Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2019, 10:59:59 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Bitcoin infrastructure too Chinese? What should be done technically?  (Read 919 times)
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2053

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2018, 05:38:30 AM
 #21

It's not good to have an exact algorithm planned out, since then someone could make an ASIC for it in advance.

Then how about a group of developer upload encrypted code of the algorithm? They simply need to decrypt when it's needed.
Or choose ProgPoW since it's flexible and valid algorithm parameter/formula depends from previous block metadata (hash, merkle root, etc.).

It is odd, imo, too much concerns about ASICs and zero interest in the situation with pools.

Because potential solution/"solution" is known by more people Huh

I'm also a bit concerned about the "new monopolies" that could emerge after a PoW change. It may sound a bit naive, but - is there a possibility to create/fund an open hardware project for mining chips running the "new Bitcoin algorithm"? It's true however that major "chip foundries" are located in China, but there are at least some scattered around the world (mainly Europe and North America) which could step in for production.

I think it's possible. But, the competition with China won't gone since the cost to manufacture the chips is still cheaper on China.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571612399
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571612399

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571612399
Reply with quote  #2

1571612399
Report to moderator
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 12, 2018, 06:29:45 AM
 #22

Are the rest of the world so far behind with ASIC development or something similar, that they cannot develop something that would be able to compete with the Chinese?

Bitfury's latest ASIC https://bitfury.com/hardware/asic is pretty competitive with Chinese designs...

But where will they make the chips and assemble the miners for mass production that would make the price more competitive? I believe it will still end up to be "Made in China". Haha.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
Kakmakr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1374

★ ChipMixer | Bitcoin mixing service ★


View Profile
October 12, 2018, 11:29:39 AM
 #23

Are the rest of the world so far behind with ASIC development or something similar, that they cannot develop something that would be able to compete with the Chinese?

Bitfury's latest ASIC https://bitfury.com/hardware/asic is pretty competitive with Chinese designs...

But where will they make the chips and assemble the miners for mass production that would make the price more competitive? I believe it will still end up to be "Made in China". Haha.

That to me is a slap in the face of the Western world. Trump is saying "Make America great again" and trade restrictions are implemented, but the Chinese still rule the technical manufacturing of complex electronic components.  Roll Eyes Where are all the brilliant engineers and scientists of the western world?

Elon Musk <ex-South African> are one of the leaders in electronic manufacturing of components like this... Why are they not stepping up to the plate to fulfil this role?

We are gifting this to the Chinese.  Roll Eyes

HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1128


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
October 12, 2018, 12:49:07 PM
Merited by aliashraf (2)
 #24

It's not good to have an exact algorithm planned out, since then someone could make an ASIC for it in advance.

Then how about a group of developer upload encrypted code of the algorithm? They simply need to decrypt when it's needed.

[...]

That would still require trust in none of the developers leaking the selected algorithm.


Are the rest of the world so far behind with ASIC development or something similar, that they cannot develop something that would be able to compete with the Chinese?

Bitfury's latest ASIC https://bitfury.com/hardware/asic is pretty competitive with Chinese designs...

But where will they make the chips and assemble the miners for mass production that would make the price more competitive? I believe it will still end up to be "Made in China". Haha.

...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.


That to me is a slap in the face of the Western world. Trump is saying "Make America great again" and trade restrictions are implemented, but the Chinese still rule the technical manufacturing of complex electronic components.  Roll Eyes Where are all the brilliant engineers and scientists of the western world?

Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.


Elon Musk <ex-South African> are one of the leaders in electronic manufacturing of components like this... Why are they not stepping up to the plate to fulfil this role?

Because it's apparently neither profitable nor interesting enough.

d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1577


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
October 12, 2018, 03:04:55 PM
 #25

I'm also a bit concerned about the "new monopolies" that could emerge after a PoW change. It may sound a bit naive, but - is there a possibility to create/fund an open hardware project for mining chips running the "new Bitcoin algorithm"? It's true however that major "chip foundries" are located in China, but there are at least some scattered around the world (mainly Europe and North America) which could step in for production.

I think it's possible. But, the competition with China won't gone since the cost to manufacture the chips is still cheaper on China.
Maybe manufacturing the chips in China isn't really a problem. Many companies from other countries manufacture their products in China, and they control that the producers don't "tamper" with the design of their products. If the Chinese manufacturer manipulated the product, the customer would be able to charge a penalty for breaching the contract and change the manufacturer. An "open mining hardware" project could do the same thing, ensuring no Antbleed-style backdoors are implemented - and such a backdoor would be very easy to discover, above all if the firmware is open-source.

Once Bitcoin and the mining market becomes really big, it would be perhaps no problem to install production infrastructure outside of China able to deliver similar production costs.

aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2018, 03:06:16 PM
 #26

...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.
....

Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.
Right to the point.

ASICs are bad but pools are horrible, both should be taken care of but we need to understand without a truly pool-resistant fork bitcoin has no chance to be adopted in levels much higher than what it is right now because it is not decentralized enough and could not be considered secure for bigger missions.

Let's just forget about scalability, decentralization is a more urgent issue and although I think it is very convenient to retire ASICs and let more commodity devices in, but it would make no difference with pools being in charge.


HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1128


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
October 12, 2018, 04:18:28 PM
 #27

Maybe manufacturing the chips in China isn't really a problem. Many companies from other countries manufacture their products in China, and they control that the producers don't "tamper" with the design of their products.

[...]


Slightly off-topic, but it's worth pointing out that the truth is rather dire in this regard:

https://bgr.com/2018/10/04/china-hardware-backdoors-sophisticated-chips-used-in-us-bound-tech/

In short, supply chain attacks on hardware do happen. However it doesn't appear to be as critical if you only produce the chips in China and assemble the rest of the hardware within a trusted environment (ie. backdooring a chip is much harder than backdooring a motherboard).

ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2053

Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees.


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2018, 08:12:40 PM
 #28

Then how about a group of developer upload encrypted code of the algorithm? They simply need to decrypt when it's needed.
That would still require trust in none of the developers leaking the selected algorithm.

True, but there aren't many choice in this case. Otherwise, the only choices are :
1. Picking acceptable PoW-algorithm that never seriously considered as SHA-256 alternative
2. Use flexible/configurable algorithm such as ProgPoW, but few parts of the algorithm/formula will be changed to prevent ASIC.

Maybe manufacturing the chips in China isn't really a problem. Many companies from other countries manufacture their products in China, and they control that the producers don't "tamper" with the design of their products. If the Chinese manufacturer manipulated the product, the customer would be able to charge a penalty for breaching the contract and change the manufacturer. An "open mining hardware" project could do the same thing, ensuring no Antbleed-style backdoors are implemented - and such a backdoor would be very easy to discover, above all if the firmware is open-source.

Once Bitcoin and the mining market becomes really big, it would be perhaps no problem to install production infrastructure outside of China able to deliver similar production costs.

Even if "open mining hardware" is popular and your scenario can't happen, i still think China still have someone advantage because :
1. Transportation cost is far lower if the chips is manufactured in China.
2. Faster transportation allows China to gain more edge since they're the first to use the chips in big scale.

But if mining on other country have maintenance/electricity price similar with China, then it's enough to prevent mining domination by china.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 07:42:02 AM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 08:17:32 AM by Wind_FURY
 #29

...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.
....

Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.
Right to the point.

ASICs are bad but pools are horrible, both should be taken care of but we need to understand without a truly pool-resistant fork bitcoin has no chance to be adopted in levels much higher than what it is right now because it is not decentralized enough and could not be considered secure for bigger missions.

What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?

Quote
Let's just forget about scalability, decentralization is a more urgent issue

I agree, decentralization secures on-chain censorship resistance. That's why many people in the community believe, me included, that an off-chain layer is the best way to scale Bitcoin.

Quote
and although I think it is very convenient to retire ASICs and let more commodity devices in, but it would make no difference with pools being in charge.

Is it convenient to hard fork to cut nodes and hash power from the network, and hurt its security? For a developer like yourself, I believe you need to think about these things.



▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2018, 11:15:40 AM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 11:47:19 AM by aliashraf
Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
 #30

...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.
....

Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.
Right to the point.

ASICs are bad but pools are horrible, both should be taken care of but we need to understand without a truly pool-resistant fork bitcoin has no chance to be adopted in levels much higher than what it is right now because it is not decentralized enough and could not be considered secure for bigger missions.

What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively. To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.

Massive adoption of bitcoin rises scalability challenges, but we could just wait for them to actually happen then figure out a solution but it is a process that never gonna boost with the current fragile situation.

Actually I  suppose the level of adoption we got right now is even a bit higher than what a realistic assessment of the level of decentralization would suggest as a safe situation.

Let's just forget about scalability, decentralization is a more urgent issue
I agree, decentralization secures on-chain censorship resistance. That's why many people in the community believe, me included, that an off-chain layer is the best way to scale Bitcoin.
I don't see the old scaling debate's  scalability vs decentralization dilemma (or the stupid Buterin trilemma) as a viable discourse, (as you know already) but I think it is not our problem today. Once bitcoin got enough stem and started boosting in adoption, we can debate  off-chain vs on-chain disputes. Without mass adoption, arguing about scalability is pointless.

Most people suppose we need scaling bitcoin to help with adoption. It is absolutely false. Adoption is a slow process and won't be even triggered as a massive one, without a solid, decentralized, uncompromisable network, scaling challenges won't show up until the midst of this process.

Quote
and although I think it is very convenient to retire ASICs and let more commodity devices in, but it would make no difference with pools being in charge.
Is it convenient to hard fork to cut nodes and hash power from the network, and hurt its security? For a developer like yourself, I believe you need to think about these things.
By convenient, I mean forking to an ASIC-resistant algo is both desirable and achievable (incrementally tho) but not very effective and helpful while fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws and  pooling pressure, is the hard job comparatively and the ultimate decentralization solution.

Boring I know,  but I have to rephrase it: with pools being in charge no cryptocoin could be considered decentralized enough to get mass adopted no matter how popular it would be, period.
danda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 144


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2018, 12:21:57 PM
 #31

I agree that pools are the biggest problem.

They logically result from the winner take all algo.

I postulate that in a theoretically ideal POW system, every single participant that contributes cycles/work towards securing the network would be rewarded in direct proportion to their contribution.  ie, even if they only calculate 1 hash during a given block and do not match target difficulty.

How to achieve that?  I have no idea.  haha.  But I'd like to see more discussion/brainpower/research on it.


First question:  Is the above scenario ideal/desirable for maximizing distribution of work across non-colluding parties?   Or the incentives are flawed somehow?

Followup question:  What technical obstacles prevent it, and how might they be overcome?   (assuming a brand-new system with no legacy code/chain).







I will leave these open-ended for now...




It is odd, imo, too much concerns about ASICs and zero interest in the situation with pools.

mybitprices.info - wallet auditing   |  hd-wallet-derive - derive keys locally |  hd-wallet-addrs - find used addrs
lightning-nodes - list of LN nodes  |  coinparams - params for 300+ alts  |  jsonrpc-cli - cli jsonrpc client
subaddress-derive-xmr - monero offline wallet tool
HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1128


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
 #32

What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively. To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.

[...]

Slightly off tangent, but I think for this we'd need to start from scratch either way.

Regardless of what growth potential I still expect from Bitcoin and some of the other cryptos I'm not convinced that a deflationary currency can work without an inflationary currency to relieve market pressure -- ie. without credit I'd expect economic growth to stagnate, and credit within a deflationary ecosystem is financial suicide. Note that I mean credit as in company bonds, not as in maxing out ones credit card.

aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2018, 05:49:48 PM
 #33

What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively. To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI Jinping to keep it secure and act rational.
[...]

Slightly off tangent, but I think for this we'd need to start from scratch either way.

Regardless of what growth potential I still expect from Bitcoin and some of the other cryptos I'm not convinced that a deflationary currency can work without an inflationary currency to relieve market pressure -- ie. without credit I'd expect economic growth to stagnate, and credit within a deflationary ecosystem is financial suicide. Note that I mean credit as in company bonds, not as in maxing out ones credit card.
Definitively off tangent  Wink

It is axiomatic, and I afraid you put yourself in shadowy borders of cryptocurrency movement once you begin revisioning its mission. Inflationary monetary disciplines which are meant to help 'relieving' market pressure (like fiat) are aligned with state control and government intervention eventually and it is not an option for us, rebels. Bitcoin is based on a resistance axiom, resistance against sate control, it is deflationary by definition and indisputably.

Also, I think it is too soon, to argue about how economic growth could ever be compatible with a true deflationary monetary system and we could relax and focus on preliminary phase: mass adoption.



aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2018, 06:11:52 PM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 06:26:06 PM by aliashraf
 #34

I agree that pools are the biggest problem.

They logically result from the winner take all algo.

I postulate that in a theoretically ideal POW system, every single participant that contributes cycles/work towards securing the network would be rewarded in direct proportion to their contribution.  ie, even if they only calculate 1 hash during a given block and do not match target difficulty.

How to achieve that?  I have no idea.  haha.  But I'd like to see more discussion/brainpower/research on it.
I have worked on this, PoCW, it is based on few tricks:
Trick 1: Miners not only generate nonce for block headers,  they are also free to commit to Merkle root by generating nonce for it.
Trick 2: Miners do not include coinbase transaction in the Merkle tree they commit to. This way validating a Merkle path happens once and shares are being validated in microsecond scales to be at least partially difficult (good) compared to what is dictated by the target.
Trick 3:  Coinbase transaction provides both proof for difficulty and reward distribution i.e. a coinbase consists of like thousands of wallet addresses and nonces that commit to the Merkle tree (coinbase excluded).

Many other details are also devised ,,,, Understanding that it is about a hard fork, I just decided to postpone implementation to a more complete package and a much stronger community support.
[
Quote
First question:  Is the above scenario ideal/desirable for maximizing distribution of work across non-colluding parties?   Or the incentives are flawed somehow?

Followup question:  What technical obstacles prevent it, and how might they be overcome?   (assuming a brand-new system with no legacy code/chain).
First: It is absolutely a guaranteed secure decentralized schema because when you have tens of thousands of distinct almost anonymous human beings involved in solo mining bitcoin, there would be no practical chance for collusion or state control. Absolutely secure, no doubts.

Follow up: no technical obstacles, I just need more community support and contribution.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 15, 2018, 07:04:43 AM
Last edit: October 15, 2018, 07:19:27 AM by Wind_FURY
 #35

...just like all GPUs where apparently no one is bothered about where the chips come from. Like I said, I think it's more a question of where the miners are deployed, not where they are produced.
....

Focusing on software, rather than hardware. We live in a globalized society of specialization, so naturally knowledge accumulates where its applied most.
Right to the point.

ASICs are bad but pools are horrible, both should be taken care of but we need to understand without a truly pool-resistant fork bitcoin has no chance to be adopted in levels much higher than what it is right now because it is not decentralized enough and could not be considered secure for bigger missions.

What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively.

I believe Bitcoin can be a world reserve currency, but taking away the right to print money and seigniorage from the government would be impossible.

Quote
To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.

What's the acceptable solution? The problem in Bitcoin is many developers have just discovered it and some of them already propose to "save" it without fully understanding the trade-offs.

Quote
Massive adoption of bitcoin rises scalability challenges, but we could just wait for them to actually happen then figure out a solution but it is a process that never gonna boost with the current fragile situation.

What's your opinion on the Lightning Network or a layered topology for Bitcoin in general?

Quote
Let's just forget about scalability, decentralization is a more urgent issue
I agree, decentralization secures on-chain censorship resistance. That's why many people in the community believe, me included, that an off-chain layer is the best way to scale Bitcoin.
I don't see the old scaling debate's  scalability vs decentralization dilemma (or the stupid Buterin trilemma) as a viable discourse, (as you know already) but I think it is not our problem today. Once bitcoin got enough stem and started boosting in adoption, we can debate  off-chain vs on-chain disputes. Without mass adoption, arguing about scalability is pointless.

Most people suppose we need scaling bitcoin to help with adoption. It is absolutely false. Adoption is a slow process and won't be even triggered as a massive one, without a solid, decentralized, uncompromisable network, scaling challenges won't show up until the midst of this process.

Yes but these are "tools" that will help create more tools for the network, and make it easier for new users to enter and use Bitcoin that will help in adoption.

You are granted the right to criticize and disagree, but it will not take away their right to create those tools.

Quote
Quote
and although I think it is very convenient to retire ASICs and let more commodity devices in, but it would make no difference with pools being in charge.
Is it convenient to hard fork to cut nodes and hash power from the network, and hurt its security? For a developer like yourself, I believe you need to think about these things.
By convenient, I mean forking to an ASIC-resistant algo is both desirable and achievable (incrementally tho) but not very effective and helpful while fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws and  pooling pressure, is the hard job comparatively and the ultimate decentralization solution.

Desirable knowing that you are cutting off hash power and nodes?

When should the community expect a written proposal?


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 15, 2018, 10:13:08 AM
 #36


What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively.

I believe Bitcoin can be a world reserve currency, but taking away the right to print money and seigniorage from the government would be impossible.
As much as using this term, "world reserve currency"  is common nowadays, it is nonsense. There is and there would be no such thing ever. Central banks use their reserves among other devices, for manipulating market. It is not what bitcoin and cryptocurrency is about.

Denouncing the possibility of elimination of fiat and gov seigniorage is an ideological argument which as a bitcoiner, I'm not aligned with, neither Satoshi:
Code:
Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
2008-11-06 20:15:40 UTC - Original Email - View in Thread
>[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force
>monopolies ellided.]
>
>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.

Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.

Satoshi


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com

I don't think politically neutralizing bitcoin by pushing it to whales/central banks territory in the name of "world reserve currency" would help. For this they have Ripple.

Quote
To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.

What's the acceptable solution? The problem in Bitcoin is many developers have just discovered it and some of them already propose to "save" it without fully understanding the trade-offs.
The only solution, acceptable or not, is a PoCW hard fork complemented by a 2 way hash algorithm for retiring ASICs in a 2-3 years window as a package.

Quote
Quote
Massive adoption of bitcoin raises scalability challenges, but we could just wait for them to actually happen then figure out a solution but it is a process that never gonna boost with the current fragile situation.

What's your opinion on the Lightning Network or a layered topology for Bitcoin in general?
As I said, I think it is too early to be concerned about scalability but generally I think off-chain solutions (LN, side chains, ... ) are not that ultimate that BlockStream suggests and we need on-chain scaling through improvements and sharding as well.

Quote
By convenient, I mean forking to an ASIC-resistant algo is both desirable and achievable (incrementally tho) but not very effective and helpful while fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws and  pooling pressure, is the hard job comparatively and the ultimate decentralization solution.
Desirable knowing that you are cutting off hash power and nodes?
No hash power cut-off. Imagine we implant a secondary ASIC-resistant cpu/gpu friendly algo (like ProgPow) and define two parallel difficulty adjustment systems which regulate blocks mined by sha2 at 11 blocks per every 2 hours ratio while gpus are set to generate 1 block in the same window also suppose we use a gradual re-adjustment policy by introducing a decrease/increase strategy for above parameters. See? no cut-off!

Quote
When should the community expect a written proposal?
Understanding the need for a hard fork, and not being interested in following bch fate, I have realized that I need to produce a complete package and it is hard job for a lone wolf, not impossible but I need more time. I'm thinking of early 2019 for such a package, like 6 months  Wink
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 16, 2018, 06:38:05 AM
 #37


What "bigger missions" are you speaking of that would put decentralization on top of its list?
Replacing fiat definitively.

I believe Bitcoin can be a world reserve currency, but taking away the right to print money and seigniorage from the government would be impossible.
As much as using this term, "world reserve currency"  is common nowadays, it is nonsense. There is and there would be no such thing ever. Central banks use their reserves among other devices, for manipulating market. It is not what bitcoin and cryptocurrency is about.

I said it more to make a point that Bitcoin will have the same status as the US Dollar as a "world reserve currency". A currency that nations will be willing to hold. Who said they can be stopped if they wanted to?

Quote
Denouncing the possibility of elimination of fiat and gov seigniorage is an ideological argument which as a bitcoiner, I'm not aligned with, neither Satoshi:

Trying to put yourself on the level of Satoshi now are we? Hahaha. I'm joking. Cool

Quote
I don't think politically neutralizing bitcoin by pushing it to whales/central banks territory in the name of "world reserve currency" would help. For this they have Ripple.

If Bitcoin is viewed as something of real value within 50 years, then it will become a world reserve currency in my opinion.

Quote
Quote
To accomplish this you just can't put all the eggs in a Chinese basket and give it to XI JInping to keep it secure and act rational.

What's the acceptable solution? The problem in Bitcoin is many developers have just discovered it and some of them already propose to "save" it without fully understanding the trade-offs.
The only solution, acceptable or not, is a PoCW hard fork complemented by a 2 way hash algorithm for retiring ASICs in a 2-3 years window as a package.

I would be happy to see you prove to the Core developers that your idea is applicable.

Many developers discovered Bitcoin and claimed they can "fix" it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Massive adoption of bitcoin raises scalability challenges, but we could just wait for them to actually happen then figure out a solution but it is a process that never gonna boost with the current fragile situation.

What's your opinion on the Lightning Network or a layered topology for Bitcoin in general?
As I said, I think it is too early to be concerned about scalability but generally I think off-chain solutions (LN, side chains, ... ) are not that ultimate that BlockStream suggests and we need on-chain scaling through improvements and sharding as well.

Why would Bitcoin need "sharding"? Bitcoin is already designed to scale out by the regulated the block size cap.

Plus wasn't sharding "invented" by Vitalik Buterin? The same developer that you said we should not lend an ear to?

Quote
Quote
By convenient, I mean forking to an ASIC-resistant algo is both desirable and achievable (incrementally tho) but not very effective and helpful while fixing mining variance and proximity premium flaws and  pooling pressure, is the hard job comparatively and the ultimate decentralization solution.
Desirable knowing that you are cutting off hash power and nodes?
No hash power cut-off. Imagine we implant a secondary ASIC-resistant cpu/gpu friendly algo (like ProgPow) and define two parallel difficulty adjustment systems which regulate blocks mined by sha2 at 11 blocks per every 2 hours ratio while gpus are set to generate 1 block in the same window also suppose we use a gradual re-adjustment policy by introducing a decrease/increase strategy for above parameters. See? no cut-off!

How many hard forks will that take?

What would make you so sure that Bitmain will not make new ASICs for the new mining algorithm?

Quote
Quote
When should the community expect a written proposal?
Understanding the need for a hard fork, and not being interested in following bch fate, I have realized that I need to produce a complete package and it is hard job for a lone wolf, not impossible but I need more time. I'm thinking of early 2019 for such a package, like 6 months  Wink

Good luck in finding a solution.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
aliashraf
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 924
Merit: 664


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2018, 09:30:39 AM
 #38

No hash power cut-off. Imagine we implant a secondary ASIC-resistant cpu/gpu friendly algo (like ProgPow) and define two parallel difficulty adjustment systems which regulate blocks mined by sha2 at 11 blocks per every 2 hours ratio while gpus are set to generate 1 block in the same window also suppose we use a gradual re-adjustment policy by introducing a decrease/increase strategy for above parameters. See? no cut-off!

How many hard forks will that take?

What would make you so sure that Bitmain will not make new ASICs for the new mining algorithm?
It is just ONE hard fork. The ratio is adjusted deterministically by virtue of the protocol, just like halving in legacy bitcoin.

Quote
Good luck in finding a solution.
Solution is almost ready, implementation is the phase.
funkenstein
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1059
Merit: 1013


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2018, 06:25:32 AM
Last edit: October 17, 2018, 07:19:25 AM by funkenstein
 #39

1) Bitcoin doesn't care what language miners are speaking or what lines orcs have drawn on maps to satisfy their mental deficiencies.  Also there is no person called "China", there are many people here with different agendas.  To use English properly please avoid assigning agency to non-agents.    

2) Sure there may be problems with centralized pools and ASIC manufacturers,  but the money supply and transactions can still all be public despite these problems.  In other words, we are still worlds above a privately issued currency system (fiat).  We aren't talking about abuses such as issuing arbitrary amounts of monetary units for ourselves here, so it really isn't fair to compare this kind of centralization with the kind witnessed in fiat systems.  



  

"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org  http://woodcoin.info
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 17, 2018, 07:12:02 AM
 #40

No hash power cut-off. Imagine we implant a secondary ASIC-resistant cpu/gpu friendly algo (like ProgPow) and define two parallel difficulty adjustment systems which regulate blocks mined by sha2 at 11 blocks per every 2 hours ratio while gpus are set to generate 1 block in the same window also suppose we use a gradual re-adjustment policy by introducing a decrease/increase strategy for above parameters. See? no cut-off!

How many hard forks will that take?

What would make you so sure that Bitmain will not make new ASICs for the new mining algorithm?
It is just ONE hard fork. The ratio is adjusted deterministically by virtue of the protocol, just like halving in legacy bitcoin.

Quote
Good luck in finding a solution.
Solution is almost ready, implementation is the phase.

Sincerely good luck. But I believe the idea has already failed before it has started. The miners will never signal their readiness for a hard fork that will kill them. The community would also not want to risk a chain-split.

1) Bitcoin doesn't care what language miners are speaking or what lines orcs have drawn on maps to satisfy their mental deficiencies.  Also there is no person called "China", there are many people here with different agendas.  To use English properly please avoid assigning agency to non-agents.    

2) Sure there may be problems with centralized pools and ASIC manufacturers,  but the money supply and transactions can still all be public despite these problems.  In other words, we are still worlds above a privately issued currency system (fiat).  We aren't talking about abuses such as issuing arbitrary amounts of monetary units for ourselves here, so it really isn't fare to compare this kind of centralization with the kind witnessed in fiat systems.  


Theoretically if there is enough of Bitcoin's "transaction processors" centralized geographically in one country, that country's government can threaten them, and make the "processors" censor some transactions that that country's government does not like.



▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!