This proposal does not increase the security of #bitcoin through increased decentralization, it merely shifts the point of centralization. This is essentially the same flaw that he produced in his work on relays.
-
-
-
Where does it shift the point of centralization?
-
The pool still controls payouts, so it could say to hashers "censor these transactions or else you won't get paid".
-
Yup, power remains with the ability to control the larger payout.
-
That's true, but pools have always had this power. I wouldn't say BetterHash "shifts the point of centralization". It's still the same point. What it'd do is potentially reducing pools' power - an improvement over the status quo. That is worth something.
-
Fundamentally, I believe it’s always a trade-off between mining variance <-> some centralization. I don’t think you can get around that.
-
That’s just an assumption.
@BobMcElrath -
Yes,
@BobMcElrath was kind enough to engage with me about his work on#braidpool
I think the idea of a DAG-based consensus is incredibly interesting, but I'm still unclear it could actually work / be secure enough. Need to do more research.https://twitter.com/BobMcElrath/status/1006016236415782912 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Agree what do you think is the best adoption strategy?
-
IMO: 1/ BetterHash pools created 2/ Demonstrates that payouts are the same or better than Stratum pools Then adoption should be a no-brainer. The improved security & ability to select ur own txs should serve as strong incentives to switch. Disclaimer: I'm not a miner.

-
This is really fascinating! I would love to hear what
@slushcz (& team),@ckpooldev and@james_hilliard think about the proposal. -
Unfortunately you'll be bitterly disappointed by the lack of response to this from both the client and server end in terms of adoption.
-
CK, have you detailed your response somewhere, maybe on bitcointalk? I'd like to understand better what the experts think of this proposal.
-
No I haven't because I could predict what was going to come of it
. -
I think
@ckpooldev's initial comment was pretty clear - the activation energy required to get the ecosystem to migrate to a new protocol is very nontrivial, so there's a very good shot people looking to adoption will be dissapointed... - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Absolutely love how he modified current pool mining infra to increase miner decentralization.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps compatible with ClanChain extension for a Bitcoin PoW network? https://etherplan.com/2018/05/21/clanchain-solving-the-node-identification-problem/6877/ …
-
If there are different/varying jobs in the decentralized pool, then maybe. But if everyone is acting as a server with equivalent roles, then no.
-
ClanChain has 7 types of entities! Clans Clan miner nodes Clan validator nodes Sterile nodes Ostracized Clans Ostracized miner nodes Ostracized validator nodes They can all be cooperators defectors so that os 2x = 14!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

