Pages:
Author

Topic: The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 4933 times)

legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
December 01, 2016, 02:01:16 PM
#28
I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?
Because nobody pays them.
Ok then on that logic why not just redesign the bitcoin network and stop paying miners.
And let;s just rely on the altruism of miners to setup million dollar farms to do the hashing.
If miners would not get paid then a lot of them would leave ,and it would be more decentralized so that everyone could mine with CPU, VOLUNTARILY FOR NO PAYMENT.
How about that?
-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business

You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

I agree with this statement.

It is possible to create a non-exploitable incentive node system, but it needs more thinking  
through of everything than some here seem to want to give attention to.

It is one thing to say it can't currently be done, it's another to tell people not to bother.

I think it will be the new holy grail race in Bitcoin. Blocksize and other such debates are
about financial and user pumping, but incentivized nodes are about the ensured decentralized
future, security, and non-regulatability of the Bitcoin network.
Without that, what is really the point in using bitcoin?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
December 01, 2016, 01:00:47 PM
#27
You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.
I can

Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
Yes. Mining is altruism, declared by Satoshi. This is not profitable buisness by concept
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
December 01, 2016, 12:11:30 PM
#26
I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?
Because nobody pays them.

Ok then on that logic why not just redesign the bitcoin network and stop paying miners.

And let;s just rely on the altruism of miners to setup million dollar farms to do the hashing.

If miners would not get paid then a lot of them would leave ,and it would be more decentralized so that everyone could mine with CPU, VOLUNTARILY FOR NO PAYMENT.

How about that?

-Either both miners and node dont get paid = voluntary work in the name of altruism
-Or both get paid = for profit business



You cant mix them, as it is contradictory.

Because it is based on the idea of being Peer-to-Peer and just like any other P2P network peers are not thinking about money when they are sharing data with each other.

For example right now Ubuntu 16.04.1 torrent has over 4000 active seeds and even more peers and they are not getting paid to share this file like millions of other files they are sharing over torrent network.

Payment doesnt have to be material. Besides I can start up an Ubuntu Seed in 5 minutes, right now.

I have to wait at least 2 days though to setp a bitcoin node, since i dont have it installed and needs to be downloaded first.
legendary
Activity: 1042
Merit: 2805
Bitcoin and C♯ Enthusiast
December 01, 2016, 11:44:35 AM
#25
Because it is based on the idea of being Peer-to-Peer and just like any other P2P network peers are not thinking about money when they are sharing data with each other.

For example right now Ubuntu 16.04.1 torrent has over 4000 active seeds and even more peers and they are not getting paid to share this file like millions of other files they are sharing over torrent network.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
December 01, 2016, 11:24:03 AM
#24
Because they are not important enough for the security of the network?
Nobody thinks about importance of anything. If you have an option to pay or not to pay - you will not pay. Point.
AGD
legendary
Activity: 2070
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
December 01, 2016, 11:21:38 AM
#23
I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?
Because nobody pays them.

Because they are not important enough for the security of the network?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
December 01, 2016, 11:13:43 AM
#22
I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?
Because nobody pays them.
AGD
legendary
Activity: 2070
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
December 01, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
#21
I was going to ask the same question today: Why full nodes don't get a reward for their support?
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 267
December 01, 2016, 11:06:51 AM
#20
It is not true that there is no such thing as ASIC-resistance.

Algorithms can be formulated that are not simple to manufacture ASICs for, like the Cuckoo Cycle. The reasoning goes that the more difficult it is to make an ASIC, the less of an advantage it will have against general consumer-grade computers. On the flipside, the complication raises the barrier to entry of competing ASIC manufacturers, thereby potentially centralizing the ASIC suppliers.

More importantly, it misses the forest for the trees. ASICs are not the core reason for centralization of mining, it doesn't even appear to be a significant factor. The most significant cause is comparative advantage in energy costs, which is just as advantageous even if you had an ASIC-proof algorithm.

While it's strictly true that running a node is not rewarded, rewarding them would not aid in decentralization. After all, it's trivial to run more than one node in a centralized manner, and a reward would only encourage that behavior.

Centralization is evidence that operating a node is non-trivial and that centralization offers a significant advantage and reward.

Ideally, we would like to see the cost of mining exceed the block reward in order to drive out centralized high-overhead competitors, while the charitable miners remain, while simultaneously hoping that the Work is high enough to secure the blockchain. When the problem is phrased like that, it's apparent that ASIC-resistance and node reward won't get you there.

In order for this to happen, casual users must be willing and able to operate a mining node while investing trivial time and resources to do so. In this regard, ASIC-resistance could be useful because it could negate the need to purchase specialized hardware. On the other hand consumer-grade ASICs could potentially make POW easier to offload from their devices. Regardless, just like they aren't the most significant factor leading to mining centralization, ASICs are not the most significant reason nodes are not trivial to operate.

The elephant in the room is the size of the blockchain. For a casual user, it's slow and tedious to download and verify, and it takes up enough space to be annoying. There is also the problem that the software is still not settled and prone to potentially consensus breaking behavior, meaning a node cannot be left to run without any user intervention.

1.) Running a node and mining should be unprofitable.
    a.) Mining should be done charitably.
        a.) Providing work should be trivial and easy to get started.
            a.) Bitcoin's consensus code needs to be settled indefinitely.
            b.) The blockchain needs to become easier and cheaper to download.
        b.) Some sort of religion. (Lottery?)

ASIC-resistance, higher inflation, POW substitutes, and larger block sizes have all been proposed as ways to achieve a higher quantity of decentralized nodes. ASIC-resistance is at best an incomplete solution. The rest make the problem worse.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
December 01, 2016, 04:50:44 AM
#19
Quote
True.
However, I see "ASIC resistance" used more as a blanket term for the phrase "Is it more cost effective to mine my coin using general hardware as opposed to making an 'Application Specific Integrated Circuit', whatever that 'circuit' may be" and its variants. That is, a purely economic term. Of course, if you subscribe to the supposition that a "specific circuit" will always be better than a "general circuit" for the specific case it is designed for.

Cost has nothing to do with it. The meaning is established. ASICS scale by parallelism. If an algorithm is atomic and memory light then ASICS are a good choice. They only have a fixed number of gates and creating memory out of those gates uses a lot of them.

As an example. The current hash calculation needs only the hash states and a simple counter for the on-chip memory which can then be applied to a non-changing memory of transactions-a constant, if you will. This can easily be scaled to multiple hash calculations in parallel on a single memory list of transactions.

If, instead of a counter, the hash was calculated on a varying number of transactions (1 then 2 then 3 and so on) then this is not the case. Scaling up the hash alone yields the same hash if the transaction list is constant and in order to calculate the hash for each (1,2,3...) transaction lists would require a huge amount of resources which the ASIC is unlikely to have. This method would be ASIC resistant.

I disagree, the decision to build specific hardware is a purely economic one - as it has been in all industries so far.
If a one percent increase in performance over generalized hardware is a cost effective move, specific hardware will be designed and built.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
December 01, 2016, 02:39:37 AM
#18
Why should I setup a full node that would cost like 100$/month with VPS, internet, electrucity, etc, when other people can do it?
You should not (unless you have reasons to do it)

I doubt Bitcoin can sustainably survive on a few punks's altruism.
It will not survive. Leave it.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
December 01, 2016, 01:35:42 AM
#17
Nodes don't get rewards from Mining
They do get rewards. But the reward is zero. One should do more useful work for more reward.

Bitcoin mining is not ASIC resistant
There is no such thing as asic-resistance.
Agree to both reply's.
There is no such thing possible as asic-resistance, because people will always find way to bypass this anti-asic mechanism whatever that would be.
To the first point of 0 reward from running full node. There is reward, safe bitcoin network. You will see that when need arise, people will massively put new full nodes on their own expenses. Why? To secure bitcoin because they are either invested or admiring bitcoin technology.

Bullshit, that is again the "common good" fallacy. People will never act for the best of the group's interest on their own.

People always act on their own self interest.

Why should I setup a full node that would cost like 100$/month with VPS, internet, electrucity, etc, when other people can do it?

Everyone thinks like that, and then nobody does it, except a few punks, but I doubt Bitcoin can sustainably survive on a few punks's altruism.

It should have had an incentivized node system, hey not a lot, perhaps give 1% of the mining profit to the nodes, it's not a big deal, but better then 0.



Every payment processor/merchant gains advantage from running a full node, that means thousands of node in the world.


Nonsense,  people can just verify their transaction through 10 different random SPV nodes, that should be as accurate as a full node.

Besides if in the future some transaction verification system becomes available, then it's fucked.

Nodes will have 0 incentive to run, and the netwok will collapse.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
December 01, 2016, 01:30:52 AM
#16
It was a basic assumption of satoshi that mining will remain decentralized since he assumed that 1 miner will be 1 node, and everyone will mine on his PC with the CPU.

This is incorrect. Satoshi had this to say on the subject.

Quote
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
(Sauce)

The scenarios are playing out as expected with an end game of a cartel of miners, users with web wallets and the occasional hipster running their own full node.

The idea of economic incentives for full nodes is an attempt for already committed early adopters, to squeeze a few crumbs from the miners' table in the face of the inevitable. In the end, most full nodes will be run by the miners so it is a zero-sum game.

Yea so basically in 10 years bitcoin will become a government supervized, central bank mining and node hosted currency with fractional reserve lending system patch integrated in 5 years. Good job folks!

It was a basic assumption of satoshi that mining will remain decentralized since he assumed that 1 miner will be 1 node, and everyone will mine on his PC with the CPU.

This is incorrect. Satoshi had this to say on the subject.

Quote
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
(Sauce)

The scenarios are playing out as expected with an end game of a cartel of miners, users with web wallets and the occasional hipster running their own full node.

The idea of economic incentives for full nodes is an attempt for already committed early adopters, to squeeze a few crumbs from the miners' table in the face of the inevitable. In the end, most full nodes will be run by the miners so it is a zero-sum game.

First of all, that quote from Satoshi is predicting the centralization of Mining Pools and Mining Farms
in the future and not the centralization and loss of non-mining nodes. The burden he is referring to is the
difficulty increase in mining, not hardware capabilities. Satoshi does not address the question asked by the OP.

Because his original design was 1 CPU = 1 Vote, and he was blinded by that higher goal, he disregarded the
inevitable separation of the two systems (mining & non-mining nodes) due to different factors and thus failed
to design and account for a corresponding system to "incentive" the "transaction nodes" so to ensure a large
enough network for a truly attack resistant and globally decentralization verification network.

Your answer to the OP is essentially Satoshi designed a decentralized network only as a gimmick and intended to
make a centralized attack prone network within 3 years. Either you are correct and we are attempting to remedy this,
or you are wrong and reading more into Satoshi's words than even he knew at the time.

Your answer to the OP lacks imagination and assumes stagnation.

And this sucks a lot, perhaps in a few years I will have to switch to Litecoin or something,because this is very bad.

and when ASICs became widespread, mining was centralized
Large mining pools appeared not because ASICs became widespread, it happened long before. It's not ASICs what makes people grouping in pools, it's that their share of total hashpower is too small.
Imagine a million of miners having equal hashpower mining Bitcoin (doesn't matter they use CPUs, GPUs, ASICs or some 'alienware'), it's still only ~144 blocks which they mine together in 24 hours. Individual miner still has only about 5% chance of finding a block in a year. That's why miners unite in pools. And they started doing so long before ASICs.
Today mining is more decentralised than it was before ASICs were introduced, when some pools (like Deepbit, BTCGuild) were dominating (each at its time), having around 50% and even more of total hashpower.

But why is the majority of miners in Communist China?

Certainly private property will be very respected there when you have collectivized farming lol.
legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
December 01, 2016, 12:36:21 AM
#15
ASICs are good at number crunching, not number fetching Smiley

DRAM is quite fetching :-)
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1014
November 30, 2016, 09:51:53 PM
#14
Nodes don't get rewards from Mining
They do get rewards. But the reward is zero. One should do more useful work for more reward.

Bitcoin mining is not ASIC resistant
There is no such thing as asic-resistance.
Agree to both reply's.
There is no such thing possible as asic-resistance, because people will always find way to bypass this anti-asic mechanism whatever that would be.
To the first point of 0 reward from running full node. There is reward, safe bitcoin network. You will see that when need arise, people will massively put new full nodes on their own expenses. Why? To secure bitcoin because they are either invested or admiring bitcoin technology.
full member
Activity: 219
Merit: 102
November 30, 2016, 08:33:43 PM
#13
Quote
True.
However, I see "ASIC resistance" used more as a blanket term for the phrase "Is it more cost effective to mine my coin using general hardware as opposed to making an 'Application Specific Integrated Circuit', whatever that 'circuit' may be" and its variants. That is, a purely economic term. Of course, if you subscribe to the supposition that a "specific circuit" will always be better than a "general circuit" for the specific case it is designed for.

Cost has nothing to do with it. The meaning is established. ASICS scale by parallelism. If an algorithm is atomic and memory light then ASICS are a good choice. They only have a fixed number of gates and creating memory out of those gates uses a lot of them.

As an example. The current hash calculation needs only the hash states and a simple counter for the on-chip memory which can then be applied to a non-changing memory of transactions-a constant, if you will. This can easily be scaled to multiple hash calculations in parallel on a single memory list of transactions.

If, instead of a counter, the hash was calculated on a varying number of transactions (1 then 2 then 3 and so on) then this is not the case. Scaling up the hash alone yields the same hash if the transaction list is constant and in order to calculate the hash for each (1,2,3...) transaction lists would require a huge amount of resources which the ASIC is unlikely to have. This method would be ASIC resistant.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
November 30, 2016, 01:50:26 PM
#12
imho the biggest flaw is the fact that satoshi (whoever it might be) could still possess private keys to the 1kk wallet. its a sort of a trojan horse so to speak. we might never find out, but once that wallet moves..

Everyone says that, but what is the wallet address or wallet addresses?

Nodes don't get rewards from Mining
They do get rewards. But the reward is zero. One should do more useful work for more reward.

Bitcoin mining is not ASIC resistant
There is no such thing as asic-resistance.

Lots of altcoins claim to be asic-resistant. I don't know if there is any fact to that (or only stating that the current asics won't be able to mine).

ASIC resistance depends purely on the algorithm in play and its design.   You can't just make a blanket statement that there is no such thing as ASIC-resistance unless you know details of all algorithms past present and future.

For example, a "data hard" consensus algorithm, should there ever be such a thing, would be very ASIC resistant providing that the data set required changed for each consensus round.  The bottleneck then becomes IO.

ASICs are good at number crunching, not number fetching Smiley

True.
However, I see "ASIC resistance" used more as a blanket term for the phrase "Is it more cost effective to mine my coin using general hardware as opposed to making an 'Application Specific Integrated Circuit', whatever that 'circuit' may be" and its variants. That is, a purely economic term. Of course, if you subscribe to the supposition that a "specific circuit" will always be better than a "general circuit" for the specific case it is designed for.
hero member
Activity: 572
Merit: 506
November 30, 2016, 07:05:42 AM
#11
and when ASICs became widespread, mining was centralized
Large mining pools appeared not because ASICs became widespread, it happened long before. It's not ASICs what makes people grouping in pools, it's that their share of total hashpower is too small.
Imagine a million of miners having equal hashpower mining Bitcoin (doesn't matter they use CPUs, GPUs, ASICs or some 'alienware'), it's still only ~144 blocks which they mine together in 24 hours. Individual miner still has only about 5% chance of finding a block in a year. That's why miners unite in pools. And they started doing so long before ASICs.
Today mining is more decentralised than it was before ASICs were introduced, when some pools (like Deepbit, BTCGuild) were dominating (each at its time), having around 50% and even more of total hashpower.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016
November 29, 2016, 07:17:04 PM
#10
imho the biggest flaw is the fact that satoshi (whoever it might be) could still possess private keys to the 1kk wallet. its a sort of a trojan horse so to speak. we might never find out, but once that wallet moves..

Everyone says that, but what is the wallet address or wallet addresses?

Nodes don't get rewards from Mining
They do get rewards. But the reward is zero. One should do more useful work for more reward.

Bitcoin mining is not ASIC resistant
There is no such thing as asic-resistance.

Lots of altcoins claim to be asic-resistant. I don't know if there is any fact to that (or only stating that the current asics won't be able to mine).

ASIC resistance depends purely on the algorithm in play and its design.   You can't just make a blanket statement that there is no such thing as ASIC-resistance unless you know details of all algorithms past present and future.

For example, a "data hard" consensus algorithm, should there ever be such a thing, would be very ASIC resistant providing that the data set required changed for each consensus round.  The bottleneck then becomes IO.

ASICs are good at number crunching, not number fetching Smiley
full member
Activity: 174
Merit: 100
November 29, 2016, 06:11:28 PM
#9
keep a full node requires resources. Volume and fast hard drive. Good internet connection.
So it would be good to get some reward for it.

Just too bad that we're going to centralization.
I think Satoshi gave us this technology, but we need to improve it.

Pages:
Jump to: