You can mine BTS with TaPOS... miners of the world rejoice!

[Agent86]

To clarify my previous idea, I think if you said accounts lose stake at a rate that is directly proportional to coin days accumulated that this would mean big accounts should move more often to use up their CD.  But overall, if everyone is just holding their money and moving it back and forth at the threshold time all accounts would retain the same respective value.

I'm envisioning that accounts are mining the blocks that include their transactions.

Basically, if you are trying to attack the network by accumulating coin days, the more you accumulate the faster you lose.

[ffwong]

Hi Dan

Thanks for the write-up.

But do you mind to tell in more layman term on how to maximize their income from the miner point of view? I believe most miners are not necessarily a programmer. They may not be able to understand the meaning of the algorithm and protocol.

I think, by knowing how to maximize their own interest, we can predict how the people behave aggregately.

[barwizi]

lol, the deal never stops evolving.

[Agent86]

Ok, here is my idea for TaPOS... perhaps you hear me out:

instead of having a fixed one year date where there is a 5% charge:

The way you do it is you have a sliding scale, where the longer you keep your money dormant the faster you lose money.  At some point it crosses a threshold where it makes sense to pay a transaction fee to move your money and "reset the clock" so to speak.  Before that point it saves you nothing to move your money without other reason.

The transaction fee is similar whether you are moving a large amount of shares or a very small amount of shares and is based on the size of the transaction in bytes.

So what this accomplishes is that a large account needs to move their money (back and forth) and use their CDD to secure the network more often than a small account because the transaction fee is a smaller percentage of the value of the larger account.  So basically the more stake you have in the Bitshares network the more involved you have to be in creating transactions and securing the network, which is only fair and is what we want.

You gain nothing by combining or separating your shares because if you have one large account you have to move it more often but if you have a bunch of smaller accounts you have to move each one less often but you have more accounts so it is the same amount of transactions and work.

You can set this scale based on the balance of the amount of security and coin movement you want with the trade off of the size of blockchain / bandwidth you are trying to keep.

The client could time these auto transactions for you but if you don't time your money movement perfectly it is really no big deal and won't cost you much, just don't let a large account sit there dormant forever and you'll be fine.

[fuzzy]

 

[bytemaster]

If you make it trustless there is no possinle harm from large pools. There are efforts to get all btc miners on p2pool, for example

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Trustless is not possible if difficulty is driven by the CDD on a single output... this single output would be in the hands of a single individual.

[toast]

If you make it trustless there is no possinle harm from large pools. There are efforts to get all btc miners on p2pool, for example

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[luckybit]

What does this mean for mining pools?   It means that they can be very profitable so long as someone is willing to trust the pool with their shares.  A mining pool would be able to cast a large number of ACTUAL VOTES for the least number of bytes (individual transactions).   

Wouldnt this centralize the whole thing again into the handy of the pool adminds?

Pools would not get too large because you have to trust them with your shares.  The payout would be small given the risk.

So if we make it trustless what would stop the pools from getting too large then?

[bytemaster]

I think that in addition to adjusting the fees earned based upon CDD... that the difficulty of the block should factor in CDD of the miner.

Assuming equal hashing power, someone with 1% of the shares should find a block 1% of the time.   This will combat the problem of outside miners (non-shareholders) being able to control the network. 

[bytemaster]

What does this mean for mining pools?   It means that they can be very profitable so long as someone is willing to trust the pool with their shares.  A mining pool would be able to cast a large number of ACTUAL VOTES for the least number of bytes (individual transactions).   

Wouldnt this centralize the whole thing again into the handy of the pool adminds?

Pools would not get too large because you have to trust them with your shares.  The payout would be small given the risk.

[phoenix]

So, will people start to create customized miners that allow them to maximize the efficiency that they spend their CDD?

[santaclause102]

What does this mean for mining pools?   It means that they can be very profitable so long as someone is willing to trust the pool with their shares.  A mining pool would be able to cast a large number of ACTUAL VOTES for the least number of bytes (individual transactions).   

Wouldnt this centralize the whole thing again into the handy of the pool adminds?

It seems like a combination of P2Pool and CoinJoin might be possible if this is a concern.

I never mined anything... Is p2pool what it sounds like? A pool in which voting power is completely distributed?

yes, p2pool for BTC has its own separate chain of shares people found that are a part of the p2pool network. When a block is found, the p2pool network includes payouts to the last N number of shares. It is entirely decentralized and trustless. The downside, lately, is that the difficulty to find a share is thousands of times harder than a normal pool, so variance is larger - especially for small miners (<10GH/s).

Also there is no adavantage to use p2p pools for miners if you assume the centralized pools work / are trustworthy which should not be such a big issue a pool admin could max take 25 btc and run before he is not trusted anymore. So there is no incentive for miners to decentralize mining in POW (AND Tapos?).

[maqifrnswa]

What does this mean for mining pools?   It means that they can be very profitable so long as someone is willing to trust the pool with their shares.  A mining pool would be able to cast a large number of ACTUAL VOTES for the least number of bytes (individual transactions).   

Wouldnt this centralize the whole thing again into the handy of the pool adminds?

It seems like a combination of P2Pool and CoinJoin might be possible if this is a concern.

I never mined anything... Is p2pool what it sounds like? A pool in which voting power is completely distributed?

yes, p2pool for BTC has its own separate chain of shares people found that are a part of the p2pool network. When a block is found, the p2pool network includes payouts to the last N number of shares. It is entirely decentralized and trustless. The downside, lately, is that the difficulty to find a share is thousands of times harder than a normal pool, so variance is larger - especially for small miners (<10GH/s).

[toast]

I just realized this is a natural side effect of having tx fee be per-byte. Carry on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[bytemaster]

What does this mean for mining pools?   It means that they can be very profitable so long as someone is willing to trust the pool with their shares.  A mining pool would be able to cast a large number of ACTUAL VOTES for the least number of bytes (individual transactions).   

Wouldnt this centralize the whole thing again into the handy of the pool adminds?

Yeah isn't this why you didn't like NXT forging?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

It is something I didn't like about Nxt.   In fact there is a lot to be said for Nxt... so lets consider our goals and see how well each solution achieves the goals:

1) Minimize waisted Resources (electric bills).. Nxt wins hands down by using deterministic selection of who gets to sign the block.
2) Maximize the percentage of shareholders contributing to security  (TaPOS = 100%, Nxt = 10-20%?).... TaPOS advantage...
3) Maximize the rate at which shareholders contribute to security... the minimum POS per block would require 6 months to have 51% of shareholders 'vote' for the block that included your transaction.   
       Best case a shareholder with 51% would simply move their funds every block and make it irreversible...
       We want to minimize the number of blocks it takes to get a statistically significant voting advantage over an attacker... the minimum rate is .001% of votes get cast per block.... we would like this to be much higher if possible.

4) Distribute control as far and wide as possible
       A large pool is bad for this, but good for #3...  pool size is mitigated by risking your funds to a 3rd party holding them in a 'live wallet'.
5) Maximize the rate at which transactions are included in blocks
6) Prevent Denial of Service by not including transactions or failure to produce blocks.
     - Nxt forgers can exclude transactions from the network.. though they are paid by including them.