Topic: please delete - page 5. (Read 1052 times)

This is false.

When miners are mining via Bitcoin's PoW protocol, they are generating random numbers, passing each of those random numbers through a hash algorithm, and when the output of the hash algorithm is below a target, the miner will broadcast their found block. The output of the hash algorithm is effectively random, so with a given target, the expected number of "guesses" will be the same regardless of if one person is working on the block, or a billion people are working on the block.

There might be an argument that some work is waisted when two miners find a block at approximately the same time, however reducing the number of miners mining at once will not address this issue as most mining entities are going to be using multiple computers at once to try to find a block. I am not sure of how frequently this happens, but I understand that in the past it had occurred approximately 1% of the time, and this has likely gone down.

So reducing wasted work theoretically has an upper bound potential to reduce the amount of electricity consumed via bitcoin PoW by 1%.

The main problem with this one I think is probably that miners aren't going to like being forced to "register".  Not only that but it sounds way more complicated than normal proof of work. Imagine people trying to explain how it works to their friend. Impossible.

Regarding #2 above, all I can say is if I was a miner, I would configure my bitcoin core to send those "special messages" directly into the recycle bin. Competition eliminated.


Overly complicated.

I think just keeping your miners in good condition and maintaining them in between could bring you enough efficiency. At the end of day, efficiency = mining reward - overall electricity cost. I’m mining alts, but whether you do BTC mining or alts, again the output you looking for is $ at the end.

The best way to increase efficiency of your miners is to note down at what price you got rewards and at what price you will be selling your BTC.

This does not even need technicalities.

With respect to technical aspects, you can just wait for higher ASICS hitting the market with some upgrades done claiming this model is more efficient etc etc.

We have a proverb which I'm always reminded of when I hear someone trying to fix "energy waste" that goes like this, "you wanted to fix her eyebrow but ended up blinding her".

You wanted to fix the imaginary "energy waste" but all you did was to introduce a single point of failure by destroying the decentralization that currently exists by adding the single mining pool that would control the entire mining power so it can censor transactions, censor blocks or even reverse transactions (51% attack turns into 100% attack!).

No, because Proof of Something Else is not better than Proof of Work: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

Go on and do that in backward-compatible way. If you will do it in the right way, then maybe we will have some working example of that conception. But if you will do it in a wrong way, then it is 100% guaranteed that your project will be dumped. As I said in "mining decentralization-related discussions", all you need is collecting all shares and forming a commitment. With Taproot, it is easier than it ever was, so you can base your project on N-of-N multisig with all N miners, then try to make it simpler and cheaper.

This sentence is some kind of definition of Proof of Work. We have pick-a-number scheme. That "number" is called "nonce", defined as "number used once". We cannot do "alone" part, because you cannot prevent other people from using computers, unless you want to shut down power grids and put citizens in ancient times with knights and horses.

That is one of the reasons why the LUCK altcoin was destroyed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5254068.400

This leads to centralization and depends on network connectivity. Also, it is not resistant to sybil attacks (or it may be, but then you have to turn on the Proof of Work).

It can be attacked more easily, just by informing the network that you had a lot of connections, even if you were sitting alone on localhost. Newcomers will know nothing about the past without any Proof of Work. That is also another reason, why the LUCK altcoin was destroyed.

Aha. That means some part is centralized and some part is not. Using Proof of Work here and not using Proof of Work there is not a good idea, because unprotected parts will be attacked, as they were in many altcoins.

So, to sum up: you can try to create some basic network for concept number one, with collecting shares, with Taproot, with N-of-N multisig, maybe on test network, maybe only with tweaked keys used as commitments, but forming a good concept for decentralized mining is hard. And there are some existing concepts like CoinPool, so maybe joining them is a better idea.

I'll skip the mining efficiency proposal. You've got a perfect, summarized answer from odolvlobo.

Come on, seriously? That's an even worse answer than franky's, who believes that the main reasons are the block size and the low income. The main obstacles for adoption are clearly political. The problem is outside Bitcoin, cryptography, computer science.

Two are the main reasons; the volatility and the government's brainwashing, which includes misconceptions about the energy waste. Most people have got a false idea of what's Bitcoin, because the media have misinformed them so. They can't understand the benefits they can gain if they do this collectively. Most don't even know how money works.

Doesnt helium kind of work like 2 and 3?.  1 person issues a challenge ,another challenges, others witness?. all split rewards accordingly?

Exactly. it's not a matter of proving that Bitcoin isn't more resource heavy than several other arguably non essential industries, its the matter of preventing the propaganda that's being spread by the media. Which, I'll be quite honest I don't have a solution for. Convincing the masses, while they've already been fed this information through mainstream outlets, would probably be an impossible task, since it'll always stick in their mind, and its not exactly like the media is going to change their mind upon discovering the facts. I'm quite sure that a lot have a good idea that Bitcoin isn't as impactful as other industries, they just nitpick what they know will generate them money.

Also, I do think its fairly obvious that news have been bribed or pressured in the past to push a certain agenda, while I can't be sure that the governments of the world have done this, I'm rather suspicious the hostile attitude that every single news source seems to have.

The real obstacles are misconceptions about energy consumption and waste.


That changes nothing. Miners are not doing redundant work. Miners are already all working on the same block, except in rare cases.


If you could employ a scheme to pick a miner at random, then you don't even need PoW. This idea is unworkable because it doesn't solve the problems that PoW solves.


Same problem as #2.

I'm down with these concepts!
However the 1% that owns 99% of the network strength will probably not vote for such measures.

nothing to see