<p>I suspect this idea needs more work or clarification.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>It seems like basically everyone uses a mining pool.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>An awful lot of Bitcoin users do not. This includes people who use ordinary non-mining wallet software or services.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>The incentive for this is to have a decentralized ledger.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Having a decentralized <strike>ledger</strike> <em>journal</em> is not an objective in itself. It is a means to achieving some other, far more important, objective. Making a feature of an intermediate measure makes a poor incentive for most people, particularly if it involves continual financial costs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>a proof-of-work blockchain that evenly distributes cryptocurrency reward to everyone in the network upon any individual actually successfully mining the block.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In such a network, no one would be incentivised to buy dedicated mining equipment that others were not buying, everyone would be using relatively slow non-dedicated devices they already owned. Why spend $20,000 on a mining rig if you get no additional reward.</p>
<p>This could make the network very vulnerable to a so-called 51% attack.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T13:01:27.877Z
It is unclear to me whether OP envisions this hypothetical built-in mining pool of all users to pay to all users *equally* or just proportional to their hashrate contribution. You seem to have answered the "everyone equally" assumption; I have answered the other one.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T14:58:29.200Z
@PieterWuille I mean pay all users equally. So one person could do 100% of the mining if he wanted, but he'd just be wasting money. Every active wallet (including his own) would increase by the same number. There is no incentive to exclusively mine on this hypothetical blockchain, there would only an incentive to participate in the legal/corporate system that is utilizing the blockchain. It rewards early adopters but not the already wealthy.
Austin Capobianco
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T15:01:59.387Z
@AustinCapobianco The problem with that is how does the system recognize unique users? What prevents someone from pretending to be a million users, and getting a million times the rewards of others? Even if you don't care about this aspect, it implies to trivial denial-of-service on the system, as to coordinate payouts, every user needs to be aware of everyone else's contribution. PoW prevents that by making the communication only needed when a winning block is found, but that does not work for pools.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T15:07:41.130Z
@RedGrittyBrick The structure I'm talking about would technically function as a decentralized ledger and journal because it would not be anonymous. All transactions made by all accounts would (by default) need to be visible to anyone who launches their own node. The incentive would not be to have a lot of arbitrary cryptocurrency, but rather to participate in the governmental/corporate structure that decides to start using it. The network I'm proposing is actually immune to a 51% attack precisely because there would be zero incentive to do so.
Austin Capobianco
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T15:14:05.560Z
@PieterWuille I have the identity verification issue covered, which is why I'm not soliciting your opinions on that aspect. I realize that the way PoW functions on all existing blockchains would not distribute payouts equally like I'm describing. I am asking if there is an alternative that accomplishes what I'm describing.
Austin Capobianco
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T15:47:17.757Z
I assumed this might be relevant to Bitcoin, but maybe it isn't. Privacy, some significant  degree of anonymity and decentralisation are usually viewed as fundamental to Bitcoin
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-24T06:51:59.503Z
@RedGrittyBrick no, it's not Bitcoin related but rather blockchain related. The system I'm talking about is public, not anonymous, and decentralized
Austin Capobianco
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-24T09:14:04.213Z
bitcoin.stackexchange.com is a  question and answer website for Bitcoin specific questions. It is designed to build a repository of good answers to commonly experienced problems. This means it is unsuited to questions not about Bitcoin or to discussion of ideas.
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T10:48:59.870Z
2024-06-23T10:55:46.717Z
2024-06-23T10:55:46.717Z
RedGrittyBrick
<p>It seems like basically everyone uses a mining pool. Is there any blockchain that effectively makes every user/node part of the same mining pool? Even just a whitepaper for this concept would be great to see. The incentive for this is to have a decentralized ledger. Is it possible to have a secure decentralized ledger without using a blockchain?</p>
<p>To clarify further: I'm seeking a proof-of-work blockchain that evenly distributes cryptocurrency reward to everyone in the network upon any individual actually successfully mining the block. So imagine every 10 minutes everyone's wallet increases simultaneously. I don't think proof-of-stake really works for my purposes, but is there perhaps an alternative proof system?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-22T09:53:50.233Z
Why would anyone mine if they get the reward anyway?
Mike D
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-22T19:10:22.217Z
For the purpose of having a decentralized ledger of voting records, financial transactions, etc. The alternative would be letting some third party have absolute control over your data (and be able to alter it at will) like we have now in America. Believe it or not, there is more to blockchain technology than getting rich quick while doing nothing lol
Austin Capobianco
<mining-pools><mining-theory><mining-reward>
Why don't any cryptocurrencies have built-in mining pools?
Austin Capobianco
# Why don't any cryptocurrencies have built-in mining pools?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-06-21)

It seems like basically everyone uses a mining pool. Is there any blockchain that effectively makes every user/node part of the same mining pool? Even just a whitepaper for this concept would be great to see. The incentive for this is to have a decentralized ledger. Is it possible to have a secure decentralized ledger without using a blockchain?

To clarify further: I'm seeking a proof-of-work blockchain that evenly distributes cryptocurrency reward to everyone in the network upon any individual actually successfully mining the block. So imagine every 10 minutes everyone's wallet increases simultaneously. I don't think proof-of-stake really works for my purposes, but is there perhaps an alternative proof system?

**Tags:** mining-pools, mining-theory, mining-reward

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Why would anyone mine if they get the reward anyway?  
> **username_0**: For the purpose of having a decentralized ledger of voting records, financial transactions, etc. The alternative would be letting some third party have absolute control over your data (and be able to alter it at will) like we have now in America. Believe it or not, there is more to blockchain technology than getting rich quick while doing nothing lol  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-06-23. Score: 1

I suspect this idea needs more work or clarification.

> **It seems like basically everyone uses a mining pool.**

An awful lot of Bitcoin users do not. This includes people who use ordinary non-mining wallet software or services.

> **The incentive for this is to have a decentralized ledger.**

Having a decentralized ledger *journal* is not an objective in itself. It is a means to achieving some other, far more important, objective. Making a feature of an intermediate measure makes a poor incentive for most people, particularly if it involves continual financial costs.

> **a proof-of-work blockchain that evenly distributes cryptocurrency reward to everyone in the network upon any individual actually successfully mining the block.**

In such a network, no one would be incentivised to buy dedicated mining equipment that others were not buying, everyone would be using relatively slow non-dedicated devices they already owned. Why spend $20,000 on a mining rig if you get no additional reward.

This could make the network very vulnerable to a so-called 51% attack.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: It is unclear to me whether OP envisions this hypothetical built-in mining pool of all users to pay to all users *equally* or just proportional to their hashrate contribution. You seem to have answered the "everyone equally" assumption; I have answered the other one.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I mean pay all users equally. So one person could do 100% of the mining if he wanted, but he'd just be wasting money. Every active wallet (including his own) would increase by the same number. There is no incentive to exclusively mine on this hypothetical blockchain, there would only an incentive to participate in the legal/corporate system that is utilizing the blockchain. It rewards early adopters but not the already wealthy.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 The problem with that is how does the system recognize unique users? What prevents someone from pretending to be a million users, and getting a million times the rewards of others? Even if you don't care about this aspect, it implies to trivial denial-of-service on the system, as to coordinate payouts, every user needs to be aware of everyone else's contribution. PoW prevents that by making the communication only needed when a winning block is found, but that does not work for pools.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 The structure I'm talking about would technically function as a decentralized ledger and journal because it would not be anonymous. All transactions made by all accounts would (by default) need to be visible to anyone who launches their own node. The incentive would not be to have a lot of arbitrary cryptocurrency, but rather to participate in the governmental/corporate structure that decides to start using it. The network I'm proposing is actually immune to a 51% attack precisely because there would be zero incentive to do so.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I have the identity verification issue covered, which is why I'm not soliciting your opinions on that aspect. I realize that the way PoW functions on all existing blockchains would not distribute payouts equally like I'm describing. I am asking if there is an alternative that accomplishes what I'm describing.  
> **username_2**: I assumed this might be relevant to Bitcoin, but maybe it isn't. Privacy, some significant  degree of anonymity and decentralisation are usually viewed as fundamental to Bitcoin  
> **username_0**: @username_2 no, it's not Bitcoin related but rather blockchain related. The system I'm talking about is public, not anonymous, and decentralized  
> **username_2**: bitcoin.stackexchange.com is a  question and answer website for Bitcoin specific questions. It is designed to build a repository of good answers to commonly experienced problems. This means it is unsuited to questions not about Bitcoin or to discussion of ideas.  

---

