0

I see that transactions are recorded as blocks in the blockchain. Thereby, blocks compete for the order in the blockchain in case of forks. I do not quite understand if it is block encoding is labor-intensive or validation of the encoded block (and who of them are miners or both are miners). Yet, my question is if all of those who make this work are rewarded or only those who win the competitions. It seems (for two reaons) that only winning-block miners receive the mined coins/fees and this is why miners join into collective farms (another reason is that loosers do not leave a trace/rewarding address in the block chain, so you cannot reward them even if you wish).

The problem I see here is that competition between miners is absolutely identical to competition between the blocks. Winning block is produced by positive feedback: everybody must drop the short chain in favour of longer leader. The bitcoins algorithm assumption is that this produces a single block chain in short time. Because mining is also a subject of bitcoin assumptions, we must apply the same logic to the miners: -- single miners are forced to join into larger pools, pools into larger pools larger pools until very soon (the bitcoin block fork resolution teaches us that no longer than in 6 iterations) we'll end up with a single grand pool of miners. Bitcoin algorithm ensures (if the assumption is right) that this will end up in a single pool of minders very soon. Is miner-pool singularity expected?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1

Everybody has his favorite.
Some likes to go solo, some likes to go investing on cex;
some likes to mess with slush's, and some are digging in their own community.
So my answer will be a no, it's just like the world economics.
Look around, what did you see?
Lots of countries around the world. Ain't seeing all belongs to USA(no offense).
A big country like Russia gets along while a small country like Vatican still survives and playing a big role around the world.
Of course, there are some leave and joins, just like immigrations.
So, it won't be possible for bitcoin having a last man standing tournament.

Improve this answer
4
  • Do you see the question? How can you not apply your logic to the block deforking algorithm? Stop double standards. If everybody is forced to switch to the longest chain then how will you have the Vatican?
    – Val
    Aug 12, 2014 at 13:01
  • In the real world, you must be US puppet to survive. Even such large countries as Germany must. Germany must extradiate Snowden to US, despite Germany considers privacy uber alles and US listens to all Angela Merkel conversations. Germany must impose sanctions and bomb Iraq because US owns and uses all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, Germany must support it bombing Iraq. You give up independence in real world, where you can supply bread to your local community without leaking US ass.
    – Val
    Aug 12, 2014 at 13:05
  • In bitcoin mining, the situation is even worse -- how do you support yourself if all the profit is guaraneed to larger corporation? Wait, we have probability here. So, if your server farm is 1000 times larger it does not mean that all your 1000 miners will share all the profits. Once in 1001, a single individual will win a coin. Well, that might be the answer why pools are not advantageous at all. They may smooth the income but they do not increase your average income. Right?
    – Val
    Aug 12, 2014 at 13:07
  • I do agree with your deforking one, but my explain only applies to mining, don't get me wrong! For What I See on mining, The probability is like a lottery. It do smooth the income but I never said that it will increase the average income. Well, in the near future, single pool controlling won't happen.
    – ProtoAES256
    Aug 13, 2014 at 3:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.