Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Interesting mining dynamic that was mentioned at the conference yesterday by @shadders and @CSW
I've not heard this discussed anywhere before?
The idea that once we start to transition into a fee based economy, (fees are a significant % of total reward) we'll see the emergence of intermittent hashers.
When there is a decent flow of Tx/s building up in the mempool, the total reward for block discovery increases until each new block is found, then it resets.
For the sake of this example, lets assume mining has adjusted so it's at marginal profitability, for a 10 minute average block discovery. When been longer than 10 mins since the last block has been mined (i.e sufficient fee build up) This additional fee part of the reward will attract intermittent miners. ASICs that were previously not economical, will briefly become profitable again.
in other words, we could see a whole economy of miners who only switch their machines on when it's been longer than 10 mins since the last block has been found.
If you take this scenario further, albeit in a much more scaled system than we have now. These intermitted hashers may even start to make a difference. Imagine if it's been 20 mins since the last block was found and the chain has attracted 25% more hash than normal?
Ohhh, now blocks will now found faster than average. Meaning there will be an additional stabilising force that acts to keep block discovery at the targeted 10 mins.
With scale comes stability.
I've not heard this discussed anywhere before?
The idea that once we start to transition into a fee based economy, (fees are a significant % of total reward) we'll see the emergence of intermittent hashers.
When there is a decent flow of Tx/s building up in the mempool, the total reward for block discovery increases until each new block is found, then it resets.
For the sake of this example, lets assume mining has adjusted so it's at marginal profitability, for a 10 minute average block discovery. When been longer than 10 mins since the last block has been mined (i.e sufficient fee build up) This additional fee part of the reward will attract intermittent miners. ASICs that were previously not economical, will briefly become profitable again.
in other words, we could see a whole economy of miners who only switch their machines on when it's been longer than 10 mins since the last block has been found.
If you take this scenario further, albeit in a much more scaled system than we have now. These intermitted hashers may even start to make a difference. Imagine if it's been 20 mins since the last block was found and the chain has attracted 25% more hash than normal?
Ohhh, now blocks will now found faster than average. Meaning there will be an additional stabilising force that acts to keep block discovery at the targeted 10 mins.
With scale comes stability.
Our work shows that in a transaction-fee regime, predicting behavior will be fiendishly complex.
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/
[doublepost=1559319049][/doublepost]his example didn't make much sense to me given how hard it is for miners to be switched on and off esp in such a small time period. anyone who's ever run a mining operation knows this. this difficulty would be even much more likely in a small world network where the network is being secured by a relatively small number of BIG mining datacenters. the analysis also completely ignores the price of BSV which can be highly volatile as you know. if prices will be much higher in that far future, which i think they will, even a small number of tx's earlier on in the 10m block interval might still be worth ALOT if miners are still paying their electrical bills in USD.
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/
[doublepost=1559319049][/doublepost]his example didn't make much sense to me given how hard it is for miners to be switched on and off esp in such a small time period. anyone who's ever run a mining operation knows this. this difficulty would be even much more likely in a small world network where the network is being secured by a relatively small number of BIG mining datacenters. the analysis also completely ignores the price of BSV which can be highly volatile as you know. if prices will be much higher in that far future, which i think they will, even a small number of tx's earlier on in the 10m block interval might still be worth ALOT if miners are still paying their electrical bills in USD.
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Those donation coming in, almost 30 BCH raised today
almost 40 BCH raised today
almost 50 BCH raised today
https://www.bitcoin.com/fundraise/
almost 50 BCH raised today
https://www.bitcoin.com/fundraise/
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
you pay me handsomely; by trolling this thread heavily everyday all day.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Where you see hard, I see business opportunity. Isn't it possible these same big miners, develop complex switching and power management systems designed specifically for this purpose?
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Really? I made quite a detailed post along these lines a while back. Might even have been on this very thread. It's probably around 3 years old now so I don't fault you for not remembering.
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
Lol, begging for handouts. If only they hadn't chased away and alienated all the real businesses. Doomed.
10 posts by Roger on the front page of r/btc right now.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Even if you only see a 10 percent chance that he did it, you should invest more than 2 percent (BSV's value share among the bitcoin forks).
Many crypto careers will end if he delivers the proof.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Windowly
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2015
- 157
- 385
I wonder if he is starting to doubt whether he is on the right side of history now.
Bitcoin will win, but it will be BSV, I'd wager.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Sadly not (I write a lot of crap and don't keep an index). There's also a chance it was on reddit in response to nullc's inanity. It pretty much was the same conclusion though. When miners are free to assign their hashrate in multiple ways, when the block reward is small, if blocksize is unlimited, a low number of transactions will mean less hash and as the number of mineable transactions increases, more hash will be assigned pushing the block emission rates closer to the ideal 10 minutes than the current random emission with only an average of 10 minutes.
There may even have been a bit about users might increase their transaction fees in order to attract more hash if they were in a hurry (thus transaction fees being somewhat self regulating) but maybe not.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
If it made sense to do so, they surely would. Market forces at work. Presumably the default fee would be fairly low though. It all comes down to game theory.
Instead of bidding for space in a block, it becomes a group bid for hashrate.
[doublepost=1559451668][/doublepost]A lot of the problem is that (small block) people bring block-reward thinking to a transaction-fee dominated scenario.
Instead of bidding for space in a block, it becomes a group bid for hashrate.
[doublepost=1559451668][/doublepost]A lot of the problem is that (small block) people bring block-reward thinking to a transaction-fee dominated scenario.
Last edited:
