Care to expand?
No.Your ideas told me that you know absolutely nothing about how crypto works.
Start with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Topic: Scaling bitcoin: the elephant in the room - page 3. (Read 3381 times)
Your ideas told me that you know absolutely nothing about how crypto works.
Start with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Care to expand?
Did you get hacked through email recovery or password leak ?
I think moderator changed email for my account by "fake" requessthttps://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20221556
Sorry for offtopic.
Did you get hacked through email recovery or password leak ?
Thoughts?
drivel
Hi there,
It seems to me that no one is talking about something quite obvious that has come to light quite recently regarding scaling bitcoin. None of the segwit/blocksize increase proposals are the right answer. That's why there hasn't been a unanimous agreement on the right path the choose. Both of the major camps are lobbying for changes which are only stop gap measures.
IMO, something quite radical needs to change in the way bitcoin works in order to facilitate proper scaling and to decrease centralisation literally as far as physically possible in a system with mining incentive.
What we need is something like this:
*) Homogenise - Remove the distinction between miners and users of the system
*) Reduce blocks to one per transaction
*) Users mine their own blocks when sending a transaction, no other user can mine another users block
*) Users can choose their own difficulty level when mining their blocks
*) Block reward is proportional to chosen difficulty (up to a an moore's law based maximum and with a spam preventing minimum)
*) Preserve orphaned branches of blocks and include them in a new LCR scoring system so we maintain deterministic, global state
These measures:
*) Allow bitcoin to scale indefinitely, as the block size is now as small as it possibly can be, and there is now no fixed block interval, as these tiny blocks arrive constantly
*) Miners can still participate, but instead of enabling transactions to be sent/received their only job is now in securing the chain by providing hashing power; they still earn their mining reward
*) Chain security remains strong; miners get paid for being on the longest (largest cumulative difficulty) branch, and now this weighting includes orphaned branches which are referenced within each block, so no history based attacks are possible
*) Decentralisation is maximised because there is no need for mining pools anymore, since variance in mining reward is now under the control of the user. Moreover, since only you can mine your own blocks (the PoW is signed by you), mining pools are unattractive anyway.
Thoughts?
edit: draft whitepaper: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf
Cheers, Paul.
It seems to me that no one is talking about something quite obvious that has come to light quite recently regarding scaling bitcoin. None of the segwit/blocksize increase proposals are the right answer. That's why there hasn't been a unanimous agreement on the right path the choose. Both of the major camps are lobbying for changes which are only stop gap measures.
IMO, something quite radical needs to change in the way bitcoin works in order to facilitate proper scaling and to decrease centralisation literally as far as physically possible in a system with mining incentive.
What we need is something like this:
*) Homogenise - Remove the distinction between miners and users of the system
*) Reduce blocks to one per transaction
*) Users mine their own blocks when sending a transaction, no other user can mine another users block
*) Users can choose their own difficulty level when mining their blocks
*) Block reward is proportional to chosen difficulty (up to a an moore's law based maximum and with a spam preventing minimum)
*) Preserve orphaned branches of blocks and include them in a new LCR scoring system so we maintain deterministic, global state
These measures:
*) Allow bitcoin to scale indefinitely, as the block size is now as small as it possibly can be, and there is now no fixed block interval, as these tiny blocks arrive constantly
*) Miners can still participate, but instead of enabling transactions to be sent/received their only job is now in securing the chain by providing hashing power; they still earn their mining reward
*) Chain security remains strong; miners get paid for being on the longest (largest cumulative difficulty) branch, and now this weighting includes orphaned branches which are referenced within each block, so no history based attacks are possible
*) Decentralisation is maximised because there is no need for mining pools anymore, since variance in mining reward is now under the control of the user. Moreover, since only you can mine your own blocks (the PoW is signed by you), mining pools are unattractive anyway.
Thoughts?
edit: draft whitepaper: https://github.com/wildbunny/docs/blob/master/T.E.T.O-draft.pdf
Cheers, Paul.
Jump to: