Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - FreeTrade

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47
646
General Discussion / Re: Pyramid Mining to encourage distribution
« on: December 01, 2013, 07:42:50 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 30, 2013, 06:07:20 pm
Any profit you make comes at the expense of the person you referred.  Unless you deceive them, they will quickly conclude they can make more money by not using your reference. 

I think we could support a rather flat pyramid with two levels - here's one way to do it.

1. If you're mining without a signed address, you can mine only 70% of the block reward.
2. If your address has mined X coins, your address can sign other mining addresses. (Level 1)
3. If you're mining with a signed address, you can mine 90% of the block reward but must mine the remaining 10% for the key signer. (Level 2)

So at the start, everyone is mining at 70% . . . then miners start to reach X coins, and start distributing signed mining addresses . . . then many addresses reach X coins . . . these users try to expand the number of miners because each new miner gives them 10% of their coins, upto a value of x/10.


647
General Discussion / Pyramid Mining to encourage distribution
« on: November 30, 2013, 03:37:27 pm »
It occurred to me that if there were some way to encourage miners to recruit more miners, we could increase the base of miners and achieve a wider distribution.

As it stands, miners are disincentivized to attract more miners - it just makes mining harder to have new miners.

If we turned that on it's head and were able give miners a downstream - say somewhere between 1% and 10% of the rewards of new miners they attract, it could lead to a pyramid, with a large base.

Possible to implement? I think so. Let's say the address receiving a coinbase transaction (mined reward) requires a signed key and in order for the block to be valid, it must award x% of reward to the key signer.

Miners then will have an incentive to introduce new miners, because they can create a key for them and will then get a % of all of their rewards.

How to generate the first keys? Either have a master key, and create 100 lucky miners at level 1, or maybe any mining address that has received coinbase rewards in excess of X is automatically entitled to sign keys for other miners.

648
General Discussion / Re: Momentum 2.0 Discussion
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:00:28 pm »
Cool.

I'm reading a bit about AES - came across this . . . any thoughts -

http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/articles-whitepapers/bulk-encryption-on-gpus/

Conclusion

The results illustrated in this article prove the viability of implementing the AES algorithm on the AMD GPUs, which show considerable speedups compared to the current generation Intel processor or commodity graphics cards. We have obtained a speedup of up to 16 times with the ATI Radeon™ HD 5870 GPU while the ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 5650 GPU is showing up to 3 times the performance increase.

649
General Discussion / Re: Momentum 2.0 Discussion
« on: November 29, 2013, 03:57:15 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 22, 2013, 12:53:18 am
The population of the memory is sequential which helps eliminate memory bus latency and allows the CPU to saturate the BUS.  A GPU would have an advantage in the comparison step because it could compare all birthdays with the new birthday in parallel.    That said, a GPU would be limited in parallelism because it could only store 1000 or 2000 birthdays at a time.

Would it be limited also because the CPU could do the XOR step with data in L2 cache - so let's say an i7 with 4 cores could run 4 processes, each using 2MB L2 cache . . but a GPU running many more cores would run out of this faster memory much quicker.

Hope you don't mind, giving serious consideration to using this style of POW in the MemoryCoin relaunch.

650
General Discussion / Re: Encouraging Miners to Include Transactions
« on: November 23, 2013, 03:46:20 pm »
This does sound interesting - got to be careful there is no way for miners to game it, or to introduce incentives for miners not to share transactions - there's a fine balance.

Or perhaps when considering chains of equal sizes, clients could favour chains that include more transactions in the last block - that way the orphan is much more likely to be the block with fewer transactions. May not even require a fork.
 

651
BitShares PTS / Re: Will PTS survive after the next difficluty change?
« on: November 23, 2013, 05:52:09 am »
Finally getting close to the 5 minute target time. 4.5 minutes per block average over the last 100 blocks.

652
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 22, 2013, 09:45:35 am »
Quote from: bobb on November 22, 2013, 09:35:46 am
tl;dr
In a nutshell I argue that the following (some of it has already been proposed in this thread) will do a better job to accomplish a) and b) than implementing a lottery.

- continuous difficulty adjustment (e.g.  similar to primecoin)
- PoW has to rely (even more) on high memory bandwidth to penalize cloud miners.
- Pools and pool software should be available at start
   - open source pools should be available, so that people can operate them easily.
- Optimize the miners before release.

Yes, that does not prevent botnets from happening but neither does the lottery.
I hope you find that helpful. Thanks for your hard work!

That's an excellent summary of the lessons that should be taken from ProtoShares.

In my opinion a vesting period will achieve nothing and perhaps be detrimental, a lottery may generate a little excitement but it won't help fundamentals (probably won't hurt either).

653
General Discussion / Re: Momentum 2.0 Discussion
« on: November 22, 2013, 09:18:22 am »
Quote from: Sy on November 22, 2013, 09:13:43 am
botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do

+1

654
General Discussion / Re: Momentum 2.0 Discussion
« on: November 22, 2013, 08:47:26 am »
I'd like to suggest the following POW for consideration -

Step 1.
Generate 1GB-4GB of psuedo random data, maybe SHA512

Step 2.
Find pattern in this data
>Step 2.0 Choose starting byte, say byte 0, use nonce as seed.
>Step 2.1 Load sequential 1-2MB from data into L2 cache from starting byte
>Step 2.2 Perform simple conditional + arithmetic operations on 1-2MB data and seed to provide answer + new seed
>Step 2.3 Use answer at byte start location for next data set.
>Step 2.4 Repeat from 2.1  n times
>Step 2.5 If answer < x, problem solved
>Step 2.6 Choose new starting byte, say byte 1, repeat

Step 1 and 2.3 is designed to require minimum amount of RAM per process
Step 2.1 is designed to obviate any latency advantage of GPU
Step 2.2 is designed to harness the CPU's large L2 cache

The validation will take longer than Momentum 1.0 - as the validating system will need to generate the psuedorandom data used in the solution, maybe 20 or 40MB, but a miner will likely need to generate it all.

655
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 07:03:15 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:49:33 am
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.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:49:33 am
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.

656
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS priv key not valid bitcoin priv key?
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:51:02 am »
For a brainwallet - grab the source of brainwallet -

http://brainwallet.org/

In the top right you'll see a list of the currencies it supports - edit the html to add ProtoShares,

<li>
    <a title="0x38" href="http://bitsharestalk.org">
        PTS
    </a>
</li>

657
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:39:42 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:33:29 am
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.

658
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:37:57 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:31:40 am
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.

659
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:27:22 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:22:34 am
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.

660
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:24:03 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:07:53 am
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.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 06:07:53 am
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 ;)

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 20 queries.