Author Topic: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining  (Read 56359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline digitalindustry

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
I agree, an integrated pool is fine and Invictus will spend significant time to make sure BitShares comes with a highly reliable pool at launch with an open protocol to allow other pools to compete.   

So a default miner that does mining in the background unless the user chooses to kick it up a to a higher setting and the default client that always does at least 50% solo mining to prevent against centralization.    Professionals can use stand alone miners that are 100% pool based, but of course would have to find a pool willing to finance their mining for 6 months.   

Overall this gives a mix of steady income, random bonus, easy to use, and automatic security.

I was going to mention this as it was my next thought after loggin off before .

Of course it wouldnt be long before there would appear a "keyotee" pool it would probably be driven by people wanting to hit the " mine button" and see something no matter how small,  in return .

Offline bytemaster

Having a very random block award with background mining might suffer a limitation that people would switch over to mining a more instantly profitable coin. One idea might be to add random pauses to the default mining rewards - just even for a few hours at a time every day (and variably so). This would make it very much more expensive for VPS instances which are often on hourly rates. Changing the algorithm randomly so that server hardware initially selected becomes much less efficient (eg by adding a transient GPU element) might add another obstacle for VPS. I'd be careful about immediately making the mining rewards far less frequent as it would be less likely for the coin to gain wider acceptance.

I posted a new Alternative DAC proposal for a PowerBall, DAC which is designed to test the theory that a large mining reward with disproportional odds to reward would cause many miners to 'solo mine' rather than pool-mine.   It is an entire DAC dedicated to the idea and I suspect it would be an interesting experiment.   

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=915.msg9251#msg9251
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline pgbit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Having a very random block award with background mining might suffer a limitation that people would switch over to mining a more instantly profitable coin. One idea might be to add random pauses to the default mining rewards - just even for a few hours at a time every day (and variably so). This would make it very much more expensive for VPS instances which are often on hourly rates. Changing the algorithm randomly so that server hardware initially selected becomes much less efficient (eg by adding a transient GPU element) might add another obstacle for VPS. I'd be careful about immediately making the mining rewards far less frequent as it would be less likely for the coin to gain wider acceptance.

Offline bytemaster

Quote
i think focus should be on perfecting Proto shares in the next chain by learning, making the algo more costly for instances, adjusting the block times and difficulty algos. a fully functional multi-pool getwork miner etc etc. diving into these radical ideas would meet heavy resistance and leave you with a barely populated forum and a snail's pace blockchain. once people move away, so does value.

The purpose of ProtoShares was to learn.  We will probably launch a few more chains to learn more.   Obviously we don't want to screw up BitShares :)
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
For example, Invictus would mine like crazy for 6 month vesting options and so would anyone else with a long-term outlook. 

No, I think the market would still put a price on the value of PTS in 6 months times and Invictus might as well outsource their mining to someone who specializes in it. As could any investor. You can't force large miners to be large investors or vice versa.

This is why companies that do surveys offer $1000 prizes rather than paying $1 per survey.  Most people will not take a survey for $1 but they might for a chance at $1000 even if the chance of winning the prize was 1 in 1 million.

Actually I've worked in this very area and both approaches are used.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
This would be in the block chain, not the miners.  Coin generation outputs would not be spendable as a valid transaction and no code modifications could change the rules without a hard fork.

I want to eliminate the MINE AND DUMP strategy, mining should only benefit those who are committed.  Think of paying an employee in stock options that must VEST.  You do not want to hire employees that leave, you want committed long-term employees who expect the options to go up in value.    This builds a very loyal base which will benefit by seeing the price rise over 6 months, rather than a disloyal base that just gets a free-handout while providing little value.   

Sure, many people who currently mine will stop mining and make room for new miners who have a long-term outlook.  Transfer coins from profiteers to supporters and THAT is the goal.

mass adoption is what we want, and this encourages mass exodus.

Mining and dumping is bad yes, but it's what we do to keep afloat financially, understand that most people that do this arent rich, only the rich can afford to do long term investments that have no guarantee. worse off when they know there are other coins that can keep the lights on. I understand where you are coming from but you need to rethink this in my opinion.

hahaha, i'm afraid in miners there is no loyalty  :P they are only loyal to what pays, as you have witnessed the hash swings based on the figures from Coinchoose and Coinwarz.

there are few such real supporters in comparison with profiteers, most are in it for the profit, some it's a hobby and a minority actually believe in it.  i'm in the first and last group, and i can tell you that the six month wait won't fly with me and my ilk. most would find a bitcoin to spare, hire a months' worth of instances and that's it, just fire and forget.  If not, they'll go mine something that gives them the money to spare and just do the above.

keep in mind you are saying that someone that joins in later will have to wait 6 months, so if i join in six months after everyone else, i'll be a year behind the first miners, no way people would go for that , with the way people are bitter about bitcoin already?

Ok, so you leave the coin... and that is FINE BY ME because you do not appreciate the future value.   Why should anyone who cares about BitShares give a hoot about people looking for a short-term payout?   Obviously you will return to the coin when you have a use for it and realize you could have made more money by holding than by selling.   The option for a quick payout for reduced reward is still there. 

The underlying assumption here is that without the 'miners' a coin has no value or no security.   I contend, that loyal miners will provide more than enough security especially if the DAC is providing USEFUL UTILITY and is not just a speculative play like all other alts. 

 

DAC...great idea, but look at where this whole mining thing comes from...BTC, why do people mine alts? speculation and easy road to btc. i'm just saying if you want real adoption, make it adoptable.

i think focus should be on perfecting Proto shares in the next chain by learning, making the algo more costly for instances, adjusting the block times and difficulty algos. a fully functional multi-pool getwork miner etc etc. diving into these radical ideas would meet heavy resistance and leave you with a barely populated forum and a snail's pace blockchain. once people move away, so does value.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline bytemaster

The underlying assumption here is that without the 'miners' a coin has no value or no security.   I contend, that loyal miners will provide more than enough security especially if the DAC is providing USEFUL UTILITY and is not just a speculative play like all other alts. 

Miners are service providers - you want to pay them not too little they don't perform the service, and not too much that they over deliver blocks. This is what difficulty adjustment is for and I think the next adjustment might bring it into line a bit better. For BitShares the improved difficulty adjustment algo should take care of overpaying miners.

Yes, this is all true.  So it is just a question over how much they are paid and wether it is in cash or vesting options.  Each attacks a different kind of employee.   

For example, Invictus would mine like crazy for 6 month vesting options and so would anyone else with a long-term outlook.  While the stock is vesting these individuals have financial motivation to spread the word and advertise the service.  Their rate of return on their mining effort depends upon the degree to which they are able to facilitate growth in the company.   These employees now play a dual role of security AND marketing.

When you have random vesting periods you still gain the 'quick prizes' for new comers and with mining rewards setup like a lottery with a BIG WINNER you generate far more mining interest from solo miners than from pools.   

This is why companies that do surveys offer $1000 prizes rather than paying $1 per survey.  Most people will not take a survey for $1 but they might for a chance at $1000 even if the chance of winning the prize was 1 in 1 million. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

You don't have employees, you have investors. Companies can force limitations on employers because there's a discrepancy in power between them. It's obviously not the case here.

Quote
What good is it to have a miner that immediately sells, pockets some USD or BTC and then has no other cares?   Mining is not an end to itself.
That's not true, most people only sell to cover some multiple of expenses. 
What you really said is that pts price was way too high at the beginning. Now the cat is out of the bag because more than 1/3 of pts was mined.
The proper fixes to this are better (faster) difficulty adjustments and a much longer generation period. This way, miners are incentivized to think long term. Simple.
Let the market care of it, not heavy-handed restrictions, these are not going to work well.

Quote
The value of BitShares is NOT as a currency, but by the services it renders.
A currency is valuable because it renders services - a "store of value" service, a "transaction mechanism" service, etc. There's no fundamental difference.

There is a huge difference from the perspective of the corporation and shareholders.   As a shareholder in a corporation provided value I want to minimize dilution of my shares.  I want to maximize dividends and I want to maximize the value of the shares.

If a company like Apple started giving away 10% of their market cap in a lottery every year they would gain some marketing buzz but it would come at great cost to the company.  The shareholders would not be happy and the value of the stock would fall.

If a company like Apple couldn't retain employees their stock would fall.   

Fast difficulty adjustments are planned and will make sure currency is created at the proper rate, but still fails to incentivize decentralized mining outside of pools.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
That is a great measure, I was thinking how many bits collided with their coinbase address (their loto ticket) so they could play their 'lucky address' :)

That's a neat idea too - they could use vanitygen to generate lucky addresses.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
The underlying assumption here is that without the 'miners' a coin has no value or no security.   I contend, that loyal miners will provide more than enough security especially if the DAC is providing USEFUL UTILITY and is not just a speculative play like all other alts. 

Miners are service providers - you want to pay them not too little they don't perform the service, and not too much that they over deliver blocks. This is what difficulty adjustment is for and I think the next adjustment might bring it into line a bit better. For BitShares the improved difficulty adjustment algo should take care of overpaying miners.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline bytemaster

Making things random is meaningless when large numbers are applied as they all average out in the end.    Though, I suspect that it could increase solo miners who want to 'gamble' on hitting it big.   I rather like this extra dynamic because people are not rational and it would make solo-mining like Satoshi dice.... you mine at an average loss because if you get lucky you 'hit the jackpot'.   

I think if you were able to limit the pool sizes somehow, and had very variable rewards, you could make it quite interesting in the short term. Perhaps block reward could be based on by how much the block hash beats the difficulty.

That is a great measure, I was thinking how many bits collided with their coinbase address (their loto ticket) so they could play their 'lucky address' :)
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

This would be in the block chain, not the miners.  Coin generation outputs would not be spendable as a valid transaction and no code modifications could change the rules without a hard fork.

I want to eliminate the MINE AND DUMP strategy, mining should only benefit those who are committed.  Think of paying an employee in stock options that must VEST.  You do not want to hire employees that leave, you want committed long-term employees who expect the options to go up in value.    This builds a very loyal base which will benefit by seeing the price rise over 6 months, rather than a disloyal base that just gets a free-handout while providing little value.   

Sure, many people who currently mine will stop mining and make room for new miners who have a long-term outlook.  Transfer coins from profiteers to supporters and THAT is the goal.

mass adoption is what we want, and this encourages mass exodus.

Mining and dumping is bad yes, but it's what we do to keep afloat financially, understand that most people that do this arent rich, only the rich can afford to do long term investments that have no guarantee. worse off when they know there are other coins that can keep the lights on. I understand where you are coming from but you need to rethink this in my opinion.

hahaha, i'm afraid in miners there is no loyalty  :P they are only loyal to what pays, as you have witnessed the hash swings based on the figures from Coinchoose and Coinwarz.

there are few such real supporters in comparison with profiteers, most are in it for the profit, some it's a hobby and a minority actually believe in it.  i'm in the first and last group, and i can tell you that the six month wait won't fly with me and my ilk. most would find a bitcoin to spare, hire a months' worth of instances and that's it, just fire and forget.  If not, they'll go mine something that gives them the money to spare and just do the above.

keep in mind you are saying that someone that joins in later will have to wait 6 months, so if i join in six months after everyone else, i'll be a year behind the first miners, no way people would go for that , with the way people are bitter about bitcoin already?

Ok, so you leave the coin... and that is FINE BY ME because you do not appreciate the future value.   Why should anyone who cares about BitShares give a hoot about people looking for a short-term payout?   Obviously you will return to the coin when you have a use for it and realize you could have made more money by holding than by selling.   The option for a quick payout for reduced reward is still there. 

The underlying assumption here is that without the 'miners' a coin has no value or no security.   I contend, that loyal miners will provide more than enough security especially if the DAC is providing USEFUL UTILITY and is not just a speculative play like all other alts. 

   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Making things random is meaningless when large numbers are applied as they all average out in the end.    Though, I suspect that it could increase solo miners who want to 'gamble' on hitting it big.   I rather like this extra dynamic because people are not rational and it would make solo-mining like Satoshi dice.... you mine at an average loss because if you get lucky you 'hit the jackpot'.   

I think if you were able to limit the pool sizes somehow, and had very variable rewards, you could make it quite interesting in the short term. Perhaps block reward could be based on by how much the block hash beats the difficulty.
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher

Offline iruu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
You don't have employees, you have investors. Companies can force limitations on employers because there's a discrepancy in power between them. It's obviously not the case here.

Quote
What good is it to have a miner that immediately sells, pockets some USD or BTC and then has no other cares?   Mining is not an end to itself.
That's not true, most people only sell to cover some multiple of expenses. 
What you really said is that pts price was way too high at the beginning. Now the cat is out of the bag because more than 1/3 of pts was mined.
The proper fixes to this are better (faster) difficulty adjustments and a much longer generation period. This way, miners are incentivized to think long term. Simple.
Let the market care of it, not heavy-handed restrictions, these are not going to work well.

Quote
The value of BitShares is NOT as a currency, but by the services it renders.
A currency is valuable because it renders services - a "store of value" service, a "transaction mechanism" service, etc. There's no fundamental difference.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:34:35 am by iruu »

Offline FreeTrade

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Miners are employees and you want their interests to align with that of the company.

Miners are service providers - think of them more like contractors. Often miners and investors are the same thing . . . which leads coin creators to think they need a lot of miners. This is flawed reasoning - what you want is investors. Where miners and investors are different people, increase interest from investors, not miners.

It is clear that existing incentive models reward large pools that are harming the network and are giving free money to 'miners' with no interest in the currency other than 'today'.   What good is it to have a miner that immediately sells, pockets some USD or BTC and then has no other cares?   Mining is not an end to itself.

Distribution is the value - if the mining is profitable the miner sells immediately, you loose that value. The only value you get then is transaction processing. Sometimes not even that ;)
“People should be more sophisticated? How are you gonna get that done?” - Jerry Seinfeld reply to Bill Maher