<<  >> (p.244)
    Author Topic: NA  (Read 893722 times)
    strataghyst
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 393
    Merit: 250


    View Profile
    September 28, 2014, 01:21:10 PM
     #4861

    So to cope with the blocktime the diff system does not function anymore as a sole solution. I suggested a solution to this by rejecting the first N seconds of blocks but that was shot because the word reject triggers negative emotions. But is it so different from what we know? In my opinion not. The system is designed to supply 1 coin every 150 seconds, so as long as thats the case every method works and has the same effect. The network also does not have a discriminator and everybody is able to submit his hash. So lets take it to the extreme and reject submitted blocks for 149.99 seconds. the first miner that submits a block gets the coins. That a very honest and social system were jumppools have the same chance as small miners. Problem with this system is you can't guarantee the blocktime because at low hashpower it can take some time to find a hash. But maybe it's doable. Second problem is the current systems security is build around blockmass (this is the effort put in a range of blocks measured by an addition of the diff). So to keep that in place we need the difficulty to identify how much effort was put in this chain. A combination of the two gives a system where it is not possible to submit blocks for lets say 75 seconds and the diff. adjusts the remainder that way blocks are found in an average of 150 seconds. You can still rape it, but the effect is much less than with a diff only. A large pool can get 90% of the blocks and mine in advance, but thats also possible in the currect system and thus another problem. You can even think of a system where you slowly (this must be because the diff has to follow) increase the blocking time in case of a hopper.

    Is this reject system a disadvantage for the miner, no because everybody has an equal chance to find blocks within the possible submit window. The hoppers however have to adjust their method because they can't rape the coin and mine 20 blocks in a minute and dispear leaving the pieces for the community. So that only is probably enough to get the hoppers off our back. But even if they adjust their system they face a coin that has a profitwise disadvange over others so the chance of getting hit is deminishing.

    I'm sure there are flaws and exploits, but to solve the problems we are facing and especialy gona face the next six months, it's important to leave the paved roads and think out of the box. In that light I am a huge fan of the BTM solution because it effectively eliminates the short term miners and pools.

    If I am understanding the proposal properly, it seems a good alternative not because big pools won't be able to find a lot of blocks, because most probably they will be mining most of them, but because it makes the mining not profitable enough and as such they go to the next coin. Once that happens, the block findings will return to the finders who are always mining because big pools have left the building.

    Is my interpretation correct?
    Yep, thats the idea. But even if those pools stay they are put in a position where the impact on the network is much less. But my assumption is they leave the coin alone because it's not profitable anymore.

    I'm also big fan of BTM 's solution its simple and effective at least on paper. But I still don't comprehend why DWG doesn't work for Guldencoin as it does work for other's.
Page 243
Viewing Page: 244