Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining

[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'.   

So, if the mining reward system is such that on average people earn 50 BTC per block... but there is a random chance that they could earn 5000 BTC in a single block where the odds do not favor them people would still do it just because the reward is so great.  There are consolation prizes in the form of many rewards under 50 BTC per block to keep people interested... but it is the big jackpot that would have everyone solo-mining rather than pool mining. 

It would make pool-hopping a major problem as a lucky pool would would suddenly find a bunch of of people flooding to their pool.   This could actually be a game changer for pools which would have to adapt new algorithms to ensure fairness of rewards.



 

[barwizi]

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  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?


hehehe, cheeky but i gotta ask...just how do you intend to include mining limits on BLK data?? including stand alone miners?

[bytemaster]

Therefore, you can limit the profitability and attractiveness of mining pools by having all new currency that is created vest for a period of 6 months.

Basically nobody is going to use this currency.
That's it. 
If there are indeed good ideas in it, it's going to be copied by an alt without arbitrary and ridiculous restrictions. 

The people who mine in large amounts are just more valuable. They're either more interested, more knowledgeable, have more money, or all of it. These are the people you want invested in an idea to make it happen. 
They're better for the currency. 

It's the same in real life. It's better to have an experienced investor with contacts rather than thousands of micro shareholders.

Do you really believe that forcibly distributing all of capital productive to everyone in the world would result in a better economic outcome?

These bulk purchases benefited the mass-miners and not the creators of the crypto-currency.

Don't let excessive greed kill your ideas prematurely, because THAT'S the true issue, isn't it? It's better to have 1% of a currency worth 0.01BTC/PTS rather than 50% of a currency worth 0.000001BTC/PTS (or BTS).

The problem is you still view this as a currency and not as shares in a decentralized for-profit corporation.   Corporations want dependable, consistent miners and don't want to want to pay all of their profits to employees in it for a short-term paycheck. 

These 'restrictions' are no more arbitrary than a company including a vesting period for an employee being paid with stock.  In fact, you almost never see a company pay in stock without a vesting period.   Miners are employees and you want their interests to align with that of the company.

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.

The value of BitShares is NOT as a currency, but by the services it renders.  I suspect that anyone who has a vested interest in the currency would choose the one with my 'arbitrary' vesting periods rather than one that gives away the company stock to disinterested parties and results in immediate inflation.

[luckybit]

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.

Okay, a combination of a random incubation/maturation period for the coins along with random amounts. Variable ratio schedule of reinforcement is the best way to produce that effect. Basically a lot of hidden surprise bonuses that no one even knows about, easter eggs, surprise bonuses which the DAC creator announces to keep people interested. So yeah a build in lottery I think is the best way to do it and every miner should get a ticket depending on how much hash rate they dedicate.

I want to eliminate the MINE AND DUMP strategy, mining should only benefit those who are committed.

This would be good if it were possible - I think you'll just see a futures market.

A better approach is to concentrate on making it super easy for many people to mine small amounts - amounts small enough that they're not rushing for the exits. I think you want mass adoption across millions of desktop pc to make the business of mining impossible. Concentrate on easy-to-use pool mining clients.

Make it fun. Make it a game.

[FreeTrade]

I want to eliminate the MINE AND DUMP strategy, mining should only benefit those who are committed.

This would be good if it were possible - I think you'll just see a futures market.

A better approach is to concentrate on making it super easy for many people to mine small amounts - amounts small enough that they're not rushing for the exits. I think you want mass adoption across millions of desktop pc to make the business of mining impossible. Concentrate on easy-to-use pool mining clients.

[iruu]

Therefore, you can limit the profitability and attractiveness of mining pools by having all new currency that is created vest for a period of 6 months.

Basically nobody is going to use this currency.
That's it. 
If there are indeed good ideas in it, it's going to be copied by an alt without arbitrary and ridiculous restrictions. 

The people who mine in large amounts are just more valuable. They're either more interested, more knowledgeable, have more money, or all of it. These are the people you want invested in an idea to make it happen. 
They're better for the currency. 

It's the same in real life. It's better to have an experienced investor with contacts rather than thousands of micro shareholders.

Do you really believe that forcibly distributing all of capital productive to everyone in the world would result in a better economic outcome?

These bulk purchases benefited the mass-miners and not the creators of the crypto-currency.

Don't let excessive greed kill your ideas prematurely, because THAT'S the true issue, isn't it? It's better to have 1% of a currency worth 0.01BTC/PTS rather than 50% of a currency worth 0.000001BTC/PTS (or BTS).

[bytemaster]

a pool that is selling future production will act in the best interest of the coin

I think you might be considering rash measures to deal with a problem that might prove to be short-term, and better dealt with in other ways. How does Bitcoin deal with this? I assume by waiting for pools to act in their rational self-interest. Maybe consider a soft fork requiring more than 1 transaction per block to encourage ypool to update their userbase. Even knowing you're considering a measure like that should encourage them to put their skates on.

I am not forking ProtoShares... this would be for BitShares launch.

[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.   

[FreeTrade]

a pool that is selling future production will act in the best interest of the coin

I think you might be considering rash measures to deal with a problem that might prove to be short-term, and better dealt with in other ways. How does Bitcoin deal with this? I assume by waiting for pools to act in their rational self-interest. Maybe consider a soft fork requiring more than 1 transaction per block to encourage ypool to update their userbase. Even knowing you're considering a measure like that should encourage them to put their skates on.

[barwizi]

most of this is good to the ears, but these modifications are to the miner not the blk data, as a result, one could recompile the source to enable more heavier usage.
Another thing is, most of us miners are small guys who need tradable volumes not only to pay electricity but to fund the purchase of more hardware. The 6 month idea is perfect against bots for the greater part bar the following


1) You have killed interest from the average miner, they would rather mine something that will pay them within a few days, speculative mining died in the altcoin spring. Faith is not a strong part of the average small guy. mine and cash OUT is the motto.

2) once a person owns a server from home, they wont need massive investments if the term is 6 months because only a few miners will connect. You could probably pull it of using a 2Mb connection.

3) you have only cut out LONG TERM use of bots and instances, on the loose someone can just take a small portion of their profits from Proto, buy instances for a solid month or two and sic them on the currency. it would cost them a little over 2 BTC and if that currency follows the proto trend, they would stand to make tens of thousands.

4) effective removal of bots would entail long term + extremely high difficulty, which leaves you with the guys who work with computers. A guy in a school/company could schedule the process for every night of those six months and rake in a ton of them. to prevent that, you would need a very high dificulty that delibates performance to the point that it would be noticeable. This however still strikes at the hearts and minds of small miners.

Yours is a novel idea, but i don't think the world is ready for it yet.

[bytemaster]

Most of these problems disappear once a market has had a chance to develop and multiple competitors enter the picture and compete for marketshare.    The key is to protect the currency in the early phase while it is being deployed.

[bytemaster]

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.   

I don't know about this - I think a pool could pre-sell the blocks they find for Bitcoin - so someone would have to finance it, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the pool operator or miners. You might find a very small number of sophisticated individuals financing the pools with BTC, and the pools paying the miners in BTC, so you'd have reduced distribution rather than wider distribution.

Financing comes with a cost to offset risk and will be based upon the expected value in 6 months.    It also comes with the price of trust which would centralize pools into trusted hands.   

Bottom line:  a pool that is selling future production will act in the best interest of the coin or they will not be able to sell their future production.   A pool selling future production will have to do so at a discount and thus the fees on the pool will be higher.   Who is willing to trust a pool with 6 months worth of mining rewards? 

The point is to increase the COST of pool mining with instant payouts vs solo mining with delayed payouts.   It will limit mining power to the demand for 6 month futures rather than the immediate demand.   In something as risky and volatile as a new crypto currency you can expect a HEAFTY discount for 6 month futures.

[FreeTrade]

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.   

I don't know about this - I think a pool could pre-sell the blocks they find for Bitcoin - so someone would have to finance it, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the pool operator or miners. You might find a very small number of sophisticated individuals financing the pools with BTC, and the pools paying the miners in BTC, so you'd have reduced distribution rather than wider distribution.

[bytemaster]

If this were the case, could any forfeited amount from early withdraw be added to the next block reward?     

It would be paid as dividends.

[Brekyrself]

1.  The simple idea mentioned earlier having a "penalty" for early withdraw is a very clean cut approach.  Restrict any block payout to > 30 days and with an increasing rate up to a full maturity 90 days out.  If this were the case, could any forfeited amount from early withdraw be added to the next block reward?

2. GUI miner is a must for non technical.  If available, we could all convince a handful of friends to run the node.  User selectable 25/50/75/100%, do not punish us that build powerful rigs and want them doing something productive while were not working.

3.  Really need to find out if GPU mining provides any reasonable hash gain over cpu.  It may prove to NOT cut out the casual miner who has an opencl capable cpgpu.

4. A clear cut tx fee structure should be implemented.  New comers may not grasp the fee per kb relationship.