New bitcoin mining algorithm

[squatter]

More profitable how? There are only 21 million coins to mine. Make mining more efficient maybe? But what's more efficient than ASICs?

ASICs mean a more centralized world of BTC where a few manufacturers and a few pools control all the income.  What is so great about that?  Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

They don't "control all the income." The only power miners have is to decide which transactions to publish. They are rationally incentivized by block rewards to do so honestly rather than to censor or reorg out transactions.

That's how Bitcoin is supposed to work, and that's how it still works today.

Satoshi's lack of foresight about the proliferation of ASICs and mining pools ≠ adequate reason to change Bitcoin's design. It's not broken; don't try to fix it.

[franky1]

Well, let's say some mining pool has taken over 51% of the network and can now manage your state as it wants, for example, change the chain that you have 0 coins, what do you say?

pools cant change the main rules. they would get their blocks rejected. they can only choose what transactions get included or excluded.
in short they could black list certain transactions formats or addresses, but not change the rules
try to learn about the risks before trying to pretend a algo change is needed. it just seems like your real intention is a 'get rich quick for free' option.. the flaw in that, which others have also noted is that if there was a get rich quick for free, everyone would be doing it and the end result is no one wins. thus coming back to your original problem. where you will ned to actually do something to get something. which is part of life

ASICs mean a more centralized world of BTC where a few manufacturers and a few pools control all the income.  What is so great about that?  Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

cpu mining any better? oh wait you hear the cries that 'AMD and Intel own mining'
GPU mining any better? oh wait you hear the cries that 'AMDati, Nvidia and Intel own mining'
no matter what mining is done. ther will always be cries blaming the hardware manufacturer for being king.

PoS mining.. oh wait you hear the cries where people pool/syndicate their funds into stake and that raises the minimal stake threshold to then not let the little people have a chance.

in short no matter what people try, if there is profit to b made people will try anything and everything to get more. leaving some people with less

[pooya87]

ASICs mean a more centralized world of BTC where a few manufacturers and a few pools control all the income.  What is so great about that? 

in case you don't know "pools" created before ASICs because they have nothing to do with ASICs. a mining pool is simply a "place" where individual miners go to to share the work and share the reward. it doesn't matter with what you are doing the work, with an ASIC, a super computer or a decrepit Pentium II pc.

Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

now you are just putting words in Satoshi's mouth!
Satoshi designed bitcoin so that everyone could use bitcoin, how they acquire it is on themselves. bitcoin is not some sort of charity money give away to give money to the poor for free or easy!

[Wind_FURY]

Will the new algorithm make mining more profitable? That's the most important question for me

More profitable how? There are only 21 million coins to mine. Make mining more efficient maybe? But what's more efficient than ASICs?

ASICs mean a more centralized world of BTC where a few manufacturers and a few pools control all the income.  What is so great about that?  Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

I don't know what Satoshi designed it to be, but he didn't expect "mining" to be a specialized industry. Maybe if he did, he would be embracing it. ASIC-resistance, or the path to more efficiency of work, would be pointless.

Well, let's say some mining pool has taken over 51% of the network and can now manage your state as it wants, for example, change the chain that you have 0 coins, what do you say?

pools cant change the main rules. they would get their blocks rejected. they can only choose what transactions get included or excluded.

Yes! By the non-mining full nodes validating everything in the network.

thirdprize, full nodes order blocks from the miners, if they're invalid, they will be rejected. All the miner's work will then be wasted.

[beachbummer]

Yes! By the non-mining full nodes validating everything in the network.

thirdprize, full nodes order blocks from the miners, if they're invalid, they will be rejected. All the miner's work will then be wasted.

If a mining pool controlled 51% of the network, they will be able to put through a fake transaction from one address to another. This will pass validation as there is no double spend, no block errors and the nonce is valid. Eventually, by controlling 51% of the network, they will be able to produce the longest chain, thus making it technically valid.

Of course, the community can choose to thwart this by opting for a fork before the affected block, but this is another topic entirely.

[davis196]

Seeing that bitcoin has long been impossible to mine on a regular computer began to ponder the question of why the development team does not seek to switch to another algorithm to stop the mining of coins by large corporations and return to the canons that bequeathed Satoshi. It may be worth switching to the pos algorithm, you will not need to spend a huge amount of electricity and investors will be able to receive passive income for storing coins. There will also be no need to be afraid of the quantum computer. Interested in everyone's opinion.

If it gets easy to mine bitcoins on a PC,bitcoin will lose it's most valuable feature-it's scarcity.
If you are such a big fan of the POS algorithm,just buy and HODL one of the altcoins that use POS algorithm.
No need to try to advocate bitcoin core changing it's algorithm(POW vs.POS is a pretty old topic).It won't happen anyway.We can't just change what works.

[pooya87]

Yes! By the non-mining full nodes validating everything in the network.

thirdprize, full nodes order blocks from the miners, if they're invalid, they will be rejected. All the miner's work will then be wasted.

If a mining pool controlled 51% of the network, they will be able to put through a fake transaction from one address to another. This will pass validation as there is no double spend, no block errors and the nonce is valid. Eventually, by controlling 51% of the network, they will be able to produce the longest chain, thus making it technically valid.

Of course, the community can choose to thwart this by opting for a fork before the affected block, but this is another topic entirely.

that's not how bitcoin works!
it doesn't matter how much hashrate you own, even if you control 100% of it you still can not insert an invalid (fake) transaction in the actual blockchain that everyone else stores because it simply will be rejected right away by the rest of the network and you will be on your own, alone on a chain that you and you only think is valid.

[jseverson]

If it gets easy to mine bitcoins on a PC,bitcoin will lose it's most valuable feature-it's scarcity.

What people use to mine won't actually matter because of difficulty adjustments.

ASICs mean a more centralized world of BTC where a few manufacturers and a few pools control all the income.  What is so great about that?  Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

I have never understood this reasoning. People with more resources will be able to do whatever they're doing right now no matter what miners are in use. Miners running ASIC farms would just run PC/GPU farms instead. You could also just as easily buy an ASIC miner like you would have a mining PC, so it's not like there's an insurmountable barrier to mining.

It's also worth noting that it would be theoretically cheaper to attack Bitcoin if non-specialized hardware were viable. ASICs turn into bricks after being used in a successful attack (assuming Bitcoin dies), whereas PCs/GPUs would retain their value. Either way, it's best to simply leave things alone, especially because there are no problems to address in the first place.

[stompix]

What is so great about that?  Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

Yeah? Probably I missed this part ...
What about the 3 billion who didn't have money for a computer in 2009?
Even if we would still be in the CPU era people who can only afford a refurbished first-generation i3 would still mine 1/10 of what a i9k can.
So? What would have really changed?

You had 2000$ for a top computer, you have 2000$ for an s17 nothing has changed.

Or we could gpu mining..
The ones with 10k$ will mine with the latest video cards, the poor will mine with the onboard card.
What difference will it make?
Stick to the shitcoins that give you coins for tapping once a day on your smartphone and keep wondering why they are valued at zero.

Satoshi designed it so anyone could mine and anyone could earn BTC.

now you are just putting words in Satoshi's mouth!
Satoshi designed bitcoin so that everyone could use bitcoin, how they acquire it is on themselves. bitcoin is not some sort of charity money give away to give money to the poor for free or easy!

I see a new trend here, Satoshi is on his way to becoming Jesus.
He is freeing us from the banks, he will lead us to the promised land, he turns water into wine, electricity into money...
And of course, he will get rid of poverty!


 

[Wind_FURY]

Yes! By the non-mining full nodes validating everything in the network.

thirdprize, full nodes order blocks from the miners, if they're invalid, they will be rejected. All the miner's work will then be wasted.

If a mining pool controlled 51% of the network, they will be able to put through a fake transaction from one address to another. This will pass validation as there is no double spend, no block errors and the nonce is valid. Eventually, by controlling 51% of the network, they will be able to produce the longest chain, thus making it technically valid.

Of course, the community can choose to thwart this by opting for a fork before the affected block, but this is another topic entirely.

that's not how bitcoin works!
it doesn't matter how much hashrate you own, even if you control 100% of it you still can not insert an invalid (fake) transaction in the actual blockchain that everyone else stores because it simply will be rejected right away by the rest of the network and you will be on your own, alone on a chain that you and you only think is valid.

Newbies are either misinformed by trolls, or haven't done the proper research. Plus when the trolls get to them first, it's hard for the newbies to believe that they're wrong.

[Ucy]

Seeing that bitcoin has long been impossible to mine on a regular computer began to ponder the question of why the development team does not seek to switch to another algorithm to stop the mining of coins by large corporations and return to the canons that bequeathed Satoshi. It may be worth switching to the pos algorithm, you will not need to spend a huge amount of electricity and investors will be able to receive passive income for storing coins. There will also be no need to be afraid of the quantum computer. Interested in everyone's opinion.

Switching to proof of stake is not a good idea in my opinion. It's such an easy way to earn mining reward and  will likely be unsustainable in the long-run.. Another problem people hardly talk about concerning PoS is the issue of privacy. Staker would need lots of coins, right? And many will likely give out the private information before purchasing lots of coins. What if you are required in the future to reveal what the coin is meant for. There are other disadvantages of proof of stake that are usually ignored.

[Wind_FURY]

Seeing that bitcoin has long been impossible to mine on a regular computer began to ponder the question of why the development team does not seek to switch to another algorithm to stop the mining of coins by large corporations and return to the canons that bequeathed Satoshi. It may be worth switching to the pos algorithm, you will not need to spend a huge amount of electricity and investors will be able to receive passive income for storing coins. There will also be no need to be afraid of the quantum computer. Interested in everyone's opinion.

Switching to proof of stake is not a good idea in my opinion. It's such an easy way to earn mining reward and  will likely be unsustainable in the long-run.. Another problem people hardly talk about concerning PoS is the issue of privacy. Staker would need lots of coins, right? And many will likely give out the private information before purchasing lots of coins. What if you are required in the future to reveal what the coin is meant for. There are other disadvantages of proof of stake that are usually ignored.

It doesn't need to be "our opinion". Bitcoin switching to Proof of Stake is out of the question, and the mere mention of it is already laughable.

[beachbummer]

Yes! By the non-mining full nodes validating everything in the network.

thirdprize, full nodes order blocks from the miners, if they're invalid, they will be rejected. All the miner's work will then be wasted.

If a mining pool controlled 51% of the network, they will be able to put through a fake transaction from one address to another. This will pass validation as there is no double spend, no block errors and the nonce is valid. Eventually, by controlling 51% of the network, they will be able to produce the longest chain, thus making it technically valid.

Of course, the community can choose to thwart this by opting for a fork before the affected block, but this is another topic entirely.

that's not how bitcoin works!
it doesn't matter how much hashrate you own, even if you control 100% of it you still can not insert an invalid (fake) transaction in the actual blockchain that everyone else stores because it simply will be rejected right away by the rest of the network and you will be on your own, alone on a chain that you and you only think is valid.

Newbies are either misinformed by trolls, or haven't done the proper research. Plus when the trolls get to them first, it's hard for the newbies to believe that they're wrong.

@Wind_Fury
I'm going prove you wrong. By admitting I'm wrong. Haha.

@pooya87
Thanks for calling out the error. I hope to understand better now.