Thanks. I actually tried a new search "bitcoin mining pool repeat work" and got some good information. Sometimes you just have to know the terminology. Whooda thunk it.

I've read a little about pools but nothing brought up this area. Do any (or all) pools assign nonce ranges to avoid wasteful duplication?

My goodness. Zero replies. I'm assuming this also means zero pools using this technique. This seems incredibly wasteful. How wasteful is it? I'm glad you asked.

To demonstrate the wastefulness I will have to use my Bitcoin system simulator. It's cute. I downloaded it as an app. The software is credited to aliens beings beyond the edge of the universe. My favorite setting is a mining pool of 2^32-1 computers with random nonce generation. You'd think that many computers would hit the solution on the first cycle. Unfortunately the probability is not one, it is just close to one. How close? I'm glad you asked.

The major factor is the random number generator. The alien simulator comes with 2 option. The first being the random number generator designed by the aliens and tested over 14 millennia. The second is the human designed one compromised by the NSA. Anyway were going to set the simulator to use the alien version. Okay we're ready to go. I just press the "Mine" button. There.

It takes a few seconds to run a simulation of 2^32-1 computers. It runs faster on my Samsung smartphone but my iphone is so cool I always use it instead. The app network activity indicator always comes on. I think it connects to this computer on Forbidden Planet for processing help. Sometimes the app makes these really weird noises. Somewhere is the documentation it says the aliens can add a Bitcoin to their wallet just by thinking about it. Also noted is the reason they went beyond the edge of the universe. Apparently there were some bad vibes starting to come out of the Sol system. They theorized some kind of whilrpool after the last Bitcoin was mined. With that bad news they fueled up their ships (with the bad news) and headed in the other direction. Their ships actually are fueled by bad news since nothing travels faster¹. Anyway it's finished.

Before I reveal whether the solution was found on the first cycle, I'd like to ask what you think the chances are finding the solution on the second cycle if the first cycle is a dud. You guessed it. The probability is not one but very close. In fact, there is a very, very slight chance that the solution might not be found in your lifetime, using random nonce assignment. That probability is close to zero but is not equal to zero. So you never know.

Wow, we were lucky. We got it on the first try. Let's check out the resource utilization feature. Cool, we would have blacked out Europe and half the mid-east. Hey, 2^32-1 computers suck up a lot of energy. Neat! I just noticed because of that huge power surge, we also ended up with a Higgs bosun in our wallet. Unfortunately it disappeared almost instantly. I wonder if Bitcoins have a half-life. There are definitely some entropy concerns. Just for fun let's see what the second cycle would have done on top of that. Whoa, back to the industrial revolution. Gotta check the third cycle. Damn, stone ages. Don't want to go there.

So with these obvious big risks, why use random nonce assignment? The alternative guarantees first cycle solutions (if you got 2^32-1 computers lying around). You just assign nonces incrementally until exhausted at 2^32-1. Crank out one cycle and you're done.

Anyway happy mining and avoid those random nonce pools. Don't forget to download that app and you can follow the aliens on Twitter @monstersfromtheid

¹ Bad news theory of space travel attributed to D. Adams (2nd Guide)

Wow! How many posts here have footnotes? Or humor for that matter. (Bitcoin: the Universe of Grinding Illogic)[pronounced "buggy"]

I'm not sure I understand the incentive. It sounds like you are paying someone more for something you can get for less. Why would someone do that?

I think of it more as an incentive for an optimally sized network for blockchain security as well as monopolization prevention not punishment.

Are you saying there is no way to prevent monopolization? (BTW that was a heroic stretch...backdoor payments...did I hear something rip?)

As it stands now it looks like this is not the place to find the necessary resources to plug all the holes. I'll try some other stuff as well. If the holes aren't plugged Bitcoin was just a cute attempt at solving the double spending problem but became a billion dollar joke. And it wasn't even that funny. I've got a better joke and it's free (and quite appropriate).

Okay it's easy to start a pool. But will it pay for itself? What if the going transaction fee requires a $50,000,000 investment to break even? I think if Bitcoin doesn't crash and burn before 2140, the players might well be the size of Google or Yahoo. There's a site now in Iceland shooting for 20% of the hashrate.

Am I going to get any useful suggestions? Goodness. I'll have to moderate if it doesn't improve. What I'm looking for is ideas on the "ideal" network size, how to determine whether that level has been breached, less important is what the curve should look like. Also what to do with the unrecovered fees which I assumed could just go back to the transaction creator.

Ideas, guys?

So you wanna start a search engine? Go ahead....make my day. How about a new operating system? You got that covered? It's called "barrier to entry". At some point nobody has the bucks to get in anymore. We can stop that with one tiny field (some aspects yet to be determined).

I am expecting positive suggestions from you guys, of course. Don't be so negative. It will all be worked out. You do see the need I hope. Or did you want to be the monopoly?

I propose that a fee recovery rate field be added to the bitcoin header. The purpose is to guarantee adequate competition and blockchain security. The fee recovery rate will default to 100 percent. This allows the processor to recover 100% of the included fees for transactions processed. If the network size falls below an "ideal" level, the fee recovery rate is reduced along a defined curve. The value of the fee recovery rate at network size one (monopoly) is zero (e.g. no recovery) . This prevents a transaction processor from becoming a monopoly in that as  a transaction processor reduces its pricing below competitive rates, the fee recovery rate reduces their profit. The exact size of the "ideal" network is yet to be determined. The method to determine if the network size is below the ideal is yet to be determined. The curve for the reduction of the fee recovery ratio is yet to be determined. The field will probably not be required until 2140 when all activity is paid for by transaction fees but may then be essential to prevent a monopoly. Of course, this might not prevent a processor from "shooting the moon" (taking a loss in order to control the blockchain).

I recently realized that knowing the network size at all times is not necessary. What is necessary to know at all times is whether the count is greater than the "ideal". The exact number does not matter until it falls below the ideal. Obviously the larger the network the more secure it is but the ideal would be the lowest number that constitutes a specific threat level considered acceptable. What would be nice about this would be that the largest processors would have an incentive to keep their rates high enough so competition exists. Their penalty for reducing prices below competitive rates is an decrease in the recovery ratio.

Where are Bohm and Jacopini when we need them? They figured out the minimum number of programming constructs that could satisfy any algorithm. They came up with three. I'm sure the number of nodes for adequate security would be much larger but it might also be easily confirmed as existing at any one time (a simple ACK?)

I realize that the suggestion is in its infancy but I am hoping for people to see that perhaps it is Bitcoin that has failed in the details. I wonder if the inventor pushed the final date way into the future so he wouldn't have to rip his eyes out when it crashes. I mean why not 20 years? Of course it may crash way before 2140.

Doesn't the blockchain show where the new bitcoins are awarded? Isn't the node a party to that transaction? If so, you should be able to get a minimum count (just remove duplicates).

I am actually surprised that you would not be behind an enhancement for increased security. As for implementation all you would need would be a single field in the header showing how much of the fee can be recovered based of the network size at time of creation (e.g. network size=1, recovery ratio=0). Some work might have to be done to determine optimal network size and the exact nature of the curve. I have asked in multiple places how big the current network is but got not a single answer. Of course it changes but not even a ballpark figure? I mean come on, count the nodes in the blockchain. Unfortunately I am not that technically proficient.

Well I have to stand by my theory that unfettered market forces favor monopolization and without a control this is Bitcoins future. Perhaps what is required is something like the reverse of difficulty where the fee goes to zero if the network goes to one on some kind of sliding scale with maximum return at a level of ideal security. Easy to implement.

Still the fees must cover the cost of running the network or no one will process transactions and be less that competing services (VISA?). Is there an optimum network size that guarantees security? Obviously a network of one is the cheapest but guarantees no security.

A market determined fee? A market implies competition which implies advertisement of competing products or prices. How is the selection done? If it's an auction for the lowest fee then the problem of monopolization remains.

Or if you mean the transaction originator (spender) includes a fee, is there a guarantee that this will find a processor at less than competing services (e.g. VISA at 2%)

If you look at the graph of bitcoin prices (until the China Connection) it seems to be going up and perhaps must since the difficulty increases over time, generally, theoretically. Or maybe it will hit a wall where the next bitcoin is not worth mining. Barring a bitcoin failure, it would not be surprising that the last bitcoin mined would be the most valuable (current market value). I cannot imagine an incentive for the network not to continually increase in size.

You will have to forgive me but Bitcoin is no longer an experiment. There are probably little old ladies in China who have put their life savings in Bitcoins. If everybody thought Bitcoin is just an experiment the price would probably be back to $12 or under in a heartbeat. If it's just an experiment, this needs to be better advertised.

One theory of transaction cost:

A days transactions must pay for a day's network cost. Of course, after the last bitcoin is mined the network will be monsterously huge as everyone tried to get that last incredibly valuable Bitcoin. No one will be able to afford that fee. A fee advertisement mechanism will have to be used to reduce network size. Then we are back to my original problem of monopolization.

I'm not sure I understand the economics here. I'm concerned about the final stage which is fee-based. I'm not sure how this fee would get set. Would the fee structure mimic the profitabity of mining for bitcoins? If not, would that drive out a lot of the network perhaps to the detriment of security?

I am unable to find much work regarding what happens after mining ends. A hundred years from now does seem like a long time, but to ignore it is irresponsible. Assuming the community consensus is to shun regulation, here is what I imagine will happen. Everyone will flock to the largest transaction processor since they will likely offer the lowest rates. As their market share grows they will bankrupt all the other processors by offering even lower rates. When the smoke clears they will look around for any other competition like VISA, if they still exist. If VISA has a rate of 2%, they will offer 1.9%. They will be so large that the cost of entry for competition will be prohibitive. This would seem to defeat the entire purpose of the Bitcoin spirit.

The solution: In processing transactions there must be an incentive to maintain an optimally sized network for competition and security of the blockchain. It must be built-in.

If this were a Linux forum and you asked that question, you would be guaranteed at least one response like "go google it moron" but I will be kind here. RTFM="read the f*cking manual".

I love the line from "Philadelphia" where Denzel says "explain it to me like I am a six year old".

Please read my other threads to get an idea of where I'm coming from. This bitcoin forum is beginning to remind me of the Linux community where RTFM rules. Unfortunately the bitcoin resources are dense and incomplete (IMHO).

I need someone who is extremely familiar with the theoretical aspects but can shift easily to the political/social/economic areas.

We might negotiate compensation.

Somebody said they would not longer post but seem to have forgotten it. As a result, and since any disagreement is seen as "trolling" I am locking this thread.