Topic: Am I the only miner who feels disgusted by the talk of PoW change? (Read 6168 times)

^^^

Guy still doesn't explain the solution or offer anything productive...

Must of been a lot of trolling for years to reach Legendary status... Legendary Troll it should read

Wow so you REALLY bought one??? Easy as that??? I never knew...........

Stopping centralization can't be done now.....you ain't been around long enough to know how things were when ASICs first came out,it was then that ASICs were hard to get & getting ripped off was standard OP.

It's too late,but by all means keep buying faulty crap    

Bitmain is not best ASIC just one of a few that are available.....maybe the cheapest & most efficient but not the best,that right there shows your mentality  

I don't need your respect or anyone's for that matter....I say what I want & if it hurts your wittle feewings than so be it....  

Respect gone for you sir, sad since you were a name I recognized and enjoyed reading. Hard to respect someone who resorts to name calling at the drop of a hat...

The best ASIC in the world is a Bitmain product and they sell them to the public. So everyone has access to ASIC's. Since when was access to ASICs the problem causing centralization? I got one first try..

Since I'm clearly not "MrKnowItAll" but a "moron", why don't you enlighten us on how we can stop mining centralization?

And you are a moron............can YOU make an ASIC miner?? Can YOU buy an ASIC miner ANYTIME you want one?? Maybe.......

GPU's can be bought by ANYONE at ANYTIME in HUNDREDS of places!!!!!

Yes cheap power can "centralize" mining,but with GPU's that will take quite awhile longer than it did with ASIC's that were MAINLY sold in LARGE volumes to millionaire mining corporations or by the manufacturers themselves.

Who's naive?? Looks like it's you moron,Mr. knowitallbitcoinmineradviceman  

Your new here so I'll be nice!!!  

I love listening to all the naive people advocating for a PoW change, ignorance at its finest. None of these people are able to explain how their solution would prevent further mining centralization. I'll say it one more time, it's not ASICs that cause centralization, it's access to low cost power. People with this access will always dominate PoW mining. GPU included.

And denying would also cutoff profits to most that argue against it........ 

Greed is why ASICs were created,not to DEcentralize..............

what you are talking about when you say centralized control? there is no centralized control on vertcoin for example, if you mean by the dev or his team it's no different than core and what we have for bitcoin

the algo change is in agreement with all the party that are mining that coin not a single entity decide it, and there is no doubt that gpu can promote mining decentralization deny this would be lying shamelessly

Now I have gpus for alt coins and s9s for btc.

I have a foot in both camps.

I also think segwit is death for btc

I prefer Bu over over segwit.

And POW is worse then either one

Fix is ez: A new ASICproof algorithm. If Wu hacks it again, then we should change the algo again. We need to get rid of ASICs and Wu. Don't worry, keep doing this Wu will eventually leave us alone because his piece of shit company won't be able to make any money.

Yes i am toxic to ASIC lovers. You can keep sucking WU's balls. Some of are still prefer to stay straight.

You shouldn't promote this flawed thinking without explaining how you will fix it. You are being toxic

The current PoW system is flawed. I support the change.

Sooner it happens, less damage we suffer later. By every passing day, the possible damage is getting bigger and malicious viruses like bitmain is getting stronger.

We may see a huge price dump on bitcoin but so what? Bitcoiners got used to it.   ASICs exist because they cracked the PoW algorithm. If you invested so much in Bitmain toys, that's your fault. Nobody said you to do so.

What are you on about??? Several GPU only coins can change if ASICs ever start to take em over........just old farts (& corp owned mines & ASIC makers) want only Bitcoin to succeed 

I really hope a GPU coin gives Bitcoin a run.... we little people need a coin 

So either the options to change the PoW are designed into the coin code and you design that into the ASIC also, or you are dealing with some stupid coin that who knows when the centralised control of that coin is going to change it and stop everyone from being able to mine the coin without getting a new program to mine it ... oh wait isn't this supposed to be peer2peer? Nope that's centralised control.

I feel the same, although I feel like it will never actually change as miners have all the hashpower

Already imagine that there will be a rise in the limit from 1 to 2.

I think GPU mined coins will always be limited. I'm going to sound ridiculous but I have a belief that given two different coins the one with more energy consumption in mining will support / result in a more valuable coin, all else being equal. A big assumption here is that there are no further efficiency gains for a given miner (mining unit has reached peak hashrate/watt). If this is true, coins mined on a GPU-mined coin will always have trouble gaining value at the rate of an ASIC mined coin (where ASIC here just means a higher wattage/volume - i.e. power density). With a lower power density network expansion is more difficult so dramatic increases in price due to market optimism will result in a downwards pressure on price from miners due to the need to sell their coin (pressure to sell).

Edit - I'll add, the pressure to sell primarily results from the need to pay the power bill and / or purchase more miners to stay competitive

The important thing I mine wrote and got the results with my own performance

but you can effectively change the algo again and again to make asic worthless, gpu can instead adapt to the new change making it more flexible and not worthless after the algo is changed

in fact no one is building asic for vertcoin, which is the coin that did this to avoid asic mining, bitcoin would have been more decentralized for sure with gpu, the diff would also be much lower and this would allow casual mining

Pointless discussion - GPUs are ASICs

If someone makes a GPU scam coin, and if it ever actually got worth anything, then you just make an ASIC to mine it.

It's difficult to centralize gpu mining because of the large space needed and handling , you will be limited with mobos and psu , there is so many limits and costs not like asics, i don't say you can't but i say it's difficult

I mined PoW and now do PoS. I love it. Now I'm wodering if any PoS mined coin has segwit?
https://twitter.com/jessecouch/status/852318259718127617

I still love PoW but it's almost useless for small start up coins. For bitcoin PoW works amazingly. I think bitcoin should remain PoW for as long as possible. At some point I would assume it has to switch to PoS but maybe not.

Another scenario might be where a bunch of PoS blockchains with fast transactions form in addition to bitcoin. Those blockchains would sync again for more security on the PoW bitcoin blockchain.

Why couldn't you set up a large, industrial warehouse full of GPU's? One, with a big budget and low cost power, can not only get bulk discount on the GPU's but mine at a lower cost than the home-miner. Seems to me that even GPU mining would become centralized like this ASIC era.

still makes sense to use GPU power for ETH and ZEC mining, and yes, I do wish BTC could be mined on GPUs again but that is just wishful thinking. lol.

Electricity rates don't centralize mining, infact the difficulty of gpu mining can't be centralized , even if you have the large investment budget you can't setup a gpu mining farm like what we see in asics farms , gpu is the best and most healthy mining requires alot of effort,handling and experience , not just a plug and play , some hardware knowledge and calculations is required , and i wish bitcoin can be gpu minable again.

Regarding the quadratic FUD ... it's also called scare tactics.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18378928

I can't comment on mining cryptocurrency with AWS, but I've had a lot of luck running hashcat on Amazon P2 instances.

no they are not as efficient as cpu aws instances, they are far worse, inf act you don't see it often used, instead aws instaces are perfect for cpu coin, but they will centralized the hashrate too much and kill the coin

I was refuting Amph's claim, not agreeing with him.

LMAO I don't think it works like you guys think it does   

Well, is a GPU coin also bad then? A random dude can use AWS GPU instances to own a large amount of hash in no time.
https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/Elastic-GPUs/

i don't care about miners and their investments in hardware. i care about the health of bitcoin itself. if a pow change improves that then i'm all for it, but i don't really see how centralisation can ever go away now so it's kinda pointless.

if a pow change allows a downgrade in machinery then deep pockets buy more of that machinery than anyone else.

the industrial miners would still have the cheapest power, premises and labor.



did you write that for a bet?

Holy crap,someone gets it!!! CENTRALIZATION,you guys cry about it,but buy right into it!!!

Let the Corp miners have Bitcoin,mining at home has been over for awhile now,get some GPUs & lets get an ASIC resistant coin going along with Bitcoin 

Here's hoping the algo change DOES happen to Bitcoin & we can go back to a time where EVERYONE had a chance to mine & take part in Bitcoin 

asic are indeed the culprit, and always lead the centralization, because when you have something that hash so fast and can be produced by the same company who hold the big farm, you now that this is not decentralized anymore

cpu coin are also bad, and worse than asic, because a random dude could use aws instances to own a large amount of hash in no time and centralized the mining activity

the only good solution is always and only be the gpu mining, and to prevent asic indefinitely you can just change regularely the algo, maybe the code need to be done in a way to not force an hard fork everytime you want to change the algo to prevent asic mining

If we could restart, how would you change it to prevent centralization? Centralization is largely due to low cost power, ASIC's and access to ASIC's aside.

Its was far more disturbing when asics first came online, i regret that pow change didnt happen in start. I know a lot of people have they money
in asics and for that reason dont want algo change, but as it is, whole bitcoin community is in the hands of few asic producers, which is one of the worst scenarios possible.

One can imagine increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB (or any other value) whilst capping the size of transactions to say 1MB.

Holy fork, that's scary. Thanks for this info CK, well explained.

Just a minor fuckup, never mind 

Overly specialized hardware is the problem. Still remembering FPGAs? Probably you do. Or GPUs?
I know this is hard to swallow.

I didn't say anything about LN. Most people think all the transactions will go to LN which is also completely wrong. To start a lightning channel one must create a regular transaction and then only can LN transactions occur, BUT LN will only work for microtransactions. It's not going to be possible to use it for transactions larger than .042 btc. There will still be heaps of on-chain transactions and consequently transaction fees for miners. If LN increases the userbase of bitcoin dramatically by making the proverbial 'cup of coffee transactions' possible by the general public without dumping them all into the blockchain, the overall transaction fees ending up in miners' pockets will go up substantially anyway. Furthermore, most types of LN transactions can still be implemented even without segwit so it's not like signalling segwit is voting for LN. Even if segwit doesn't get activated, LN will be implemented.

Read more about some of the most common misconceptions about LN and mining here:
https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.skccp131t

If miners weren't so quick to jump to conclusions and make wild accusations BU would never have even been considered and subsequently the threat of a hard fork and PoW change wouldn't ever have been discussed. Either way I doubt a hard fork and PoW change are going to happen anyway.

the problem is that LN alternative are also centralized with their HUB, at least from what i understood, it seems that you can't preserve the current decentralization if you want to fix the block limit/scaling issue

if they can come up with something better would be good but there is no time anymore, now the choice is based on what is less worse, not on what is ideal

That certainly would be a problem with a substantial size increase, but there is another more immediate problem even at only 2MB blocks - the quadratic sighash scaling problem. It's possible to DoS the network with transactions that are very heavy handed in input/outputs for their size leading to block verification that can take a very long time to complete. The 1MB block that took 25 seconds to verify a while back on fast hardware was an example of that in action at only 1MB blocksizes. The code that does the verification is much more efficient now but still would have taken 11 seconds to verify. Double the size of that and you have a block that takes almost 45 seconds to verify. 6MB blocks and you have blocks that can take longer than the average time between blocks of 10 minutes. Slower hardware would hit that limit at even smaller block sizes. Segwit transactions scale linearly with signature hashes so 1MB of signatures for segwit transactions are a lot faster than 1MB of normal transactions, and linearly for 4MB of transactions, which is the maximum possible allowed with segwit as currently coded. That 4MB of transactions would take less than 1MB of normal transactions to verify. Note that most blocks are NOT that sighash heavy but the fact remains that it is a mechanism to DoS the network.

No, a PoW change was not a part of the foreseeable risks.

Anyways, I'm confident a PoW change will never take place. And if a minority chain is ever forced to change the PoW, there will be people like me interested in just forking off and defending the chain with our hash.

My understanding after 6 months involved in the space is that bigger blocks lend towards greater centralization due to increased costs of running nodes etc (storage, bandwidth).

For this fact alone I would never support a block size increase if there were other viable options available.

It's okay to change your mind once you investigate the change and see that it is actually a bad idea to implement it. Too many people are obsessed with a plain block size increase as being some kind of simple change that carries with it no dangers, which we know now is actually completely wrong.

wait, they want to change it, only because BU want to do a possible 51% to kill segwit/core chain, that's is the reason and i see it as a valid reason, if the miners care only about their profit, we don't care about them also and an algo change would render them useless

and core don't want to hard fork for increase the block, just want that segwit is activated, even if in the past i remember they said that they were prone to increase the size of the block to 2mb, apparently they changed their mind later...

I say that anyone who invested some serious amount of money into ASIC's took and ACCEPTED the risk that in one day, his or her bunch of arrays of ASIC equipment might or will become obsolete, Inefficient or worse a bunch of paper weights in the event that the difficulty becomes so great, in the event that changes are made that affect mining performance and ultimately in the event that a big change such as from POW to POS completely renders your ASICs into paper weights and even then, you might consider your ASIC to be a "paper weight" but the truth of the matter is that you can go to coinwarz com website and see a whole bunch of SHA256 altcoins in existence that you can immediately switch to, continue to generate profits, hell even start a pump and dump campaign or organized campaign to get your target coin priced up while you are mining them and then sell them to bitcoin, ICN, Ripple, lisk, eth, INCNT or anything that actually hold its value.

See? Your array of ASIC equipment will never become paper weights.

If segwit changes algo, it will not be the real btc because they will force all of the asics onto the BU chain making it longer, and the more dominate.  Core just needs to update their code to accept the larger blocksize, and then turn on their lightning network.  Then both sides can be happy, and I can get back to making money.

actually i like the idea, bitcoin might have more chance to be decentralized, because everyone finally can jump and mine a bit, until the diff go high again with gpu, but gpu the diff will never be as high as high, they are not so efficient

you need million if not billions of gpu to replace current network hashrate, and this is not feasible, there is the chance that BU become the big sha256 alt, and core with segwit will change algo and be the real btc

Completely agree with this.

pow is needed


pos is basically interest in a bank concept  or passive

my bad  on switching it in my head.

You must be confusing your terminology since POW is Proof of Work which is what current bitcoin is and what segwit and BU would still be if either fork activated.

Both sub's seem littered with trolling to me anyway. I probably will not bother wasting my breath on reddit anymore anyway.

I can't find any POS coin with good value like any POW coin , it's well known that pos is worse than pow also known to the investors and traders who buy this coins and give it value , in pow you are actually doing some work and building expensive machines which eats alot of power , in pos you are just waiting to get your interest and i believe any thing that relay on interests have to fail at the end.

You're first mistake was going to /r/bitcoin and expecting something coherent. Stay away from that place. It is nothing but garbage. If you really want to stick to reddit, go to /r/btc.

Phil I'm surprised you don't support PoW as I know you are very active with PoW mining. Do you prefer PoS?

Personally, I don't think crypto-currency can have value without PoW. I believe Ethereum, if it ever changes to PoS, will destabilize as soon as they do (and will absolutely become more centralized). My opinion is that staking energy (PoW) is fundamental to bringing value to the currency. Security and network-effect arguments aside, much of the reason Bitcoin has value is due to miners spending energy on it, a miner will not sell their BTC for less than their energy cost, and hence it puts upward pressure on the price.

A bit off topic but that's the way I see it.

I think POW will never work for crypto coins.


edit

fucked up POS WILL NEVER WORK




Now I have gpus for alt coins and s9s for btc.

I have a foot in both camps.

I also think segwit is death for btc

I prefer Bu over over segwit.

And POW is worse then either one

edit

POS is worse then either one

I've been r/bitcoin and twitter lately and I've been seeing a lot talk of support for a PoW algorithm change in case of a malicious attack after a hard fork. This talk scares the shit out of me, considering my mining equipment would basically become paperweights, and  personally I consider this talk more toxic than even the threats by BU supporters like Jihan about attacking the minority chain.

Am I the only one who thinks a PoW change would destroy bitcoin as we know it? Why would anyone mine and trust the new chain, when at any time the developers might decide to change the algorithm and brick our ASICs? I'll be the only one mining on the old chain if I have to.

I don't even understand the fear. An attacker could not sustain a lengthy attack, they would fizzle out quickly because who can afford that kind of energy cost!? Fuck, it is improbable as it is implausible. Anyone supporting such a change doesn't appreciate how the miners, through their energy consumption, support the bitcoin price in the first place. We make bitcoin stable.

Short sighted, ignorant talk supported by cowards.