Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2018, 04:01:50 AM
 News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 Home Help Search Donate Login Register
 Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11  All
 Author Topic: difficulty too high while bitcoin society too small  (Read 22730 times)
vuce
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250

 May 24, 2011, 11:09:36 AM

If "afterburner229" have better code for us to examine we will be very pleased.

Let me some time to think about an idea.

Consider real Gold. While we have mined 1/3 of total gold, the mass of the gold being mined per unit time, in the total world, depends on total mining power. NOT constant mass being mined per unit time:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mass_per_time = k * total_mining_power, where k = const, mass of mined gold < 90%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we have mined 90% of total gold, the mass of the gold being mined per unit time starts to decrease exponentially:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mass_per_time = mass_per_time (mass of mined gold = 90%) * exp (- time/1_YEAR), mass of mined gold >= 90%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(don't be afraid about if we get not 100% EXACTLY - exponential function DOES make upper boundary - just re-normalize)

Look in to the history - 90% of total gold mined was reached on time interval few CENTURYs.

Of course, we apparently do not want wait for century. 90% bitcoins must be mined in 5-10 years due to world-wide political reasons & crysis. This is normalization for k = const, mentioned above.

So the new algorithm is almost ready!

How exactly would one get (uncompromised) total_mining_power (in a decentralized system)?
1527048110
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1527048110

Ignore
 1527048110

1527048110
 Report to moderator
1527048110
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1527048110

Ignore
 1527048110

1527048110
 Report to moderator
1527048110
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1527048110

Ignore
 1527048110

1527048110
 Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1527048110
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1527048110

Ignore
 1527048110

1527048110
 Report to moderator
1527048110
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1527048110

Ignore
 1527048110

1527048110
 Report to moderator
bernd
Newbie

Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 11:31:05 AM

The most efficient miners will set the profitability, im afraid the most profitable miners right now are those who dont pay for electricity, the kids in their parents basements or at their companies or whereever no one cares. The rest of you who pay for electricity and/or maintenance will soon cease to be profitable. good thing i dont have to pay for electricity or maintenance, my mining rig is infinitely profitable right now.
amincd
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500

 May 24, 2011, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: vuce
50 blocks per hour would not help. What he wants is increasing amount of coins mined per hour, eg. 50 coins/10 minutes now and 100 coins/10 minutes 14 days from now. This just can't work.

He's saying difficulty is too high. If difficulty were lowered, there would be more blocks being created per hour.

If he wants what you describe, that also can't work. It would lead to bitcoins being almost worthless, and few people accepting them in exchange for goods/services because of their rapid inflation.
vuce
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250

 May 24, 2011, 11:56:43 AM

Quote from: vuce
50 blocks per hour would not help. What he wants is increasing amount of coins mined per hour, eg. 50 coins/10 minutes now and 100 coins/10 minutes 14 days from now. This just can't work.

He's saying difficulty is too high. If difficulty were lowered, there would be more blocks being created per hour.

If he wants what you describe, that also can't work. It would lead to bitcoins being almost worthless, and few people accepting them in exchange for goods/services because of their rapid inflation.
fair enough... either fixed amount of btc per block and variable block generation times, or the other way around.
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 12:25:08 PM

Mostly it seems you want to distribute coins among at least a million people before allowing an arms-war to start among them whereby they compete with each other to enrich processor manufacturers instead of each other.

- Our AfterburnerCoin system will not recognise a coin-production transaction as valid unless it designates a specific address as beneficiary, or one of a "jury of peers" of addresses maybe.

- The institution / committee / whatever controlling that address or those addresses commits to issuing the coins to many people, no more than 21 coins per person, so that a million people are required in order for all 21 million coins to be issued.

No, it is another great mistake - to arbitrary distribute coins among at least a million people before allowing an arms-war to start among them.

We need 1 000 000 people of high quality & IQ, each:
- can invest his OWN money to ATI-GPU miner, some \$1000
- can install mining software on it
- can support mining uptime close to 99% per unit time for YEARS
- can become a permanent peer, when mining will be unprofitable
stic.man
Full Member

Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100

 May 24, 2011, 12:27:38 PM

so you don't want average joe involved with BTC?
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 12:45:30 PM

How exactly would one get (uncompromised) total_mining_power (in a decentralized system)?

For now, How does difficulty know about total_mining_power, to auto-adjust for 1 block generation per 10 min?
I suggest, current decentralized algorithm CAN estimate current total_mining_power.

afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 12:50:44 PM

He's saying difficulty is too high. If difficulty were lowered, there would be more blocks being created per hour.

I say, we need completely re-normalize current mining (BTC-mass/per unit time) algorithm by two functions - linear increasing one (while less than 90% gold-BTC has been mined) and exponetial decreasing one (when more than 90% gold-BTC will be mined).

Basiley
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 12:58:08 PM

so you don't want average joe involved with BTC?
just hope he don't plan to kill anyone knowing about BTC.
/duck & hide.
markm
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1000

 May 24, 2011, 01:06:25 PM

When bitcoins are worth only a mere US\$10 each, happening to win a block would be a win of US\$500.

If you actually *invest*, long term, as you seem to plan to have your million high-IQ people do, instead of living rig-to-new-hardware selling off your bitcoins instead of sitting on them until they go up to at least ten times the value they had when you actually mined them, then yes you might see mining as unprofitable, because by being so short-sighted you will be competing with all kinds of wannabe-get-rich-quick people who are trying to make a quick profit in only a year or few instead of looking at it as a long term business and bearing in mind that typically long term businesses need at least a couple of years to break even (and then benefit from the huge percent of their competitors who dropped out before even lasting a couple of years in the biz).

If you figure it is a long term good investment, you surely ought to be figuring the coins you mine will be worth at least ten times as much within oh gosh maybe less than a decade even than when you initially mined them.

So if you do happen to luck into a block when it is only worth US\$500, you will be thinking oh cool, that is at least US\$5000 in my mind as I don't expect to sell it until it *is* worth at least that...

Most competitors will be thinking shorter term, and maybe running equipment they intend to burn out in only a few years instead of running gear optimised to last a decade or two. (Maybe heating units for the winter and solar units for summer, heat pump engines recycling heat, industrial 24/7 chips instead of gamer chips intended to be used flat out only a few hours a day, and so on.)

Thinking of high IQ long term investors burning out units not intended for flat out 24/7 use seems a little oxymoronic. Can you run ten times as many units at one tenth duty cycle or one tenth power or something and make them last more than ten times as long or something? Or just build units with 24/7 duty cycle in mind from the chip-design up? Or *something* more intelligent than abusing consumer low duty cycle hardware?

(How about your million smart people each put a dollar or few toward a specially designed chipset and a datacentre to put it in, forming a mining corporation they each buy into?)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 01:07:10 PM

The most efficient miners will set the profitability, im afraid the most profitable miners right now are those who dont pay for electricity, the kids in their parents basements or at their companies or whereever no one cares. The rest of you who pay for electricity and/or maintenance will soon cease to be profitable. good thing i dont have to pay for electricity or maintenance, my mining rig is infinitely profitable right now.

Picture you describe will take place in FEW weeks, with current algorithm. So only the pilferers of electricity power will be frofitable in FEW weeks. Now there are some 10 000 miners, how much pilferers will remain? 1 000 ?!

LOL. "secure currency" being mined by .. 1000 pilferers world-wide.))))

People, wake up!
vuce
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250

 May 24, 2011, 01:11:05 PM

Now there are some 10 000 miners, how much pilferers will remain? 1 000 ?!
Why would the number of miners decrease? I guess when equilibrium is reached difficulty would be at least what is now - therefore at least as many miners as there are now.
markm
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1000

 May 24, 2011, 01:17:20 PM

Actually, if the price of coins does go down so low compared to difficulty than only people who get "free" electricity can "profit" by mining, that will probably *increase* the number of small scale miners, because having to pilfer probably cuts down the average amount of electricity used. There might be some people who can pilfer enough electricity for ten years straight to run a significant number of rigs but but there are probably more people who could, if it were profitable to do so, buy enough electricity for ten years straight to run a significant number of rigs.

So quite likely if mining is "unprofitable" for anyone who pays for electricity the ratio of small miners to large miners will change in favour of small miners, which could well increase the chance of getting a million small miners with minimum competition from large miners...

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 01:24:46 PM

When bitcoins are worth only a mere US\$10 each, happening to win a block would be a win of US\$500.

If you actually *invest*, long term, as you seem to plan to have your million high-IQ people do, instead of living rig-to-new-hardware

-- SKIPPED

Can you run ten times as many units at one tenth duty cycle or one tenth power or something and make them last more than ten times as long or something? Or just build units with 24/7 duty cycle in mind from the chip-design up? Or *something* more intelligent than abusing consumer low duty cycle hardware?

(How about your million smart people each put a dollar or few toward a specially designed chipset and a datacentre to put it in, forming a mining corporation they each buy into?)

-MarkM-

Oh Mark, you are dreaming in clouds! You think by RIGHT way, but 10 000 people in bitcoin society is NOT the basis for your thinking! At least 1 000 000 people IS basis.

I know about Official FPGA miner just released

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9047.0

This is NOT the way because there is no reason to trust in 10 000-people bitcoin society. FPGA is UFO that costs over \$500! And you can not buy it in arbitrary computer store in arbitrary country in arbitrary amount..

First we need 1 000 000 miners with ATI-GPU for mining duration of few years, THEN we will think about FPGA..
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 01:32:15 PM

Now there are some 10 000 miners, how much pilferers will remain? 1 000 ?!
Why would the number of miners decrease? I guess when equilibrium is reached difficulty would be at least what is now - therefore at least as many miners as there are now.

Of course, number of miners will not decrease - it just will be frozen @ constant = some 10 000 people, while mining hardware is working (for some years).

but this freeze is Bitcoin society COLLAPSE. 10 000 frozen people DO compromise the IDEA of world-wide currency.

afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 01:40:06 PM

Actually, if the price of coins does go down so low compared to difficulty than only people who get "free" electricity can "profit" by ming, that will probably *increase* the number of small scale miners, because having to pilfer probably cuts down the average amount of electricity used. There might be some people who can pilfer enough electricity for ten years straight to run a significant number of rigs but but there are probably more people who could, if it were profitable to do so, buy enough electricity for ten years straight to run a significant number of rigs.

So quite likely if mining is "unprofitable" for anyone who pays for electricity the ratio of small miners to large miners will change in favour of small miners, which could well increase the chance of getting a million small miners with minimum competition from large miners...

-MarkM-

Now, you, Full member, are compromising bitcoin currency idea in REAL TIME, because you does accept, that small pilfer miners will become LARGE percentage of total miners (maybe more than 50% - till 1 000 000 miners).

Bitcoin will base upon PILFERS??!!!!!!

Change algorithm right NOW! You know the way = linear rising function (< 90% BTC mined) & exponetially decreasing one (> 90% BTC mined).

markm
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1000

 May 24, 2011, 01:45:45 PM

Oh Mark, you are dreaming in clouds! You think by RIGHT way, but 10 000 people in bitcoin society is NOT the basis for your thinking! At least 1 000 000 people IS basis.

I know about Official FPGA miner just released

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9047.0

This is NOT the way because there is no reason to trust in 10 000-people bitcoin society. FPGA is UFO that costs over \$500! And you can not buy it in arbitrary computer store in arbitrary country in arbitrary amount..

First we need 1 000 000 miners with ATI-GPU for mining duration of few years, THEN we will think about FPGA..

Look on the bright side: your failure to take advantage of the current opportunity in mining is one less GPU others have to compete against, so by refusing to mine you are helping make mining more profitable for others who are less short-sighted and bigoted (against communities of less than a million people) than you are.

So thank you for doing your part in that way.

Furthermore if this FUD you are trolling here turns anyone else off of mining that again helps those who do grab the bull market by the horns to profit so maybe even that is a good contribution in a backhanded kind of way.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
barbarousrelic
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 500

 May 24, 2011, 02:00:45 PM

Thank you, afterburner229. Your objections will be noted in our log.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
afterburner229
Jr. Member

Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0

 May 24, 2011, 02:08:41 PM

Look on the bright side: your failure to take advantage of the current opportunity in mining is one less GPU others have to compete against, so by refusing to mine you are helping make mining more profitable for others who are less short-sihted and bigoted (against communities of less than a million people) than you are.

So thank you for doing your part in that way.

Furthermore if this FUD you are trolling here turns anyone else off of mining that again helps those who do grab the bull market by the horns to profit so maybe even that is a good contribution in a backhanded kind of way.

-MarkM-

You speak absolutely right things, but this is just admission of guilt, that you are not more than SMALL PYRAMID gamer. And bitcoin system is SMALL PYRAMID BY DESIGN TO STAY SMALL, TO ALLOW YOU (10 000 people) OUTPUT YOUR MONEY FROM THE GAME IN GOOD MOMENT, FEW weeks LATER.

Thanks!

barbarousrelic
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 500

 May 24, 2011, 02:11:50 PM

If Bitcoin succeeds, yes, that means that people who got in early will profit. This is true. The same principle applied with Microsoft and Google. It is not indicative of fraud or wrongdoing on anyone's part.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
 Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11  All