Topic: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs - page 36. (Read 1260202 times)

So,
My estimation is that Core team will split. Some will continue to work on Core but on Classic chain, buy some will prefer to do PoW (and Transaction ID) change rather to submit to the new governance.

Guy

Edit: Interesting times. I think that two competing Chains is the favorable outcome. Each will be entitled to the name "Bitcoin" since both came into existence after hard-fork.

I think the problem you are trying to solve isn't real.
I think Core and Classic will converge to friendly competition, and be on the same blockchain. There will not be an actual work between these two groups.
My 2 cents.

I to am a outsider, but one who read when they went public the amount of bonus money they paid them staff at top levels.  He wants that to continue, who would not?

But he is writing this as he is hoping to change things now they have no good future outcome.  They have old gear getting older.  They worked on a chip that is out of date before it hit market.  

So do you think he would love to change it where there is a new agenda that put's him on same level as bitfury?   Heck yea.  He is grasping at straws hoping change so they can do a new investment that is not already lost.  

As far as I can tell as a complete outsider, they're finished.

So consider all that to be a sunk cost. Lessons learned by the admirable experience of having tried and failed.

What he's writing about now has no obvious relevance to a mining equipment company. Do you think Spondoolies has some new GPU they're trying to sell, because that's the only miner-related agenda that would make sense here.

I'm not really a close follower though, so some or all of the above may be wrong.

Guy is doing this as Spondoolies is losing value every day.  The SP-50 is not even here they cant manage their own next gen, even if they did it is already beat by Bitfury.  

Spondoolies sold gear and did not have a problem when on top.  Now they are slipping more and more.  This is making Guy sound desperate a change to Bitcoin just so they stay a profitable company in coming years.

A central committee of hash to decide things... that is called centralization.  Bitcoin is a good protocol your company is just on it's way out of the game.  How much money went in SP50 to be beat before it even was sold?  

Yes, I'm working to improve it. Not easy.

I'm not drunk. Think about it for a while.

I have to agree, I was wondering about the mental state that led to a belief the above would occur, but I that's different from whether the ideas are interesting or not.

Not terribly impressed by the central committee of hash.

Classic decided against PoW change: https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-6-fix-mining-centralisation?results=true
Core must do it to survive, after Classic Activation. It also needs to change Transaction ID to split the coins completely into ClassicCoin and CoreCoin

Let the market decide

Guy

Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard.

What does this even have to do with his company?

You sound more agenda driven to me than he does.

As Olivier Janssens told me: “Competition is good”. So let the market decide.

We’ll have an interesting dichotomy:

Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.

Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.

Your company had no problem with current Bitcoin when they were one of big companies making profit.  Spondoolies is a company of the past, with no more then hopes of a miner that already has been beat by bitfury.  You were happy to sell asics when you made money, and have problems with others being able to do same thing?

You want to change all of Bitcoin to keep your company rolling, as it's losing value.  You will not be able develop chips as good as Bitfury so you want new ideas.  You will never get the votes.  Just enjoy last few years of bonus you get till Spondoolies is a dead company.

Have read, and agree. In fact several of us discussed the very same ideas on the now-banned Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. thread long ago. We probably weren't the first.

You might want to read Meni Rosenfeld: http://fieryspinningsword.com/2015/08/25/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fork/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9eiv/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_the_fork/

Most interesting posts on this thread IMO. The miners were nice, but even powerful miners are just miners. Ideas are more powerful still.


This isn't really good thing, but not necessarily a disaster either. It has better properties than ASICs.

I believe that the wrong turn in Bitcoin was something earlier than ASICs (or FPGAs). But Guy has his ideas and I have mine. Nice to see various people trying to improve things even if I don't agree with every detail.

I'm also working on a non manual way to do it, but it's much harder.

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all. I purpose the following, in order to prevent mining centralization, and prevent the possibility of such a governance coup in the future:

Rotating PoW change. Every 3 months (six difficult adjustments), Core will change (via hard fork) it’s PoW algorithm. There will be one month (4032 blocks) of overlap after each change, in which blocks created by both PoWs will be accepted. This will give enough time for upgrade after each PoW change. Every PoW change will reset the clock on any ASIC-ization effort. It will be madness to try to create a matching ASIC, when the PoW is changing every 4 months (1 month for the grace period).

This will completely eliminate the current situation in which two companies (BitmainTech and BitFury) can control over 90% of the hash-rate.

The mining playing field will be leveled again and the barrier of entry for mining will lowered. Everyone with money and access to low cost electricity will be able to mine. There will be no need to buy 16nm ASICs from BitFury at $13 per unit, when BitFury cost is $3 per ASIC (my estimation).

In order to avoid corruption in the selection of PoW algorithms, I also suggest that a committee of 5 individuals will be formed, with each individual serving a term of four algorithm changes (one year), with staggered cycles so the committee is not changed all at once. The preference will be to use complex algorithms, with multiple sub algorithms (e.g. X11 style), and the constants in each should be selected randomly from the block-chain data leading up to each rotation. As this is merely a suggestion for community consideration, I do not presume to define selection criteria for the committee members.

What about BotNets ?

Back in 2012 it was a real issues. These days there are entities with huge amount of GPUs. BotNets will be just another player. In my estimation they will be one of the smaller ones.

So lose chip war to Bitfury and decide you need to change the way bitcoin works?

Go manage a company losing value every day.  Stop trying to change bitcoin to fit your companies needs.  You will fall other companies will take over such as Bitfury who beat you in chip dev.

Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ?

My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

I'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core.

Please take the time to read it and comment.

Guy