3 ms·

A followup to a link I posted a week ago, "It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork", discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890215 https://news.ycombi

A followup to a link I posted a week ago, "It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork", discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890215

astrodust 12y ago
What about a single entity controlling >40% of the mining power on the network? Given the increasing barrier to entry to mining, where even $1500 worth of cutting edge mining hardware is just a tiny drop in the ocean, won't this be the future of Bitcoin? A few whales, and a whole lot of insignificant chaff.
- eric_bullington 12y ago
  Even more worrying is the trend toward mining centralization in regions of the globe where energy is inexpensive. Almost certainly, if the project continues as is, we'll end up with a few large mining conglomerates located in these locations with cheap energy available.
  - wmf 12y ago
    Why can't hobbyists take advantage of low electricity costs? Are there no hobbyists in Iceland?
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      They can, but they're unlikely to compete in any meaningful manner against multi-million dollar mining ops.
    - lvh 12y ago
      Presumably because there's a lot of starting capital needed to start mining on the proverbial other side of the world. Once you have high-end power and maybe cooling taken care of, the price of an individual piece of hardware is pretty low.
      - wmf 12y ago
        I really meant hobbyists who already live in low-electricity-cost places.
        lvh 12y ago
        That doesn't seem to affect my argument: the high-end power infrastructure and cooling still dwarf the usual equipment costs.
SilasX 12y ago
I can discern two different approaches in the articles. A) Hard Bitcoin Fork article's approach: You publish a zero-knowledge proof that you have a solution, but not the solution itself. See my summary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891243 B) Current article's approach: require that the solution be signed with the (primary?) recipient's private key. A) prevents collaboration because a member who finds the solution can keep it for themselves, and its content is not revealed (only a ZKP is) so the pool doesn't even recognize it as "their" solution. B) prevents collaboration because you'd have to give out the private key to any contributor, all of whom would send out competing spend messages as soon as the solution went out. Can anyone who understands them confirm my summary?

A followup to a link I posted a week ago, "It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork", discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890215

astrodust 12y ago

What about a single entity controlling >40% of the mining power on the network? Given the increasing barrier to entry to mining, where even $1500 worth of cutting edge mining hardware is just a tiny drop in the ocean, won't this be the future of Bitcoin? A few whales, and a whole lot of insignificant chaff.

eric_bullington 12y ago
Even more worrying is the trend toward mining centralization in regions of the globe where energy is inexpensive. Almost certainly, if the project continues as is, we'll end up with a few large mining conglomerates located in these locations with cheap energy available.
- wmf 12y ago
  Why can't hobbyists take advantage of low electricity costs? Are there no hobbyists in Iceland?
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    They can, but they're unlikely to compete in any meaningful manner against multi-million dollar mining ops.
  - lvh 12y ago
    Presumably because there's a lot of starting capital needed to start mining on the proverbial other side of the world. Once you have high-end power and maybe cooling taken care of, the price of an individual piece of hardware is pretty low.
    - wmf 12y ago
      I really meant hobbyists who already live in low-electricity-cost places.
      - lvh 12y ago
        That doesn't seem to affect my argument: the high-end power infrastructure and cooling still dwarf the usual equipment costs.

SilasX 12y ago

I can discern two different approaches in the articles. A) Hard Bitcoin Fork article's approach: You publish a zero-knowledge proof that you have a solution, but not the solution itself. See my summary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891243 B) Current article's approach: require that the solution be signed with the (primary?) recipient's private key. A) prevents collaboration because a member who finds the solution can keep it for themselves, and its content is not revealed (only a ZKP is) so the pool doesn't even recognize it as "their" solution. B) prevents collaboration because you'd have to give out the private key to any contributor, all of whom would send out competing spend messages as soon as the solution went out. Can anyone who understands them confirm my summary?