Not sure there is a solution to the this "problem" that doesn't fundamentally change the idea behind bit coin. You can't punish people for having the money to buy equipment.
Sure you can, just take their money and don't deliver their equipment.
Topic: Can we change the mining protocol ? (Read 1773 times)
Sure you can, just take their money and don't deliver their equipment.
Not sure there is a solution to the this "problem" that doesn't fundamentally change the idea behind bit coin. You can't punish people for having the money to buy equipment.
POS only works on altcoins that have been fairly pre-distributed.
otherwise the rich get richer and those with nothing continue to get nothing.
if bitcoin was to move over to POS then only bitcoin theives (karpales) and holders of exchange cold stores would get the coins. leaving average people with dust amounts.
POW is the best way, just like gold mining. if you can afford to buy the equipment you deserve the rewards
those that cant afford asic farms, just a few asics can atleast get more dust per block, than what POS would ever offer them.
POS is for hoarders who dont want to do any work or pay their electricity bills... pure lazy and greed
..moving on
otherwise the rich get richer and those with nothing continue to get nothing.
if bitcoin was to move over to POS then only bitcoin theives (karpales) and holders of exchange cold stores would get the coins. leaving average people with dust amounts.
POW is the best way, just like gold mining. if you can afford to buy the equipment you deserve the rewards
those that cant afford asic farms, just a few asics can atleast get more dust per block, than what POS would ever offer them.
POS is for hoarders who dont want to do any work or pay their electricity bills... pure lazy and greed
..moving on
I'm just a little sore about the situation being a Black Arrow Labs customer. I'm willing to entertain any solution to the current centralization threats with exchanges, pools and ASIC manufacturers run by bad actors.
POS only works on altcoins that have been fairly pre-distributed.
otherwise the rich get richer and those with nothing continue to get nothing.
if bitcoin was to move over to POS then only bitcoin theives (karpales) and holders of exchange cold stores would get the coins. leaving average people with dust amounts.
POW is the best way, just like gold mining. if you can afford to buy the equipment you deserve the rewards
those that cant afford asic farms, just a few asics can atleast get more dust per block, than what POS would ever offer them.
POS is for hoarders who dont want to do any work or pay their electricity bills... pure lazy and greed
..moving on
otherwise the rich get richer and those with nothing continue to get nothing.
if bitcoin was to move over to POS then only bitcoin theives (karpales) and holders of exchange cold stores would get the coins. leaving average people with dust amounts.
POW is the best way, just like gold mining. if you can afford to buy the equipment you deserve the rewards
those that cant afford asic farms, just a few asics can atleast get more dust per block, than what POS would ever offer them.
POS is for hoarders who dont want to do any work or pay their electricity bills... pure lazy and greed
..moving on
My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.Considering that all the ASIC companies have decided to keep those millions and not deliver any product I don't see too many miners being upset.
This would not necessarily cause ASICs to become bricks.
If enough time was given between the announced change and the hard-fork current miners could ROI. The established chip makers such as AMD and Intel don't seem to have any issues delivering product.
As long as the protocol still uses SHA-256 algo the ASICs (designed for bitcoin) would still work.
SHA256 still works if PoS is the only mining mechanism.
My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.Considering that all the ASIC companies have decided to keep those millions and not deliver any product I don't see too many miners being upset.
This would not necessarily cause ASICs to become bricks.
If enough time was given between the announced change and the hard-fork current miners could ROI. The established chip makers such as AMD and Intel don't seem to have any issues delivering product.
As long as the protocol still uses SHA-256 algo the ASICs (designed for bitcoin) would still work.
My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.Considering that all the ASIC companies have decided to keep those millions and not deliver any product I don't see too many miners being upset.
This would not necessarily cause ASICs to become bricks.
If enough time was given between the announced change and the hard-fork current miners could ROI. The established chip makers such as AMD and Intel don't seem to have any issues delivering product.
My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.Considering that all the ASIC companies have decided to keep those millions and not deliver any product I don't see too many miners being upset.
This would not necessarily cause ASICs to become bricks.
My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.Considering that all the ASIC companies have decided to keep those millions and not deliver any product I don't see too many miners being upset.
No, the IP/port the miners connect to can be different from the IP the pool broadcasts the finished block from.
The thought occurs to change mining -- to require an additional digital signature, so that knowledge of the secret key is required of the recipient address(es) that newly generated coins are to be output to, before a candidate block can be tested against the hash target, to see if it is a proper solution.
This makes it difficult to pool resources, since it ensures the 'solver' of the block has enough information to spend all the coins generated in the block that they solved.
Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?
No.
#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.
also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html
It looks like this solution would solve the issue from a 51% attack only if the attacker was preventing transactions from being confirmed.
As far as I can tell it would not prevent the issues of double spending coins (an attacker could reverse a TX that they sent, spend one of the inputs from the reversed TX making the original TX invalid) and preventing others from confirming blocks.
Miners are the bitcoin establishment. And the users are now the anti-establishment. It's up to the people to convince the dev team that a protocol level change is needed. And that will be quite hard, because the dev team is never going to change anything unless they are convinced it's absolutely necessary.
yeah its called making a new coin (or cloning bitcoin and changing 1 thing)
in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...
don't even need the token
step in the middle 
in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...
don't even need the token
step in the middle Äh no, it is no new coin if you convince all to the new protocol. If it is a chance like "create 100 new bitcoins every block" there is a time x where everyone has to chance their client. This is critical. If the new protocol says "ignore longest chain with priority less than 1% of the second longest chain" which happens not often, this would be not really a problem. Only thedr 1-transaction-blocks could be a problem.
So, there is no way we can inform all the miners that the hash power is being concentrated ?
-snip-
How come a pool can continuously change the public IP ? Wont the miners lose the point of contact then ? I mean, they need to know the IP and port for mining ...is not it ?
How come a pool can continuously change the public IP ? Wont the miners lose the point of contact then ? I mean, they need to know the IP and port for mining ...is not it ?
No, the IP/port the miners connect to can be different from the IP the pool broadcasts the finished block from.
Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.
And how would you know how much hash power they have?
There are only 2 ways to get information about how much hash power a pool has.
1. They tell you. You can't exactly trust a pool to tell you honestly how much hash power they have if they are trying to use that hash power to pull off an attack.
2. You count up the number of blocks they recently solved, and calculate an estimate based on the total blocks the network as completed in that time. (If 144 blocks are solved in a day, and someone solved 72 of them, then they have 50% of the hash power). You can't trust a pool to use the same bitcoin payout address for every block they solve or broadcast it from the same IP address every time if they are trying to hide what they are doing.
How come a pool can continuously change the public IP ? Wont the miners lose the point of contact then ? I mean, they need to know the IP and port for mining ...is not it ?
Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.
And how would you know how much hash power they have?
There are only 2 ways to get information about how much hash power a pool has.
1. They tell you. You can't exactly trust a pool to tell you honestly how much hash power they have if they are trying to use that hash power to pull off an attack.
2. You count up the number of blocks they recently solved, and calculate an estimate based on the total blocks the network as completed in that time. (If 144 blocks are solved in a day, and someone solved 72 of them, then they have 50% of the hash power). You can't trust a pool to use the same bitcoin payout address for every block they solve or broadcast it from the same IP address every time if they are trying to hide what they are doing.
yeah its called making a new coin (or cloning bitcoin and changing 1 thing)
in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...
don't even need the token step in the middle
in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...
don't even need the token
step in the middle My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.
Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen. -snip-
At a certain point the n/w knows the miner's i/p. is not it ? Otherwise, how come blockchain.info is giving us the graph ? So, can we implement it in the protocol that after every block is mined, the n/w hash power distribution will be checked and any miner having X%+ will be suspended for next N no. of blocks.
Say, X = 49 & N = 6.
At a certain point the n/w knows the miner's i/p. is not it ? Otherwise, how come blockchain.info is giving us the graph ? So, can we implement it in the protocol that after every block is mined, the n/w hash power distribution will be checked and any miner having X%+ will be suspended for next N no. of blocks.
Say, X = 49 & N = 6.
No, the miner must not have a fixed IP. They could use tor a proxy or maybe even fake an IP. Blockchain.info can make the graph because currently the pools dont have to hide their IPs. But with your suggestion they have a reason to hide the IP the block is coming from.
I think u misread my point. We dont need their exact IP. We need the IP that represents them at a certain point of time, be it TOR or be it Proxy. At that point of time that IP should represent them and only them. Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.
Jump to: