being equal), I have lost $100,000 in inflation paid to miners.  If I want to prevent this loss I would have to invest in 0.1% of the hashing power of the network so that my earnings from mining offset my losses due to inflation.   

Now if I had the option of only investing 0.05% of the hashing power to earn enough BTC to offset inflation, then I am still maintaining my position and have profited in the process by having to purchase less hashing power!    The network would also have a slightly lower hash rate even thought he  BTC/difficulty yield would be unchanged.

Conclusion:  those who own more BTC than hashing power can 'vote' on the level of hash security they want by specifying the mining reward they want relative to the difficulty.   At some point, those who hold a large number of BTC would be self-motivated to mine for 0 reward and still secure the network.   The alternative is to debase all of their holdings to pay for unnecessary security. 





https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Synethstesia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0



View Profile
July 24, 2013, 02:57:41 PM
 #8


There would be 'two' difficulty levels, one exactly half of the other.   The highest difficulty level would adjust until the block generation rate was every 10 minutes regardless of the mining reward.

If you accepted half of award, you would be able to submit a block at the 50% difficulty level.   If everyone moved to half the block reward then you would still get 1 block every 10 minutes at what ever difficultly level exists based upon competition of miners for 12.5 vs 25.


There is no point in doing that, everything would be exactly the same - miners would make as much money and the same amount of hashing would be done.

The rate of block production would be the same, every 10 minutes, but some percent of the miners are working for 'half pay'  and thus there would be less mined.   These miners work for half pay because they make more money via reduced devaluation of their current holdings due to inflation.   This is 'intangible' but still real.   Everything else being 'equal' the total hash power would be the same and all you would do is change the distribution of wealth... except... the miners working for half-fees are undermining the profits of those working at higher fees because the lower-fee miners have an alternative means of making money indirectly (reduced inflation) that is not available to the higher fee miners.   In fact, if you own enough Bitcoin and have a small enough hashing power, you would make more money by mining for 'free' than mining in a pool or solo.   

Lets work this math out:   Lets assume I own $1 Million in BTC and the money supply is $1 Billion in BTC growing at 10% per year.   This means that in one year (all else being equal), I have lost $100,000 in inflation paid to miners.  If I want to prevent this loss I would have to invest in 0.1% of the hashing power of the network so that my earnings from mining offset my losses due to inflation.   

Now if I had the option of only investing 0.05% of the hashing power to earn enough BTC to offset inflation, then I am still maintaining my position and have profited in the process by having to purchase less hashing power!    The network would also have a slightly lower hash rate even thought he  BTC/difficulty yield would be unchanged.

Conclusion:  those who own more BTC than hashing power can 'vote' on the level of hash security they want by specifying the mining reward they want relative to the difficulty.   At some point, those who hold a large number of BTC would be self-motivated to mine for 0 reward and still secure the network.   The alternative is to debase all of their holdings to pay for unnecessary security. 






Mining doesn't work this way.
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
 #9


Lets work this math out:   Lets assume I own $1 Million in BTC and the money supply is $1 Billion in BTC growing at 10% per year.   This means that in one year (all else being equal), I have lost $100,000 in inflation paid to miners.  If I want to prevent this loss I would have to invest in 0.1% of the hashing power of the network so that my earnings from mining offset my losses due to inflation.   

Now if I had the option of only investing 0.05% of the hashing power to earn enough BTC to offset inflation, then I am still maintaining my position and have profited in the process by having to purchase less hashing power!    The network would also have a slightly lower hash rate even thought he  BTC/difficulty yield would be unchanged.

Everyone involved with bitcoin mining would like to make more bitcoin with less hash power. If all the Miners agreed at once to cut their mining in half, then the difficulty would go down by half.  However, that's never going to happen, because anyone who doesn't agree would have 1 + X reward where X is the portion of miners agreeing (i.e. if 90% agree, X = 0.9)

Anyway, it's the miners, not the holders of bitcoin who get to vote on inflation.

byronbb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000


HODL OR DIE


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 11:30:02 PM
 #10

I always thought a random sized block reward would be interesting, but I don't see any point in it.

bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 01:11:41 AM
 #11


Lets work this math out:   Lets assume I own $1 Million in BTC and the money supply is $1 Billion in BTC growing at 10% per year.   This means that in one year (all else being equal), I have lost $100,000 in inflation paid to miners.  If I want to prevent this loss I would have to invest in 0.1% of the hashing power of the network so that my earnings from mining offset my losses due to inflation.   

Now if I had the option of only investing 0.05% of the hashing power to earn enough BTC to offset inflation, then I am still maintaining my position and have profited in the process by having to purchase less hashing power!    The network would also have a slightly lower hash rate even thought he  BTC/difficulty yield would be unchanged.

Everyone involved with bitcoin mining would like to make more bitcoin with less hash power. If all the Miners agreed at once to cut their mining in half, then the difficulty would go down by half.  However, that's never going to happen, because anyone who doesn't agree would have 1 + X reward where X is the portion of miners agreeing (i.e. if 90% agree, X = 0.9)

Anyway, it's the miners, not the holders of bitcoin who get to vote on inflation.

A miner and holder could be the same person.    If I owned 10% of the BTC ever mined I would mine for 50% of the reward assuming my difficulty target was half of what everyone else was doing.   I would win half as much twice as often, but every time I won the inflation rate would be 50% less, but the average block rate would still be 6/hr.     Even if I only had 0.1% of the hashing power, I would be better off mining for 50% reward at 50% difficulty than mining at full reward because my 'mining vote' counts 2x as much as someone mining for 2x the fees. 



https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
keatonatron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


Jack of oh so many trades.


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 04:29:03 AM
 #12

This thread doesn't make sense. There are too many misconceptions and illogical math at work.

1KEATSvAhbB7yj2baLB5xkyJSnkfqPGAqk
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 04:32:33 AM
 #13

This thread doesn't make sense. There are too many misconceptions and illogical math at work.
Explain what is illogical here:
Quote
A miner and holder could be the same person.    If I owned 10% of the BTC ever mined I would mine for 50% of the reward assuming my difficulty target was half of what everyone else was doing.   I would win half as much twice as often, but every time I won the inflation rate would be 50% less, but the average block rate would still be 6/hr.     Even if I only had 0.1% of the hashing power, I would be better off mining for 50% reward at 50% difficulty than mining at full reward because my 'mining vote' counts 2x as much as someone mining for 2x the fees. 

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 04:33:59 AM
 #14

This thread doesn't make sense. There are too many misconceptions and illogical math at work.

This. Not sure if the OP failed elementary school math or was just drunk.

Bitcoin @ full difficulty = block worth 25 BTC every 10 minutes.  144 blocks per day.   25*144= 3,600 BTC of inflation a day.
Bitcoin @ 50% difficulty = block worth 12.50 BTC every 5 minutes.  288 blocks per day.  12.50 * 288 = 3,600 BTC of inflation a day.
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 04:39:09 AM
 #15

This thread doesn't make sense. There are too many misconceptions and illogical math at work.

This. Not sure if the OP failed elementary school math or was just drunk.

Bitcoin @ full difficulty = block worth 25 BTC every 10 minutes.  144 blocks per day.   25*144= 3,600 BTC of inflation a day.
Bitcoin @ 50% difficulty = block worth 12.50 BTC every 5 minutes.  288 blocks per day.  12.50 * 288 = 3,600 BTC of inflation a day.

I am not the one failing math here, but you all are misunderstanding what is going on.

No matter what the difficulty is adjusted such that on average all miners (regardless of their difficulty) only produce 1 block every 10 minutes.    Thus the network will have an 'average difficulty' that is somewhere between 50% and 100% based upon the percentage of miners mining for half fees.   

Given an identical block production rate, those blocks that have a lower reward (and difficulty) result in less inflation.

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 04:44:31 AM
 #16

Difficulty is what keeps the time between blocks at 10 minutes per block for given hashrate.  Right now if Bitcoin network had the same hashrate but half the difficulty the time between blocks would be 5 minutes not 10.


For a given hashrate you can't halve the difficulty and have the time between blocks remain that same.  To think that shows a complete lack of understand of how bitcoin mining works.

Difficulty is merely an artificial value to match the frequency that hashes are found to the desired timeframe between when blocks are found.
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 04:50:51 AM
 #17

Difficulty is what keeps the time between blocks at 10 minutes per block for given hashrate.  Right now if Bitcoin network had the same hashrate but half the difficulty the time between blocks would be 5 minutes not 10.


For a given hashrate you can't halve the difficulty and have the time between blocks remain that same.  To think that shows a complete lack of understand of how bitcoin mining works.

Difficulty is merely an artificial value to match the frequency that hashes are found to the desired timeframe between when blocks are found.

The result of allowing some miners to cut the difficulty in 'half' if the 'half' the reward is paid and assuming nothing else changed, would be for the total difficulty in the network to go up.  In effect, those mining at half fees get counted as having 2x the hashing power they really have.

Thus... the 'average of all miners' would equal today's hash rate and the block production rate would still be one every 10 minutes.  Thus, if implemented and 50% of the miners went to 50% fees then the total network difficulty would go up by 33% with the full miners needing 1.33 todays difficulty and the half miners needing .666 of todays difficulty.   End result, block production is the SAME.  

*edit* my percentages are not quite right... fixed it.

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 29, 2013, 06:05:20 AM
 #18

Yeah difficulty doesn't work that way.  It is hard to understand what you are trying to accomplish but when you just start making up new meanings for words like "difficulty" it is hard to take is seriously.

If difficulty is cut in half without an equal reduction in hashpower, it will be twice as easy to find a block and thus in the long run blocks will be found twice as fast.  If in any interval twice as many blocks are found then the average time between blocks has to be reduced in half.
bytemaster (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 566

fractally


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2013, 01:55:32 PM
 #19

Yeah difficulty doesn't work that way.  It is hard to understand what you are trying to accomplish but when you just start making up new meanings for words like "difficulty" it is hard to take is seriously.

If difficulty is cut in half without an equal reduction in hashpower, it will be twice as easy to find a block and thus in the long run blocks will be found twice as fast.  If in any interval twice as many blocks are found then the average time between blocks has to be reduced in half.

Definition of difficulty:   the threshold below which you must find a hash.  The lower the hash, the lower the chances of finding it, the longer (on average) it takes to find it.

The problem here is that there are THREE variables changing at the same time and you are having a hard time thinking about how all 3 interact.   I can assure you I know how difficulty works and am not an idiot, so stop trying to take the short cut and assume I am nuts and start thinking through how these THREE variables interact.  The variables are:  1. reference difficulty   2. reward  3. hashes/sec.

1) If mining difficulty were cut in half and hash-power stayed the same, blocks would be found twice as fast.  The network would notice this and double the difficulty such that 50% of the hashing power equals 100% of todays hashing power and thus maintain the 6 blocks an hour invariant.   No matter what the network can adjust reference difficulty to maintain an average block rate of 6 / hr.

2) Given the reference difficulty, miners have two choices:  mine at the reference difficulty and receive 100% of the reward or mine at half the reference difficulty and receive 50% of the reward.   Either way, the network is paying the same BTC/hash for hashing power.

The result is that the more people that choose to mine at 50% reward the higher the reference difficulty would get.   Like I posted earlier, if 50% of the miners adopted the 50% fee for 50% difficulty then you would see the reference difficulty go up by 33%.


 

https://fractally.com - the next generation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
July 30, 2013, 02:39:07 AM
 #20

Either way, the network is paying the same BTC/hash for hashing power.

Yes, exactly.  Everything would stay exactly the same.  There would be no change. Everything would be exactly the same. Same amount of bitcoins going to the same people, and everyone would be doing the same amount of hashing.

Think about it this way

reward = hashrate/difficulty.  

That means that if you cut the difficulty by 1/2, and you cut the hashrate by 1/2, the reward stays the same.

Just like how 8 = 80/10 and also 8 = 40/5.

The hashrate can't be cut in half because there is no way to get everyone to agree to cut half their hash power.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!