Topic: Eligius pool is back under the new name Ocean - page 7. (Read 2789 times)

A regulator isn't going to let the pool operator off the hook just because they let their clients create block templates. The operator still disburses payments to the clients creating the block templates. Regulators do not care if you didn't generate illicit content, they care that you are serving it to your clients. A pool operator who serves the public will be regulated, as all public service providers are. They would probably be better off going private, and approving all client connections, if they are worried about getting regulated.

So you did this to avoid custody, which is great, I mine on PPS pool that keeps my money for 24 hours before paying me, Ocean now has your money (dust and in form of hashpower) for a few weeks, probably for a lot longer, so the custody aspect is even worse.

Also for the 0 fee thing, they censor ordinal transactions, which means if they find a block now, instead of getting say 9.25 btc they would get about 7.75, so in other words, you would lose 15% of your potential profit, the highest PPS fee is 4% so you are paying 11% extra for the time being at least given that ordinals are still a thing.

Thank you for answering my question, I wish you the best of luck.

I have said it before but it's also the opportunity cost of money. Even if you are earning less with a FPPPS pool then with PPLNS or whatever. Getting regular payments allows you to have cash flow (Bitcon Flow?) which allows you to do other things which may allow you to make more money. Be it buy another miner sooner, move to a cheaper place to host sine you you can generally figure out expenses vs costs, whatever.

And now it's even worse with block 840000 approaching. Imagine being in a small PPLNS pool that mines a block just after the 2024 1/2ing it's going to take a while to make up that loss. *Although with fees where they are it's going to hurt less.  If fees get back to normal them ouch....

-Dave

This is quite a thing, didn't seem pretty important at first as obviously in the end, 10 years from now ocean is going to mine close to the numbers of blocks it is supposed to do but, even ignoring the payout scheme adn going for the straight model of reward plus tx fee minus pool fees, isn't there high chance nowadays for Ocean miners to get really screwed?
We know there were blocks these days with fees exceeding the reward, of course not all pools mined one but with a ten in one chance you at least get one of those, now with a small pool, you might end with a block that was mined exactly at low tide..lols, in some Sunday morning or x-mas days, and bag only half a bitcoin in fees at most. Of course, they could also hit a big block with 500sat/vb but excluding ordinals they are already taking a chuck out so..

Why would a miner looking for $ and not for the beliefs behind the movement risk this?
You're looking at missing out on that and taking even a 40% hit, not really the brightest thing, right?

The main reason I decided to try Ocean Pool was because I liked the idea of transparency with payouts (i.e getting paid directly when each block is found).
Also the 0% fee and promotional payout helped too. I didn't start until just before the first block on the 1st. I think it was like a few hours before too. And I had to stop on the 14th so I could mine enough to pay my electric bill. I'll still get paid something on the next block, but that obviously is diluting as the more days pass. I will probably end up losing maybe a few days to a week of income, hard to tell at this point. But yeh, I'm running a business here, so I probably should have stayed with one of the bigger pools.

Things average out almost perfectly when measured against infinity, any thing short of infinity is unlikely to get you at 100%, I could throw some random numbers like every 7.4 blocks a block would take double the time, i.e 200%, and then again 1000% in 20k blocks or something, ya, and half the time every 1.6 blocks or so, but these are random figures and only start to average out over a very long period of time when the sample size is large enough.


Indeed, which is why I have been always under the impression that eventually, only PPS pools would survive, not because they pay more "actually they pay less due to fees", but because not everyone can handle the variance, I don't want to give you the bad news, but given the size of the pool, it won't be out of the ordinary if you had to wait for a few more months, it could hit 2 blocks tomorrow, you just can't tell.

This may be a personal question or slightly off-topic, but I would love to know the reason why you decided to use Ocean pool.
 

Does luck generally average out over time with smaller pools? Ocean found 2 blocks pretty fast, but looks like the third one is averaging out. Sitting at 2.57 times expected currently. Generally what would be a worse case between blocks? I’m pretty new to mining just wondering how bad could it get? It’s difficult hanging around when you have the electric bill to pay.

This is where user-generated block templates can be useful, the the pool operator proves that they have no say on what goes into the block templates, and they would have a better legal position, although not perfectly protected but at least something valuable you can use to defend yourself.

I really think someone with the skill set that Luke has would have served BTC better if they built something decentralized that actually works, an enhanced version of P2pool where miners bear the entire responsibility of the transactions they mine, this would be a lot harder for the state to stop or impose any sort restrictions on, think of it as torrent, do we really think that governments don't want to ban it altogether? they probably want -- they just can't.

Compare that to a centralized server that hosts "illegal" content and sits on U.S soil, as I said before, a 2 line letter and the law enforcement will shut it down.

More pools aren't the solution to censorship resistance, even worse is when those pools are centralized and owned by a known figure like Luke, it makes taking it down a piece of cake.

Interesting , food for thought https://twitter.com/derekm00r3/status/1733686055105069105 .

Now that Luke has pave the way to filter transactions , what happens if his pool mine an OFAC banned transaction ? Can he say that it's not his decision which transactions can be added to a block ? If mined , as a US citizen , can he face jail time ?

Nice idea.

see right in front of us we have scrypt.

and scrypt can do 12x the volume that sha 256 can do

I have an accounting back ground and I have worked with pcs and main frames from 1975.

I see this as a value and economic problem.

Details of how  are for programmers and developers.

But to fight the scrypt structure rather than adapt is  dumb.

Lukes pool is not the way to do it.

I am a nobody in mining.

6/450,000 is my share of sha 256:hashrate.

but I see what is being done and unless a better scaling method is placed in btc is in trouble.

if we blend  in scypt we increase from 1x to 13x every ten minutes.

if we make btc sends under 0.0001 route via scrypt  automatically large fees drop.

we could  make the cutoff float if btc fees get too low.

seems to me the two algos need to create a shunting move.


and I would think the fallout to miners would be buy more scrypt gear.

time will tell 2024 and 2028 ½ ings should be different.


think about a 1.5625 block in 2028 getting 3 btc in fees.

that would be a 6.25 block in 2023 getting 18.75 in fees

I think right now big miners can do the 2028 case with ease.

thus they plan to do it.


this is new territory plain and simple.

Or segwit seamlessly between Bitcoin and Litecoin and essentially use Litecoin as a sidechain instead of LN? Opening channels in LN is its Achilles heel, not only you have to fight against the spam you are also arbitrarily limited to the amount you put upfront, and/or surrender your privacy and trusting others.

Clearly we had a different Bitcoin before and after this year spam in the blockchain. A little string of text in the blockchain or 4mb images? I think there is a huge difference. This tweet (and the bus vs train meme a bit below) portraits it well. It may be technically a transaction, but is it bitcoin? it isn't.



Remember the difference between Bitcoin (project, network) and bitcoin (electronic p2p cash).

And no, i don't buy the fallacy that the spam is needed to "secure" the network, its not the spam that makes mining profitable, but the actual bitcoin price, remember this. The success (adoption) of bitcoin (as currency) is what would naturally drive the tx prices up, but when you allow saboteurs to make this less and less viable...

We don't need 20 billion people and 99% internet adoption to reach IPv4's limits.

Currently there are 15 billion connected devices (each one needs an IP address), but only 4 billion IPv4 addresses. By 2030 we will have 30 billion devices. How come the ancient IPv4 is still sufficient?

SegWit is the equivalent of NAT (RFC 1918) in the Bitcoin space. A soft fork that respects backwards compatibility

BSV is the equivalent of IPv6 in the Bitcoin space. A hard fork that doesn't respect backwards compatibility.

Don't believe me?

Then listen to IPv6 proponents/big blockers (Craig Wright himself):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXHA-WBvbU (hell, I would expect HmmMAA to post this, but maybe he's not very savvy in IPv4/IPv6 IIRC)...

https://www.bsvblockchain.org/news/dr-craig-wright-explains-how-bsv-blockchain-and-ipv6-will-change-the-internet

It's not apples to oranges, UNLESS you're uneducated in computer networking protocols.

Would you agree if Bitcoin Core not only increased the block size limit, but also ditched IPv4 support and became IPv6-only? If not, why?

Do you know what CGNAT is? And why it hinders p2p apps?

Well, there is a solution for that, LN!
But, we have a problem, for everyone to use that we have to wait till 2040 till everyone in the world will be able to get some coins and open their LN channel, cause, you still need block space to do that, and once we multiply that by even 1 billion it starts being funny!
Which brings us back to the current capacity!


But if we go for the gold scenario, why do we even need 1MB blocks, we should reduce that to 10kb ones so noes could be easily hosted on a Nokia 3310, for the sake of decentralization! That would show those big blockers how things are done!!!


Yeah it's apple and oranges!
Now tell me , do you still have a 56 kbit/s modem?

One thing is the number of users that can usa a thing, like IPv4 which is still sufficient as we speak but won't be if we reach 20 billion on this planet and 99% internet adoption, and the other thing is capacity! If the guys in the last century would have thought like some of you they would have never developed speeds over 1kbs since the internet was supposed to be for data, not for sending pictures!
So, apple and oranges, taxi licenses and car manufacturing!


Done!

Btw , this is anime, not porn! Trust me!


And miners have the choice of mining wherever they want, right?
What are they doing right now?

Though out its existence, Bitcoin has never been attacked by miners contributing to an increase in the difficulty and then dropping their hashrate (or the opposite). If that was to become a recurring problem however, it's not like there are't viable solutions. Many altcoins had this issue with profit-hopping miners 10 years ago. It was fixed with solutions like Kimoto's gravity well. Bitcoin being the biggest crypto doesn't really face this issue. Yes miners have power to cause issues with the difficulty but I don't see how that's relevant to inscriptions taking too much space in blocks.

you are missing the point completely if you think ordinals are the point.

LN is not easy peasy way to avoid high fees. .  and the blockchain can be clogged in many ways.

Miners want higher fees as rewards shrink = fact    this is what the battle is.

Miners are able to make fees higher in so many profitable ways Luke is playing whack a mole.

So the solution is not banning any transaction on the block in any manner except by value.

This will make it too costly to use the block chain for small sends.

do it for ½ ing while you make LN really work.

build an LN type address into core.  

It pulls out 10% of your normal wallet.  and you can do small sends with it.

And for the next 4 years develop the fuck out of  scaling.


this is simple economics

scrypt has longer worth while ability to send small sends with ease.

banning select transactions like Luke wants to does not remove the economic desires by miners to clog the btc blockchain up.


here 148 blocks I am foundry.

I deliberately drop my hash rate on days 10 11 12 13 14  of a diff jump.

I can make on average 48 blocks a day if I mine one.

If I drop to 40 blocks a day right now I lose 8 x 6.25 = 50 coins

but I triple fees due to clogging the chain.

and the fee is 3 coins vs .5 coins. so 40 x 2.5 = 100 coins and I spend less power.

Lukes idea does not fix this.

and in the next ½ ing those raised fees would mean

8 x 3.125 coins lost or 25 coins lost.

and if they raise fees by .5 to just 2.5  40 x 2 = 80 coins

so this just gets worse with each ½ ing

and Lukes idea does not stop this.

I can know zero about code and zero about pc's.

I do know value. and if I can lose 50 coins to earn 100 coins plus cut power costs by 16% I am doing it.

or after the ½ ing if I can lose 25 coins to earn 80 coins plus cost my power costs by 16% I am doing it.


I have been talking about fee issues for over 5 years no make it 6 years

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-miners-need-to-mine-on-a-pool-that-pays-them-the-tx-fees-2634505


this issue ain't getting fixed by Lukes idea.

I can demonstrate many ways big pools can clog the main chain.


I can also tell you Lukes idea is a fail. as pools will do shit like I am describing and they are too big .

Developers need to make it too costly for the pool to be clogged by the ones that want it clogged.


Good luck with it.

BTW
 ltc makes 288 blocks today value of 1800 LTC about $140,400>> ½ ing is done
doge makes 1440 blocks today value of 1,440,000 >>>>>>>>> no ½ ing at all

total value of 1,580,400 a day

btc made 144 blocks at 7.25 coins = 1044 coins = 43,000,000

nice edge for btc but ½ ing drops it to 21,500,000 a day if fees remain at a coin

edge is greatly lowered. big miners will do every trick they can to boost fees. to make that edge up.

and it will be worse in 2028

Censoring transactions, ordinals, and other garbage is bad however you look at it, the best course of action is to make them ordinal/NFTs as expensive as possible, but if they are incompetent to develop a method to do that, then it would be a good idea to dump them from the scene.

Ever since he got hacked, he has changed, maybe they found something on him to blackmail, we don't know. even though I very much like the way ord/nft/garbage is limited, but it's wrong, they should be allowed but expensive.

He will either repent and correct his path, or he will have to answer to God for such oppression against financial freedom of millions of people, I guess he didn't think of that.

I can, i got my own public ip, if you don't -- go complain to your ISP as to why they put you behind a NAT, or pay for a public IP oh, i forgot, you want everything for free.

Every day I spend on this debate I keep thinking that those talking about censorship are either concern trolling (perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves even) or have a personal gripe with Luke for some reason.

Some people beef to put whatever beef with whatever Luke might have done to sadden them in the past aside for a second and consider some of the facts for once.

First of all, banning inscriptions from Bitcoin on a protocol level is not a Luke Dashjr issue. It's a Bitcoin Core issue.
There needs to be a discussion about this entirely independent of who Luke is and what he has done, because regardless of his opinions, this issue isn't concerning him. It's concerning everyone using Bitcoin.
Think about it, when SegWit and later Taproot were introduced, were Ordinals a use the developers had predicted?
Some examination of historical evidence leads to the contrary conclusion. SegWit developers probably had never predicted that certain OP_codes could have allowed for large data inclusions in transactions, and therefore hadn't considered the fee discounts would be getting abused to that extent.
Likewise for Taproot developers, who released OP_return without setting good spam limits.
Since these started getting abused, naturally developers of Bitcoin have become concerned and are now considering imposing some limits. This is only natural and follows the course that Satoshi set. Given the nuance of Bitcoin as a piece of software, many mistakes had to be corrected on the fly historically.


Now, what Luke is doing with OCEAN as a pool, is to merely offer miners a choise on what transactions they confirm.
Especially given that many pools openly receive off-band payments in a centralized way, only to confirm certain transactions... Payments that are more often than not not stared with miners, there are some very concerning trends on how pool operators have power over actual miners. OCEAN pool sets out to change that by eventually allowing people to pick their own block templates on how they confirm transactions.

So mining with ocean, arguably there will be absolutely not even a possibility for transaction censorship, as miners will be absolutely fee to pick what gets confirmed, as opposed to any other pool, where only the operator decides.

Edit: I am not affiliated with OCEAN in any way but from listening to the staff talks, I feel like they aren't even very fond of blocking ordinals at the protocol level. If you ACTUALLY pay attention to what Luke says, he has acknowledged multiple times that people can keep putting data in the Blockchain as they wish, he just says that they should be paying block fees for that space normally, without being allowed to abuse certain features to get discounts. And that's very likely to also end the ordinals craze.

You obviously don't know what CGNAT is.

Try to use a p2p app (Bitcoin node, BitTorrent) and see if you can upload anything to anyone... maybe then you'll understand.

ps: I'm not going to spoon feed you, you can use forum search to find my posts.

It's funny how you want to argue about what I understand and what I don't. There is a fundamental difference between the two upgrades. Nobody woke up to find that they don't have an IP address and needed to shop for one. The 3.7 billion-something IPs on IPv4 were not fully utilized when IPv6 came into existence, not even close. IPv6 was there to solve a problem that would emerge in the future. Now, when the future has come, the problem is getting fixed easily and smoothly, IPv6 was a proactive approach.

With BTC, the problem is current and has been there for years. In 2017, the blockchain was unusable for most people for a good while. There were no NFTs and no BRC-20 b.s on the blockchain. What did we do to solve it? We let the free market do its thing a few months later—problem solved. Fast forward every couple of months from then until now, and the problem emerges. People complain: BTC is not usable. These spammers need to be banned. Bitmain/Antpool is spamming the blockchain. No, it's BSV folks doing it. No, it's these weird BRC-20 tokens. Ban this, ban that. Don't look for scalability solutions; just stop other people from using the blockchain so we can use it for free.

I have yet to see a whole month without someone complaining about transaction fees. But I don't see people complaining about not getting a public IP address. Do you see why you are doing apples vs. tomatoes here? What is your proposal to fix the high fees? Do you think we should ban/censor any types of transactions? Why or why not? Still waiting for your answer.