Topic: CBM- Central Bank Mining....a cure? (Read 269 times)

OP, what you search for already exists for several years, it is called "consortium blockchain".

There are dozens, if not hundreds of projects of this kind. So you can find the one fitting for you, fork it, offer the keys for the validator nodes to the Central Banks of the world. Then launch a marketing campaign - should be super easy, as it would be "the ultimative green alternative to Bitcoin" and don't bother with the "arrogant" folks here at Bitcointalk and their "strawman" and "ad hominem" argumentation anymore as they are surely at the "losers" side

Why would you assume I need an arrogant cunt like you to teach me anything? You fking retarded child...

---

Yeah, and where has that attitude got as a species....?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Edit 2021-03-19 (original)

It has come to my attention that some people are confused by the below.

I am vaguely aware that there is a blockchain company named Paxos, founded in 2012.  I guess that it is probably named after Lamport’s Paxos protocol, which was named that in 1990 (paper published in 1998).  In the below post, I was referring to the work of Lamport, et al.

Not many forum users have the computer science or distributed systems expertise to understand what I said; and I don’t want inadvertently to mislead people.  My point was that before Satoshi, fault-tolerant distributed consensus in a trusted environment already had better solutions.  Satoshi invented something new:  Distributed consensus in an untrusted, anonymous, permissionless environment.  Whence mining.  Otherwise, mining is just a Rube Goldberg scheme to do orders of magnitude slower what Paxos already did almost two decades before Satoshi.

---

Sure.  And I’m Satoshi Nakamoto.


You have clearly demonstrated to the contrary.  Your posts essentially amount to a grab bag of common newbie misconceptions.

My kindliest suggestion to you:  Go to Beginners & Help, and start learning.  If you make an effort to ask smart questions and you are lucky, then someone with expertise may have the patience to explain to you the basic concept of Byzantine fault tolerance, the respective rôles of miners and non-mining validating nodes, and other key points that you have shown you do not understand.  If you are very lucky, then an expert in distributed systems architecture may explain to you in detail why Satoshi didn’t just use Paxos.

(If the nodes that create the ledger can be trusted to order transactions, then I myself could easily design a Paxos-style consensus protocol with results authenticated by digital signatures.  It would use no proof-of-work—no hashrate at all!  Zero electricity spent grinding hashes!  It would be orders of magnitude more efficient than your Rube Goldberg scheme; and if the transaction-ordering nodes can really be trusted, then it would be just as secure.  Whereas if they can’t be trusted, then your scheme is totally insecure.  My design would be fault tolerant, but not Byzantine fault tolerant; of course, since you lack knowledge of this subject domain, what I just said may as well have been in Greek.  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ...”)

If you want for me to tutor you, my current consulting rate for educating arrogant dolts is 0.00875 BTC/hour.  To be clear, that is a discount quote and a time-limited offer.

HTH, HAND.

You didn't understand what I wrote? I talked about magnetic tape and paper records, not Bitcoin. And the topic is central bank mining... I'm saying if we want efficient tech adopters, banks won't be that.


People need to stop looking at this blindly, ignoring cost-benefit. That is insane, I agree, to accept banks are doing what they're doing and we can't get better.

I've been involved in BTC since early 2013, so I understand fully how it works. All of your comments were strawman or just pure ad hominem...

What is it about forums and the way they attract such self-righteous morons? Why can't someone just have a discussion without having a superiority complex?
 
I was not making reference that mining is the diver of price, it was just a turn of phrase that both the price and the hash rate are both going to the moon! 

No one has yet given an expliantion any how over 700kwh for a transaction is in any way justifiable???

So what happens in the future.....We just continue down this path until we need more hash power than there is available electricity in the world, sure exponential growth in price is exciting but exponential growth of energy use is not...

This is one of the dumbest ideas that I have heard in—well, in about the past week or so.  The world is just full of stupid ideas.

This Bitcoin thing.  You do not know how it works.

---

Stupid ideas should get short shrift.  And your idea is not only stupid:  It is also actively harmful in a way indistinguishable from malice.  You should be treated accordingly.

Whereas your attitude stinks:  You make grandiose pronouncements from abject ignorance, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you expect for people to listen to you.  Fuck off.

---

A reply to DannyHamilton:


So, he wants to build a permissioned signet.  Obviously, this solves none of the problems that the Nakamoto consensus was designed to solve, while still having all the inefficiencies of the blockchain.  It is the worst of all worlds.

Of course, the end of this story is transaction censorship—which the Nakamoto consensus was designed to prevent.  Central bank miners could all agree to blacklist UTXOs and refuse to accept transactions that they deemed undesirable.  Hmmm, maybe OP is not a n00b—maybe he is an alt of Mike Hearn...  /s

It is fortunate, Danny, that as you and I know, OP has no plan for forcing nodes to accept his special signet blocks and/or prevent nodes from accepting Bitcoin blocks.  What’s his plan for that?  Require a licence to run a node?  LOL.  Either his central bank miner blocks will not violate consensus (perhaps hacking the signature into coinbase), and nodes will treat them just like any other blocks—or the blocks will violate consensus, and nodes will route them >/dev/null.

Such an abysmal display of technological incompetence would be pitiable, if it were not so ugly and presented with such brash conceit.

Let’s see what other n00b errors he commits:


The belief that hashpower drives Bitcoin’s value, rather than vice versa as is actually the case.


Total incomprehension of why the mining process exists—again.


More of the same total incomprehension.  Of course, if there is a way to set a limit on hashpower, there is no reason to use proof-of-work at all.


Zero understanding of the rôle of miners.  (Nodes validate and secure the blockchain.  Miners provide BFT consensus for transaction ordering.)

Eh, enough waste of time with this nonsense.

What you've just said there is utter BS and your attitude stinks...
There is always improvement to be made.

Explain to me how over 700kwh for a transaction is in anyway justifiable???

Bitcoin will never change into a centralized system controlled by governments or anyone else, forget about it. You are wasting time by making such proposals, there's already countless centralized projects without mining, and they aren't overtaking Bitcoin anytime soon.

And Bitcoin is not wasting energy, there's no other way to have a system with these properties. All this energy ensures that Bitcoin is secure.

When you say efficient technology you're not talking about BTC right???


That's pure insanity to me... People need to stop turning a blind eye to what we are doing here, this isn't efficient, it's insane!

Given that central banks are among those slowest to adopt new and efficient technology (magnetic tape and paper documentation is still how most banks globally operate), and are guilty of the most inefficient and bloated structures and wasteful practices, I'd be very surprised if they were able to provide the most efficient energy usage were they to go into mining.

So aside from the political reasons why "CBM" won't be a cure -- they have to accept they're not even viable for consideration.

The same way other chains do, only accept valid blocks from an approved list of nodes, You can mine if you like but you won't get any reward for it...

The idea solves this dumb race to be the first to compute a block, this is driving energy use to the moon, not just the price!

If there is a fixed number of mining farms then there is only ever XYZ amount of hash power available, this then causes a difficulty readjustment much lower to maintain the 10min/block ratio.

The community would set a reasonable hash limit to the central banks, via on-chain voting. If there is a hash limit then there won't be competitive mining, it would just be there for the pure purpose of validating and securing the blockchain.

Any future mined coins would have to be staked like ETH2.0 and any attempt at a bad acting would result in the CB deposit getting burned.

So, my first question is, if you were going to implement your idea...
How do you stop me from running mining equipment in my house in the U.S.?
How do you stop someone else from running mining equipment in their house in Spain?
How do you enforce your idea so that the Central Banks are the only miners?

If central banks want to be miners, they can already do that.  Nothing is stopping them.  But your idea isn't adding Central Banks as miners, your idea is REMOVING all other miners from the world. What are you going to do, knock on doors and inspect households and shoot anyone that is found to be in possession of mining equipment?

My second question is... How does your idea solve anything? It's still an arms race.  Each central bank will want to have MORE hash power than the other countries. This will both bring in more revenue (to offset their mining costs) AND will ensure that the enemy countries can't collude to attack transactions from allies.  As such, total amount of equipment and electricity will continue to increase.  Only now, instead of the amount of mining being self-regulated by profitability, these countries can tax their citizens and engage in mining at a loss to increase their total influence.  The will result in even MORE electricity being used than the current system.

WTF are you talking about? The system is exactly the same as we have now........the same code, the rules are already set!!! Those very same rules that stop the Russians and Chinese from colluding right now!!!!!!!!

The G20 can hardly agree on anything and as the name suggest, only a block of 20 countries, nowhere near what would be required to change something in the core code.

So it's ok to have most of the mining activity in one country that we in the west we don't trust.....?

How is that ANY different from having a mining operation in every single country..........? its really not, in fact it's better. It would be like the UN for money.

So you agree that all all the mining being in China does not allow them to control BTC, so how EXACTLY would all the mining being done by CBs give them any control?


IT WOULDNT ITS THE SAME FKING THING!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

The belief that CBs would play fair and not change anything is naive to say the least, because it's like saying that all the world's major powers don't cooperate on key issues - and that their influence doesn't influence others to play by the rules they set.

If BTC mining were to be managed by the central banks of countries that are members of the G20, for example - how long do you think it would take them to agree on some changes that they could definitely implement given that they control the network? You live in total delusion if you think that there is no difference between the network being controlled by those who just want to make a profit and those who are interested in some completely different things, because they have as much money as they want anyway.

It's such a big failure we have never had successful 51% attacks. One country having a large % of the global hashrate power doesn't mean China is controlling BTC. It's not just 1 miner doing this. It's lots of farms doing so.

And then, remember any attempt of an attack against us will be counter-attacked by the devs with properly implemented "antidotes". Bitcoin is about being open-source and decentralized. What centralizing it does.. is it makes Bitcoin completely useless, just like all the other shitcoins we have around.

Thats why I chose the CBs because generally speaking...


Most, if not all CBs in the west do not answer to the .GOV, they are free to act as they see fit free from political involvement.


How is mining the chain "giving them control"

by this same logic, we are now allowing China to control BTC........?

Are you blind? or just not able/willing to read.....?

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization. Are you going to make it centralized? Sounds ironically.

I share your sentiment about mining not really being as decentralized as some would want it to be. It needs a large investment and the people who afforded it are now big players themselves.

Even then, what you have to understand that those are essentially individuals or privately-owned entities that do not have to justify their actions for political motives. When it comes to governments, it is exclusively about gaining political mileage. They can go to any extent for that and also have the wherewithal to do what they want. Bitcoin as a philosophy tells the common man that "Here is your money, keep it safe and no institution or government, no matter how powerful, will part this from you".

That is empowering and something that we have never had. This is really an answer to all the faults of democracies. Giving common people the freedom to hold money which cannot be hurt by stupid governments. When it comes to governments, or anybody in power, they have almost always fucked up things that require agreements. Conflict resolution isn't really a forte of governments. They dilly-dally over issues for political reasons and use all kind of machinations to ensure that their side wins.

Due to these reasons, it isn't really a good idea to have Bitcoin be controlled by a set of permissioned entities, no matter who they are or how many of them there are. This is also the reason that DPoS and PoS based chains cannot be trusted with foundational value. That is why we must have Bitcoin and the ability to be mined by anyone anywhere, no matter how small.