Topic: [ANN][MOTO] Motocoin - page 6. (Read 178261 times)

I don't follow what you're getting at here...  In any case, it doesn't explain why the miners wouldn't simply *only* include their own transactions, and ignore anyone else's.


The bot miner would need to get a larger reward than if they simply provided a solution themselves, otherwise there is no incentive to take someone else's solutions...  In other words, the reward for the "human" solution would need to be a net negative in order for the bot to see incentive to include it in a block instead of their own solution.

I'm not sure what you would see as strange. I think I've explained my rationale quite clearly.  From conversation with others in the community, I don't think that my reasoning is unique.


You misunderstand my intent.  I am far less interested in the details of your bot as in quantifying the necessary resource contribution to overcome it.  You make one claim that 20 instances of "the public bot" would do, but we have no reason to believe this.  Further, this does not align well with statistics collected at the peak of the anti-warp application, which would indicate that it would take 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more instances of the public bot to overcome the peak performance of the dominant bot.

When GPU's hit bitcoin mining it was readily quantifiable what the difference in peak performance was, and how many CPUs it would take to overcome a GPU.  Similarly through the progressin of GPU, FPGA, ASIC.

The peak performance of the dominant bot is not readily quantifiable.  We have the number you've thrown out, and some estimates based on the anti-warp test, but these indicate some *very* different quantities.


No, I would only ask this of a miner who carries out a sustained 51% attack and then tells me to just go ahead and mine against him.  Of course I would not begin applying resource at a loss unless I could quantify how much loss would need to be endured before any hope of a return, in order to in turn quantify the length of time before I would be back into the black.  Without being able to make such a projection no-one rationally is going to mine.



I've said no such thing, though I have said is that releasing your current bot is *one* solution.  I've also said that it is the "easiest."

What I have said is that we just can not distribute the hash rate until there is capability for miners to mine competitively.  This is simply a truism.


Had?  Yes.  Ran?  Not in nearly a year, now.


I didn't give my bot to everybody because at the time there was no *need* to distribute the hash-rate, as mining was competitive.  Multiple bot operators shared hash-rate.

No, my bot will not help to distribute the hash-rate, because it is not competitive.  Because it may require thousands of instances for it to be effective against you, no-one will be the first to use it against you.  Nobody wants to be the one who will lose money while waiting around for the other thousands of people to come lose money with them so that everyone collectively *might* have a hope to make some money....


Nothing here is nonsense, much the opposite.  "Don't willingly choose to lose an indefinite amount of money, on purpose" is pretty well common sense, I'd think.

We have only your word that your bot is "20X."  (Further, this is counter to evidence.)
In fact, we have only your word that the bot is actually "yours" at all.  (This is also counter to evidence.  I've additionally asked you several times now to prove your claimed domain over the dominant bot, but you have yet to offer up even a small shred of indication.)


Hrmm, first this is not really true.  The largest few coins may have this many miners, but the average alt network has less than 10!

Second, they would notice your "20x more powerful bot" if it represented >50% of the hashing strength, I'm sure.

So I'm not even really sure what you are trying to argue at this point...


This is more flawed reasoning.  Miners know that the network is insecure, and "selling their MOTO immediately" is no help when at any moment you might just decide to stop their coinbase transactions from even existing, prevent their transfers into the exchange, etc.  The security problem here begins long before the miners' coins are even "in hand" to be sold.


How many more?  You claim 20 will do it, but we have no way to know.  The evidence that we have would seem to indicate that it could potentially require much much more.

You won't get 1, let alone 20, let alone enough to overcome the bot, unless you can demonstrate that it is feasible at all.


I've mined with both public bots, as well as several incarnations of my own, and decided that it is unprofitable.  It may seem nearly profitable at (short) times, but the dominant bot never let it sustain beyond difficulty correction.


As I said in PM, this argument is like asking us to "just trust you exclusively, 100%" instead of trusting say 4 guys each with 25% or 100 guys each with 1%.... because those other guys are of course going to be untrustworthy.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd trust the 4 guys each with 25% before the 1 guy with 100% any day.  I don't care who the 5 people in question are, but it holds *especially* true when the 1 guy is saying "no really, just trust me..."

This makes no sense at all.  This claim makes me wonder if you even understand what a 51% attack really is. The whole premise of the blockchain is that it works as long as we don't trust *ANY* one person alone.


I tell you they do not mine because it is un-competitive.  Profitability is secondary to this.  The first problem must be overcome to have any hope of ending the 51% attack without your simply deciding to end it, but BOTH problems must be overcome to stabilize the coin and assure a future for it.


More irrationality abounds!  What reasoning would one have to sustain a 51% attack but altruistically select transactions, at a loss?!??! Now who is saying very strange things?


The problem is that no-one would rationally do this unless they had some way to know that their resource contribution does have some chance at all to "help moto become profitable."  Currently (as I've tried to say repeatedly) we have no way to quantify this.

I'd think that if you were really interested in the survival of this coin, you would try to find some way to give people such an assurance, and to establish this quantification for them, in some way more verifiable than "no rly guys it's 20X or something."  Your *total* refusal to do anything toward this is a big part of why I am (increasingly) suspecting that you are not who you claim to be....

Would you like to offer up some evidence that you do actually control the bot, so that we might have some reason to believe that you're not just some random shill, so that we subsequently might have any reason at all to think that your "20x" might not be just some entirely made up number?

The ball is still in your court, here....

HunterMinerCrafter, would this be okay to implement?

You keep saying very strange things.

You ask me in every message to give you my current bot for testing to verify that it is really only 20 times better than public bot.

Will you ask every future bot miner to verify their bots capabilities? Will you ask every other public bot miner to give you his PC to verify that they are not 10X better than other's? Why couldn't I give you less productive bot for verification?

You tell me that we just can not distribute the hash rate until I release my current bot.


And simultaneosly you tell me that public bot "is nowhere near as capable" as YOUR bot which I presume you had all this time.

Why didn't you give YOUR bot to everybody. Wouldn't it help to distribute hash rate? Instead you have disappeared for almost a year without any notice.


All this is complete nonsense. My bot is ONLY 20X better than public. 20 mining people could overproduce me. Normal coins have thousands of miners. They wouldn't even notice my 20X more powerful bot.

Anyone who wants to try public bot can sell their MOTO immidiately if they affraid that network is insecure. And decide for their own is this profitable or not. In fact we have some amount of public bot miners (Can they write something?) We just need more of them.


Is there anyone who tried mining with public bot and decided that it is unprofitable?


I keep telling you that if I release my bot right now it would be far more dangerous. If people so inactively mine with public bot, we can expect that there will be very few miners mining with my bot too. And the risk that one of them will try to perform 51% attack will be much higher. Someone have already tried to perform 51% manually when there was no bots in september.


If you think that moto itself is OK now all you need is to increase public bot miners count. You tell me that they do not mine because it is unprofitable?

I want to hear anyone who tried to mine with public bot and came to conclusion that it is unprofitable. Besides, are you sure that it is profitable for me? And maybe people could start to mine even if it is unprofitable now (which I believe is not true) just to distribute hash rate and help moto become profitable?



I have been mining from january and mine around 60-90% depending on competing public bot count. This gives 5832000, more than 4,5 million I  have already sold (I told you that I sell). Even if we imagine that I mined 100% moto in that period and didn't sell anything where is 8 million moto that was mined from may to december? Why are they not on c-cex?
400k MOTO is even less than 450k developers premine + first human mined 800k moto. (Just some fun facts).

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.

We can't rely on the miners to select transactions that will reduce their profitability.  We're supposed to do the opposite, assume that they will behave in any way possible to increase their profits, which is why transaction fees are a thing.

This fact will significantly complicate pretty much any "solution" proposal which relies on miners behaving altruistically with their transaction selection.  They "just won't" when they can instead opt to keep more reward for themselves, of course.

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making. 

So what your saying is, the miner could pre mine a bunch of human blocks, then when they start mining bot blocks and find one, they could only accept one of their own pre mined human blocks and get the full 20 coins?

Ah that is a bad idea.

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.

What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

I am a bot operator. :-|

Let me tell you how I would "play" in your game...


You are not wrong.

Assuming your bot is actually "20x" this other also unknown algorithm bot... which we'll just have to take your word for, for now.  (Would you be open to running your bot on a testnet as well, so that we can do some controlled comparisons?)

By this argument one could also say that "all" we need is to "suddenly" have a whole lot of human miners working 24/7 to re-secure the chain....

The problem is something of a "we can't get there from here" situation, as I mentioned also in PM.

One miner has >51% of the network.  As such the coin is centralized.  In order to resolve this compromise, more miners must appear. Miners not only know that they cannot mine at a profit in the best case (if their mining costs virtually "anything at all", so I'm even including human miners' time, here) but also that their mining subsidy is entirely subject to your whim, on average.

If your mining ignores their mining, they will get nothing at all.  You have to *let* them have blocks, until the network strength is redistributed.  They have no reason to assume that you would ever do so, so rationally they might have to assume a 0 return on their burn during this time.

They also currently have no way to know how much resource will need to be applied to redistribute the hash rate.

Further, they have no idea how much "moto time warp" debt you can put onto the network during this time, and no way to know that you will not leave them, once your 51% attack is over, to repay all of it.

Given this, the only rational conclusion is currently not to mine except for personal enjoyment of the game. (Which is ofc only "enjoyable at times, when you're lucky, in the meantime" which is the "marketing" problem here.)

As a bot operator, I'm *certainly* not going to be mining, when I could put that expensive electricity toward something with a hope of a return.


I will clarify this even more. There Possibly was a Group of whales who bought big part of moto. I speaked with one of them and he asked me if I want to cooperate with them and try to popularize moto and continue developing. I'm not even sure that he really got that moto. And my amout of moto is not too big. I could definitely just buy it on c-cex.