Main > General Discussion
You can mine BTS with TaPOS... miners of the world rejoice!
gulu:
What's the motivation for mining? Since no more extra BTXs will be generated to dilute my positions, I will simply off-storage my BTXs and move them once every year, paying one-time tx fee. To be frank, the mining rewards are not that significant, especially when tx fees are split half between mining rewards and dividends. The amount of BTXs that will be engaged in mining is proportional to the significance of tx fee. Therefore the dividend setup will reduce the number of miners by half. After all, mining with BTXs takes extra risk, extra time and extra efforts. I think I personally will chose not to mine but pay the tx fee once every year.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
toast:
any transaction
luckybit:
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 22, 2014, 05:56:41 pm ---
--- Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 22, 2014, 04:10:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: drltc on March 22, 2014, 09:23:38 am ---
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 21, 2014, 10:58:42 pm ---Perhaps something with multi-signature addresses. If you require 2 signatures to spend a balance, but just 1 to mine with it then you may have additional security.
--- End quote ---
If the pool operator's signature is required to spend your balance, doesn't that mean you can't get your balance back if the pool operator disappears?
If you're considering this idea, I'm pretty sure you'll wind up exactly where I suggested -- having a way to sign over the authority to mine with your balance, but not to spend it.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, if you use multisig for this, people can have full control of their own wallets, but send a copy of one key to the pool operator to mine for them. It's possible most people wouldn't care who mined for them, and would thus make their "mining key" basically public, potentially undermining POS.
If mining income could be directed to an address other than the mining address, that would force people to care who mined for them, but then it seems like you might as well just allow full multiple input multiple output mining transactions.
--- End quote ---
Here is how I view things... once a year you need to bring your wallet on line if you want to avoid a 5% inactivity fee. If you 'mine a block' while you are online anyway then you still contribute to the security of the network even if your keys are not 'online' all of the time.
--- End quote ---
What counts as activity?
bytemaster:
--- Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 22, 2014, 04:10:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: drltc on March 22, 2014, 09:23:38 am ---
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 21, 2014, 10:58:42 pm ---Perhaps something with multi-signature addresses. If you require 2 signatures to spend a balance, but just 1 to mine with it then you may have additional security.
--- End quote ---
If the pool operator's signature is required to spend your balance, doesn't that mean you can't get your balance back if the pool operator disappears?
If you're considering this idea, I'm pretty sure you'll wind up exactly where I suggested -- having a way to sign over the authority to mine with your balance, but not to spend it.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, if you use multisig for this, people can have full control of their own wallets, but send a copy of one key to the pool operator to mine for them. It's possible most people wouldn't care who mined for them, and would thus make their "mining key" basically public, potentially undermining POS.
If mining income could be directed to an address other than the mining address, that would force people to care who mined for them, but then it seems like you might as well just allow full multiple input multiple output mining transactions.
--- End quote ---
Here is how I view things... once a year you need to bring your wallet on line if you want to avoid a 5% inactivity fee. If you 'mine a block' while you are online anyway then you still contribute to the security of the network even if your keys are not 'online' all of the time.
Troglodactyl:
--- Quote from: drltc on March 22, 2014, 09:23:38 am ---
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 21, 2014, 10:58:42 pm ---Perhaps something with multi-signature addresses. If you require 2 signatures to spend a balance, but just 1 to mine with it then you may have additional security.
--- End quote ---
If the pool operator's signature is required to spend your balance, doesn't that mean you can't get your balance back if the pool operator disappears?
If you're considering this idea, I'm pretty sure you'll wind up exactly where I suggested -- having a way to sign over the authority to mine with your balance, but not to spend it.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, if you use multisig for this, people can have full control of their own wallets, but send a copy of one key to the pool operator to mine for them. It's possible most people wouldn't care who mined for them, and would thus make their "mining key" basically public, potentially undermining POS.
If mining income could be directed to an address other than the mining address, that would force people to care who mined for them, but then it seems like you might as well just allow full multiple input multiple output mining transactions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version