How long to start generating BC's?

[xterm11]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4787398637_672118aa31.jpg
As you can see, I have 8 connections, 50k blocks... but no coins or transactions.  What's up?  

[1713295526]

1713295526

[1713295526]

1713295526

[1713295526]

1713295526

[Xunie]

Clearly you haven't looked at the wiki here: http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/.
Or the getting started guide on the wiki here: http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=getting_started.

[xterm11]

Do you know offhand what the current block count is? I'm assuming 65/70k before  my transactions will show and coins will be generated?

[xterm11]

At approx. 66k I received a transaction.  Its been running for a while since, but no coins have been generated(even though the block increase slowed to a crawl, so the block list should be updated)

[theymos]

I have created a page that always shows the current block count:
http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/q/getblockcount

[lachesis]

Here's my version of that same page.
http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/blockCount

[xterm11]

Yup, blocks updated, still no $$$. How long does it usually take you guys?

[laszlo]

The difficulty doubled since all the slashdot users showed up, so expect it to take significantly longer.  New 8 core workstation, probably several coins a day, but 3-4 year old computer, probably one every couple days.  Each block is worth 50 BTC right now.

[SlipperySlope]

http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/q/getdifficulty

==>

45.385822341013

[RHorning]

This is more of a request for information, but what is the rationale for incredibly difficult proof-of-work efforts for a "large" amount of money vs. a more modest amount of effort for a smaller quantity earned?  i.e. something that a computer of modest means would be generating a bitcoin about once every hour, even if it was only one at a time.

While I appreciate the philosophy to keep the network from getting overwhelmed with the generation of a whole bunch of coin blocks, in the interest of trying to recruit new users into this system it might be advisable to be generating coins more than once a day for those who have a shorter attention span.  IMHO this is something that is more new user friendly and something that encourages some liquidity of the currency as well.  People new to the concept of bitcoins might simply be interested in some modest experimentation of the idea, and at the moment it is hard to grasp its potential without having coins to use.

[laszlo]

I will give you some coins to start out with if you post your address.  I think generating faster would be more difficult for the network to arbitrate as it scales up.  The target of the algorithm is 1 block per 10 minutes, that is how the difficulty is adjusted.  If the generation difficulty targeted a block per 1 minute (but maybe worth 1 BTC instead of 50) then latency would invalidate a lot more generated coins.

A generated block must be based on the previous block, so if a new blocks is received from the network, the header that's being hashed must be updated to point at the new highest block.  If two nodes both generate block #70,000 then whichever one's broadcast propagates first wins.  It is expected that collisions will occur during normal operation but there would be a lot more if the difficulty was scaled down.

I think what you're saying makes perfect sense and we would like to keep the difficulty low for as long as possible to allow new users to get coins quickly.  Unfortunately it is not possible to keep it low forever because of the technical details.

[RHorning]

I will give you some coins to start out with if you post your address.  I think generating faster would be more difficult for the network to arbitrate as it scales up.  The target of the algorithm is 1 block per 10 minutes, that is how the difficulty is adjusted.  If the generation difficulty targeted a block per 1 minute (but maybe worth 1 BTC instead of 50) then latency would invalidate a lot more generated coins.

A generated block must be based on the previous block, so if a new blocks is received from the network, the header that's being hashed must be updated to point at the new highest block.  If two nodes both generate block #70,000 then whichever one's broadcast propagates first wins.  It is expected that collisions will occur during normal operation but there would be a lot more if the difficulty was scaled down.

I think what you're saying makes perfect sense and we would like to keep the difficulty low for as long as possible to allow new users to get coins quickly.  Unfortunately it is not possible to keep it low forever because of the technical details.

I personally don't need the coins, and I've found other routes to get them as well for some experimentation, but it seems like one coin block per day or week is a little excessive in the other extreme.  If it was generating a block every 5-10 minutes for a very fast computer and one or two per hour for slower computers, it wouldn't be nearly so bad.

Also, if there is a technical problem with the generation of the initial coin blocks, that is a problem that needs to be fixed sooner than later.  I don't buy that as a rational or reasonable expectation if the presumption is that this is a network that should scale conceivably to millions of users when at the moment it is merely thousands.  The issue here is that the computer seems to be spinning its wheels and there is no evidence for a new user that anything is happening at all.  The documentation says that the software is generating a coin, but there is no evidence for a new user that any coin has in fact been generated at all.

Yes, I get that this is focused on trading rather than coin generation.  But now it has turned into a case of haves vs. have nots, or rather old timers vs. new users.  That is not a good situation for this project to be in and it does discourage participation.  It is also a situation that is going to get worse if it is not addressed.

[laszlo]

I wonder what other possibilities there are though.. some of the new people hooked up hundreds of computers (someone said 300 workstations?) so the network adjusted difficulty.  To give you some perspective, in all the time it has been running the difficulty rose to 23.  The previous jump was very large, it went from 19 to 23.  When all the new users showed up it jumped from 23 to 45.  It's based on fast the new blocks are showing up, if they're being generated very quickly then the difficulty jumps accordingly to target 1 block every 10 mins average.

[RHorning]

I wonder what other possibilities there are though.. some of the new people hooked up hundreds of computers (someone said 300 workstations?) so the network adjusted difficulty.  To give you some perspective, in all the time it has been running the difficulty rose to 23.  The previous jump was very large, it went from 19 to 23.  When all the new users showed up it jumped from 23 to 45.  It's based on fast the new blocks are showing up, if they're being generated very quickly then the difficulty jumps accordingly to target 1 block every 10 mins average.

Again, this is a problem with the algorithm that needs to be fixed if it is to scale to any appreciable size.  So apparently some users are devoting a significant amount of CPU resources to generate coins, and view this as the early days of a gold rush.  That should have been anticipated based on the number of topics on this forum alone that has discussed this issue.

In terms of packet collisions, that is a topic that has been dealt with exhaustively in terms of studies of ethernet packets, and I think the same principles apply.  Certainly if there is a collision and one person gets a new coin block added but a second person doesn't, there ought to be some sort of "resend" or "reattempt" algorithm to add that coin block as the proof of work clearly can be demonstrated.  Yes, there are extreme limits that get close to bandwidth limits where collision becomes typical until the network simply shuts down from collisions.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is an issue with having a single coin chain that keeps track of all potential blocks.  Perhaps that is the wrong way to think about it, and this could be a route for some multi-tiered efforts as well.  What if there was an initial coin block that was cryptographically very difficult to make (but not impossible) worth a fairly substantial amount (say 100 or 1000 BCs) and then associated sub-blocks tied to that are worth smaller amounts (say 1 BC or even 0.01 BCs) that can be linked to each new chain that are computationally trivial in comparison.  Collisions would only happen if two people tried to add two blocks onto the same chain, thus reducing the potential for collisions.  Adding to the "main" chain would also have a reduced collision frequency due to the fact that most "new" users aren't generating those kind of blocks and due to the CPU time necessary to create them in the first place.  This is something that could even be extended to a "third" dimension for even a tertiary level of new coin block linked to the secondary blocks.

The purpose is to avoid collisions, not to keep people from generating the coins or devaluing those coins which already exist.  This is also but one other alternative idea on what might be able to be done here.

[lachesis]

The old users have definitely gained by being here earlier to generate coins, but again, Bitcoin is about trading. If you're not going to trade with coins, why do you want them? If you _are_ going to trade, convert some of your USD or EUR into coins, or sell your time or possessions or skills for coins, and get trading!

[theymos]

The goal is to minimize inflation, not keep it going forever. BitCoin generation at this point is just an incentive for people to create blocks. Clearly it's working if hundreds of computers are being added to the network. It doesn't matter if new users can't get free coins -- BitCoin is not meant to be a "virtual printing press". In 4-8 years, no average user is going to be generating coins; this is expected and intentional.

[XaviorPenguin]

So based on reading all the above, if more machines get added, then the difficulty rises?

Also, the reverse of that should apply as in, the Slashdot users, including myself after reading the article, if the amount of users/computers decreases then the difficulty is lowered?

[laszlo]

It is not lowered, it only goes up.

[RHorning]

The goal is to minimize inflation, not keep it going forever. BitCoin generation at this point is just an incentive for people to create blocks. Clearly it's working if hundreds of computers are being added to the network. It doesn't matter if new users can't get free coins -- BitCoin is not meant to be a "virtual printing press". In 4-8 years, no average user is going to be generating coins; this is expected and intentional.

Why?  This is not going to increase inflation at all, at least any more than already exists.  It turns the coin distribution issue from something that is currently a lottery into something that is more diffuse and distributed.  The rate of increase overall for the network of the money supply is something that would still remain fixed, but more people would have access to those new coins rather than the few people with very good processors.

Yes, I get it that this is explicitly designed to allocate bitcoins initially and that in the long run the focus will be on trade rather than on creation.  I just don't see the technical side of this in terms of why new coin blocks can't be generated at a faster rate, and as a policy it sort of stinks too.  If the goal is to tell new users not to bother with creation of these kind of blocks, at least explain that in the documentation and make it a point that new users should never even bother... that all of the blocks that have ever and will ever be made have been made (or close enough that the exception doesn't matter).

I am not asking for the work to be decreased so hundreds of new coins will be flooding the network in an inflationary spiral, but rather asking that the value of the coins generated be decreased instead to compensate for the increase in the number of users.  Both are possible, and there is no sound technical reason other than it hasn't yet been implemented to cope with at least the current number of users.

[XaviorPenguin]

It is not lowered, it only goes up.

ThanX laszlo!