I propose a useful POW system where the problems will incentivize the development of energy efficient reversible computing devices. In particular, I propose that one use a reversible computing optimized POW problem RCO-POW which can just as easily be solved using a reversible computer as it can be solved using a conventional computer. Reversible computers have the potential of being many times more efficient (and hence more powerful) than is possible with conventional computers. One disadvantage of RCO-POW problems is that these problems will not be ASIC resistant since reversible computing devices will be in a sense certain kinds of ASICs. A couple ways to mitigate this disadvantage would be to implement several RCO-POW problems instead of just one or to implement RCO-POW problems along with other kinds of POW problems in the cryptocurrency.
I have discussed how RCO-POW problems would work in more detail here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-work-problems-designed-to-be-solved-by-the-reversible-computers-1985289.
Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
boolesrings.org/jvanname
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin PoW Upgrade Initiative (Read 42931 times)
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinABC/comments/6mmms1/new_release_of_bitcoin_abc_0142/
Quote
This release include various changes. The most notable is a difficulty adjustment algorithm that decrease the difficulty in case hashrate gets very low. We obviously which that this feature won't be used, and it won't kick in if hashrate stay above 8% of the global hashrate. However, this ensure that this chain will survive no matter what, as long as someone think it is valuable.
Any idea yet when we can start mining your new altcoin??
Why would you want to mine in a altcoin with a precedent of change of PoW decided by a few people distinguished by having privileges in a centralized repository?
Any idea yet when we can start mining your new altcoin??
I've started a GitHub repo specifically for a possible emergency PoW change hardfork.
Luke, I recognize your right and ability to try it.
But you must understand as soon as possible that changing the Bitcoin PoW is not viable without destroying it.
It is not an emergency option, it is the nuclear option.
And Bitcoin is not based on MAD.
And even if you execute it successfully and without destroying Bitcoin you will only change some miners for others that will soon form the same farms.
Developers will never have authority to do whatever they want in a PoW-based crypto.
Nodes are cheap and developers too.
Fortunately.
Please reconsider, we need a team of developers focused on on-chain solutions.
Only in this way can Bitcoin preserve hegemony.
People want a Bitcoin safe, fast and cheap.
Please leave in peace the future commissions that belong from the beginning to the miners.
I've started a GitHub repo specifically for a possible emergency PoW change hardfork.
https://github.com/BitcoinHardfork/bitcoin
While I understand this thread works under the assumption that a PoW change will be done unconditionally, and this code can possibly be used for such a purpose, please note that it is being developed it from a strictly emergency-use-only standpoint, since the community has not rallied around the PoW change idea at this time.
I would appreciate any review and/or contributions others can provide.
The repository does not intend to select an algorithm until such time as a PoW change is needed.
For this reason, the code is being designed such that the algorithm is configurable.
Therefore, please feel free to contribute new PoW algorithm options.
https://github.com/BitcoinHardfork/bitcoin
While I understand this thread works under the assumption that a PoW change will be done unconditionally, and this code can possibly be used for such a purpose, please note that it is being developed it from a strictly emergency-use-only standpoint, since the community has not rallied around the PoW change idea at this time.
I would appreciate any review and/or contributions others can provide.
The repository does not intend to select an algorithm until such time as a PoW change is needed.
For this reason, the code is being designed such that the algorithm is configurable.
Therefore, please feel free to contribute new PoW algorithm options.
Nicee...
BTC is mindlocked in what we have now.
We can't change PoW, we can't switch to PoS.
Any fork maintaining current mining related features will outperform mutated BTC on all exchanges.
Core already lost battle to BU.
Coz when blocks will get full 110%, BTC network will get jammed and then HF will happen for sure,
with support of majority of miners.
Not just by 40% of them like now.
Yes you can invent the best and coolest PoW or PoS or any combination of them.
But there is no difference between such "saving plan" for Bitcoin and creation of new altcoin.
Value of BTC after such change will plummet.
BTC is mindlocked in what we have now.
We can't change PoW, we can't switch to PoS.
Any fork maintaining current mining related features will outperform mutated BTC on all exchanges.
Core already lost battle to BU.
Coz when blocks will get full 110%, BTC network will get jammed and then HF will happen for sure,
with support of majority of miners.
Not just by 40% of them like now.
Yes you can invent the best and coolest PoW or PoS or any combination of them.
But there is no difference between such "saving plan" for Bitcoin and creation of new altcoin.
Value of BTC after such change will plummet.
I liked to find your comment so successful today with 85% of the hashpower ready to make a hardfork to impose the extension of the limit of 1MB.
What do you think today given the situation?
If the miners run the hardfork successfully and set the precedent of imposing block limits, does this mean that the best ASIC chip maker will always have the supremacy in Bitcoin?
Will the mining of empty blocks during hardfork inevitably force developers to a desperate change of PoW?
So the developers would have the power?
Which is based on the old IRC takeovers (Gavin's kick true story).
If the change of PoW were successful, give enough power the non-miners to steal commissions (off-chain) in crescendo and uncontrollably damaging the security of the main blockchain?
Who rules in Bitcoin?
Thank you.
to show your support for Segwit enforcement, support BIP 148.
run Bitcoin Core and add 'uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148' to your config file. It's easy.
run Bitcoin Core and add 'uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148' to your config file. It's easy.
I'll be following this closely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't a POW change fix all the problems BTC is currently going through?
It will fix Bitcoin's main problem, namely mining centralization. The idea doesn't seem to be gaining traction among leading representatives of our community, however. I think fear of powerful mining interests is getting in the way.
I'll be following this closely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't a POW change fix all the problems BTC is currently going through?
Lets pretend Bitcoin really did upgrade to a new POW algorithm and left all the asics and mining farms, mining equipment and whatnot useless. Is this really what Bitcoin needs? I dont think this will have a good image to the general public. It could be viewed much worse than Ethereum's hard fork.
Ethereum's hard fork is not viewed poorly by industry. It's price has gone up nearly 6x what it was after the ETH/ETC split. To industry it's hardfork was viewed as the Ethereum Community moving fast to stop a theft. Emphasis on moving fast...unlike Bitcoin.
Lets pretend Bitcoin really did upgrade to a new POW algorithm and left all the asics and mining farms, mining equipment and whatnot useless. Is this really what Bitcoin needs? I dont think this will have a good image to the general public. It could be viewed much worse than Ethereum's hard fork.
In every job, if you do not do your work, you get fired.
If Miners stop to work on the protocol that the majority of users want, it's only natural to fire the miners and hire new ones.
Can't see anything wrong with that, it will be seen as a strength of bitcoin.
...?
PoW change without virtual unanimity just means you're launching another shitcoin.
PoWA allows us to just downgrade the miners a bit without firing them. It could be a politically acceptable solution for the entire ecosystem.
My soft-fork PoWA proposal has been additionally revised, with an improved schematic:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18344077
Discussion of the proposal on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62taef/can_powa_proofofwork_additions_provide_a_way_out/
My soft-fork PoWA proposal has been additionally revised, with an improved schematic:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18344077
Discussion of the proposal on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62taef/can_powa_proofofwork_additions_provide_a_way_out/
Lets pretend Bitcoin really did upgrade to a new POW algorithm and left all the asics and mining farms, mining equipment and whatnot useless. Is this really what Bitcoin needs? I dont think this will have a good image to the general public. It could be viewed much worse than Ethereum's hard fork.
In every job, if you do not do your work, you get fired.
If Miners stop to work on the protocol that the majority of users want, it's only natural to fire the miners and hire new ones.
Can't see anything wrong with that, it will be seen as a strength of bitcoin.
Lets pretend Bitcoin really did upgrade to a new POW algorithm and left all the asics and mining farms, mining equipment and whatnot useless. Is this really what Bitcoin needs? I dont think this will have a good image to the general public. It could be viewed much worse than Ethereum's hard fork.
My soft-fork PoWA proposal has been somewhat revised and expanded:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18344077
Discussion of the proposal on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62taef/can_powa_proofofwork_additions_provide_a_way_out/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18344077
Discussion of the proposal on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62taef/can_powa_proofofwork_additions_provide_a_way_out/
Here's a schematic of my proposed PoWA (proof-of-work additions) soft-fork blockchain.
New PoW chain is shown in pink, legacy blockchain in blue.
Brief description:
All of the above is preliminary and subject to change.
New PoW chain is shown in pink, legacy blockchain in blue.
Brief description:
- New PoW miners and legacy miners mine in parallel. Proofs for the new PoW blockchain's mini-blocks are embedded into legacy chain in a special transaction.
- All assembling of TXs into blocks and reorgs happen on the new PoW chain. Legacy miners' role is restricted to finding SHA256 hashes, final block assembly (calculating payouts, creating the coinbase TX) and broadcasting the block.
- Mini-blocks are 100 Kb in size; new PoW blockchain has one-minute block discovery rate (i.e. confirmation time).
- Mini-block headers are like ordinary block headers but with an added payout address.
- New PoW miners mine with no downtime. Legacy miners experience an avg. of 10% downtime while waiting for new PoW miners to mine the next proto-block.
- Initially, 95% of block reward will go to legacy miners and 5% to new PoW miners. Legacy miners' share will be gradually reduced (over a period of years?) until it reaches zero.
- After legacy miner broadcasts a valid block, new PoW miners assemble all TXs from mini-blocks mined so far into a single Bitcoin block with no Coinbase TX (a "proto-block"), solve the block and broadcast it along with mini-block headers to legacy miners.
- Legacy miner adds mini-block proofs, TX counts and payout addresses to the special transaction, calculates payouts (initially distributing 95% of reward to himself and 5% equally among new PoW miners), adds payout outputs to Coinbase TX and then solves and broadcasts the block as usual.
- If new PoW miners solve nine mini-blocks faster than legacy miners solve one block, then they continue mining empty mini-blocks until legacy miners finally solve the block. Thus a block may contain more than 10 mini-blocks.
- In the reverse case, fewer than 10 mini-blocks will be assembled into a block, and the new PoW miner who assembles the block will add as many TXs to the final mini-block as required in order to reach the blocksize limit (currently 1MB).
All of the above is preliminary and subject to change.
Sounds interesting idea. I'm thinking here about 'Parallelism' and 'Message Passing Interface' ( I will review some academics papers and lectures 101 about 'Parallel Computing Theory' such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1H2UbzeNrY ) after these technical (perhaps some GPU/CUDA?) ..
then, I will think about
Quote
95% reward for legacy miners and the 5% to new POW
... is that roll out would follows the yield curve ?
There are some people who argue against the POW upgrade because they say they would preferably go with the ASIC miners than the botnet that hackers are known to be using.
Does that argument not favour a hashing algo that does work with GPUs/FPGAs? Is that even possible without the risk of an ASIC being developed?
The argument is about the developers who are proposing the POW upgrade shaking the cage too much. Its either theyre an opposition controlled by the miners or just your ordinary Bitcoiners who hate to change the status quo.
I can understand the thought behind wanting to make this change and call me sentimental, but I don't think Satoshi would have wanted this for Bitcoin. Bitcoin still functions as it's supposed to as long as there's not a 51% attack and changing something for people's benefit is still just that.
Jump to: