D
Deleted member 1333509
Guest
I'll keep this one a bit shorter so that it doesn't become unbearable reading it. Just a few of the important parts...
Bitcoin (and other blockchain-based cc's) are autonomous in how they function, without the need for human intervention other than connecting mining rigs to the network, and all decisions are based on publicly known math and algorithms. What that means is that you don't have to trust Bitcoin, you have to trust math, and if you don't trust Bitcoin, you don't trust math. It's that simple.
There is nothing about how Bitcoin works which is obfuscated at all, it's complete open source, and there have been armies of computers scientists, economists, hackers, you name it, who have gone through the Bitcoin source code and looked at how it works for vulnerabilities. Satoshi himself can't just give himself Bitcoin, can't change the Bitcoin blockchain, and he/they/she/it created it. You don't have to trust anything, there's no faith. It's pure science.
I didn't say that last time, I said that more miners don't mean that blocks are mined faster. The amount of data stored in the Bitcoin blockchain increases tremendously over time, and it's one of the core problems that the Bitcoin core dev team have worked on for years, as well as being the primary reason that BCH and BSV exist.
What I said was that the number of miners working on mining doesn't affect the speed that transactions are processed.. I'll explain in the next q because it relates to it.
Skip to the part of this quote that starts with "If there are more miners, there there are more people...".
Yes, mining is just a process of randomly trying to different hex strings against the winning string, over and over again as fast as they can. Yes, more ASICs working at once increases the hash rate (collective guesses) and so all things being equal more miners would normally equal less time to solve a block, and because every successful hash means that a new block is formed with the next batch of transactions stored in it after processing, it would normally mean that transactions are processed faster with more miners.
BUT a key component of the way that Bitcoin mining works is that a target of ~10 mins per block is built into the Bitcoin system so that it will automatically change the way it functions in order to keep block discovery times to roughly 10 mins.
How does it do this though? It has a setting for "difficulty" which automatically regulates the amount of time a block takes to mine on average. The way it does it is by adding and remove zeroes to the winning string.
ie. 0x00000............ would be a difficulty of 5 (the full stops are random characters to be guessed). That is harder to solve using brute force than something with 6 zeroes, because that's one less character that needs to be guessed, so it is quicker and easier to guess it.
The Bitcoin blockchain measures the total hash rate of all miners, and if it increases or drops outside of a given range, it will automatically change the difficulty to recalibrate the time it takes for a block to be mined.
So like I was saying, if 50% of all miners stopped.. yeah for one or two blocks it would be mined much slower while the blockchain recalibrated, but then it would drop the difficulty way down, meaning that it is then proportionately as easy for the remaining miners to mine a block now as the amount of hash power that left the network.
Long story short, Bitcoin, but more specifically blockchain, is no joke.
It's incredibly complex but solves a range of previously unsolvable computational and economic problems simultaneously, and in a really elegant way. It's pretty damn close to genius. The mechanism I described above is one of half a dozen individually-clever mechanisms that all work together to make it possible to have a truly decentralised value network.
There's a hell of a lot to what you're talking about doing, and I think you should keep going, but just understand the scope of what you're talking about doing.
The placement of trust in Bitcoin (and other cc's) isn't based on pure faith, in fact it's based on significantly less faith than trusting the USD.
Bitcoin (and other blockchain-based cc's) are autonomous in how they function, without the need for human intervention other than connecting mining rigs to the network, and all decisions are based on publicly known math and algorithms. What that means is that you don't have to trust Bitcoin, you have to trust math, and if you don't trust Bitcoin, you don't trust math. It's that simple.
There is nothing about how Bitcoin works which is obfuscated at all, it's complete open source, and there have been armies of computers scientists, economists, hackers, you name it, who have gone through the Bitcoin source code and looked at how it works for vulnerabilities. Satoshi himself can't just give himself Bitcoin, can't change the Bitcoin blockchain, and he/they/she/it created it. You don't have to trust anything, there's no faith. It's pure science.
I didn't say that last time, I said that more miners don't mean that blocks are mined faster. The amount of data stored in the Bitcoin blockchain increases tremendously over time, and it's one of the core problems that the Bitcoin core dev team have worked on for years, as well as being the primary reason that BCH and BSV exist.
What I said was that the number of miners working on mining doesn't affect the speed that transactions are processed.. I'll explain in the next q because it relates to it.
Skip to the part of this quote that starts with "If there are more miners, there there are more people...".
Yes, mining is just a process of randomly trying to different hex strings against the winning string, over and over again as fast as they can. Yes, more ASICs working at once increases the hash rate (collective guesses) and so all things being equal more miners would normally equal less time to solve a block, and because every successful hash means that a new block is formed with the next batch of transactions stored in it after processing, it would normally mean that transactions are processed faster with more miners.
BUT a key component of the way that Bitcoin mining works is that a target of ~10 mins per block is built into the Bitcoin system so that it will automatically change the way it functions in order to keep block discovery times to roughly 10 mins.
How does it do this though? It has a setting for "difficulty" which automatically regulates the amount of time a block takes to mine on average. The way it does it is by adding and remove zeroes to the winning string.
ie. 0x00000............ would be a difficulty of 5 (the full stops are random characters to be guessed). That is harder to solve using brute force than something with 6 zeroes, because that's one less character that needs to be guessed, so it is quicker and easier to guess it.
The Bitcoin blockchain measures the total hash rate of all miners, and if it increases or drops outside of a given range, it will automatically change the difficulty to recalibrate the time it takes for a block to be mined.
So like I was saying, if 50% of all miners stopped.. yeah for one or two blocks it would be mined much slower while the blockchain recalibrated, but then it would drop the difficulty way down, meaning that it is then proportionately as easy for the remaining miners to mine a block now as the amount of hash power that left the network.
Long story short, Bitcoin, but more specifically blockchain, is no joke.
It's incredibly complex but solves a range of previously unsolvable computational and economic problems simultaneously, and in a really elegant way. It's pretty damn close to genius. The mechanism I described above is one of half a dozen individually-clever mechanisms that all work together to make it possible to have a truly decentralised value network.
There's a hell of a lot to what you're talking about doing, and I think you should keep going, but just understand the scope of what you're talking about doing.
If you say so chief, I guess you'd know. Obviously the success of your project isn't that important to you after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
