BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it - page 2.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: turvarya on August 28, 2015, 08:39:19 AM

Quote from: johnyj on August 28, 2015, 08:34:33 AM

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Suppose that there are 100K home and garage miners, each of them averagely have 1T hash power, they are totaling 100P hash which is more than 1/4 of the network hash, and their number will grow with more and more industry mining operations fall apart due to unprofitable operation. Those miners will move their hash power between different pools to reflect their opinion

Home miners are not profit oriented, mostly treat it like a game, this is their biggest advantage over speculative mining farms

Hash power is your vote in the bitcoin ecosystem, just like a voting ticket, but it is not one vote per person, so rich people will get more vote, that is a fact. Anyway better than current monetary system where you definitely have no right to vote anything

TinEye

hero member

Activity: 639

Merit: 500

Quote from: meono on August 28, 2015, 08:01:20 AM

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 07:13:42 AM

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create high minimum tx fees?

Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value.

Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that.

but what happen if miners and a good percentage of big merchants choose bip100? at the end we must follow right? and they will be able to dictate what they want with the fees
there was a case where bitpay was supporting XT for example, which isn't good for the rest of us, in the worst scenario a thing like this can kill bitcoin

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

silliness,

letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"

what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: johnyj on August 28, 2015, 08:34:33 AM

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

No, it does not. Just buying a mining rig to vote, will cost you a lot of money without getting real power, since there are just too many well-organized miners and your hashing power doesn't matter.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

BIP100 encourage everyone to get themselves a mining rig. If you have a miner, you could point it to the pool that support the solution you like

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ingatqhvq on August 28, 2015, 07:13:42 AM

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

So ask yourself, what happens if miners decide to increase block reward? create high minimum tx fees?

Simple, we will not use their fork. Mining cost does not give one coin its value.

Edit: everyone seems to think miners make rules or dictate the proposal. Thats a wrong. Miners are rewarded to secure the network. It goes both ways. Thats why its in their best interest to follow the healthy chain. They dont even give any rat about bitcoin, they're only in for profits. If merchants and exchanges dont support their BIP, thats the end of it. Simple as that.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: medUSA on August 28, 2015, 05:50:37 AM

Without miners' support, we can't fork bitcoin to accept higher than 1M blocksize. It is important to have a majority in the mining sector to make any changes to the bitcoin protocol. If BIP100 is the only BIP they would support, then we would have to accept BIP100 unless we miraculously find hashing power to secure a non-BIP100 fork.

Wrong, cant believe you're a legendary member and saying this.

If miners forces a rule that we dont agree, we will have to ignore them and treat them as an 51% attack. Ignore the longest chain with checkpoints.

However the economic incentives dictates that they will only follow rules by the network. Thats exactly how its always been. BIP100 will change this. The effect by their manipulation will not be seen short term or instantly as a 51% attack.

tiggytomb

legendary

Activity: 1848

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Nagle on August 28, 2015, 03:27:01 AM

Miners make the rules. That's how the system is designed.

The problem is that the design didn't anticipate 2 or 3 mining pools being a majority.

I agree, it would have been expected or assumed that there would be many many miners and not a few large pools dominating.

Ingatqhvq

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Yes, we should reject BIP 100.
but if the miner decide to vote BIP100, what we can do but to accept it.

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Is it possible that greedy miners could try to squeeze more fees from existing transactions by voting for smaller blocks?

Maybe there's something I don't understand here.

colinistheman

hero member

Activity: 907

Merit: 1003

OP, I agree with you on this. I was studying the differences between BIP 100 and 101 and while at first BIP 100 sounds good, but it does put too much power in the miner's hands. It needs to be more of a balance. Mike Hearn best said it here:

Quote

It [BIP101] gives miners additional power to modify the system for no obviously good reason beyond "some miners are saying they'd like more power". Miners are not the only stakeholders. Users, merchants, exchanges, etc matter too - if not more!

The upper limit is meant to be a kind of DoS limit, to stop troll miners generating giant mega-blocks. It's not meant to be a stick that miners can use to beat important but voteless economic players.

source: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/oFmzqn46v74/B1CKY7bNBgAJ

Miners vote for miners to be in control. I am shocked. [source]

This is a slippery slope. It's easy to give more control to miners (they'll always vote for), but much harder to take away control, once they have it... [source]

Miners voting for miners to vote. Shocking indeed. [source]

Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and Miners tend to favor BIP100.

So what happens if all the merchants/businesses want BIP101 and the miners want BIP100? [source]

If merchants and exchanges are only using a chain that's ignored by miners, it's a useless chain. It goes both ways. [source]

TL;DR:

Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and Miners tend to favor BIP100.

A developer working for a mining firm (Bitfury) proposed a solution which give miners more control, and this proposal gains enormous support from miners. [source]

medUSA

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1005

--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77

Without miners' support, we can't fork bitcoin to accept higher than 1M blocksize. It is important to have a majority in the mining sector to make any changes to the bitcoin protocol. If BIP100 is the only BIP they would support, then we would have to accept BIP100 unless we miraculously find hashing power to secure a non-BIP100 fork.

emelac

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 11:22:31 PM

So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain?

One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits.
Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees.

Miners are already manipulating the block size for their short term gain. Some miners refuse to accept any transactions and mine an empty block because it's slightly faster to do that. It's not helping the network and purely selfish behavior to make more profits, but they are in it for the money.

Nagle

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Miners make the rules. That's how the system is designed.

The problem is that the design didn't anticipate 2 or 3 mining pools being a majority.

marky89

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: meono on August 27, 2015, 10:17:12 PM

We must remember bitcoin value isnt from mining cost but from the utility of the network: the merchants, services and users.

Huh? But miners are fundamental to bitcoin value. They secure the network. Competitive mining is what protects the neutrality of the network by preventing anyone from being able to block certain transactions. It also prevents anyone from replacing parts of the block chain to roll back their own spends.

Merchants, services and users are left with an insecure network without a robust mining economy.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: meono on August 27, 2015, 10:31:16 PM

Quote from: tokeweed on August 27, 2015, 10:27:42 PM

It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it.

Wrong.... Miners can fork bitcoin to raise block rewards. Does not mean they will because users, exchanges and service providers wont adopt their fork.

Bitcoin economy system isnt about mining.

Ofcourse if a BIP gives power to one group, that group will support it.

The miners is a very important part of the Bitcoin network, and they should have a more active role in the Bitcoin development. I am more worried about the control we are giving to the GovCoin groupies for their financial gain.
Let's be objective, without the miners there will be no Bitcoin network.

I also believe they have too much power, but say what you want, we need them to be able to use Bitcoin. The best solution would have been to develop a system where everyone could vote on this, but then the Chinese will win. Shocked

marky89

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: meono on August 27, 2015, 10:43:26 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on August 27, 2015, 10:36:50 PM

Its less aggressive then gavincoin imo. Miners tend to love btc.. Although this wont always be the case so your concer is quite valid.

There is no guaranteed long term commitment from miners. Any of them can quit if they face technological challenge. This alone can lead to manipulation for short term gain while they still hold good percentage of network hashrate.

Just because you dont like one proposal (BIP101), you should not rush into another one.

Well to be honest, I felt a lot of pressure to support BIP 101... people have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming about the sky falling because we don't have 8MB blocks yesterday.

At the end of the day, bitcoin is PoW. Miners are kept in check by economic incentive (and disincentive)..... to suggest that they don't already have the power (ie to fork bitcoin) is silly. The beauty is that there are great disincentives to them irrationally doing so.

Priority #1: consensus. If we want bigger blocks, we want a less controversial implementation that the vast majority of miners are likely to support. That simply isn't going to be BIP 101.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: knight22 on August 27, 2015, 10:31:01 PM

Quote from: tokeweed on August 27, 2015, 10:27:42 PM

It's already out there. I doubt the community can do anything if the miners support it.

Maket makers can still reject it. They are the ones ultimately giving value to the coins.

in this case it would be bad if in the future miners themselves will become market also, even in some cases only

i can see a big company of mining generating good profit and expanding their business to be a merchant also, only to take advantage of this issue

uvt9

sr. member

Activity: 300

Merit: 250

I have same concern, BIP 100 can't promise bigger blocks while it undermines decentralization by giving miners more control. I want blocksize increase but if i have to choose between BIP100 and staying at 1MB forever, i would choose the latter. Core devs need to reject this proposal.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: achow101 on August 27, 2015, 11:22:31 PM

So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain?

One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits.
Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees.

Exact. It gives incentives to miners to create a cartel lowering the block size and artificially increase fees. Like any cartels are decreasing productivity to increase their profits in a non competitive environment.

BIP100 incentives are very badly aligned. No wonder why miners like it.

Topic: BIP100 gives miners too much power. Everyone should reconsider it - page 2. (Read 1875 times)