3 ms·

"Not quite squared", because the parent comment also started with "not quite". The sibling comment is exactly right. Your odds of mining a specific block are a

"Not quite squared", because the parent comment also started with "not quite". The sibling comment is exactly right. Your odds of mining a specific block are altered, but this doesn't mean much. If everyone else but you disappeared from the network, without a difficulty retarget, your odds of mining the next specific block are 100%. The rate at which you mine these blocks is exactly the same as the rate at which you mine blocks when you represent 1% or 0.1% of the network hashrate. Example: Fixed difficulty, so 1/1,000,000 hash wins, 1,000 hashes/sec. a) You are 100% of the network hashrate. Your odds of finding the next block are 100%. After 500 seconds of mining, your odds of having mined 1 block are 50%. After 500 seconds, the network will have produced on average 0.5 blocks (I know, awkward.) b) You are 1% of the network hashrate. Your odds of finding the next block are 1%. After 500 seconds of mining, your odds of having mined 1 block are 50%. After 500 seconds, the network will have produced on average 50 blocks.

lazide 4y ago
Nope, see reply to the sibling comment. If the OVERALL rate of exploration of the keyspace of valid hashes halves, the remaining half will take twice as long (on average) to find the winning value. Whoever finds a winning value first stops the contest. If I am 1% of the networks hashrate, and everyone but me disappears, my odds are indeed 100% of finding the next block - but that's not the right analogy here, because there is always someone else looking, and whoever is the first to find it wins. The time you could expect that to take, if all but 1% of the hashrate disappears, is going to be 100x of the time (on average) it would take with the original hashrate. Unless it takes so long the difficulty target reduces, of course, and the odds change. This is done infrequently to avoid someone gaming the system by kicking everyone else off to start being the sole miner with an economic amount of $$ spent. You got lost at your example b I think because you seem to think that the odds of any particular hash attempt being a win have something to do with current aggregate hashrate (which is what we're discussing changing), but it does not. It only changes the odds of it being a match IN TIME. With network hash rate being a rate (aka value over time), halving the value, doubles the time to completion on average. The odds of any specific hash being a win is set by the difficulty target, which is based on HISTORIC AVERAGE hash rate, and only adjusts infrequently. When that is adjusted, it changes the odds. But that is done independently of this whole 'suddenly half the network disappears' event.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I think you guys are talking past each other. It doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the network--- you'll win the same number of blocks per year, whether you're the only miner or one of many miners. You'll win a greater proportion of blocks if there's fewer miners, but the same number overall. Only difficulty changing changes this.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That is the part that is false. You will not win the same number of blocks per year, and fundamentally can’t, unless you have the same share of the overall mining hashpower that entire time. Bitcoin literally could not work if that was not the case. If your share of the hash power doubles, because your total hashes stayed the same but the overall hash power halved, you’ll ‘win’ twice as many blocks. Changing difficulty does not change this. Changing difficulty only changes how much hashpower is required (on average) to mine a block, and indirectly the number of blocks produced over over time, for a given hashpower. Difficulty changes the odds of any given hash attempt winning. It does not change the odds you will find a winning hash before anyone else does. That is based on your proportion of the overall hash rate. This is why there is such strong incentive to add more hashpower at lower per-hash price to mine Bitcoin. Because it increases individuals share of the overall hashrate, they end up mining more blocks, and they get more block rewards for it. Less efficient hashers get less and less share of winning blocks as this happens, until it becomes uneconomic for them to hash at all. If all miners dropped off (or 99%), blocks won’t keep getting mined every 5 minutes. They’ll take forever to mine until the network adjusts the difficulty, which takes awhile - 2016 blocks, to be precise. In fact, with a sufficiently high hash rate setting a high difficulty, then dropping to a sufficiently low hash rate right after a difficulty adjustment, it might never adjust back, and it could be years or decades to mine the next block.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Difficulty changes the odds of any given hash attempt winning. It does not change the odds you will find a winning hash before anyone else does. That is based on your proportion of the overall hash rate. Nobody cares about who finds it first. They care about blocks per hour. > If all miners dropped off (or 99%), blocks won’t keep getting mined every 5 minutes. They’ll take forever to mine until the network adjusts the difficulty, which takes awhile - 2016 blocks, to be precise. And until that difficulty changes, the remaining miners will find they still get the same number of blocks per hour. In the time the network used to find 1000 blocks, of which they got 10, the network will now find 10 blocks, and they will get... 10.

lazide 4y ago

Nope, see reply to the sibling comment. If the OVERALL rate of exploration of the keyspace of valid hashes halves, the remaining half will take twice as long (on average) to find the winning value. Whoever finds a winning value first stops the contest. If I am 1% of the networks hashrate, and everyone but me disappears, my odds are indeed 100% of finding the next block - but that's not the right analogy here, because there is always someone else looking, and whoever is the first to find it wins. The time you could expect that to take, if all but 1% of the hashrate disappears, is going to be 100x of the time (on average) it would take with the original hashrate. Unless it takes so long the difficulty target reduces, of course, and the odds change. This is done infrequently to avoid someone gaming the system by kicking everyone else off to start being the sole miner with an economic amount of $$ spent. You got lost at your example b I think because you seem to think that the odds of any particular hash attempt being a win have something to do with current aggregate hashrate (which is what we're discussing changing), but it does not. It only changes the odds of it being a match IN TIME. With network hash rate being a rate (aka value over time), halving the value, doubles the time to completion on average. The odds of any specific hash being a win is set by the difficulty target, which is based on HISTORIC AVERAGE hash rate, and only adjusts infrequently. When that is adjusted, it changes the odds. But that is done independently of this whole 'suddenly half the network disappears' event.

mlyle 4y ago
I think you guys are talking past each other. It doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the network--- you'll win the same number of blocks per year, whether you're the only miner or one of many miners. You'll win a greater proportion of blocks if there's fewer miners, but the same number overall. Only difficulty changing changes this.
- lazide 4y ago
  That is the part that is false. You will not win the same number of blocks per year, and fundamentally can’t, unless you have the same share of the overall mining hashpower that entire time. Bitcoin literally could not work if that was not the case. If your share of the hash power doubles, because your total hashes stayed the same but the overall hash power halved, you’ll ‘win’ twice as many blocks. Changing difficulty does not change this. Changing difficulty only changes how much hashpower is required (on average) to mine a block, and indirectly the number of blocks produced over over time, for a given hashpower. Difficulty changes the odds of any given hash attempt winning. It does not change the odds you will find a winning hash before anyone else does. That is based on your proportion of the overall hash rate. This is why there is such strong incentive to add more hashpower at lower per-hash price to mine Bitcoin. Because it increases individuals share of the overall hashrate, they end up mining more blocks, and they get more block rewards for it. Less efficient hashers get less and less share of winning blocks as this happens, until it becomes uneconomic for them to hash at all. If all miners dropped off (or 99%), blocks won’t keep getting mined every 5 minutes. They’ll take forever to mine until the network adjusts the difficulty, which takes awhile - 2016 blocks, to be precise. In fact, with a sufficiently high hash rate setting a high difficulty, then dropping to a sufficiently low hash rate right after a difficulty adjustment, it might never adjust back, and it could be years or decades to mine the next block.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Difficulty changes the odds of any given hash attempt winning. It does not change the odds you will find a winning hash before anyone else does. That is based on your proportion of the overall hash rate. Nobody cares about who finds it first. They care about blocks per hour. > If all miners dropped off (or 99%), blocks won’t keep getting mined every 5 minutes. They’ll take forever to mine until the network adjusts the difficulty, which takes awhile - 2016 blocks, to be precise. And until that difficulty changes, the remaining miners will find they still get the same number of blocks per hour. In the time the network used to find 1000 blocks, of which they got 10, the network will now find 10 blocks, and they will get... 10.