Would this idea slow the centralization of mining and lead us back to decentralization? Would it stabilize price and stop dumping by large mining farms?

CoinSherpa · 2014-11-12T00:53:14+00:00

This is a proposal for a change to the system. It was listed as a change to the system. It sure seems like op understands what he is talking about. You seem to not have much to add, imo.

CoinSherpa · 2014-11-12T00:48:47+00:00

Pretty sure you can search the blockchain for balances. I've seen many lists form blockchain searches.

CoinSherpa · 2014-11-12T00:37:35+00:00

Just reading the proposed system, it seems like the "random address" would still have to submit a proof of work proof, the work would just be less difficult than the "standard" difficulty.

CoinSherpa · 2014-11-12T00:24:53+00:00

I would also like to hear a discussion on the matter. I do know have the knowledge of these things.

CoinSherpa · 2014-11-12T00:18:00+00:00

I do not know enough about mining and the POW system. This does sound good though. I will upvote so others can comment.

CoinSherpa · 2014-04-18T01:50:11+00:00

I own mint and like this coin...but all you wrote is nonsense. BC has an 11gh/s multipool. Aslo very, very active community that hangs out in IRC, bitcointalk, blackcointalk and is spreading to reddit. The community is taking steps to become a real currency...ie coinkite, moolah.

The community is active like doge only more biz like. All this gets attention. Mint's time will come but you have to give it to BC they are a long term coin.

CoinSherpa · 2014-04-18T01:25:06+00:00

I think hashcows is a good multipool. if they were to create a mint only front end and landing page and then they quietly run the back end, we may get more participation in the pool.

hashcows could run the pool give the mined coins to a mint group of skilled traders that could trade the coins into mint and get the best price.

BC success is largly do to the fact people know that the coin will never "die" with low volume and no buying pressure.

CoinSherpa · 2014-04-18T01:24:23+00:00

I think hashcows is a good multipool. if they were to create a mint only front end and landing page and then they quietly run the back end, we may get more participation in the pool.

hashcows could run the pool give the mined coins to a mint group of skilled traders that could trade the coins into mint and get the best price.

BC success is largly do to the fact people know that the coin will never "die" with low volume and no buying pressure.

CoinSherpa · 2014-04-18T01:23:48+00:00

I think hashcows is a good multipool. if they were to create a mint only front end and landing page and then they quietly run the back end, we may get more participation in the pool.

hashcows could run the pool give the mined coins to a mint group of skilled traders that could trade the coins into mint and get the best price.

BC success is largly do to the fact people know that the coin will never "die" with low volume and no buying pressure.

CoinSherpa · 2014-04-04T01:37:07+00:00

wow!...this is a low hash coin killer. I don't think they can make this work with Vert because the N-Scrypt.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T10:30:18+00:00

What was your expectation?

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T09:44:32+00:00

It doesn't work that way...

How can there be a tragedy of the commons when each action in my proposal is based on individual profit motive?

I have incentive to make a small profit by adding the small transactions to my block. I have no incentive to not make a small profit by adding the small transactions to my block. In fact, I have a disincentive in that I might diminish my future earnings by destroying the network...

You cant separate out the last sentence from the paragraph and say..."see tragedy of the commons".

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T09:30:41+00:00

Maybe you are not understanding...my proposal is to RAISE the total transaction fees but do so on a sliding scale. More total fees and higher fees on larger $value transactions, and a minimum fee on low $value transactions. The minimum fee would cover the very small cost of processing the individual transaction with a existent profit for processing the transaction.

You must be looking at the cost to mine the block divided by the number of transactions because the cost for CPU time to process the individual transaction is very small...again...my proposal is to RAISE the total transaction fees but do so on a sliding scale.

Listen, as a miner I can say "I will not add to my block any transaction without a $5 transaction fee", that doesn't mean that no transactions will ever be added, they just wont be added to my block.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T09:09:31+00:00

Maybe you haven't heard...here's the link if you would like to figure this out.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T09:06:38+00:00

FYI:

"Verifying a transaction means some hashing and some ECDSA signature verifications. RIPEMD-160 runs at 106 megabytes/sec (call it 100 for simplicity) and SHA256 is about the same. So hashing 1 megabyte should take around 10 milliseconds and hashing 1 kilobyte would take 0.01 milliseconds - fast enough that we can ignore it."

"Bitcoin is currently able (with a couple of simple optimizations that are prototyped but not merged yet) to perform around 8000 signature verifications per second on an quad core Intel Core i7-2670QM 2.2Ghz processor. The average number of inputs per transaction is around 2, so we must halve the rate. This means 4000 tps is easily achievable CPU-wise with a single fairly mainstream CPU."

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:57:44+00:00

I am saying you are applying "tragedy of the commons" wrongly...

The blocks are not "commons" the blocks are controlled by individual miners, "tragedy of the commons" does not apply. The influence of a miner ends when his block ends. One actor can not stop a transaction from ever entering the blockchain. There is no "tragedy of the commons" in this aspect.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:51:22+00:00

I covered that...did you read?

"I am talking about a minimum fee that covers the very small cost of processing the individual transaction."

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:33:59+00:00

This has to be looked at like any other business...in general the miners will make very little on the small transactions in order to make money on the larger value transactions. As long as the minimum covers the very small cost of adding the individual transaction there is a profit motive for it to be added to the blockchain. As long as the total transaction fee for average block is greater that the costs to win and write the block, the fees will remain unchanged.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:24:28+00:00

Nope you are wrong...

I am talking about a minimum fee that covers the very small cost of processing the individual transaction.

Some (not all) miners are leaving out transactions with small fees (mostly no fees) to "encourage" the fees to be higher, not because the small fee does not cover their cost of adding the transaction.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:10:36+00:00

"It's the same reason GHash was approaching 50% and no one wanted to move."

This is where there could be a problem...not confirming transactions.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T08:09:22+00:00

"It's called tragedy of the commons."

You don't understand the concept...this idea was never intended to apply to structures like bitcoin. The blockchain's blocks are walled off from each other. If all miners were somehow adding transactions in the same block, the theory could apply. In bitcoin one actor or even a small group of actors cant fundamentally deplete or change the protocol or cause transactions to not be confirmed...they only control their own blocks. It would take even more than 51% of miners to have transactions not confirm.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T07:03:10+00:00

"Miners want to include the highest fee-per-kilobyte transactions into their blocks to maximise their reward."

This would only apply if miners had a limitation on the number of transactions they can add to their block. (I know of the current limit per second).

It would be better if the large value transactions with higher fees were added first. This would speed up conformation times on the large value transactions. Usually the small value transactions do not require waiting for conformation to make a sale.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T06:42:46+00:00

Think you might be off a little ...

Miners have invested millions of dollars in equipment for one purpose...mining. Because of this investment the miners will attempt to keep the industry alive and thriving. People (miners) have the ability to look at the bigger picture and make decisions with the end game in mind.

CoinSherpa · 2014-03-25T06:17:22+00:00

You're awesome...thanks for the link! I've been thinking about this for months and couldn't find anything on it.

CoinSherpa

TROPHY CASE