Right now there are plenty of pools and plenty of competition. This only becomes an issue if we get to the point of only having 3 pools making up 99% of the total hashrate.
Maybe there should be a rule, no single pool can ever have more than 33% of the total hashrate? But its impossible to enforce. Bitcoin Foundation could help here possibly, but its unlikely.
Yes, obviously p2pool is the answer but how do we get people to flock to it? People are now gladly giving up 5% of their profits to have zero variance. The human brain is highly illogical at times.
Miners are self interested so the solution can only be one that serves their self interest. Anything else is 100% guaranteed to fail.
But dont blame the miners for being "evil" or greedy for using pooled mining, self interest is natural and healthy. Bitcoin would not exist without this self interest.
Are you greedy for keeping 100% of your paycheck and not giving all profits above rent+food to charity? No, just a normal person. Donating a bit every year helps your conscience though.
Topic: Hashers are not miners, and Bitcoin network doesn't need them. - page 4. (Read 6824 times)
January 11, 2014, 04:53:39 PM
January 11, 2014, 04:44:57 PM
you cannot expect people to solo mine because at the current difficulty, most of the ppl will never close any block and hence won't ever cash in any coins.
displace bitcoin, maybe one that builds on top of bitcoin's distribution of wealth.
displace bitcoin, maybe one that builds on top of bitcoin's distribution of wealth.
Sell it as a lottery or raffle. The current block size of about 20K USD is definitely attractive to a certain audience. In fact there is an audience for these prizes at pretty much any size, so this does scale. Sure most people get no coins, but imagine the fun of checking your miner and finding out that you mined/won the big jackpot.
Of course there is also an audience for wanting to see $0.17 worth of BTC "mined" each day slow and steady via a pool. But the larger the population of lottery players, the less significant the pools become. The world has shown conclusively that lotteries can organize billions of dollars worth of resources across millions of people, which is just what Bitcoin mining is supposed to do.
January 11, 2014, 04:42:59 PM
You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.
Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.
Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.
Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.
Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.
January 11, 2014, 04:35:42 PM
Simply put,
you cannot expect people to solo mine because at the current difficulty, most of the ppl will never close any block and hence won't ever cash in any coins.
Keeping the difficulty constant and half of the reward instead could maybe be more suited for an ecosystem with a lower hasher/miner ratio. I think this is the obvious solution (if only it would be one).
But of course, all in all, the problem that bitcoin solves is:
How do you enforce a set of rules on a p2p network and make sure noone changes it at will?
So I'm not sure what most people are thinking of when they talk about changes in the protocol.
That said, and ignore the copycats, bitcoin is the first real experiment of its kind. Maybe in the future, a more advanced/robust crypto currency could displace bitcoin, maybe one that builds on top of bitcoin's distribution of wealth.
EDIT: i haven't look into p2p as it is quite new. My first impression is that most are just blindingly assuming it will solve all problems. Could anyone explain in a couple of paragraphs how it works?
you cannot expect people to solo mine because at the current difficulty, most of the ppl will never close any block and hence won't ever cash in any coins.
Keeping the difficulty constant and half of the reward instead could maybe be more suited for an ecosystem with a lower hasher/miner ratio. I think this is the obvious solution (if only it would be one).
But of course, all in all, the problem that bitcoin solves is:
How do you enforce a set of rules on a p2p network and make sure noone changes it at will?
So I'm not sure what most people are thinking of when they talk about changes in the protocol.
That said, and ignore the copycats, bitcoin is the first real experiment of its kind. Maybe in the future, a more advanced/robust crypto currency could displace bitcoin, maybe one that builds on top of bitcoin's distribution of wealth.
EDIT: i haven't look into p2p as it is quite new. My first impression is that most are just blindingly assuming it will solve all problems. Could anyone explain in a couple of paragraphs how it works?
January 11, 2014, 04:30:03 PM
I completely agree with you OP. Hashers, as you call them, are just another example of profit mongers that are using Bitcoin to reap whatever short term reward there is out of Bitcoin and convert it to fiat. That's Bitcoins biggest problem as far as I can tell. This community is plagued by them and even has devs that seem to fit in that category. I've always seen pool sysops as profit mongers with the exception of a couple of them. Pool operators don't help the network as much as they help themselves to network power and control. If P2Pool was implemented before the pools took control it could have captured and kept majority control of the network because individuals would have been required to learn its use to reap the reward. Sadly, it's now too late for any meaningful change.
Thank you for your support, I think if we can explain the problem and why it is important, then it would be possible to convert Hashers to Miners.
That's a very astute summary of an ongoing issue for a newbie. You've either been watching and reading quietly for years or you're a sock of someone that knows what's going on. I don't mind though. I've done that too. Sometimes you want to cheer and say how great things are going and at other times you want to tell the old timers here exactly how far they've wedged their head up their ass. Multiple accounts work well for that.
January 11, 2014, 04:17:27 PM
I completely agree with you OP. Hashers, as you call them, are just another example of profit mongers that are using Bitcoin to reap whatever short term reward there is out of Bitcoin and convert it to fiat. That's Bitcoins biggest problem as far as I can tell. This community is plagued by them and even has devs that seem to fit in that category. I've always seen pool sysops as profit mongers with the exception of a couple of them. Pool operators don't help the network as much as they help themselves to network power and control. If P2Pool was implemented before the pools took control it could have captured and kept majority control of the network because individuals would have been required to learn its use to reap the reward. Sadly, it's now too late for any meaningful change.
Thank you for your support, I think if we can explain the problem and why it is important, then it would be possible to convert Hashers to Miners.
January 11, 2014, 04:15:44 PM
p2pool is the best solution we have right now. Working to promote it and improve it (for example with prettier graphs that miners like) is the best thing that can be done short term.
It is important to recognize that not everyone needs to adopt p2pool to help the problem a lot, or even solve it entirely. If p2pool hypothetically made up 50% of the network hash rate, then no other pool (or even a group of them secretly colluding) could possibly ever get over 50%. In fact every incremental gain made my p2pool makes the centralized (i.e. dangerous) pools smaller. p2pool at 10% would be a huge step (currently at 2%).
tldr: support p2pool.
One last thing. It is entirely reasonable for small hobby miners to just solo mine. Yes it is high risk but people spend good money on lottery tickets, so no reason to not take shot on getting a full block (roughly 20K USD equivalent) if you are doing it for fun and not a business with bills to pay. People need to understand (and the OP deserves credit for trying to explain it) that this is not like folding@home or some other grid where accumulating numbers on a score ranking is the goal for a participant. If you want to help the network it is far better to solo mine.
It is important to recognize that not everyone needs to adopt p2pool to help the problem a lot, or even solve it entirely. If p2pool hypothetically made up 50% of the network hash rate, then no other pool (or even a group of them secretly colluding) could possibly ever get over 50%. In fact every incremental gain made my p2pool makes the centralized (i.e. dangerous) pools smaller. p2pool at 10% would be a huge step (currently at 2%).
tldr: support p2pool.
One last thing. It is entirely reasonable for small hobby miners to just solo mine. Yes it is high risk but people spend good money on lottery tickets, so no reason to not take shot on getting a full block (roughly 20K USD equivalent) if you are doing it for fun and not a business with bills to pay. People need to understand (and the OP deserves credit for trying to explain it) that this is not like folding@home or some other grid where accumulating numbers on a score ranking is the goal for a participant. If you want to help the network it is far better to solo mine.
January 11, 2014, 04:11:24 PM
no longer hashers have to run bitcoin software and govern Bitcoin network instead they just point their hashing power to pools and delegate their enforcement power to small group of people, and that makes that hashing power useless in terms of securing Bitcoin network.
Yes, I see your point. I agree. Miners are trying to get the best reward for their work, pools can help achieve this. But it was bitcoin that offered this reward and encourage miners to chase it.There is a clear distinction between Miners and Hashers. Miners verify validity of transactions and blocks according to Bitcoin protocol but Hashers do no such thing they are happy to hash anything while looking for magic number. I would like people to understand it because that will help to get the message out.
January 11, 2014, 04:08:44 PM
Bitcoin is open for anyone to join. There's money to be made from Bitcoin. People flock in to turn a buck just like dogs follow the scent of urine. That's just the natural order of things. People design software with good intentions but good intentions don't count for nothing in the end and some things just can't be foreseen.
January 11, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
...
Of course, if the consolidation never result in an attack, it doesn't much matter.
Of course, if the consolidation never result in an attack, it doesn't much matter.
And I'll have to disagree with this.
In my case, I consider Bitcoin's value in solving my potential problems to be directly proportional to it's potential to thwart state level attack. This means decentralization.
As centralization occurs or seems inevitable, my interest in the solution from both a financial and political point of view diminishes. Consequently my liquidation strategy changes. Of course it might be argued that it is a good thing when 'hoarders' let go their BTC, but the effects will be short term and it could probably be considered something of an omen and/or harbinger.
It is critical to note that my thoughts on this are completely forward thinking. I'll agree that nothing bad things have not happened yet, and concede that it could be some time before they do (if ever.) That is irrelevant to me. I speculated on Bitcoin some time ago with an eye toward the future and the future continues to be where my full attention is directed.
Well... that comment was my way of making fun of those who would make light of the situation, so I agree with your disagreement. ;p
A centralized Bitcoin is worthless to me. Do you hear that hashers?
January 11, 2014, 04:05:46 PM
I completely agree with you OP. Hashers, as you call them, are just another example of profit mongers that are using Bitcoin to reap whatever short term reward there is out of Bitcoin and convert it to fiat. That's Bitcoins biggest problem as far as I can tell. This community is plagued by them and even has devs that seem to fit in that category. I've always seen pool sysops as profit mongers with the exception of a couple of them. Pool operators don't help the network as much as they help themselves to network power and control. If P2Pool was implemented before the pools took control it could have captured and kept majority control of the network because individuals would have been required to learn its use to reap the reward. Sadly, it's now too late for any meaningful change.
January 11, 2014, 03:51:05 PM
no longer hashers have to run bitcoin software and govern Bitcoin network instead they just point their hashing power to pools and delegate their enforcement power to small group of people, and that makes that hashing power useless in terms of securing Bitcoin network.
Yes, I see your point. I agree. Miners are trying to get the best reward for their work, pools can help achieve this. But it was bitcoin that offered this reward and encourage miners to chase it....
Of course, if the consolidation never result in an attack, it doesn't much matter.
Of course, if the consolidation never result in an attack, it doesn't much matter.
And I'll have to disagree with this.
In my case, I consider Bitcoin's value in solving my potential problems to be directly proportional to it's potential to thwart state level attack. This means decentralization.
As centralization occurs or seems inevitable, my interest in the solution from both a financial and political point of view diminishes. Consequently my liquidation strategy changes. Of course it might be argued that it is a good thing when 'hoarders' let go their BTC, but the effects will be short term and it could probably be considered something of an omen and/or harbinger.
It is critical to note that my thoughts on this are completely forward thinking. I'll agree that nothing bad things have not happened yet, and concede that it could be some time before they do (if ever.) That is irrelevant to me. I speculated on Bitcoin some time ago with an eye toward the future and the future continues to be where my full attention is directed.
That is a lot of explanation about the problem. What is the solution?
How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
By telling them to use p2pool. You have the advantages of a pool but no "pool owner" that can mess with the network. How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
I've been a proponent of P2Pool from the start. I've advertised it. I've donated to forrestv. I've donated to the P2Pool miners. I've mined there myself. I've asked for the community to donate. I've asked for the miners to switch. I've written a beginner's guide (probably outdated by now). Yet, it's still a small part of the network total. Besides it does have some issues of it's own. When your hash rate is small enough that you don't find a share during the share chain window, you experience extreme variance beyond that of simply being in a small pool (hashers obviously hate extreme variance which is why we have huge pools to begin with).
What I'm saying is, "telling them to use P2Pool" isn't a solution because people don't listen.
An Issue really is that there only is a financial incentive to submit hashes and not to provide the additional infrastructure Bitcoin needs, Bandwidth and space to store the Blockchain -Y run a full node.
Well... yes and no.
Short term: There is no financial incentive to be a "miner". Just submit hashes to a pool and get paid.
Long term: If the network is successfully attacked thanks to consolidation of hashing power into the hands of a malicious individual or group, and confidence in the currency is lost, no one will be getting paid for hashing or mining.
Unfortunately, it seems most "hashers" are short sighted.
Of course, if the consolidation never result in an attack, it doesn't much matter.
That is a lot of explanation about the problem. What is the solution?
How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
By telling them to use p2pool. You have the advantages of a pool but no "pool owner" that can mess with the network. How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
An Issue really is that there only is a financial incentive to submit hashes and not to provide the additional infrastructure Bitcoin needs, Bandwidth and space to store the Blockchain -Y run a full node.
In the very beginning only solo mining was possible and every Hasher was a real miner who crated blocks and verified transactions. This changed with the development of pooled mining.
I wonder if the possibility of pooled mining is just something Satoshi didn't think about.
Also, for a Noob you have a pretty good understanding
In the very beginning only solo mining was possible and every Hasher was a real miner who crated blocks and verified transactions. This changed with the development of pooled mining.
I wonder if the possibility of pooled mining is just something Satoshi didn't think about.
Also, for a Noob you have a pretty good understanding
That is a lot of explanation about the problem. What is the solution?
...
...mining contingent already has more than enough clout to nuke any foundational shifts they don't agree with....
I have to disagree. Those holding bitcoins (which doesn't necessarily coincide with those mining them) have the clout. Miners forcing changes holders do not want, or not embracing changes holders do want, will find themselves mining worthless coins.
That is a lot of explanation about the problem. What is the solution?
...
...
I'd like to see the community consider the issue (or set of issues) to be an architectural flaw and over time migrate to an implementation which corrects the flaws.
I doubt seriously that it would happen however. Many do not consider these things to be flaws (clustered around the Bitcoin Foundation as I see it) and the mining contingent already has more than enough clout to nuke any foundational shifts they don't agree with.
Not only that but Bitcoin is mature enough now such that it would be extremely difficult to make such changes even if everyone was on-board.
That is a lot of explanation about the problem. What is the solution?
How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
How do you convince "hashers", who just sell hashing power to a pool, to become "miners", who submit blocks which they've created themselves?
Jump to: