Topic: Replacement for POW - page 5. (Read 2182 times)

Actually it would just be a fork and some other coin entirely.

My argument is the opposite from op would be just 2x block time. Would make mining incentives last longer.

And give more time to scale to LN.

Do the next ½ ing with ten minute blocks.
Then go to 20 minute blocks.

Changes cycle 2024 then 2028 then 2032

becomes 2024 - 2032 - 2040 - 2048

Has anyone ever posted this idea?

I could do a new thread if it is new.

What bitcoin offers is a lot more significant than the energy that is being consumed to provide that. It is not a small thing to offer a global censorship resistance payment system that works 24/7 with high security.

But, there is further securing the network. Mining isn't just about inflating the supply. It's about rewarding the miner, and that will sooner or later come mainly from transaction fees.

If you're concerned about the network's security overtime, I suggest you reading this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary-a-post-by-peter-todd-5405755. My TL;DR is: if there's demand for bitcoin, there will be transactions done on-chain, which will incidentally continue encouraging network protection. If there's no demand for bitcoin (or very little), then the network doesn't have to have sufficient security.

I visited the site, and do not agree with everything.  Consider the future when all the coins have been mined.  There is no further mining.  If mining is what makes Bitcoin secure, then when there is no further mining, Bitcoin will no longer be secure.

I am reasonably confident that the mining of the last coin, and the complete lack of additional mining, will not make Bitcoin insecure.  If not then, then it will not now.

That energy is used to make Bitcoin as secure as it currently is. You may want to read BitcoinCleanup.com.

Tromp: Not only is that next-to-impossible for nodes to come to agreement on right now (you need a concensus algorithm for that in turn), but it's utterly impossible to verify current uptimes in the future when nodes must verify the history from scratch.

Bitcoin already has a consensus algorithm, to verify each block as it is written to the chain.  Its already there, another instance is not at all impossible.

NotATether: This is almost like Proof of Stake except it rewards nodes for doing no work at all and without locking up an incentive such as crypto. In other words, block mining abuse will be rampant with such a model.

Yes, it is almost POS.  But no, its not a matter of doing no work.  The node must be up and online for some minimum period of time.  Block mining will be gone so there is no abuse of it.  Remember, I suggested that the nodes be monitored as being on line for some period of time before making the eligible for new BTCs.

ETFbitcoin:  I don’t know how to respond to this post.

LoyceV: The problem I am concerned with is the energy being spent to mine coins. Other than earning some coins, it provides no advantage.  From my readings there are thousands of mining rigs running 24/7 and only one of them gets a coin reward for each block.  That means that the energy spent mining is wasted for all but one mining rig.  Again, the energy consumed by mining is quite significant.

Mocacinno:  Your proposal would make mining completely unprofitable, …

Yes, it would do that. It would make mining obsolete.  It would stop the consumption of all that energy.

… completely wipe out the security of the chain. 

I don’t see why.  There is a consensus algorithm for verifying blocks.  Use the same “concept” for determining the rewards for being a node.

Look to the future.  Eventually all the coins will be mined.  There will be no further mining.  Nodes will be profitably only for transaction fees.  My basic suggestion is simple:  Move that concept closer in the future and stop spending huge amounts of energy on mining.

And yes, I am sure my concept has some holes and weaknesses.  However, the problems have already been solved in the current system.  Use the same concepts for distributing the new coins until the list of new coins have been exhausted.

Climate change is real. It is here right now.  It is causing disasters, right now. It is caused by humans.  Put it into the equation.

Next to the things that were already listed, you'd completely wipe out the security of the chain...

Your proposal would make mining completely unprofitable, since the coinbase reward would go to a random node owner (which is a problem by itself, as discussed above). Why would somebody mine if he doesn't get payed (it seems like your method doesn't touches the POW algo, it's just a completely different proposal for the reward distribution) ? The hashrate would drop making us vulnerable to a 51% attack in a matter of hours.

Don't get me wrong... It's OK to discuss technical improvements here... This one just isn't tought all the way trough i'm afraid. It lacks sollutions for the most basic of problems that'll certainly pop up if this was ever implemented (even in a low diff altcoin).

Why? Mining the last Bitcoin faster is not a necessity.

The list of nodes is an estimate. There is no official list of all Bitcoin nodes.

Personally i consider 14671 reachable nodes[1] & 82454 all nodes[2] is long. And to verify the list is true from another node, a node must connect to 82K node.

[1] https://bitnodes.io/
[2] https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

This is almost like Proof of Stake except it rewards nodes for doing no work at all and without locking up an incentive such as crypto. In other words, block mining abuse will be rampant with such a model.

Not only is that next-to-impossible for nodes to come to agreement on right now (you need a concensus algorithm for that in turn), but it's utterly impossible to verify current uptimes in the future when nodes must verify the history from scratch.

I don't see why.  The list of nodes is not that long.  When a neighbor pops up, note its identity, add it to the list, along with something about when it is active, and tell the remainder of the network about it.  When a node is acknowledged by N other nodes, it gets verified and added to the list of known nodes.  If its uptime is greater than X%, for Y days/months, it becomes eligible for a reward. 

Impossible to do in a decentralized way.
For starters all the full nodes can not know about all other full nodes ever, they also can't continuously check whether all the candidates in that list are active at all times.
Most importantly how are you going to distinguish a fake full node with a real one? It is actually very easy to fake being a full node without actually running one. If you provide the incentive, the network could be flooded with them.

This sounds like changing (increasing?) the total supply which is not something that the community would accept.
The same problem with decentralization exists here too. In PoW we have an easy way for anybody to verify the work done on that block. Here when you say "random" there is no reproducible way to verify its fairness anymore.

I have read moderately on POW and read about the huge amount of energy required to earn each BTC.  There are other ways to distribute new coins and I find it a bit concerning as to how few are suggested.  The time of 120 years to mine the remaining 2.4 million Bitcoins is a bit absurd. Here is just one possible method.

Let’s say 10 years for the remainder. At 144 blocks per day that is 6,307,200 blocks in 10 years.  Divide 2.4 million BTC by that many blocks to get about 0.38 BTC per block.

Create and maintain a list of all the bitcoin nodes that have been active for some period of time, maybe a year or some other time period.  Node owners must have a certain amount of time invested before becoming eligible for payments.   

As each block is completed, select one node, maybe at random, and the owner of the node gets 0.38 BTC.  Take that node off the list to received block rewards for some period of time to allow for sharing the wealth.

After the last BTC has been distributed, profits are derived from the work needed to certify each block.  Each of the, for example, first 32 nodes that are involved in the original certification of a block gets some percentage of the fees for that block.  Maybe provide a sliding scale based upon the time the node has been active.  Those on online for longer periods get a bit more.  When a node receives a transaction fee, maybe take it off the distribution list for some period of time, share the wealth.

This is just a suggestion and can certainly be refined for fairness.  Any thoughts?