Fatchain | Bitcointalksearch.org

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: mkc73 on August 07, 2017, 06:30:53 AM

I hadn't fully appreciated that the hashpower can be thought of as operating together to solve the problem rather than duplicating each others work - is the percentage efficiency compared to a single miner known?

Your thought experiment has the merit of bringing this aspect to the foreground.

I think the duplicated work is negligible given the amount of possible hashes.

bitKaBoom

full member

Activity: 166

Merit: 100

Quote from: mkc73 on August 07, 2017, 03:29:34 AM

Disclaimer : apologies if /presumptious/out of place/well considered already/naive/plain stupid/. Just finding out about bitcoin and segwit.

hah okay

But it does not make sense because it will take the same amount of work for each block in the chain

mkc73

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

Yes. I thought of it in terms of half the miners working on each block with difficulty adjusted to compensate- so miners get more reward but overall cost of processing transactions is about the same. I suppose then that you may as well stick to a linear blockchain with difficulty adjusted to give two blocks in the same length of time. I hadn't fully appreciated that the hashpower can be thought of as operating together to solve the problem rather than duplicating each others work - is the percentage efficiency compared to a single miner known? I also take your point that any change to the issuance schedule is death to any proposed change. It is a surprise to me that miners are not able to force the cost of mining up given their essential position- but I suppose they are opposed by the equally essential force of users.

Taras

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1053

Please do not PM me loan requests!

It takes the same amount of work to mine a block at the end of the chain as it does to make a second block with a certain parent, so it doesn't really make sense to do so.

If your goal is to have more blocks solved in a given time period, one option would be to change the block time target from 10 minutes to something less. You would have to proportionately change the block reward too in order to keep bitcoin production relatively constant. However, it is unrealistic to assume that changes to the issuance schedule of any kind would be acceptable to the community, so that's probably not an option.

Ideas like this are still fun to think about!

mkc73

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

Disclaimer : apologies if /presumptious/out of place/well considered already/naive/plain stupid/. Just finding out about bitcoin and segwit.

Idea :
- Allow multiple blocks to be added to same parent at same height (block chain gets fatter at current height):
- if blocksize > 0.5 Mbyte;
- if no double spend conflict between blocks.

Node :
- accepts multiple blocks with same parent;
- replaces block hashes with hash of hashes of each block (so block hash no longer "valid" for individual block);
- uses multiple blocks in proof of work.

Miner :
- able to build off of multiple block hash in same way as from a single block hash;
- if block size > 1 Mbyte can filters transactions
( i.e only allow inputs within random certain range, determined automatically depending on transaction load;
with some fix for multiple inputs (1st input))

Rationale : allow blockchain to adjust automatically to arbitrarily large changes in transaction load without changing the block size.

Topic: Fatchain (Read 588 times)