Issues with Proof-of-Work

[Wind_FURY]

@windfury
POW is a mechanism to make an expensive id
NO where did i say useless (dont even start more social drama by injecting your own words)

I was just merely making the reason clearer for the newbies, and the plebs like me, franky. I never said you were doing something in this topic.

 

satoshi chose PoW instead of PoS because

Incorrect,

Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.

Satoshi chose POW because it was the only FEASIBLE option available, and it STILL currently remains the only feasible option right now.

Plus in case many of you forgot, Wei Dai's B-Money experimented with a form of Proof Of Stake, I believe it was the first  to resemble a POS coin, but later said it was impractical because it couldn't solve the double-spend problem.

Since the servers must be trusted to a degree, some mechanism is needed to
keep them honest. Each server is required to deposit a certain amount of
money in a special account to be used as potential fines or rewards for
proof of misconduct.

http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

[franky1]

@leg-end
yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)


@windfury
you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the  MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)

so . for now. ill refrain from calling you a default idiot. as long as you keep up the confidence to do your own research

do it for no one else, not even me. do it for your own mental wellness and your own fact finding efforts

do not fear the time it takes to do the research because even though it takes time. its less time then the years wasted finding social drama reasons to refuse to do the research for yourself

[BlackHatCoiner]

POW has obvious scaling issues

Proof-of-Work has NOTHING to do with scaling. Please don't spread FUD.

Satoshi choose PoW because it was the only option available in 2008 for what he wanted.

It's, unfortunately for you, still the only option solution to the problem.

you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the  MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)

What MAHF topic, and how am I even related in this?

[franky1]

greying it out as its an obvious side show poke the bear to get me to join someones social drama by trying to get me to talk and give links to other topics
@blackhat
oh here it goes again. when doomad gets debunked and shys away in one topic,. clan sister comes along to start social drama in another topic within minutes. pretending there is no game at play, whilst playing the known tactics of the game they play too much

and clan sister then wonders why i gave them a title of madhatter, knowing its a known social drama boring technique done multiple times to become soo notable it deserves a title

i had some hope after you(blackhat) were ready to try to move away from toeing the clan party book and starting to ask questions outside of doomads desires/scripts, where the hope was you were trying to begin to exist outside the clan mindset
but you come back within literal minutes of doomad being debunked(same pattern) trying to start more social drama in a different topic(same pattern).

just stop for once

also if you cant remember the stuff you learned in the last 10days-3 months. from questions you asked in last 10days-3 months.
cant be bothered to even search your own post history of this month as a reminder.. then please take the time.

it becomes a struggle to even hope your ready to learn/ escape the madhatter echo chamber even if some of your underlings are trying harder then you to remember stuff they learned without the madhatter spoonfeeds

but to give you the points about the MAHF and the other poiints where i thought there WAS a slight hope for you by asking questions outside the social drama scripts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433973.20
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116327/do-non-segwit-nodes-reject-segwit-transactions-with-invalid-signature

pitty that small step outside the echo chamber didnt last 10 days before you went back to norm madhatter tactics forgetting things you said

no response needed. i already know the usual stuff your about to say

now.. take a couple days. off. dont turn this into a "about franky" topic like doomad tried in another topic.. just to show you can defend him.. (its boring and meaningless)

people want to discuss the stuff of this topic
spend sometime relearning what you forgot about BITCOIN and things that affected BITCOIN and its functions and features which the topics are about

if you are truly ready to escape the madhatter title. stop sounding too much like doomad.. as said briefly to not derail the topic, i noticed windfury is gaining confidence to not sound like him as much.. end of drama enjoy a few days off

[aidoyoh]

@franky1
Yes I agree the main issue with having everyone involved is bandwidth. Syndication/pooling risks are a result of bitcoin/POW being permissionless and based in computational power. Using a different mechanism this risk may be minimized or eliminated.

I’m currently working on developing a new mechanism called Proof of Presence built around optimizing network participation and communications. The vast majority of the initial network will be distributed for free as proof of concept. This is also to ensure initial distribution is broad and unbiased and will instantly transition the network to complete decentralization. I was planning on using discord for more detailed communications and community building but I’m open to alternatives as well.

[franky1]

issues with everyone throwing out a candidate block with no cost. is that everyone can send out a candidate block in seconds

you then find that clusters of nodes peer connect into subgroups of each other


where you have clusters all connecting to node A hearing mostly group A block which build ontop of that, which varies widely from the data of another cluster hearing another group of relayed transactions and building on that group
where it takes a few layers of 'pending' blocks accumulating confirms from different clusters until you finally get just one stream/chain of blocks with longest height.
you end up holding alot of candidate blocks side by side fighting for height.

thus you end up still having a so called 'pool' of nodes' competing to be the main height winner but with alot od data wastefully being relayed just to fight for height and then orphaning off or re-orging the pending chains(wasting time/data)

you would probably have to find a way (as you say proof of presence) that cant be sybilled, cloned, spoofed or swapped to pretend not to be another 'presence' so that you can trust that one contributer/miner is not just sending out a stream of 10 blocks instantly to win height.

goodluck with that

i say goodluck because only options ultimately is that inside the block data you need to have a true unforgeable identity of a node. which can prove its a unique user(no guy with 1000 nodes) where that block identifies said unique user and bans them from making streams of blocks in a row

which is why in the end everything just resorts back to PoW (cost of work) or PoS (staking a lump of coin)
but if you can truly find a "free" method that does not involve both of these. well you have created a proof that hundreds of thousands of people have failed to do (many have tried)

[aidoyoh]

@franky1

since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.

What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?

[franky1]

@franky1

since presence is based in proportional participation and network communication the block rewards process is separate from the block verification/proposal process. The network first agrees on the most ideal/efficient block and based on the network presence within that block the rewards are distributed accordingly. This means even if node A is somehow pooled and responsible for every block proposal, block rewards will be distributed amongst participating nodes based on each nodes agreed presence within the proposed block.

What platform would you recommend for starting a community to further discuss it?

your trying to re-invent the wheel. so any platform will do. but the most participation of discussion of your type would be found in the altcoin culture/category of this forum

this bitcoin category is meant to only want to discuss bitcoin stuff, although some certain people do try to make it all about their other subnetwork promotions

but they too should be in the altcoin network section too because their payment system does not emulate how bitcoin functions even if they brand tag it as 'bitcoin'

..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)

[zeuner]

after doing dev work with ethereum and bitcoin it seems that both consensus options are blatantly fairly flawed. POW has obvious scaling issues and POS seems like a bandaid solution with wealthy people automatically being allocated more currency through an infinitely compounding cycle. Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?

PoW may have stagnated when it comes to inventing more useful types of work to prove. But this doesn't mean that we should head for something even more experimental.

[AverageGlabella]

The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media. The other thing is it requires a big investment to compete against the difficult of the network which means it will only be rich companies and people who will be able to mine in the future if that is not the case already. It makes the mining side centralized because normal people will not be able to afford the equipment which could mean that rich people could scheme to reject certain transactions or blocks unless a high fee is paid.

[dansus021]

there is always debate between proof of work and proof of stake and indeed you are all already know the side effect by choosing one of those,

but we can't blame the all Proof of Work take example bitcoin litecoin and dashcoin has their own ASIC meaning is very efficient compared to GPU and CPU mining and the end of the day transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is everywhere.

and the Proof of Stake is evolving too there is plain PoS, there is Delegated PoS there is Masternode and etc right

[franky1]

The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media.

media can attack all they like.. an asic does not read the newspaper
an asic also does not self power by eating a lump of coal.. its the power plant that are the issues

as long as an asic owner is living in a region within X miles of renewable. he has a case where he can defend that he is not polluting and just keep mining.

media can say whatever they like.
but it becomes harder for a government to tell a renewable power plant to cut one of their customers off using a "green law" when that power plant is green so has no reason to cut off that customer with fake reasoning that said customer is polluting

.. yes if a miner is paying bills to a fossil plant then yes that miner can risk having their power supply cut

but for near on a decade(2014+) most mining farms set up near cheap renewable regions and bulk purchase via xxMW contracts units for 5-24months of electric from renewable power plants direct (rather than retail power "services/billing companies")

its only the home-hobby miners stuck with whatever residential power 'billing company' there is that might be told they cant mine if there was a "green law"

but that blame is more on the power plant that then lose possible income due to the power plant(real culprit) being non -green

[aidoyoh]

..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)

I am currently in the midst of testing the reference client

The system is designed to provide no advantage to utilizing multiple nodes(slight disadvantage as more gas will be required to consolidate rewards). Additionally, peer information is contained network-wide within the network state to prevent a cluster/echo chamber of peers.

Local sims are looking good just need to start testing the waters for market demand to plan initial distribution.

I can message you when I start the topic if you are interested

[franky1]

..
as for your assumptions that "the network" you envision will self mitigate its own method. no code is needed meaning you ned to write it. you ned to come up with the methodology where it avoids certain peers from grouping up into clusters good luck funding a method to identify that certain nodes are not just 1 guy with 1000 nodes or where your node only has 100 connections and most of them are from a common peer cluster that gossiped(seeded) a list of known 100 nodes thus form their own cluster/echo chamber of only hearing each other first
(its more about the peer IP connection/identity decider. rather then the latter block reward split mechanism thats the problem when it comes to trying to mitigate pooling/clustering)

I am currently in the midst of testing the reference client

The system is designed to provide no advantage to utilizing multiple nodes(slight disadvantage as more gas will be required to consolidate rewards). Additionally, peer information is contained network-wide within the network state to prevent a cluster/echo chamber of peers.

Local sims are looking good just need to start testing the waters for market demand to plan initial distribution.

I can message you when I start the topic if you are interested

im a bitcoin maximalist so no interest in using altcoins. but if you want me to review and critique and find the flaws (bug review) to help you mitigate problems and reduce attack vectors, sure

smart devs actually want to have people that search for holes. have an outside point of view of finding worse case scenarios. rather than some ass kissing group that only deal with best case scenarios and ignore the obvious flaws

[aidoyoh]

im a bitcoin maximalist so no interest in using altcoins. but if you want me to review and critique and find the flaws (bug review) to help you mitigate problems and reduce attack vectors, sure

smart devs actually want to have people that search for holes. have an outside point of view of finding worse case scenarios. rather than some ass kissing group that only deal with best case scenarios and ignore the obvious flaws

I would love to take you up on that offer. we will speak soon

[pooya87]

yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)

Part of the reason (maybe the main reason) is that Ethereum copied a lot of its ideas and implementations from bitcoin, which means the mining algorithm (PoW) was also part of it. In fact Vitalik was once hanging out in bitcoin circles trying to convince us to destroy bitcoin's smart contract protocol and make it vulnerable like how ethereum's is today. He failed so he created the shitcoin we know today as ethereum.

[franky1]

yep windfury is correct and its why vitalik decided to call the smallest eth unit a wei many years ago, as he was always favouring/inspired to go the PoS route and follow the path of wei-dai for years, he just had to use PoW for eth first to create a community of interest due to PoW's good value policy(which PoS doesnt have). so he had to snare greed/value interest of people first to build the community before converting the community to vitalik long plan wishes(wait for the market speculation correction DOWN when he finally allows the code to un-stake)

Part of the reason (maybe the main reason) is that Ethereum copied a lot of its ideas and implementations from bitcoin, which means the mining algorithm (PoW) was also part of it. In fact Vitalik was once hanging out in bitcoin circles trying to convince us to destroy bitcoin's smart contract protocol and make it vulnerable like how ethereum's is today. He failed so he created the shitcoin we know today as ethereum.

correct he was part of bitcoin but found out early on that butting heads against the core roadmap and treated like an attacker rather than a proposal suggester. is where the centralisation was first spotted and the clan cultish mindsets began

funny part is.. ethereum has its subnetwork bridges and more people are preferring to lock bitcoin. and use as reference point to then play on ethereum subnetwork bridges. more so then using the failing subnetwork bridge that was promised as the solution to bitcoin scaling

the bitcoin scaling solution of a sub network bridge promise made 7 years ago. has less users less liquidity, but more flaws than a ethereum subnetwork bridge which is only 15 months old
(funny sidenote. the snake oil sales men of bitcoins scaling solution was offramping to subnetwork bridge,, are now this year saying how its not the solution its just a side effect niche for small utility(took them long enough))

im not suggesting ethereum is better(for many other reasons). but more users are preferring to avoid the offering by the core devs.. because core devs seem half assed in being devs and more inspired to be sponsored governors/moderators ensuring they stay in power
and yes you can do your own research and find the stats. its eye opening and may surprise you

bitcoin devs(not just core) need to catch up and do something to really help utility and usability rather than just promote "wait patiently"(conservatively)

core devs promote to their noisy hounds to suggest that devs are migrating away from bitcoin because devs are being critiqued by node users and trying to say node users should not have a say in dev review critique.. yet the actual dev migration away from bitcoin is due to sponsored devs in core being in moderation control to want to only enforce a core roadmap rather than a decentralised "bitcoin roadmap" of multiple brands united in byzantine generals effect, uniting via true consensus without hierarchy

[Wind_FURY]

@windfury
you are now showing you are doing some research along with the examples in the  MAHF topic. seems you are gaining confidence to do your own research and break away/not rely on the social spoonfeeds of the madhatter group(doomad/blackhat)

so . for now. ill refrain from calling you a default idiot. as long as you keep up the confidence to do your own research

do it for no one else, not even me. do it for your own mental wellness and your own fact finding efforts

do not fear the time it takes to do the research because even though it takes time. its less time then the years wasted finding social drama reasons to refuse to do the research for yourself

 

Gaslighting again, franky-101? Don't make it look that I have just made all of "my research" recently. I, and some of the other more out-spoken people in the forum, have been informing, and telling what's technically true about Bitcoin when you were spreading disinformation about it.

Plus, I must thank you that you and Joland_Fyookball helped me learn THE HARD WAY about Bitcoin, after all of the technical disinformation that you did. That shouldn't happen to newbies, and plebs like me again. You mislead many people.

[AverageGlabella]

The only issues with proof of work is it will be attacked for polluting the environment and when more people are mining that will only increase the concern and attacks by the media.

media can attack all they like.. an asic does not read the newspaper
an asic also does not self power by eating a lump of coal.. its the power plant that are the issues

as long as an asic owner is living in a region within X miles of renewable. he has a case where he can defend that he is not polluting and just keep mining.

media can say whatever they like.
but it becomes harder for a government to tell a renewable power plant to cut one of their customers off using a "green law" when that power plant is green so has no reason to cut off that customer with fake reasoning that said customer is polluting

.. yes if a miner is paying bills to a fossil plant then yes that miner can risk having their power supply cut

but for near on a decade(2014+) most mining farms set up near cheap renewable regions and bulk purchase via xxMW contracts units for 5-24months of electric from renewable power plants direct (rather than retail power "services/billing companies")

its only the home-hobby miners stuck with whatever residential power 'billing company' there is that might be told they cant mine if there was a "green law"

but that blame is more on the power plant that then lose possible income due to the power plant(real culprit) being non -green

If we can convert all miners to green energy then POW cannot be attacked from that angle. If we could do that I think we would see a huge price jump because companies who are now looking to adopt green energy might be able to adopt btc but atm they cannot because btc is known for its resource heavy mining which causes pollution but we cannot convert every miner ourselves it would probably have to be made a law in the governments for that to happen because a miner is just going to do the most cost effective thing for them which does not involve building some green energy solution which would cost them a lot to build.

[NotATether]

Is the crypto/blockchain community not open to new type of consensus? It seems like POW and POS just keep getting updated rather than addressing the real issue and switching base mechanisms. Do others just not see issues with POW or POS?

What other option is there currently, really?

In order to see whether another consensus algorithm will work out, it's gotta be shoved into a top 5 (not even 10) cryptocurrency on CoinMarketCap and then we see how the coin performs. Not in terms of price, but in activity. The problem with that is that most altcoins have too small of a userbase for any novel consensus to be truly seen under the microscope.