@TheBlueMatt's brilliant proposal that separates 1/ block construction process from 2/ payout process. You'll still get the benefit of connecting to a pool (stable payouts) while not conceding the right to propose a block. Best of both worlds solution that will help d14n. 
https://twitter.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1004106026721972224 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Just as with FIBRE the “shift” is cosmetic, the power structure remains the same. In FIBRE the relay operator is assuming the power of the pool. In this thing the payout pool is assuming the power of a pool under a different name. But yes, what would a true “shift” even mean?
-
But it is not true at all that this reduces pool power. There is no security improvement.
-
What about accessibility improvements (reducing cost to run a BetterHash pool). What about bandwidth usage to receive / transmit pool shares in the Work Pool, any improvement? My business uses cellular and we mine in remote locations, so this is interesting to me.
-
There may very well be optimizations, which would not be surprising given the very shitty state of existing protocols. However given the security design failure it’s necessary to consider the protocol strictly as an optimization. This may lead one to a different design.
-
The big improvements BetterHash brings, IMO: 1/ Individual miners regain their right to propose blocks 2/ Authenticated connections between miners & pools - something Stratum didn't have 3/ Reduced latency by eliminating the dependency on a centralized getblocktemplate() service
-
Assuming BetterHash makes improvements on lowering the cost to run a pool (BetterHash ‘Pool Protocol’ operator vs Stratum pool operator), then does that not incentivize more competition between pool operators, thus improving security?
-
No, the incentive for competition remains unchanged. If there is a financial benefit to the protocol, they simply all upgrade.
-
1) No, this is unchanged vs. current pools. They of course have the "right" to change pools, but the larger pool wins. No improvement. 2) This is not a system security improvement, and is not necessarily an improvement. 3) No, in this case latency increases.
- 9 more replies
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.
