Published on: 2018-09-18T20:26:16+00:00
The conversation on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list focused on the 51% problem and potential solutions. Zawy expressed concerns about Andrew's proposal, suggesting that using an average of 144 past blocks to determine a certain parameter could help reduce mining fluctuations. He also mentioned the possibility of issuing too many or too few coins depending on the long-term rise of this parameter. Zawy proposed increasing difficulty instead of reward as an alternative solution, but Eric disagreed, stating that SHA256 is ASIC-friendly, making it difficult for prime number computations to switch quickly to Bitcoin mining.Zawy clarified that his post was addressing not only selfish mining and 51% attacks but also other types of attacks that aim to drive away mining competition. He suggested giving users more control over how their fees are spent by allocating a portion of fees to miners based on hashrate conditions and returning the remaining part to users for future fee payments.Eric mentioned that merge mining could help smooth out hashrate fluctuations, but even without merge mining, there might not necessarily be a destructive feedback loop. The share of a miner's hash power is determined by capital investment rather than the newness of the investment. Higher efficiency mining does not reduce energy consumption, and proof-of-memory (space) shifts energy costs to hardware manufacture and shipment.Users have the ability to set a target hashrate for Bitcoin mining, and as long as the hashrate is rising, miners will gradually receive reserve fees. If the hashrate remains stable or decreases, users get the reserve fees back. However, there is a limit on the hashrate for each level of mining rewards based on demand. Once the hashrate becomes sufficiently large, new miners may not join due to their small share of the hashrate.Merge mining and proof of space are seen as potentially efficient methods in the future, although educating people to use fewer resources falls outside the scope of the Bitcoin software protocol.The 51% problem is a significant concern in the world of cryptocurrency. It amplifies oscillations and motivates miners to exacerbate the problem until a limit is reached. Solutions to this problem include selfish mining prevention and pollution, but these are not actively discussed in the Bitcoin community. Another solution is to increase difficulty instead of reward, which would have a similar effect from a miner's perspective. Andrew proposed a solution involving "reserve fees" that would be paid to miners if the hashrate rises, aiming to prevent selfish mining and other attacks.Damian Williamson expressed concerns about incentivizing increased global resource consumption and its potential harm to the environment. However, Andrew argued that centralization of energy does more harm than total energy consumption and suggested that Bitcoin could help decentralize power and potentially reduce global energy usage.Andrew's proposal for selfish mining prevention involves adding "reserve fees" to transactions. Users can specify a fraction of the fee to be held in reserve for a certain period. If the hashrate rises, the reserve fees will be paid to miners, incentivizing them to maintain a stable hashrate and avoid driving out competition. Damian emphasized the importance of stifling greed and making mining more decentralized and competitive. He suggested approaches unrelated to Andrew's proposal that focus on addressing greed. While Andrew agreed that preventing greed should be a priority, he believes his proposal can work well alongside a dynamic difficulty adjustment algorithm.Andrew proposed adding "reserve fees" to Bitcoin mining as a solution to prevent selfish mining attacks and collusion. These reserve fees would be a fraction of the total fee held in reserve for a specific period. If the hashrate increases, the reserve fees would be paid to miners, encouraging them to maintain a stable hashrate and avoid driving out competition. This proposal requires a soft fork and is voluntary for users. The validation resource requirements for this change are small, and it would be especially important as fees become more significant in the future.Andrew's proposal for selfish mining prevention involves adding "reserve fees" to transactions. The reserve fees would be a fraction of the total fee that is held in reserve for a specific period. If the hashrate rises, the reserve fees will be paid to miners, incentivizing them to maintain a stable hashrate and avoid driving out competition. This proposal is voluntary and requires a soft fork. While there are concerns about increased global resource consumption, Andrew argues that centralization of energy does more harm than total energy consumption and that Bitcoin could help decentralize power and potentially decrease global energy usage.Damian Williamson expressed concerns about the proposed solution incentivizing increased global resource consumption and its potential harm to the environment. He emphasized the need to stifle greed and make mining more decentralized and competitive. Damian suggested focusing on approaches unrelated to Andrew's proposal that address greed.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T23:52:07.453237+00:00