Topic: please delete (Read 171 times)
This wouldn't work. This could potentially damage security and the integrity of the blockchain, as the current miner could alter the blockchain as they please. The idea of bitcoin is to make mining harder and promote competition so as to make it hard for a single entity to overpower the whole network. Also, bitcoin would lose its value as people are essentially just printing money and taking turns on their 'payday' that those who simply use it don't benefit from.
as others have mentioned
sybil attacks(IP spoofing/proxy ips to get more attempts)
also each block ends up only being secured by the difficulty of one system speed if we play into your idea
meaning a corrupt/nafarious person could pool many systems and when they make a block in seconds and sybil attack to get many blocks in a 2 week period.. suddenly the difficulty jumps.. and so the solo miners are no longer able to make a block as fast as the attacker and suddenly the attacker is making all the blocks
oh wait. this is the paradigm shift that occured in 2010. when CPU solo miners took too long because people were using GPU's per attempt compared to the solomining CPU crowd
oh wait. this is the paradigm shift that occured in 2011. when solo GPU miners took too long because people were using multiple GPU's per attempt compared to the solomining GPU crowd
oh wait this is the paradigm shift of 2012 when people pooled together as groups per attempt. out powering the solo miners of gpu
oh wait this is the paradigm shift of 2013 when ASICS pooled together as groups per attempt to out power the GPU pools
these paradigm shifts actually helped make bitcoin stronger by making it impossible for a single individual with a desktop pc to over power the network
the coin reward kept people honest as they would find the value of their efforts become zero if they were to break bitcoin
sybil attacks(IP spoofing/proxy ips to get more attempts)
also each block ends up only being secured by the difficulty of one system speed if we play into your idea
meaning a corrupt/nafarious person could pool many systems and when they make a block in seconds and sybil attack to get many blocks in a 2 week period.. suddenly the difficulty jumps.. and so the solo miners are no longer able to make a block as fast as the attacker and suddenly the attacker is making all the blocks
oh wait. this is the paradigm shift that occured in 2010. when CPU solo miners took too long because people were using GPU's per attempt compared to the solomining CPU crowd
oh wait. this is the paradigm shift that occured in 2011. when solo GPU miners took too long because people were using multiple GPU's per attempt compared to the solomining GPU crowd
oh wait this is the paradigm shift of 2012 when people pooled together as groups per attempt. out powering the solo miners of gpu
oh wait this is the paradigm shift of 2013 when ASICS pooled together as groups per attempt to out power the GPU pools
these paradigm shifts actually helped make bitcoin stronger by making it impossible for a single individual with a desktop pc to over power the network
the coin reward kept people honest as they would find the value of their efforts become zero if they were to break bitcoin
It took so long to invent Bitcoin because no one before Satoshi managed to make a truly decentralized system without any single trusted entities. Your system seems to introduce them again, because someone will have to organize this whole process.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy".
Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy".
Open Competition creates the difficulty, security and decentralisation that is the founding metric of the whole idea. Without it BTC would be a different project.
That said, the community could effectively 'vote' to change it, but that will never happen because it would enable new possible means of manipulation by a single (outside or inside) entity.
It took so long to invent Bitcoin because no one before Satoshi managed to make a truly decentralized system without any single trusted entities. Your system seems to introduce them again, because someone will have to organize this whole process.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy".
Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy".
Mining is an all or nothing race. This is why miners join mining pools. Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine. What if miners could mine cooperatively, taking turns generating each block and helping to hash the same block.
Most miners join a mining pool to put the responsibility of maintaining the messy back end to someone else and just focus on their own hardware. That and if they are a smaller mining operation, they can choose to mine at a pool for a more regular payout. The mining profit is roughly the same before deducting the pool's fees.When a miner joins the network the other miners respond by indicating their position in line and what position the new miner can take.
Mining happens in rounds. In each round, the next miner gets a turn to generate the next block- just the block data not the hash. They then allocate workloads to the other miners based on their speed. A workload is a range of nonce values. The miner who generates the block essentially hosts their own temporary mining pool.
As each miner completes a workload, they broadcast it to the network so that everyone can confirm it. The host credits them and supplies another.
Confirmation of work doesn't require re-checking every hash in a workload. The number of hashes checked at random can be based on the number of miners online. With every miner checking only a few random hashes, each workload gets checked a lot. If any miner finds errors in a workload, they inform the host who then scans it more thoroughly. Rewards are only allocated for actual work.
When a block is solved, it gets broadcast to the network as usual and the next round begins with the next miner in line assuming the role of host. If a miner drops from the network the round goes to the next miner.
The block reward and fees of the current block cannot be allocated among the miners in the same round so they are allocated in the block that follows it.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin network does not allocate mining this way. The block reward is claimed by whoever submits a valid block with sufficient Proof of work. There is no concept of individual miners on the Bitcoin network. You could probably do this queue system if you could allocate some central party to regulate this which could possibly idealize in an altcoin. Miners don't actually "check" hashes but it is a matter of bruteforcing and finding a block header hash that meets the current target. Mining happens in rounds. In each round, the next miner gets a turn to generate the next block- just the block data not the hash. They then allocate workloads to the other miners based on their speed. A workload is a range of nonce values. The miner who generates the block essentially hosts their own temporary mining pool.
As each miner completes a workload, they broadcast it to the network so that everyone can confirm it. The host credits them and supplies another.
Confirmation of work doesn't require re-checking every hash in a workload. The number of hashes checked at random can be based on the number of miners online. With every miner checking only a few random hashes, each workload gets checked a lot. If any miner finds errors in a workload, they inform the host who then scans it more thoroughly. Rewards are only allocated for actual work.
When a block is solved, it gets broadcast to the network as usual and the next round begins with the next miner in line assuming the role of host. If a miner drops from the network the round goes to the next miner.
The block reward and fees of the current block cannot be allocated among the miners in the same round so they are allocated in the block that follows it.
Do you think this could work?
Nope. Sorry.
1. Mining is made like this to make blockchain safer, not to share easy money around.
2. What happens if miners go in and out, will they ever lose their place in line?
3. Your logic seems to see the same, no matter that there's a 1kH/s or a 1TH/s miner.
4. What happens if some miners make a software allocating themselves billions of different "IDs"? I guess that it will be only them mining and the others waiting their "fair turn".
Mining is an all or nothing race. This is why miners join mining pools. Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine. What if miners could mine cooperatively, taking turns generating each block and helping to hash the same block.
When a miner joins the network the other miners respond by indicating their position in line and what position the new miner can take.
When a miner joins the network the other miners respond by indicating their position in line and what position the new miner can take.
Mining an individual block is all or nothing, but mining multiple blocks is not. The number of blocks a miner gets is proportional to their hash power. That seems optimal to me so I don't know why anyone would want to change it.
Taking turns is not as simple as it seems. For example, how are turns allocated?
You wouldn't be able to find a block very easy with a limited pool. It would take years to get around to everyone's turn.
nothing to see
Jump to: