The current P2Pool setup is a disadvantage for smaller miners, Braidpool explains.
Braidpool will use a DAG that allows creating a shared database between the miners.
Braidpool is a decentralized Bitcoin mining project that proposes optimizing certain aspects in which it considers that P2Pool has lagged behind.
According to a document Posted by Braidpool in September on the Bitcoin developer mailing list, P2Pool must correct three things: the drastic variations in its payments, its high number of orphaned or expired blocks, and the exaggerated block space occupied by mining payments. .
The proposal indicates that the problems related to orphan blocks and irregular payments in P2Pool concern the 30-second limit that this platform applies to the rate of shares. This mostly affects small miners; since, the hash rate of the pool increases as more miners join and, therefore, the difficulty of obtaining shares in that period of time it is also greater.
Workers with high mining power do not worry about slight increases in difficulty, but those with lower hash rates suffer more to achieve shares and this causes their earnings to drop.
It is important to note that the term Compartir in cryptocurrency mining it refers to the participation of each worker in a mining pool. The more shares he is able to achieve, the greater the collaboration of said worker with the pool; so their share of the rewards earned is also higher.
Regarding the block space occupied by the payment to miners, the document mentions that, as the number of participants in P2Pool increases, so does the size of the coinbase transactions (where the reward for mining a Bitcoin block is housed. ). This subtracts block space from transactions that can be processed and limits the earnings that could be obtained by commissions.
Braidpool Proposals to Optimize Bitcoin Mining Based on P2Pool
Braidpool notes that P2Pool’s problems have caused many of its workers to desert. Although there are no graphs or data openly available to substantiate this claim. In any case, the intention of Braidpool is not to replicate the flaws that they detected in P2Pool, but to solve them.
One of the important steps that Braidpool will be taking is creating a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph). This type of file, which would form a shared database among all workers in the pool, would be a fundamental tool to optimize the general operation of the mining pool.
Braidpool’s proposal explains that, through the DAG, it is possible to avoid double spending of transactions, calculate the distribution of the rewards obtained among all the miners in the pool and even allow the workers to configure the mining difficulty that they will use according to their hash rate.
Another strategy that they plan to implement in Braidpool is the use of payment channels; which would help solve problems related to the increasing size of the coinbase and the space left to add transactions. To do this, the project developers intend to use a hub via v3 Hidden Services on Tor, a search engine used to navigate the dark web (dark web) and in the deep web (deep web) due to its level of privacy.
The series of improvements raised by Braidpool have not been implemented yet. At the moment, they are only part of the plans they have to become an alternative to P2Pool, which has been active since 2011. Something that would suit the cryptocurrency ecosystem, since it is about decentralized Bitcoin mining pools.
Decentralization and mining have not gone so hand in hand
One of the keywords to define Bitcoin is decentralization, but ironically, the way a digital mining pool works is usually quite centralized. Although it is a group of miners that unites the power of their rigs To mine a cryptocurrency and spread the profits among everyone, these platforms rely heavily on their operators.
The operator of a mining pool is responsible for managing said pool and ensuring its optimal operation. However, it also has the power to make changes that can be quite disadvantageous to workers, whether for their own benefit or through sheer carelessness.
For a few years, it has been reported that different mining pools have incurred in transaction censorship. These procedures are usually linked to orders from government authorities, as they are suspicious of the addresses involved in such operations. The reasons for this are usually that such addresses are linked to people or organizations sanctioned or investigated by some government.
In CriptoNoticias we have reported how Slush Pool and F2pool, among others, have been accused of censoring transactions of miners and users.
The problem with these measures and the power that governments and traditional pools have to execute them has not to do with the crime they are trying to combat, but with the freedom that the bitcoiner community can lose. Since, just as a transaction by someone who has broken the law is censored, any of the operations that we carry out could also be censored. There would be no big difference then between Bitcoin and fiat money, created and controlled by a centralized unit, such as central banks.