Topic: A solution to the UASF POWer vacuum.. ? (Read 661 times)

Only one way to find out..

It will get the wrong kind of attention.  Again, botnets, 51% attacks, double spends, etc are all greatly increased risks until the difficulty has recovered.  If you want a safe haven for thieves and criminals, go for it.  You are talking about not just making an altcoin, but a weak and vulnerable altcoin.  I wouldn't be transacting on such a chain, with the notable exception of dumping it.  Sacrificing the difficulty is dangerous.  More dangerous than any blocksize adjustment could ever be.  Plus, if the difficulty does eventually recover, without some catastrophic failure along the way, you still haven't even achieved what you want because you end up right back where you are now being unhappy with the miners.  Please think this through to conclusion.



FTFY.  

Oh yes.. that's me..

Big blocks would mean that 'eventually' .. I can't run my full node. When I can't run my full node, I'm out.


Disagree.. Plenty of miners would come on board after an initial 'hectic' period. And as far as these 51% attacks go.. hmm.. They can make money, or waste money. Up to them. I have a feeling they'll choose to MAKE money.

...

I'm tired of this idea that the USER doesn't mean squat, and that the Miners (janitors) are all that matters. This is a total fallacy. In fact the opposite is true.

Ask anyone mining a coin with no users.. (I'm mining a 'testnet' atm.. it's worthless - no users  ) But a coin with lots of users and no miners !? That's gonna get a lot of attention.

Seems pretty obvious really.


EDIT :

Eh ?

I too believe in the symbiosis of the 2. But let's not give credit where it's not due.

A chain with lots of miners and no users..  is worthless.

A chain with lots of users and no miners.. is a gold mine.

So.. users and miners cannot be EQUALLY important.

ASIC should never of been allowed to dominate the market like it did.

Bitcoin would of done just fine sticking with GPU miners. and it would of kept bitcoin in the hands of the many not the few who have a monopoly on asic.

ASIC resistant blocks is what we need. Give bitcoin back to the people.

I suppose if you're absolutely hell bent on creating an altcoin, you might as well go all in and make everything worse.  I suppose you'll welcome the return of botnets and whoever is controlling the most infected systems getting the bulk of the block rewards?  Yeah, sound much better than the situation we have with the current miners.  

Aren't you normally arguing that it's the stupid big blockers that were willing to throw the security of the system out of the window to get what they want?    



That's just it, though.  There wouldn't be "all the action" on that chain.  People wouldn't want to risk it with such weak difficulty and the almost guaranteed 51% attacks.  It's a pipe dream.  I'm not saying that there aren't improvements that could be made to limit the risks of miner centralisation, but you seem to live in this fantasy realm where you can basically sack the miners and pretend there wouldn't be any ramifications.  

Think about it carefully.  Mining has been the equivalent of an arms race since the advent of mining pools and GPU mining.  It's their business to find new ways to out perform their competitors.  They do this 24/7, day in, day out.  They've had years of experience now.  So if you gave them the opportunity, they would decimate a low difficulty chain like the one you're proposing.  That, or they'd ignore it completely and leave it for the botnets, because it wouldn't be worth their time or effort.



No, EQUALLY important.  You can't have one without the other.  It's a symbiotic relationship.  Both are required to make it work, so stop pretending otherwise.

I strongly disagree with that. I know this is the new mantra, but it's all wrong.

the only thing the miners specifically do is make the chain. YES that's important. But.. MORE important is the user. the one who sends money over the network. He's the one that 'eventually' will be paying the miner. Without the user, the miner is on a terrible chain. They move to the money. which comes from the user. If it weren't for the hashing (important but can be distributed) any node could make a block. it's easy.. Miners are hash junkies. (Validation is done by both)

With this 'easier block' after an hour, the users, can ensure they still have a working chain, at any stage. Should they feel the need to fork off in future.

Whatever shenanigans are going on in the upper stratas of the bitcoin ecosystem, no one can force you off or on any chain. or stop you from forking your chain. Decentralised style. BUT they can make it so you are stuck on a chain that will never continue, because the difficulty is sooo high. This way they can't.  


Of course.. I'm asking whether - "IF this was part of Bitcoin" : would it cause some serious mining issues. Since it would have to be active at all times. I'm not sure how often blocks are over an hour consecutively, but in those rare occasions there would be a frenzy of cheaper blocks.. or at least a few more stales. Something funny would be going on.

It's a knife and fork away.

Besides your overuse of the term 'user' (bitcoin knows only miners), I'm sure you understand this proposal needs a hardfork with difficulty adjustment policy changed. right?

Soo.. the users want one thing, the miners want another.. What to do ?

The block difficulty. That's the problem.

If the UASF goes ahead and the miners reject it, the users will be stuck on a chain that they have no hope of creating a block on, since the difficulty is so high.

Would it be possible to make it exponentially easier to create a block, if one has not been found for, let's say, 1 hour ? (This would affect the actual miners as well, and make a block gap of greater than 1 hour 'basically' impossible.)

If all the users started mining themselves, on their full nodes, their combined hash rate would still be insignificant in comparison to the actual miners.. BUT.. who cares!.. As long as they can create at least a block an hour, and then for the difficulty to re-target, let's say, every day.. the Users would have a fully functioning chain after 24 hrs. Albeit, with a low hash rate.

Not only would they be able to function, they'd be making A LOT of money as they mined their chain.

As soon as the miners realised that all the action was on that chain they would join in, start making money again, and the difficulty would go back up..

Assuming the miners wouldn't ATTACK that chain (maybe the POW algo could be changed very slightly in this particular case to prevent ASIC attacks.. don't know), and destroy it.. Is the block-difficulty-exponential-simplifier possible, or are there too many issues ? (Mining complications etc..)

I think, as with my previous post on the OP_CHECKVERSIONBIT https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/opcheckversionbit-a-txn-that-can-only-be-mined-by-signalling-miners-1931519 , this would give A LOT of power back to the users.. Who wouldn't feel like they were 2nd class actors in the play, since in fact, they are the real and only stars of the show..