Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin PoW Upgrade Initiative - page 5. (Read 42931 times)

There's already a boatful of shitcoins.

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.

Bitcoin should be alted to PoS.

What if the mining pools are controlled by government (china) hell-bent of killing Bitcoin? The rules are then thrown out of the window.

Yes, we must switch to PoW as soon as possible, to prevent Core from running Bitcoin.
Coz BU will win then, and will become mainstream Bitcoin.
Introducing new PoW will make  BTC an altcoin.
Good luck with it.

Whom do you try to scare ?
Weak hands already sold all their BTC.

It may not be definitive and it may not be perfect, but it sure would be an improvement.

Bonus 1: being able to introduce script versioning and L2.

Bonus 2: the very threat of a future PoW change will make sure the miners will at least think twice about building up too much in-house and much less brazenly collude like they have already done.

Guys isn't one of the main reasons that Bitcoin is so valuable because of the crazy high mining difficulty and capital investment that is required for ASICs, electricity...etc.

To me it sounds like if you go back to GPU mining, you cut off one leg to the market, making the price of bitcoin plumet and stabilize much lower than it is now.

Wont the 16nm development wall that was reached recently, decentralize mining organically as time passes?

I think this "mining centralization" problem is only a temporary issue. And making the shift from ASIC to GPU just gives power to another entity (in most cases probably the same people since most ASIC farms also include a GPU farm).

I am not so naive to believe that going to GPU will magically put home hobby miners in control or decentralize the hashing in any significant way (maybe for a month, but then we are back to pools and farms being in control)

The PoS 0 reward solution (empiric example here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annoc-onecoin-no-premine-fair-launch-sha256-triple-1801129)  would be much more attractive, putting some control to nodes and the people that actually own BTC.

If PoW is changed can it still be called bitcoin?

If such fork happens what will they call it?

How different will this coin be from the original vision?


You can't still compete with their hardware prices and electricity costs.

Same stuff when GPU mining, I could buy the same GPUs as everyone else in the world but it was much more expensive for me and electricity costs would make my mining operation unprofitable.

Exactly

Maybe we can't level the whole playing field definitively, but that's no argument for not taking the steps that can be made towards a free-er market in mining

(and that's true of all markets for all goods, there will always be cat and mouse protectionist games being played, the current cartel based world trade paradigm being the most salient example, for instance)

Racks of computers in datacenters is a given, but why only in China? Thanks to the universal availability of DRAM, those racks can now go up all over the world. That's the key difference.

I'd like to see a change to PoW as well, but I highly doubt it will ever happen. Way too much mining happens in China and off of Bitmain asics, but this has been going on for years. That doesn't happen easily without the right kind of partnerships and influence in place. The war in mining is fueled by network difficulty, cost of power, and, coin price; it's a science to balance those to be able to mine at a profit, which is what these miners are doing.

If you change PoW to only remove asic mining capability, that won't stop someone throwing up racks and racks of computers in a datacenter in China again. To address some the blockchain control concerns, I think the way that difficulty is leveraged would need to be modified as well. If you can just throw hardware at the difficulty, you'll just repeat the same path again in months/years. If asics are removed from the equation and replaced with cpu/memory, that will disrupt the mining swarm in the short term, but the mining collective would just regroup and retarget again where cpu/memory commodities can be leveraged in low cost environments where power and cooling are inexpensive. If you can keep adding n+1 nodes, you can just game the ability to solve a block with more hardware you control. However, I do think it's a better approach though to bring mining back to the node because it at least lowers the bar on power requirements on mining back to lower-cost equipment that gives entry nodes a better chance to solve a block.

Even without cheap electricity: Hardware, that has been democratized (CPU, GPU) - we can speak of general purpose computational devices - is warranty enough for decentralization. Special purpose hardware, expensive AND available only from a few vendors (moreover concentrated in one region) is the exact opposite.

I for one would be happy to throw my Bitmain Devices out of the window (and I do run them on free electricity), for a CPU-only PoW.
Ok - I would bring them to a civic amenity site instead throwing them out of the window, but still...


Rico

Unlike mining ASICs, the hardware required by memory-hard PoWs (DRAM) is available everywhere. This alone will lead to decentralization. Cheap electricity is available in other countries, so mining will no longer be monopolized by China.

If someone has relative cheap electricity, he can be sure to get comparative advantage as long as bitcoin use PoW.

The variable of block reward time make mining pools economical. small percentage of hashpower won't get steady income when it mined solo.

So the mining itself can always leads to a bit centralize under current consensus, what ever PoW you switched to. It's not the right solution for central mining.

Or maybe bitcoin-cuckoo-testnet? We need to evaluate the relative strengths/weaknesses of these two PoWs, I think, and decide on one of them.

Actually I had not thought of going about it in this order and it makes an awful lot of sense.

I was thinking in having the contingency ready for the sudden one and the longer term progressive one to be applied in a more "relaxed" period. But actually the "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" approach makes even more sense from the incentives point of view.

-----

As for intricate, not proven combinations of multiple algorithms: I'd stay away. More risk that some attack vector is discovered in the future.

BitClub just mined a block signalling both BU and Segwit: http://archive.is/1RXeH

Bram Cohen makes the (possibly true) claim that [BrCoh1] cuckoo cycle is one of the most ASIC-resistant algorithms usable as a Proof-of-Work function. It would be interesting if anyone had the tools/ability to test (or at least heuristically justify) this claim.

Damn... think about it: this is the key for decentraliced mining? OR?


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60k5ya/powa_with_hybrid_pow_you_could_have_2_algos_an/

This may be the best way to get a POW change started as it gets everyone used to the idea. If things go south quickly, I'm sure the transition could be accelerated through another SF (more palatable at that point) or even an emergency HF.