If it were possible it would completely obviate the need for pooling which is one of the most powerful causes of centralization in mining.
-
-
Replying to @real_vijay
Thanks!
By "protocol level" do you mean the Bitcoin protocol? I don't think that's possible
It's binary: either you successfully mine a block, or you don't.
Pool protocols are different though, since they work on top of Bitcoin, they can assign rewards proportionally.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
I know it's not possible with Bitcoin now, but is it possible under some other protocol that might at some point be incorporated into Bitcoin? E.g., if you contribute 0.1% of hash power you get 0.1% of the reward, per block without requiring pooling?
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @real_vijay @hugohanoi
With BetterHash and everyone being in the same pool, yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jimmysong @real_vijay
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
Vijay means is it possible to bake that directly into Bitcoin itself- not a higher level protocol? My hunch is no.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1005616004032966657 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoi1/ Exploring this line of thought some more. H/t@real_vijay for raising a very interesting question. There are 2 big challenges if you want to bake “reward sharing” into the protocol: a/ Keeping a record of “who did what” b/ Payout distribution process that honors that^ record https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1004962539187257345 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @jimmysong
Yeah, Hugo is correct. I was wondering whether this could be baked in at the protocol level. It's not obvious to me that it's impossible or impractical, but that may be true.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Hugo gave some good reasons for why it may be impractical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @real_vijay @hugohanoi
Let's see. You could do something at the protocol level, but it would be very expensive. Essentially every qualifying share would have to get recorded and that used to pay people out when Proof of Work actually gets found. You could soft fork this, but it's massively wasteful.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jimmysong @hugohanoi
Yeah this is sort of what I was thinking. Could you reduce the waste in some way? Perhaps restrict to dividing the reward I to, say, 100 parts? So the biggest pool would only be 1% of hash power... My thoughts here are very incomplete :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @real_vijay @hugohanoi
You could change to a high share threshold. You could probably reduce the need to store the data permanently and can be thrown out after verifying. Bandwidth you can reduce by having people essentially mine similar blocks. Verification is the killer. Each share has to be verified
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yeah the overhead in traffic/validation will be insane. It can also be a new attack vector as bad miners send bogus shares across the network. The other big problem, assuming you can solve the record-keeping problem, is whether you can enforce that payouts do honor that record.
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.
