Thread

A decentralized #Bitcoin is a Bitcoin where miners decide what goes in blocks, not pools. OCEAN's ultimate goal is to make this a reality, and today we take one step closer to our vision of decentralized block template construction. Available immediately, OCEAN is offering ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—น๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ธ ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€, giving miners control over what blocks they are mining. The three options are: 1) OCEAN Recommended (most real financial transactions and least spam) 2) Bitcoin Core with the โ€œOrdisrespectorโ€ spam filter 3) Unmodified Bitcoin Core (same as other pools with fewest financial transactions and most spam) OCEAN will continue its 0% promotional pool fee for options 1 & 2 while there will be a competitive pool fee of 2% for option 3. Our fees are structured to incentivize miners to make choices that benefit the Bitcoin network in the long term. Suggestions for more templates? Let us know at mining@ocean.xyz.

Replies (68)

โ†ฉ replying to MF_HODL
"These are not separate pools! Whenever a miner using OCEAN finds a block, all of OCEAN's miners receive their share of the block earnings, even those mining a different template. This is a major step toward fully decentralized mining: OCEAN returns control to you, allowing you the option to mine the transactions you want without losing the benefits of pooled mining."
OCEAN - Alternate Templates
โ†ฉ replying to Baz.
Interesting, I guess I like this approachโ€ฆ But if I were a miner simply optimizing for the most profitable block template, I might not want to split profits evenly with miners who consistently omit the top most profitable txs. Plus the ppl optimizing for profit are the only ones paying a pool fee ๐Ÿ˜‚. I guess the market will decide if this is acceptable.
โ†ฉ replying to Luke Dashjr
Centralized on what layer? If pool decentralization is your goal, new (or revived) pools constructing blocks with low rewards isnโ€™t going to attract any meaningful hash power. Itโ€™s simply not economically rational for anyone involved. More pools competing on rewards, features, and specialization is the only way. If block template decentralization is your goal, then letโ€™s focus on finishing the SV2 spec for block negotiation, and make it easy for pools & miners to use. The big pools will happily pass that regulatory risk off to the individual miners.
โ†ฉ replying to Baz.
I found the answer: "These are not separate pools! Whenever a miner using OCEAN finds a block, all of OCEAN's miners receive their share of the block earnings, even those mining a different template. This is a major step toward fully decentralized mining: OCEAN returns control to you, allowing you the option to mine the transactions you want without losing the benefits of pooled mining."
OCEAN - Alternate Templates
For people who understand this better. When mining, isnโ€™t it better to stick with a template for a relatively longer time, and not keep adding removing transactions from it? This question has nothing to do with the options above. I was just wonder, because when I look at the Ocean dashboard, the template changes every second. And for some reason I feel it is more probably to hit a block if the template doesnt change for say 3 minutes. Might be completely wrong but thatโ€™s why Iโ€™m asking.
โ†ฉ replying to แด›สœแด‡ แด…แด‡แด€แด›สœ แด๊œฐ แดสŸแด‡แด‹แดœ
you probably wanted to say uniform distribution. Hash function have the design goal of inducing a probability distribution on their image which is closer to a uniform distribution as possible. So the probability that h(X) = k is the same for every k.
โ†ฉ replying to Pip the WoT guy
continuous uniform distribution
Probability distribution - Wikipedia
 which is commonly associated with gaussian normal distributions. of course it's discrete integers but continuous implies total randomness since all bits are at play and not any holes in it or symmetries.
โ†ฉ replying to Pip the WoT guy
If you found a distribution pattern in a hash function, it's no longer a cryptographic hash function. There is no such thing in the real world as continuous, it is impossible to measure or quantify. Saying that this disqualifies the use of "gaussian" for a random distribution over a finite field is not a tenable position due to the nature of computation. The expression "cryptographic hash function" itself implies apparent continuity of distribution. As soon as the discontinuity is found in the distribution its security is busted.
โ†ฉ replying to แด›สœแด‡ แด…แด‡แด€แด›สœ แด๊œฐ แดสŸแด‡แด‹แดœ
Yeah yeah, in this we agree. I was just lazy. One should say: X is a random variable representing the choice of a message at random (under probability distribution PX). Then h(X) is a random variable, that induce a different probably distribution bla bla.
โ†ฉ replying to แด›สœแด‡ แด…แด‡แด€แด›สœ แด๊œฐ แดสŸแด‡แด‹แดœ
Yes, no such thing as continuity in the real world, real number are not physically real. Buuut, they are very useful for making computations easiers. I never disqualified the utility of the gaussian distribution, I simply pointed out the obvious that Gaussian != Uniform > the expression "cryptographic hash function" itself implies apparent continuity of distribution. No, it implies apparent uniformity of disitribution. Continuity is another (topological) property. f^(-1) (A) is an open set for every open set A.
โ†ฉ replying to Pip the WoT guy
gaussian is continuous uniform distribution. aliasing is an inherent property of finite fields. if this error of precision says it's not gaussian than what use is the expression "gaussian distribution" anyway? perhaps ergodicity is a more accurate expression, since this doesn't carry baggage of theoretical and impossible things with it?
โ†ฉ replying to npub1hklp...3u2k
"Anti OFAC" literally none of their templates are OFAC compliant so all of them meet this criteria. "LN channel opens/closes" These will also be included in every available template. " Coinjoins/mixer TXs" There is no standard for these TXs so protocols like whirlpool that override the datacarrier to announce to the p2p layer that they are doing coinjoins may unfortunately be filtered out however should be possible through option 3 which is unmodified.
Thatโ€™s great to hear and sincerely hope they wonโ€™t be stopped by government. The only thing I canโ€™t help thinking about is if they launched a few weeks late but in this state: โ€œokay miners will choose if they want to include inscriptions or notโ€ there would be no drama and disappointment but I guess they wanted to live through this discussion to lay down their arguments. This might served to explain ordinals and BRC20 as a spam due to a bug. Which is a legit argument I believe. Lastly maybe the Public Relations guy should be the Bitcoin Mechanic instead of Luke. Even though Luke may have the purest of intentions I think its safe to say he has not the best communication skills.