Topic: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? - page 2. (Read 2722 times)
July 12, 2018, 08:14:59 AM
For very low fees, No need to wait 100 years. I think I'm coming to something, will keep you informed
July 12, 2018, 08:06:49 AM
I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest.
This sounds the same as someone coming up with a perpetual motion machine. "fee-less POW" probably breaks some fundamental laws of physics. I can't even finish an IQ test and see these things as obvious, cmon now. Maybe try again in a couple 100 years and we may have some mind blowing stuff which allows for very reduced fees at big volume transactions without compromising security and decentralization but certainly not "fee-less".
July 12, 2018, 02:29:15 AM
This would be a perpetual subsidy - not one that runs out ?
Is there no competition to mine the most max POW transactions, and accrue the most mining subsidy ? A professional miner as you say in your paper.
Is there no competition to mine the most max POW transactions, and accrue the most mining subsidy ? A professional miner as you say in your paper.
The subsidy is perpetual, yes. There is no competition to mine a particular block; all miners can mine their own max difficulty blocks - they just have to be careful not to do so outside the path of most cumulative difficulty. Doing it like this maximises PoW efficiency, since no PoW is 'wasted' in orphans, it all adds to the security of the DAG.
July 12, 2018, 01:45:11 AM
Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork.
for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out.
And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake?
right now the chain core is on and the chain that trb/satoshicoin/whatever is on are the same chain. splitting it out is trivial. being here since 2011 i have seen vast amounts of fud, greed, lies, power grabs, misdirection, you name it. the amount of forks is ridiculous and any fork that can enrich some group (even by a seemingly small amount at the time) is pretty much inevitable.
i am not telling you to use any particular chain, coin or address format. thats totally up to you. i do recommend you do your own research in such things. and never underestimate power or greed.
you have the freedom to use and store coins in any way or format you wish. as i and anyone else does.
But it would be safer and better to use a legacy address for cold storage if anyone does not want to miss out on more "air drops", forked coins, or whatever they call it. You have nothing to lose but maybe some to gain.
I disagree with many of anunymint's ideas, but storing your coins in a legacy address is good advice.
July 11, 2018, 05:07:43 PM
Sorry - zero sum..
The subsidy is equal to the cost of mining..
I see.
The subsidy is equal to the cost of mining..
I see.
July 11, 2018, 04:06:21 PM
Everyone on the path of greatest cumulative difficulty gets a mining reward proportional to their chosen difficulty. The big departure from bitcoin is there is no competition to mine the best block, since only the sender of the single transaction within the block can 'mine' it.
This would be a perpetual subsidy - not one that runs out ?
Is there no competition to mine the most max POW transactions, and accrue the most mining subsidy ? A professional miner as you say in your paper.
July 11, 2018, 01:27:59 PM
.. there you go!.. The Mining Subsidy.. It's not clear to me quite how that works.. What Stops people fighting over it - or do they just compete as normal ?
Everyone on the path of greatest cumulative difficulty gets a mining reward proportional to their chosen difficulty. The big departure from bitcoin is there is no competition to mine the best block, since only the sender of the single transaction within the block can 'mine' it.
Quote
How long does it take for a branch to become heavy enough to be considered final ? How do you remove the need for the coordinator that IOTA uses ?
Are you knocking this up and launching ? ..
Are you knocking this up and launching ? ..
How long in real time is hard to quantify, but its very easy to quantify finality - it's simply when enough PoW gets built on top of the transaction in question to make any attack B/E, where 'enough' is equal to the sum of all the block rewards above the transaction.
This doesn't need coordinators because it has a mining incentive.
I'm not planing on taking this any further as a cryptocurrency - simply because it doesn't support lite nodes. No DAG design can support lite nodes without extra centralisation. As @anunymint noted previous, satoshi didn't make any mistakes - blocks are essential for adoption.
July 11, 2018, 10:58:31 AM
As I said before, better to focus on blockchain technology.
My Proposal for improving bitcoin to fix pooling pressure problems, Proof of Collaborative Work (PoCW) is an exemplary instance of what PoW is capable of and, back to op and this topic, is not doomed to centralization.
I'm not assuming that proposal as being 100% correct (I have yet to implement and prove it practical, I admit) but I suppose it is already a proof for what I want to put an emphasis on: PoW is new technology and a lot of opportunities exist for it to be improved and fixed to resist ways more effective against centralization threats.
My Proposal for improving bitcoin to fix pooling pressure problems, Proof of Collaborative Work (PoCW) is an exemplary instance of what PoW is capable of and, back to op and this topic, is not doomed to centralization.
I'm not assuming that proposal as being 100% correct (I have yet to implement and prove it practical, I admit) but I suppose it is already a proof for what I want to put an emphasis on: PoW is new technology and a lot of opportunities exist for it to be improved and fixed to resist ways more effective against centralization threats.
July 11, 2018, 10:32:48 AM
A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.)
You mean like this: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf ?
.. there you go!.. The Mining Subsidy.. It's not clear to me quite how that works.. What Stops people fighting over it - or do they just compete as normal ?
How long does it take for a branch to become heavy enough to be considered final ? How do you remove the need for the coordinator that IOTA uses ?
Are you knocking this up and launching ? ..
July 11, 2018, 08:01:12 AM
A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.)
You mean like this: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf ?
July 11, 2018, 07:50:35 AM
Even if you removed transaction fees and put in a perpetual block reward, it would still centralize because of the economics of mining and the power-law distribution of wealth.
By fee-less mining I mean no fee AND no block reward. You can't pay anyone anything. Can't outsource to a third party. Otherwise fighting breaks out.. and in the end.. There can be only One (You know this..).
As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong?
A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.)
No block reward & no fees <==> tangle (IOTA)
It is true specially considering your underlined(by me) phrase: the fee being the work
IOTA and tangles are out of context. Let's put it this way and stick with our plain old blockchain technology. Note that eliminating transaction fees alone and keeping block rewards or vice versa, won't help your argument about de-incentivizing centralization attempts in bitcoin.
July 11, 2018, 06:05:29 AM
Well I have a Cherokee Jeep.
another XJ guy. cool
July 11, 2018, 05:59:10 AM
Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork.
for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out.
And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake?
right now the chain core is on and the chain that trb/satoshicoin/whatever is on are the same chain. splitting it out is trivial. being here since 2011 i have seen vast amounts of fud, greed, lies, power grabs, misdirection, you name it. the amount of forks is ridiculous and any fork that can enrich some group (even by a seemingly small amount at the time) is pretty much inevitable.
i am not telling you to use any particular chain, coin or address format. thats totally up to you. i do recommend you do your own research in such things. and never underestimate power or greed.
you have the freedom to use and store coins in any way or format you wish. as i and anyone else does.
July 11, 2018, 03:33:26 AM
..I have fucking Cherokee genetics.
Well I have a Cherokee Jeep.
..an offense deserving capital punishment. .. beat the shit out of a much larger American white boy .. They will mess you up if you do. Ever heard of the Balangiga massacre? .. ..a bounty “per head” of captured Japanese soldiers .. delivered many severed heads.. traded Japanese ears for bounty.. killed numerous men for acting with high pride. Just sliced them up with a bolo... etc etc etc..
err.. ?
If you want to stay on the technological discussion, then I leave the native tribe side of myself off to the side.
Please let's. I publicly request an end to this hostility and a return to a more jovial discussion.
-------------------------
Even if you removed transaction fees and put in a perpetual block reward, it would still centralize because of the economics of mining and the power-law distribution of wealth.
By fee-less mining I mean no fee AND no block reward. You can't pay anyone anything. Can't outsource to a third party. Otherwise fighting breaks out.. and in the end.. There can be only One (You know this..).
As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong?
A system like IOTA. The work is the fee. (But not IOTA - as it has it's own quirks. Something new.)
July 11, 2018, 01:57:28 AM
Devs don't research! Research sucks.
There have been very prolific programmers who also do important research which they implemented as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov (created the C++ Standard Template Library)
is written in C++. There never was a “C++ project” either, or a “C++ design committee”. Throughout, C++ evolved, and continues to
evolve, to cope with problems encountered by users, and through discussions between the author and his friends and colleagues
-Bjarne Stroustrup: An overview of C++. ACM Sigplan Notices, Special Issue. October, 1986
Stepanov went to Stroustrup for his idea regarding generic programming, his colleague in Bell Labs,the same develop-first atmosphere, all the same story.
I'm not against anything called research, my current occupation might be called research. I just don't believe in formal, academic research.
July 11, 2018, 12:39:34 AM
I believe you do not understand the situation? If the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" there would be a chain split to Bitcoin and TRB. In the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue as normal. In the TRB chain, your coins stored in a Segwit address can be taken from you. I do not want that. I want to dump my TRB for Bitcoins as an extra bonus from the split, the same as my Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold bonuses. Hahaha.
Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork.
for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out. no matter which wins, and no matter which you support, the fact remains you can sell the ones you dont like for coins that you do like. and legacy addys are the lowest common denominator. legacy gives coins on each. segwit on one. even if you just plan to sell the satoshi/trb/whatever coins for core coins, you still get more coins to sell by hedging your bets and using legacy for long term hodl. so it seems an easy strategy to hold long term hold coins in legacy at this point.
I believe he has not understood what the situation is fully, and that there are 80% of total nodes that are Segwit compatible enforcing the rules that would make the TRB chain the minority after the split. But it would be good to store some coins in a legacy address to get some bonus TRB coins.
Pascal's Wager - what do you have to lose if you store your coins in a legacy address?
Quote
hedging bets is part of crypto, or at least thats my stratagy and it has served me well to this point. we are in a new space, running beta software, and splits happen. trusting no one is the whole point of bitcoin. and its up to the individual to take the security of their coins seriously. each must make that decision based on their own criteria. there is no hand holding here. #DYOR
It is not a "hedge". TRB coins will be a "bonus" the same as Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc.
July 10, 2018, 06:27:19 PM
I rather prefer senior programmers (20+ years of professional experience, minimum) to nerds.
I’d prefer that level of experience with the capability to do PhD-level provable research.
I claim 40 years of programming experience and the latter ability also although much less accomplished at the latter.
Devs don't research! Research sucks. There exists really a Tao for programming. It creates and doesn't wait for never ending show off in academic research.
By seniors, I don't mean researchers. I mean masters of the art who are primarily focused on the cause and the spirit and are not obsessed with being genius and do not ruin the code base to make it their own territory.
Plus, 40 years is too much, time to retire
July 10, 2018, 05:53:14 PM
Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone.
Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours.
Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours.
Lame. Someone who has contributed so little doesn't get to shit on those who have contributed so much. I defy you to find a group of users more knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent than the bitcoin-dev nerds.
It was how we ended to this situation with bitcoin, being overtaken by pools and ASICs while our super genius lads were playing SegWit shit. I just don't take them that serious. Juniors are ok until they have been put in charge.
Quote
I see your POCW as a way of spreading the mining out into an ever thinner sheet over the users, but at the end of the day mining centralises. no matter how you wrap it up.
You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges)
As far as I can see, without fees, any system would be vulnerable to DoS attack. Got any reference to prove me wrong? You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges)
July 10, 2018, 04:59:32 PM
You’re ostensibly out of your pay grade and do not even comprehend the technological issues deeply. If you think you’re capable of matching wits with me in terms of consensus systems technology, let’s have a test. Start any time you want. I’m game.
Life's too short.
You prefer to compare me to bitcoin-dev (aka Core more or less) when I’ve been obliterated by Tuberculosis and cysts on my liver and spleen that destroyed my productivity for the past several years, because you see them busy producing code. But that is an ignorant way of forming a comparison. The quality and outcome of the code matters. And comparing a horrifically ill person’s productivity to those who are not ill is inane. I will remember your fairness when I come storming back healthy with code that is not incorrect like the shit Core produces. Everything they have proposed is insecure including LN, SegWit, and Side-chains. They’re are breaking Bitcoin, but they will fail and those who are smart will still have their secure real Bitcoins in the end.
I am being utterly fair. step up or shut up. No one is having a go at you, you deluded psychopath. Jesus chill out. Anyone says anything you bring up your bloody TB.
You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges)
The sign of a Dunning-Kruger mode is when non-experts hand-wave generalities that aren’t even technologically correlated as you are doing here.
I bet you someone comes up with a fee-less POW based chain that doesn't centralise the mining. That'll be our little contest.
July 10, 2018, 03:55:44 PM
Dude, wakeup, there is no TRB fork.
for want of a better term, there are two coins existing in the current core chain. legacy coins (trb/satoshi/whatever you want tot call them) and segwit coins. sooner or later there will be a split to separate legacy coins out.
And why should such a split occur at all and how is it going to convince people, economic majority or even a noticeable economic minority about stealing funds from SW transactions by miners for the god sake?
Totally. For the God Sake!
Just leave SegWit and its junior hackers alone.
Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours.
Think bigger. Segregated Witness is a joke, a trick, kinda cobbling up heterogeneous things, I admit, but just leave these guys alone with their lifetime achievement, build yours.
Lame. Someone who has contributed so little doesn't get to shit on those who have contributed so much. I defy you to find a group of users more knowledgeable, experienced and intelligent than the bitcoin-dev nerds.
--------------------
Liking the thread. You're a smart chap aliashraf. Doing well with Anony. I think of him as the Kurgan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kurgan )
Back to POW.
If you are referring to POW as the beautiful objective unit that we can all independently verify - the answer is no.
But if you are referring to it as the POW FEE-BASED MINING industry, and so that question is - does FEE BASED MINING centralise, the answer is yes.
I see your POCW as a way of spreading the mining out into an ever thinner sheet over the users, but at the end of the day mining centralises. no matter how you wrap it up.
You have to get rid of the fee. That is what everyone fights over and that is what causes the centralising pressure. Then I think you could have POW mining that didn't centralise. (Of course as IOTA shows that brings up it's own set of interesting challenges)
Jump to: