Topic: A solo Bitcoin miner just won block 718214 reward worth 6.25 $BTC (Read 859 times)

blackhat i am talking about this topic. yet you chime in to advertise another topic.. you have derailed

getting back to the topic of solo
ill keep it short

2009+: solo mining: user uses is own node to collate his chosen transactions, form own block template, and hashes it
2010+: pool mining: pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users

2013+: "solopool": pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users give winner high %

2022: silly people trying to redeifine "solopool" to be solo mining, ignoring the mining part and pretending solo mining was always about the reward..
no "solopool"(brand) was about the reward as the main difference between "solopool"(brand) vs pool mining(process)..
but the reward was not the consideration between solo mining(process) vs pool mining(process)..

pool mining solo rewarding is the better wording which was shortened to "solopool"(brand) ... NOT solo mining(process)
so stop trying to change solo mining to sound like it has noting to do with solo MINING and everything to do with just the reward share

..
moving on

And yet, another thread that has been derailed by franky. Maybe you want to move to the official, supposedly-discussable thread created solely for such cases: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain.

the concept of solo mining is as old as bitcoin
the concept of pool mining is as old as 2010+

the brand "solopool" is newer (2014) but even then they still refer to it as a pool.
they actually were saying "solopool" not solo mining
emphasis on the different terms.


back then it was a "solopool" it was not actually trying to define itself as allowing users to set up as a solo mining
so the buzzword was solopool in 2013-4
..
its only this year that they are trying to go hyper on making it viral that its solo mining

heck even ck used to say pool alot even in 2014

but certain people in 2022 are trying to deny the pool element to pretend its the same thing as solo mining, a defined term right back from the start of 2009

..

here is danny in 2022 trying to change things by pretending people dont understand the 2009-2010 concepts.. and then trying to rebrand the 2014 brand 'solopool' into being the same as the 2009 concept solo mining



notice how he removes the word "mining" to avoid talking about what mining(hashing a block) is about (the whole protocol) and wants to pretend mining is just rewarding
and that "unfortunately not all have the skills to setup solo and the stats they would like"

Then why can I find forum topics referring to solopools dated from 2013?  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-solopool-beta-262712

It's clearly not a "new" description.  I know you have difficulty coping when real life doesn't match your bizarre preconceived notions, but this appears to be yet another one of those occasions.  The term has clearly been in use for a long time.  Hell, it's been in use on these forums longer than I've been registered here.

I did not.


It did not.


You did not.


It has not.


POOL mining is about POOLING (hint is in the word)

danny
you created the strawman. your question involved a fallacy scenario that no one does.. no one has ever done!!
i tried to reel you back to reality by trying to find a real scenario that is as close to what you described.
and i explained how the decision on how to share the reward does not decide if that person was a pool or solo. its just about if someone is generous or not. EG if you have a job. and get paid (employed or self employed) and then decide to just spread your wage around to random people. your generosity is not the decider of your employment status

and just because the dabate is over because you ran out of silly fallacy strawman scenarios that never happen in real life, to use as weird unproven proof of your fallacy new description, is not a win on your side. its your loss.
solo mining is a term thats been known for 12+ years. its not the one your trying to create this year

pool mining is about the MINING   (hint is in the word)

edit to answer below..
seems danny has forgotten the whole point of blockchain protocol. and thinks its just about random token sharing
he seems to be forgetting, avoiding, ignoring, dismissing the real point of mining, just to set a new terminology
danny have you flipped fully to the darkside of "bitcoin without the blockchain" group?

And yet it is.


You have not.  You've ignored the inconvenience of my question, and created your own strawman scenario that was easier for you to deal with.


Glad to hear it.  So, you've come around and accepted that the concept of a "pool" refers to "pooling" the revenue?


This sounds like a new discussion. It seems to be off-topic for this thread.

its not common though.

its not the description of the term thats existed for over a decade,
its something that is trying to go viral this year as being the new description, pretending the 10-12year old term is the false term

.. i think danny has run out of silly non real scenarios. and i answered his hypothetical by trying to find a close approximate real scenario of comparison(andressens faucet) so i have answered his questions.
thus the debate is dead now.

so moving onto other wrongly treated terms(because doomad asked) that change the definition to cause actual risk to users and a false sense of security..
i too prefer keyring instead of wallet, but thats not a seciruty/risk/function change debate worth pushing, its just grammar.. so lets think about some that are related to changing the function/work/risk/security

ill skip the obvious altnet treated as bitcoin risks. (ill be generous this time)

so lets go with pruned defined as full
fullnodes existed before pruning was even an option. where a fullnode was and is validate AND archiving. because thats what fullnodes did from 2009-2015, but for a ~7years people gently, and now this year some are pushing HARD to change the meaning to make a less then full feature/service node pretend to be called a full feature full service node.. without offering the full node features/service/security.

new peers connecting to a pruned node cant Initial Block Download from the pruned node.
a pruned nodes utxoset is not hash locked to periodically check the data is still unedited, meaning trojans can hijack the utxoset, slip in a bad utxo and suddenly.. if including this bad utxo to enough nodes. the nodes wont know any better and treat it as an unspent value that someone can then spend. which can cause a chain split between pruned vs unpruned nodes.
alot of people think its not important whether its archived or pruned. but it actually is. the data accuracy of the hashes is a security feature,
not only that, but  if we moved from:
80,000 full nodes serving 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 7.25 peers)
to
20,000 full nodes serving 60,000 pruned nodes, 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 29 peers)
meaning 4x pressure on the full nodes that remain and the decentralised blockchain is 4x less distributed
full nodes is why its called a decentralised blockchain and not a distributed utxoset

im not talking about all 580,000(exampled) users need to be full nodes. im saying that trying to convince existing full noders, or newbies that truly want to be the network backbone support full node users, to downgrade their service/feature/security offering thus have less full nodes. impacts many things

the point is silly people trying to be insincere about the terminology to set an agenda to get some newbies to think they are getting something they are not or they are doing something they are not. pretending newbies are doing more then they actually are. where newbies are then using something they think is secure as what they were told.. but isnt

which if allowed to go viral where everyone believes the insincerity and everyone flipped over to the insincere method. they are going to cause themselves problem, all for the personal gains of the people that want the insincere stuff to be treated as trusted fully working utopia, when its not as utopian in reality.

Does it matter, though?  I very much doubt people are suddenly going to stop calling it Solo mining just because you find it disagreeable.  Much like how I'm never going to convince people to stop calling it a "Bitcoin Wallet" because I personally believe "Bitcoin Keyring" sounds like a far more accurate representation of what that thing actually is.  That's just what everyone calls it.  Even if it doesn't make as much rational sense as it might do to call it something else.  And it's the same for this Solo pool.  People obviously wanted a way to differentiate it from conventional pools.  This just happens to be the name that fell into common parlance and now we're stuck with it.  Just accept it and try not to turn this into another one of your lifelong campaigns / lost causes. 

your scenario is meaningless because its not a thing thats ever happened in bitcoin thus explains nothing.

i gave you an example.. which is more similar example of your fairy tale scaenario
gavin andressen in 2010 doing his faucet.
because he was generous to pay out to random people after mining.. does not make that generosity a deciding factor if he is a solo or pool mining.
simply saying "im going to spread my payment to random people" has nothing to do with mining solo or pool. its just pure generocity

deciding how to split a reward is not a factor of solo or pool mining
solo or pool is about the proof of work protocol. which is about who manages the blocktemplate collation and creation and who decides what nonce/extranonce range to work on. and who created the coinbase tx(no matter what the reward split terms are)


..
ck pool is not where users make their block template. nor are they the one that got to decide the 98%-2% split
ck pool users cannot decide 'nah i prefer to only give ck 0.01%' because they are not in control of the coinbase or template

It's very simple.  Stop trying to find hidden meaning in the question, and just answer the question as stated...

If I create CODE (since you like code so much) that enforces, without trust, an agreement between a group of people that all commit to sharing the reward divided proportionally by the amount of work that each individual does when any one of them solves a block, BUT each participant gets to build their own block headers (including choosing the transactions they want in their block, calculating the merkle root, and building their own 80 byte header).

Is that solo mining (because they are building the headers themselves)?  Or is that pool mining (because they are sharing the reward based on the work each performed)?

yep in that analogy multiplayer deathmatch is were only the person doing the round winning hit gets the reward (via the game server deciding the reward split)
yep in that analogy multiplayer coo is were all players doing the round get the reward no matter who gave the final hit(via the game server deciding the reward split)
where in both cases its lots of individuals working together..

ofcourse some(mostly danny) will want to rebrand a single player campaign to mean multiplayer death match by trying to deny the multiplayer aspect is part of the game. and deny the point of the game "deathmatch" and just say the game is only about the reward.

sorry but the important thing about bitcoin is the WORK.. its called Proof of WORK. not receipt of reward
im surprised someone like danny is trying to re-imagine what proof of work mining is about, just to cater to ck's tweaking of words for some PR.
..
as for dannies silly scenario of just paying random people.. thats called generosity. like deciding if your kids nephews and nieces and cousins deserve a pay out from your lotto win when they had nothing to do with helping choose some numbers and there was no syndicate in place. and no central person managing the tickets or payout(getwork or coinbase allocation)
.... wait.. i think i can see what danny is thinking. that because for instance G andresen mined and operated a faucet to pay random people that he must have been some quasi solo-pool.. where by if g andresen operated a faucet or not was a deciding factor of the pool or solo debate..(in dannys mind)
.. um no he was just generous. his generosity of doing a faucet had nothing to do with if he was solo or pool mining. he just wanted to give away coins. the give away had no impact on how he mined. they are separate scenarios


if you made an agreement that each family member would decide their own numbers, but share the rewards that any winner gets by showing the numbers pre draw and then showing they have the winning numbers after the draw. . they are forming a lotto syndicate. in other words.. a silly insecure pool but still a pool. just not one based on code or structure but based on  "trust"..
something that bitcoin has never been based on. "trust". after all thats what code is for. rules

which is why no one operates such a silly scenario. thus no point making up a non existant thing.

again bitcoin MINING. ill emphasis this because its an important word MINING. is about PoW work, not the reward
its based on rules and structure. not fairy tale imaginary scenarios of trust

getting a reward/paid for work is pretty much common sense that people get paid for work completed. but again the important thing is about the work.

imagine you worked for a living
arguing about getting paid either a salary as a lump sum amount once a year or paid daily does not really explain the work or if your self employed or working for someone.
its common sense you should be paid for doing work. but your not explaining how you got the work or do the work to get the pay

dannys mindset is trying to say "i dont get paid hourly, i get paid once a month so that must mean im self employed."
pay structure does not determine employee or self employed status.

how the work was managed/organised, and who wrote the invoice where by if the work is complete a payment is settled determines employment status.
if you done absolutely everything yourself. your self employed.
if you had a manager that organised and managed the work, telling you what region to work, and he set that you will get 98% of any invoice upon successful completion. then you are employed.. you are just in (good or bad) employment depending on if you get to finish the job or not depending on the terms the manager set

---

this topic has stretched to 60+ posts(4pages)
and danny is still trying to re-write a term that has existed for a decade + to mean something totally new.
maybe he forgets that no one cared about reward amount 11+ years ago
maybe he forgets that no will care about reward amount in 120+ years time
maybe he forgot what mining is all about (PoW)

Sure they would if they could count on those thousands of random people also sharing the rewards. People don't join pools to give up block header creation. They join pools to ensure a regular payday. Although, from what I can tell from what you've said so far, you wouldn't consider it to be pool mining (or would you?)


Viable or not (I still say it's viable), you still haven't answered the question.

I don't know if this is a helpful analogy or if I'm only making it worse, but it seems like we're arguing about the difference between Multiplayer Coop and Multiplayer Deathmatch.  Some people are calling deathmatch "solo" because it's not a team game and someone isn't happy because solo sounds more like the Single Player Campaign which is something else.

Calling it a "Deathmatch Pool" does sound kinda cool, but I doubt the idea would gain popularity, heh.   

danny no one would collate a merkle of transactions, add their own coinbase and hash it themselves... but also then pay out to thousands of random people that done NOTHING.

so your "simple question" is not even a viable scenario, because no one does that

lets use your boat scenario

the amount of fish per 1000m² of water is like a 1 chance per 10 minutes if there are like 100,000 fishermen fishing in that area

there are 510million of km² meaning on average enough fish to last until 2140

the chance of a solo fisherman building his own boat and deciding which lake, and which 100m² area in that lake, and deciding with degree from north to fish in. and then to cast out the line over trillions of casts at different distance from the boat starting from 1cm to 5.6m out. means that fishermans chance of getting a fish in 10 minutes is super small. but he is inchange of all the variables so if he gets lucky so be it he deserves it all

alone in his own lake by himself making all the decisions on where to cast his line (solo)

or
if he gets on another fishermans boat alongside other fisherman. where the boatman decides what lake and what 100m² area in the lake to fish from where he organises 100,000 fishermen to all cast out at a 0.0036^o angle, so that all possible angles are probably met, meaning all 1cm area within the 100m² at all angles would be hit in 10 minutes so the chances of a fisherman on the boat getting a fish is reasonably high

this is pool mining

then yea one fisherman on that boat is likely to get a fish.
and because the boatman organised this fishing trip, the boatman decides what to do with the fish.
the guy that hooked the fish does not get to decide what to do with the fish because he did not organise the fishing trip.
the lucky fisherman cant just take the boat back to shore and keep the fish. because the boatman controls the boat and decides what goes to shore

all a fisherman got to decide was.. before fishing.. should he:
1) fish alone in his own lake by himself making all the decisions on where to cast his line where he decides what goes to shore (solo)
2) fish in an organised boat where the boat manager organises each fishermans cast direction to be more efficient(pool)
where by the boatmaster decides to share the fish
3) fish in an organised boat where the boat manager organises each fishermans cast direction to be more efficient(pool)
where by the boatmaster decides to give 98% of the fish to the guy that hooked it

making a decision to get on someones elses organised managed boat(2&3). is POOL mining.

making the decision to fish(in any scenario) is not solo mining
making the decision to fish(in a managed boat of someone else) does not make one scenario pool or solo.. based on how the fish was shared.. its both still pool

solo is only when its your boat, your choice to cast in what area of what lake and you are in power to decide what goes to shore

I have to disagree with this part. You explain why:
-ck provides an important service, that is network connectivity to the rest of the network.

if you are solo mining from your garage and are using your google fiber internet connection to have your node broadcast any found blocks, if you find a block within x second(s) of a major pool finding a block, your block will likely get orphaned because the pools are very well connected amongst each other, and other pools (miners) are likely to have received (and accepted) a pool's block before ever seeing your block that would have to make its way through the network "organically". I would assume that -ck is running multiple, well-connected nodes, that is capable of quickly broadcasting any found block that someone using his service finds. Another service that -ck provides is ensuring that any block found is valid (more specifically that any miner using his service is mining for a valid block).

Instead of charging a fee to connect to his service, -ck charges on a commission-based model in which he charges a fee out of the block reward of any block found using his service.

I am not sure how large this advantage is, but for every 1 second more quickly that -ck's service is able to get your block to the rest of the miners is a 0.167% reduction in the chance that your block will get orphaned. Someone using -ck's service would receive a similar advantage on the other end too -- a miner using -ck's service is going to be looking for a block on top of the most recently found block more quickly when compared to a miner using his home internet connection to get the most recent block for similar reasons.

Then I would agree with you that the participants are no longer "solo mining".  However, it would still be just as big a stroke of luck for the person that got to keep the 98%.


Sure. In that situation, I'd say that the participants are no longer "solo mining".

You still refuse to answer my very simple question.

a block solve is about the work done on the block data
mining is about mining it.
mining is mining whether the reward is worth nothing in 2009-2010 or 2140+
mining is mining whether the reward is 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25. 3.125.....
mining is mining whether the reward is valued at 0.01 cent or $70,000
mining is mining whether the reward is split 98% or 0.00000x%
 
mining is not based on the reward, its based on the work and who manages the work
if you are solo mining a block you are collating data, forming the block and mining data alone with no ones help, your doing it all on your own SOLO

the reward is not the work, the reward is just payment at the end
infact not just before 2010 did no one care about the reward, but after 2140 no one will care about the reward.

again the emphasis of solo mining a block is not "getting reward" its solo mining a block.. MINING A BLOCK

if you think the because someone got 98% they are solo.
what if ck changes it today where out of his 2% he keeps 1% and at the end of each day shares the other 1% with all his users as a separate transaction..
are people going to suddenly back peddle and then say its pool again..
no its already pool mining the clue is in the fact that ck is a pool already


alll pools ALL POOLS are like restaurants where a manager tells waitresses what tables to work

solo is where a restaurant owner manages his own restaurant and works all his tables in his restaurant, with no help.. he is working solo

solo mining became a redundant term in 2014 because no one was solo mining..
it seems some people want to bring back the term to active use by rebranding what the term means under some new paradigm than its earlier terminology

but if they want to think its just about the rewarding.. then say its solo rewarding

I have gone through the wall of texts again to decipher the disagreement, because I was also as confused as BlackHatCoiner on the context of disagreement. Then these statements of franky1 and DannyHamilton gave me a clue about the disagreement.  While franky1 believes that the manner in which the reward was shared should not determine the manner in which the block was solved.

This is further buttressed in the quote below.;
My take
Without putting much consideration in the technicals that happens at the backend, it is logical to determine the type of mining with the reward. Mining busines is not a charity organisation. So, no miner will contribute in any form and be denied a due reward.

I think a similar thing happened to Etherium recently. All this, in my opinion, demonstrates the presence of additional motivation for the miners of these coins. In addition to constant mining, they have a ghostly chance to receive such a reward. And in fact, everyone can theoretically be in the place of those lucky ones. Big and super fair lottery! This is wonderful!