Pages:
Author

Topic: Abusing Bitcoin mining pools: strategies for egoistical but honest miners - page 2. (Read 17161 times)

legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
I don't understand this. In the extreme, if everyone left a pool, why would a miner join it? They would get a block no faster than working on their own and they would pay to previous workers who had shares.

In the extreme, yes. But if the powerful miners leave after a few thousand shares, the less powerful miners may find it profitable to stay, because they will get a bigger share of the rest. The problem, for small miners, is that when you're up against people that have 1000x your computing power, they will find blocks before you even contributed a share, and you will gain nothing.

No they won't. The calculation they ought look at is "what is the expected value of a new share here?" this will be less at a pool with lots of shares owed to powerful miners who have left than at a fresh pool.

Perhaps I'm missing something though because I don't see on any margin any way to interpret someone leaving your pool as a positive. All that happens is that you get a larger share less often. If that is what you want then choose a pool with the least people, mine by yourself. If there is some optimal pool size then what is it? When is bigger not better?
Ryo
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 1
In connected mode, the block reward is spit among currently-connected nodes only, according to the hash/s that they were contributing at the time.

It seems easier for the server to cheat in connected mode. With contributed mode, if they have doubts, miners can log how many shares they contribute, check how much they gain, and decide whether it's fair. The server could "invent" imaginary shares to keep some bitcoins, but at least you have some hard numbers to check. With connected mode, how would you know if you got a fair share ? What if the server pretends you were not connected when the block was found ?
Ryo
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 1
I don't understand this. In the extreme, if everyone left a pool, why would a miner join it? They would get a block no faster than working on their own and they would pay to previous workers who had shares.

In the extreme, yes. But if the powerful miners leave after a few thousand shares, the less powerful miners may find it profitable to stay, because they will get a bigger share of the rest. The problem, for small miners, is that when you're up against people that have 1000x your computing power, they will find blocks before you even contributed a share, and you will gain nothing.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Interesting article, I brought the subject up back when the first pool switched from current power to the contributed method, but I don't think anyone responded.

Switching back to connected mode would completely solve this problem. I liked connected mode (and puddinpop's pool in general) better, anyway -- you get larger payments less often. Maybe once a contributed-mode pool has stalled, everyone will move to a connected-mode pool.

It is a neat psychology + game theory situation. People seem to prefer the contributed method to connected, but as soon as shares are owed (so instantly) the right move is it switch to a connected pool if it is available. But if the herd all prefers contributed then you will be on the connected server alone and now you don't have the benefit of reduced variance. As some 'serious' miners decide to accept the variance and move to the slightly higher EV pool others may follow and variance will drop at that pool and now there are only psychological reasons to stay at the contributed pool.

As we know from poker though people can persist in low value emotionally pleasing situations for a long long time.

Eh?  What is the difference between the "contributed" and "connected" methods?  I haven't read Ryo's paper, so maybe I'm missing context.

In the contributed every time you find a hash below some 'easy' target you get a share that is paid when the pool finds their next block, if you stop mining you will still get paid something if you previously earned at least one share provided the pool finds one more block.

In the connected method you get paid if you are connected and mining when the pool finds a block.  You are paid in proportion to how much power you are providing compared to others at that moment (really not a moment more like 2 minutes I think it was). You could think of this as the contributed method with shares that expire really fast. There is plenty of in-between room, make shares decay slowly or disappear after a day or whatever.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
Eh?  What is the difference between the "contributed" and "connected" methods?  I haven't read Ryo's paper, so maybe I'm missing context.

Puddinpop's pool software allows the server to choose between "connected" and "contributed" distribution methods. In contributed mode, it behaves somewhat like slush's pool: every hash you calculate is counted, and the block reward is split among everyone according to how many hashes they calculated. In connected mode, the block reward is spit among currently-connected nodes only, according to the hash/s that they were contributing at the time.

I wish puddinpop's server would become popular again. It's open-source and built in such a way that miners can actually see what the server is doing on the network side (you download the full temporary block). Unfortunately, running the server is CPU-intensive, and probably it could not sustain the number of miners that slush's pool has now.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
Interesting article, I brought the subject up back when the first pool switched from current power to the contributed method, but I don't think anyone responded.

Switching back to connected mode would completely solve this problem. I liked connected mode (and puddinpop's pool in general) better, anyway -- you get larger payments less often. Maybe once a contributed-mode pool has stalled, everyone will move to a connected-mode pool.

It is a neat psychology + game theory situation. People seem to prefer the contributed method to connected, but as soon as shares are owed (so instantly) the right move is it switch to a connected pool if it is available. But if the herd all prefers contributed then you will be on the connected server alone and now you don't have the benefit of reduced variance. As some 'serious' miners decide to accept the variance and move to the slightly higher EV pool others may follow and variance will drop at that pool and now there are only psychological reasons to stay at the contributed pool.

As we know from poker though people can persist in low value emotionally pleasing situations for a long long time.

Eh?  What is the difference between the "contributed" and "connected" methods?  I haven't read Ryo's paper, so maybe I'm missing context.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Interesting article, I brought the subject up back when the first pool switched from current power to the contributed method, but I don't think anyone responded.

Switching back to connected mode would completely solve this problem. I liked connected mode (and puddinpop's pool in general) better, anyway -- you get larger payments less often. Maybe once a contributed-mode pool has stalled, everyone will move to a connected-mode pool.

It is a neat psychology + game theory situation. People seem to prefer the contributed method to connected, but as soon as shares are owed (so instantly) the right move is it switch to a connected pool if it is available. But if the herd all prefers contributed then you will be on the connected server alone and now you don't have the benefit of reduced variance. As some 'serious' miners decide to accept the variance and move to the slightly higher EV pool others may follow and variance will drop at that pool and now there are only psychological reasons to stay at the contributed pool.

As we know from poker though people can persist in low value emotionally pleasing situations for a long long time.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
Interesting article, I brought the subject up back when the first pool switched from current power to the contributed method, but I don't think anyone responded.

Switching back to connected mode would completely solve this problem. I liked connected mode (and puddinpop's pool in general) better, anyway -- you get larger payments less often. Maybe once a contributed-mode pool has stalled, everyone will move to a connected-mode pool.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Quote
It should also be noted that, if many miners start using strategies, it will in turn become more pro table to work on old pools, because the overall computing power of that pool will have temporarily decreased.

I don't understand this. In the extreme, if everyone left a pool, why would a miner join it? They would get a block no faster than working on their own and they would pay to previous workers who had shares.

I think this could be solved by letting everyone know that shares will begin to decay after some multiple of average time to find a block.

I know it isn't a problem now because there is only one huge pool, but when there are many and switching is easy an unlucky period could easily drive people away and no one will have proper incentive to rejoin until it is cleared.

Interesting article, I brought the subject up back when the first pool switched from current power to the contributed method, but I don't think anyone responded.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
I wonder why no big player seems to be using the strategies described in the paper. They seem easy to implement. Could it be that big players rely on brute force and don't care about electricity costs ?

How would you know if a miner was moving back and forth between the pool and working on his own?

It would only be obvious if lots of people were turning off causing very high variance in time to find a block for the pool.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
I wonder why no big player seems to be using the strategies described in the paper. They seem easy to implement. Could it be that big players rely on brute force and don't care about electricity costs ?
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
Maybe you would be interested in publishing economic articles at The Bitcoin Times, a new fledging magazine.

We already got a few writers lined up and for sure, an advertiser.
Ryo
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 1
Hi,

As promised in my earlier thread, I studied some of the strategies that a miner could use to optimize his use of a cooperative mining pool. I have watched slush's pool over a few days and didn't notice any evidence of a massive use of these strategies, so I think they're relatively unknown by the common bitcoin miner. I also provide pointers to mining pool owners who see this as a problem and want to "fix" their pool.

The file is here: http://www.bitcoinservice.co.uk/files/100

Here is the table of contents:
1 - Introduction
2 - A brief overview of pools
  - the creation of bitcoins
  - sharing the work
  - all shares are not equal
3 - Strategies
  - One pool
     * average time to find a block
     * should I join now or wait for the next block ?
     * how long should I work on one block ?
  - Several pools
    * When should I switch pools ?
4 - Consequences for the mining pools
   - Is this the end of pools ?
   - Are some miners currently using these strategies ?
   - Fixing the mining pools
5 - Conclusion

Edit: I believe, for the sake of honesty, that I should note that the pools at no serious risk of being completely broken by those strategies. It's just a question of earning more with the same amount of work.

Edit: due to the rise in BTC exchange rate, I changed the price back to 1 BTC.
Pages:
Jump to: