111* days estimated for Difficulty to retarget. Could this kill PTS?

[bytemaster]

Each network has its own delegates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sfinder]

Hi Dan, Just wondering if you change PTS to dpos then do you need to assign 100 Delegates for  PTS network as well or it is a joint mining with BTS network .

No because the value of pts is the social contract which is transferable on the daily snapshots.   We will soon migrate pts to dpos and this problem will go away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bytemaster]

No because the value of pts is the social contract which is transferable on the daily snapshots.   We will soon migrate pts to dpos and this problem will go away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NewMine]

If someone were to set up a Bitcoin mining pool that paid an extra 1 BTC per block they would quickly get near 51%.... once they get near 51% then then can produce 100% of all blocks with just a small amount of secret hash power that ignores all other mining pools work.  This will force the 49% miners to join the 51% or earn nothing.   Having to earn money to pay off their investment in mining hardware, you can bet they would join the 51%. 

Once you have 51% you can freeze accounts and dictate transaction fees.  So you raise the fees you charge which profits the miners even more and helps secure their loyalty.   Sure some may object on philosophical reasons... but I doubt 51% will object on those grounds. 

This is slippery slope. 

Doesn't letting PTS chug along in a smaller slower network make that attack easier?

[NewMine]

I am very surprised that the difficulty is so volatile, it proves the point that (most) miners are opportunistic profit seekers with no concern for the network.  This helps make our case for DPOS.

Should all miners be charities beholden to a flawed design?

[NewMine]

It is very simple why we don't change PTS with a hard fork:

1) Mining Rewards Dilute other PTS holders who are buy and hold... these holders are the ones we want to keep and they do not care about transaction speed.
2) POW is a dead-end system
3) Time & Effort to fix this would only delay actual product releases.

1) Dilution was priced in when you chose the 2million share float.
2)All the more reason you should give it a crutch to limp steadily to finish line.
3) Product has been delayed for less important things, conferences, videos, everything else not devoted to pure product development (this is debatable to others).

[CalabiYau]

My miners are just running to protect my investment whatever this annoying up & downs looks like. I prefer ressources pointed towards useful efforts.

[bytemaster]

It is very simple why we don't change PTS with a hard fork:

1) Mining Rewards Dilute other PTS holders who are buy and hold... these holders are the ones we want to keep and they do not care about transaction speed.
2) POW is a dead-end system
3) Time & Effort to fix this would only delay actual product releases.

I am very surprised that the difficulty is so volatile, it proves the point that (most) miners are opportunistic profit seekers with no concern for the network.  This helps make our case for DPOS.

If someone were to set up a Bitcoin mining pool that paid an extra 1 BTC per block they would quickly get near 51%.... once they get near 51% then then can produce 100% of all blocks with just a small amount of secret hash power that ignores all other mining pools work.  This will force the 49% miners to join the 51% or earn nothing.   Having to earn money to pay off their investment in mining hardware, you can bet they would join the 51%. 

Once you have 51% you can freeze accounts and dictate transaction fees.  So you raise the fees you charge which profits the miners even more and helps secure their loyalty.   Sure some may object on philosophical reasons... but I doubt 51% will object on those grounds. 

Given the flawed model of POW the daily snapshots we are taking, etc... there is nothing to be gained by introducing a hard fork into PTS.

[CryptoN8]

As an maintainer of BitShares-PTS I want to make my position clear (I says the same in this threads 1-2 month ago):
It's not question of development time, I doesn't see any reason to change anything in current network.
Network has enough nodes and stable, transaction speed is good enought.

If your argument "We need to change ... because network will die", I'm disagree, let's wait and see.

I don't think it needs to be changed, of course I would like it to so I can mine more PTS in a shorter period of time, but I would rather them keep the focus and finish other projects before circling back to this. I'm a mine and hold type, not selling, having a very long term plan with these shares. I weight the difference between mining and paying electricity, or if it's too difficult, I stop and the money I would pay the electric company, I just buy PTS. It's a balance... I'm just hanging in there until PoS reigns supreme and us PoW miners are forced to retire the effort.

[wsnnwa]

Difficulty history:
1. pre Feb. 16: 0.014043
2. Feb. 17 to 23: 0.017247 (7 days)
3. Feb. 23 to April 12: 0.036228 duration (51 days)
4. April 12 to 15: 0.01076 (3 days)
5. April 15: 0.041216.

According to http://mrx.im/pts.php, the difficulty will recalculated in 4000+ blocks.
When the difficulty decreased, many people came mining. Profitability was very high.
But as soon as the difficulty increased, we must mine 50 days with nearly zero returns.
We support PTS but with the actual prices of PTS we mine for no income during 50 days.
Once we have finished to wait 50 days, many miners came back and pump all blocks during a few days and want away.

I prefer a difficulty adjusted after each block, as the darkcoin, instead of the current situation.

The original retarget was supposed to be every week, such massive bumps in network hashrate defeat this purpose.
That wasn't supposed to be a problem when PTS was cpu only, which made difficult if not impossible such things.

So either a per block retarged, or per week (fixed), or less blocks retarged.
We are FAR from the 5 minutes block interval

Now you manage your network as you wish, for my part, I will pump when the difficulty is low.

They don't care about it all that much.

If it's hard to mine, people will buy PTS or AGS to invest in Bitshares. Since AGS is a better ROI, people will most likely choose AGS over PTS.  This is to I3's benefit. It puts the money in their control/hands. They are still offering AGS until July. This is why they don't care about PTS' network. Post July, I would bet they begin to care more.

This is the only reason I could come up with as to why they didn't and don't do anything. I guess they might just not care in general.

Yeah, it does suck. I don't like it at all, being the miner type, but I don't see them pulling away the resources needed from other projects to fix the issue for the remaining 19%. Correct me if I'm wrong but, it's a fork, and a client update for all. Sounds like a week or more of work for a lateral movement instead of pushing forward on BTSX, Keyhotee, etc.

They have had over 6 weeks to do something since I started this thread.

They will probably add AGS 2.0 before they "fix" PTS. 

[testz]

As an maintainer of BitShares-PTS I want to make my position clear (I says the same in this threads 1-2 month ago):
It's not question of development time, I doesn't see any reason to change anything in current network.
Network has enough nodes and stable, transaction speed is good enought.

If your argument "We need to change ... because network will die", I'm disagree, let's wait and see.

[NewMine]

Difficulty history:
1. pre Feb. 16: 0.014043
2. Feb. 17 to 23: 0.017247 (7 days)
3. Feb. 23 to April 12: 0.036228 duration (51 days)
4. April 12 to 15: 0.01076 (3 days)
5. April 15: 0.041216.

According to http://mrx.im/pts.php, the difficulty will recalculated in 4000+ blocks.
When the difficulty decreased, many people came mining. Profitability was very high.
But as soon as the difficulty increased, we must mine 50 days with nearly zero returns.
We support PTS but with the actual prices of PTS we mine for no income during 50 days.
Once we have finished to wait 50 days, many miners came back and pump all blocks during a few days and want away.

I prefer a difficulty adjusted after each block, as the darkcoin, instead of the current situation.

The original retarget was supposed to be every week, such massive bumps in network hashrate defeat this purpose.
That wasn't supposed to be a problem when PTS was cpu only, which made difficult if not impossible such things.

So either a per block retarged, or per week (fixed), or less blocks retarged.
We are FAR from the 5 minutes block interval

Now you manage your network as you wish, for my part, I will pump when the difficulty is low.

They don't care about it all that much.

If it's hard to mine, people will buy PTS or AGS to invest in Bitshares. Since AGS is a better ROI, people will most likely choose AGS over PTS.  This is to I3's benefit. It puts the money in their control/hands. They are still offering AGS until July. This is why they don't care about PTS' network. Post July, I would bet they begin to care more.

This is the only reason I could come up with as to why they didn't and don't do anything. I guess they might just not care in general.

Yeah, it does suck. I don't like it at all, being the miner type, but I don't see them pulling away the resources needed from other projects to fix the issue for the remaining 19%. Correct me if I'm wrong but, it's a fork, and a client update for all. Sounds like a week or more of work for a lateral movement instead of pushing forward on BTSX, Keyhotee, etc.

They have had over 6 weeks to do something since I started this thread.

[CryptoN8]

Yeah, it does suck. I don't like it at all, being the miner type, but I don't see them pulling away the resources needed from other projects to fix the issue for the remaining 19%. Correct me if I'm wrong but, it's a fork, and a client update for all. Sounds like a week or more of work for a lateral movement instead of pushing forward on BTSX, Keyhotee, etc.

[bile666]

Difficulty history:
1. pre Feb. 16: 0.014043
2. Feb. 17 to 23: 0.017247 (7 days)
3. Feb. 23 to April 12: 0.036228 duration (51 days)
4. April 12 to 15: 0.01076 (3 days)
5. April 15: 0.041216.

According to http://mrx.im/pts.php, the difficulty will recalculated in 4000+ blocks.
When the difficulty decreased, many people came mining. Profitability was very high.
But as soon as the difficulty increased, we must mine 50 days with nearly zero returns.
We support PTS but with the actual prices of PTS we mine for no income during 50 days.
Once we have finished to wait 50 days, many miners came back and pump all blocks during a few days and want away.

I prefer a difficulty adjusted after each block, as the darkcoin, instead of the current situation.

The original retarget was supposed to be every week, such massive bumps in network hashrate defeat this purpose.
That wasn't supposed to be a problem when PTS was cpu only, which made difficult if not impossible such things.

So either a per block retarged, or per week (fixed), or less blocks retarged.
We are FAR from the 5 minutes block interval

Now you manage your network as you wish, for my part, I will pump when the difficulty is low.

[bytemaster]

Now I will do as the other miners, I will come only when the difficulty is low 

You do everything right, it's a regular miner strategy to mine more profitable coins.
You will back to mine PTS when difficulty will lower or exchange rate will grow.

And this mindset demonstrates why Bitcoin can be attacked much more cheaply than most think.  Start a mining pool, pay a premium of above mining reward + fees.  Everyone only mining for the money will switch to your pool.   Once you get to 51% stop building on any blocks other than your own... miners mining in the 49% have income go to 0 as all of their blocks or orphaned.  You either join the 51% attack or go bankrupt fighting it.   

As the price falls because of the attack, it becomes easier to execute the attack.   

Miners are sellouts operating on razor thin margins, I think it would be very unlikely for 51% of the miners to leave free money on the table.

The attack would of course be even more successful if you had stealth control of 10% and thus no one was concerned about your pool having 41%... profits will blind the average miner from the potential of collusion.