Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 139. (Read 284527 times)

I was thinking purely in terms of avoiding a BN hashpower arms race, if all earn the same regardless of whichever one happens to solve the block then there's no incentive to throw pointless processor cycles at it... I'm not overly concerned about the exact amount/split. As long as BNs don't take a paycut from current levels of course. 

The limiting consecutively mined blocks approach also sounds great to limit damage in the event of BN subversion.

Ok so you are saying if  BN subsidy is 6 BCR , then solving a block should earn 6 BN as well. Meaning that the normal tx blocks have 12 BCR that is split between the mining BN and winning BN?

I like it, though i'm not sure BN owners will. Maybe we can bump it up to 9 BCR?

Ok, please read carefully. I didn't block you from mining, simply for you to mine, you need to have a BN. And while you are mining, i will limit the number of consecutive blocks you can mine to dissolve the competition factor. I am also going to to lower the Bn entry level and the normal block reward so that the incentive for BNs is in balance with the incentive for bidding.

I want to get you to focus the resources you are using as a "hobby" to actually help the ecosystem. Would it not be nice if your hobby, would grow and mature into a great project and become something millions of people in the world want to join?

From the point of view of BCR's blockchain security, if a better and more efficient mechanism can be employed, it should be.

From your point of view, you can acquire as much BCR as you did before while mining something else too if that's what you like. You say that you are not mining at a loss, but if you aren't selling any of what you mine then you certainly are not making any profit either. Mine whatever PoW currency is most profitable, and use some of those profits to buy more BCR? This is a win for you, surely?

It's a pretty wild shift from the crypto 'norm' but I think that PoW norm is fundamentally flawed, and in the long term shifting tx validation to the BNs and adopting a much simpler and easier method for anyone (that other 99.9999999% of plane Earth that will never be able to mess with all the technical voodoo of mining) to acquire BCR and thus access to future platform services, while directly helping to fund development, will be of great benefit to BCR. That future platform utility is what will bring real increased value to your current holdings.

This is a Giant Step for BCRkind in a whole lot of ways. I hope you can come to see that.  

Again. Regardless of what I am paying for electricity this is what I like to do call it a hobby (my last hobby cost me 3 times as much per month as mining and I am not mining at a loss).

You are taking what some people are/or have been doing and lumping everyone into one group. As for your mining and selling to cover cost I have been mining since late Dec of 2014 and have not sold one coin but looking as to the direction this is going it is not worth the time or effort to mine any more.

How about BN that mines the block gets the same reward as the rest?

While looking into the coding issues I realized that we need to make small adjustments, instead of paying out at a set time, we will have to use a "block day". A "block day" is the number of blocks that are produced on a daily basis (expected), so if we want two payouts a day then we would have a block paying out every half "block day".

On average we get anywhere between 680 and 920 blocks. I would say that 800 blocks is a block day , unless you guys don't like it.

So if we have payouts every 400 blocks the code looks like


The current payout structure is as follows

10 BCR -- Bank reserve
18.75 -- BN subsidy
with the rest going to miners/blockfinder.

So miners are actually getting 21.25 BCR per block. Under my proposed system  :-

BN that mines a block gets 12 BCR
BN subsidy -- 6 BCR

Then on payout blocks

BN that mines a block gets 12 BCR
BN subsidy -- 6 BCR
Bidders divide 25600 BCR

The Bank and reserve are obsolete ideas and the bidders get the lions' share of a day's emissions. the average total has been 40K a day and so it shall be until reward halving.


All these numbers are free for us to discuss and come to consensus.

I don't understand why you would insist on spending money in a futile mining attempt that will get you less reward than what we have proposed.  Mining PoW competitively is wasteful because all the money you are pouring into a power company and hardware could have been used to develop BCR further and do stuff like get us on more exchanges, marketing etc.... everything we do is to develop the most robust and effecient system possible, cutting away anything that disadvantages the users.

You as a miner are running a loss making operation trying to compete with other miners to get rewarded a small amount of BCR. You then in turn immediately drop it on the exchange because you will be trying to cover your costs. The price goes lower and you operation becomes even less profitable, you are stuck in a loop that is slowly shrinking and soon if we don't act it becomes a noose around the entire projects' neck.

We are making it easier to secure the network while removing the concept of competitive mining and rewards in favor of a project supportive approach.

One could argue that sometimes it is harder to get your hands on BTC, but that is exactly why we will allow bidding in as many currencies as we can. This means that we have 1) removed a resource/value leakage problem and 2) we now siphon value off other currencies in favor of our own.

Giving you the chance to acquire BCR more cheaply and easily is limiting you how? If you like you can send me the extra money you would have spent on mining it.

But again. You are taking the miners out of the equation. Sorry limiting us.

Free electricity or not (and I am not free).

Eh? The block reward may decrease per block but there will be more frequent blocks, plus the current 5 + 5 BCR each block will go, so bidders will actually get more compared to what miners get now.

And since bidding is likely to work out cheaper than mining (for those who don't get free electricity) anyone who wants to can acquire more, more cheaply, more easily. What's being discussed will improve distribution accessibility, not limit it.

It's PoW that's limiting and exclusionary to the 99.9999999999% of the world's population that can't afford the hardware and the running costs of PoW, and don't have and never will have the know how anyway.

JMHO

You are killing the coin by keep decreasing the amount to block finders.

18.75 is way too low considering the amount going everywhere else. For me you are no incentive to continue mining as I see a majority of the block going to non miners.

This coin is slowly becoming a way for those who have more to keep getting a bigger part of the pie.

And please don't say if I want a BN I should invest BTC to get one. There are some of us that still like to mine and build up what we earn but unfortunately it looks to be going the other way now.

Reducing the collateral requirement would only superficially (at first) increase security, because let's face it we'd all just be running 3/4/5 BNs on the same machine(s) instead of 1. We'd have ~100 BN's immediately with a 50k collateral each but no real world improvement. It would however make it easier for new players to get on board going forward.

eg. 50k BCR @ 1000 sats is 0.5BTC - hardly a huge investment, so might attract more people. Those of us who are prepared to invest a bit more will in time be better off as we'll also have BN capital for p2p loans, backed asset issuance etc. It isn't a deal breaker for me either way, maybe it's worth lowering to 50k just to try and ignite more interest. There is still going to be inflationary pressure from new mintage, making BNs more affordable is a good counter to that, but blockchain security should be the paramount consideration.

Just 200 BN's within a month or two, reasonably distributed, would probably give us much better actual security than any pool-mined PoW currency even without per-block subsetting. Subsetting 10% of them would be even better, 160 compromised nodes out of 200 would only give an attacker a 1.1% chance with 20 random nodes needed for consensus. And it just gets better from there.


The block time thing isn't a big issue for me. Faster is better, 30 secs would be fine if lower than that would cause issues. Maybe the new scheme would avoid or mitigate the problem dragos mentioned with p2pool, I'm happy to let those better qualified decide what's technically appropriate.


Very much agreed here on sensibly spending the 6 million, it's no use sat there doing nothing. There's a lot of competition in this space and time is of the essence. And at some point we should set up a BCR testnet.

Speaking of adoption, that will happen as BCR grows into a viable and capable platform, but I frankly don't care very much about 'adoption' by bitcointalk users.    Business to business automated escrow, reserve-backed assets, p2p lending once the credit scoring system is worked out, etc. ... things like this matter more to me.

I know a lot of people don't take the risks associated with pooled PoW mining seriously, or even concede their existence, but there's a reason big money is shy of BTC - ask yourself if you had $millions++, would you trust it to a system that could be taken down and wrecked by compromising just 3 publicly known or easily identifiable machines? That's not security, and just because nobody has bothered to break BTC yet doesn't mean it will never happen, because for any serious adversary it's a cheap trivial op. Having an actually secure blockchain is important.

What's been talked about here recently can
a) Give us actual blockchain security, not just security theatre
b) Fund faster and better development

It's been a very good few pages. 

For the moment payment in BCR is not attractive to most people not associated with the project. We are altering the entire system because we wish to resolve these and other problems as well as become a more commercially viable candidate for people who want blockchain based technology.

The block problem is a direct result of miners competing over blocks as you know there are the normal single block forks and the bad 2+ forks,  by focusing miners resources in a green environment that funnels all of the funding into BCR we , 1) eliminate wasteful mining, 2) decrease confirm time 3) increase liquidity

the bidding method is actually a very good way of spreading the coin, any user can bid any amount and get coins without the hassle of mining , they can get lucks and get a ton of coins for very little .

Instead of money going into electricity and hardware cost, it is going into BCR directly.

Just my thoughts ...

I do not agree with lowering the time for a block.
1. For those who have been for a while, there was problems at the beginning  with forks being made because the network sync. So at that time was rewritten the algo for block diff, increasing the time to avoid this problems.
2. The low sum of mined blocks reside from a bug in p2pool code not handled:
Even that p2pool report as block found, the submittal result is "False"-"inconclusive". And here get stuck, until another p2pool find the block. 2 days ago, both mine and the main pools got stuck until I cleaned the logs and started again.

I like the idea of "Services On Blockchain" and here could be any type of services, setting a minimum amount plus any other amount for any type of Service. And here, I think that the author must gather all type of Services and put on an whitepaper to be discussed.

But all of this discussions are zero. Why? We are very few people involved.
So first, we must spread the coin to many more adopters, easing the mining, having more options to mine the coin, solo/pool, provide a good return of the investment time in mining. Having a stable network, less bugs in wallet, having something that work 100%.
I use the 6 mil in publicity, hiring good developers to do "a work", not thinking if that is good for community/coin or not, but doing what they are told, listing the coin on cryptsy/poloniex and trying even to have his own market (eg XMR) ... and so on. SPREAD THE COIN, MASS ADOPTION !!!
After, releasing the various services, thinking of business ...

I'd like to say let's work with 20 second or 30 second blocks, ten seconds while faster, opens up other issues. I was actually thinking that block reward would be 18.75, that way we do not inconvenience existing BN holders since they are the ones with the most online nodes and showing active support for the project. As of this moment, blocks for miners are paying low because there is an additional 10 removed. So under the new scheme, we would remove that and have normal blocks payout the BN amount only. this means that the remaining 32.25 per block will be paid out exclusively to bidders. now this will result in a overall of 25800 for bidding, to make this more lucrative, we shall add the 6 million and divide it into 365 days and this brings the total to 40K per day for bidding until block reward halving time.

I'd like the payout to be once every 12 or 24 hours to keep cpu loads light. As for base collateral, i'll leave it to you and TLC to negotiate if we reduce and by how much we reduce. All other BN holders are free to join this discussion and participate. I agree, we need a mechanism to avoid network block monopoly. Also, as a side thought p2pool can still be used in this format, basically, the p2pool address for the 0 output will be a BN, meaning if you want to run a compatible p2pool, you need a BN.



Within the BCR wallet you will be able to see how many bids have been made and how much each 0.1 BTC worth of all accepted coins will get you. We don't really need to complete the current phases of work for this to become a reality. If noone bids , we can either roll over or destroy the coins. I'll leave that to you two as well to decide.

Upon further study i think there is no way we can avoid a bit of hashing , but the key is to make it such that it's "green" and is only for tx processing, by removing the incentive to competitively mine and redirect those resources we have reduced our leakage by over 90%, the key now is to ensure that mining by the BNs for tx processing does not end up competitive either.

I think this is where hacks' argument will become strongest, because if the BNs are too costly , investors will mine blocks aggressively to quickly balance their books. Again i leave that to you guys. 

By supporting BCR in this way miners will also be supporting themselves. Your coins will gain value through the redirected funding going into development. We will be able to do a far more professional job and will attract large investment. This time is very critical to get things right because the finance world is waking up to the potential of this kind of instrument. Eventually when there is enough float, we can even support a base price for BCR which we can derive from watching the trend and adoption rate over time.

When i get tired of debugging , i will create a new branch of the master with some of these changes and notes for you guys to look at and discuss.

Taking BTC and other currencies in exchange for newly minted BCR also provides liquidity/reserves in those other currencies for the BNs to provide the holy crypto grail: a decentralised exchange...  

This is brilliant.   

Would bidding be blind, or would the wallet report the current bids to all? The latter would be better IMO.

It doesn't need to be ebay-complex, just a simple Time Left counter, a Current Bids list, a Bid Amount field (estimated from current price) and an Enter Bid button. Oh and a Set Repeat Bid checkbox, regular 'miners' don't want to be doing this manually all the time. Name your price and it'll keep buying for you until you're out of ammo.

Before this can happen though BCR would need cross chain/coloured coin/other currency/fiat? capability - bidding in BCR for BCR doesn't make sense.

And what happens if nobody bids?
No mintage - prolongs emission schedule and should in theory reduce sell pressure, quasi-deflationary...
Mintage burned - keeps emission schedule, definitely deflationary...

I'm still not sure about the ramifications of all this, but if it can be made more secure than PoW (shouldn't be too hard) and gets rid of pissing money away on electricity (the leeches who get 'free' electricity will be annoyed, but somebody is paying for that wasted wattage) then it's an improvement. Aren't KnC building their own hydroelectric dam to power their acres of ASICs? Pretty sure that wasn't a part of Satoshi's original vision of a decentralised currency.

Plus, vastly better tx throughput.

edit: I think someone mentioned it before, but basically this would mean that the money miners spend currently on running costs would be going to... the great BCR Banknode Reserve... bitcreditscc's (DA)C... some communally owned asset held on the blockchain?

"Miners - support BCR, not AMD/Nvidia and the power company!"

if we can agree on a way forward that will all be history. I was thinking more on the 40K per day distribution via bidding , it's actually pretty great all across the board, everyone will know the exact cost of the coins they have and will not sell at a loss, right now most miners are selling at a loss and this is what is driving most away with the remaining driving the price down in an effort to cover their costs.

I think we should compile this into a single proposal and see what we come up with.

let me start it off, then just quote and adjust what you think

10 second block-time, best speed 6 confirms one minute (not sure about forking at these rates)
Blocks are now mined/signed by bank nodes reward is lowered to 5 coins
once every six hours a block is created paying out to bidders
Base BN collateral lowered to 50K BCR
Maybe have a rule that limits the number of consecutive blocks that a BN can sign ?
Removal of bank and reserve stuff
6 million BCR to be distibuted using same bidding model


If anyone has changes, ideas to add, please feel free.

Right now mining this coin has a bad feel to it because there is no solo miner that has the same capability as the pool miner.  So if you want to solo mine with GPU you can either have less capability (I think its a 40-60% hit depending on the core of your GPU).  Also, from a miners perspective it is known that someone has a solo miner that has the full capability as the pool miner (NaN-PTS) so he and anyone he passes the miner to would have an unfair advantage against you.  If you mine the pool per block 18.75 goes to the BN (as is the plan) and +5 goes to 5qoFUCqPUE4pyjus6U6jD6ba4oHR6NZ7c7 and +5 goes to 6133GZGV2XRnS53DkLSWrK661TsQMqnewL.  So that means of the 31.75 you the miner only have access to 21.75 with is like a 33% hit to your rate.  If you are using a CPU to mine your watts to hash-rate vs a GPU is not in your favor.  Likely one or a combination of these factors drives off miners, which is unfortunate as this is a really really cool project, which I have been mining since day 1.