P2Pool would be the best and safest bet for the network, but maybe not for their earnings. As a small shareholder I wouldn't mind to lose some profits to see the network strenghtened by a legit company, but I'd understand otherwise. As already mentioned anyway the total hashing power is the first thing we should know before discussing the matter.
Shareholders are interested in returns, not losses, even if they're small. 
Topic: AM Self-mining (Read 3218 times)
P2Pool would be the best and safest bet for the network, but maybe not for their earnings. As a small shareholder I wouldn't mind to lose some profits to see the network strenghtened by a legit company, but I'd understand otherwise. As already mentioned anyway the total hashing power is the first thing we should know before discussing the matter.
Back to self mining. I see, no one is actually fond of joining an already existing pool. If we had to join a pool, and there was no other way: Which pool should we join in your opinion?
I say we mine at GHASH.io, but withhold any winning block.
Unless we're ethical, then I think the HR should be split across the smaller pools, or straight to P2P.
Back to self mining. I see, no one is actually fond of joining an already existing pool. If we had to join a pool, and there was no other way: Which pool should we join in your opinion?
Whatever isn't ghash and has the best financial incentives. I wouldn't really be bothered.
Eligius.
Back to self mining. I see, no one is actually fond of joining an already existing pool. If we had to join a pool, and there was no other way: Which pool should we join in your opinion?
Whatever isn't ghash and has the best financial incentives. I wouldn't really be bothered.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Lambchop is basically saying that ASIC miners should not exist, regardless of whether they're used by individuals in a P2Pool or by a corporation solo-mining with 40% on the network hash rate.
AM isn't just building a huge mining operation, well at least they didn't want to. Now it seems they might as well just do exactly that. But effectively, they're producing chips that other mining operations use. So as a chip manufacturer it totally doesn't affect a decentralized system.
What I said in no way implied that selling ASIC miners causes centralisation. I don't know how you got to that from what I said.
What I was saying is that in order for a company to create and sell ASIC miners, it would need investment. Lambchop is saying that nobody should invest in mining companies. Without that investment, mining companies would not exist and neither would ASIC miners.
No investment in mining companies == no ASIC miners.
Back to self mining. I see, no one is actually fond of joining an already existing pool. If we had to join a pool, and there was no other way: Which pool should we join in your opinion?
^Reminds me of my cat's doctorate dissertation.
Very wisdom.
Much learnings.
Could you two scholars divine the true meaning of The NotLambchop Papyri in private?
ty
Very wisdom.
Much learnings.
Could you two scholars divine the true meaning of The NotLambchop Papyri in private?
ty
No, hes saying that:
if you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, then you should not invest in mining companies.
He didn't say Asic's shouldn't exist. He's saying you shouldn't help towards their development if you want to keep mining decentralized. Some people don't want to keep mining decentralized, they value their own profits first.
if you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, then you should not invest in mining companies.
He didn't say Asic's shouldn't exist. He's saying you shouldn't help towards their development if you want to keep mining decentralized. Some people don't want to keep mining decentralized, they value their own profits first.
He is implying that buying AM shares has any effect on how much PH they will deploy.
If asic manufacturers exist mining will become more centralized.
The only way you are adding to the centralization is by investing in the biggest asic manufacturer (AKA bitfury).
Investing in companies competing with the largest company only decentralizes the network.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Lambchop is basically saying that ASIC miners should not exist, regardless of whether they're used by individuals in a P2Pool or by a corporation solo-mining with 40% on the network hash rate.
No, hes saying that:
if you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, then you should not invest in mining companies.
He didn't say Asic's shouldn't exist. He's saying you shouldn't help towards their development if you want to keep mining decentralized. Some people don't want to keep mining decentralized, they value their own profits first.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Lambchop is basically saying that ASIC miners should not exist, regardless of whether they're used by individuals in a P2Pool or by a corporation solo-mining with 40% on the network hash rate.
AM isn't just building a huge mining operation, well at least they didn't want to. Now it seems they might as well just do exactly that. But effectively, they're producing chips that other mining operations use. So as a chip manufacturer it totally doesn't affect a decentralized system.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Lambchop is basically saying that ASIC miners should not exist, regardless of whether they're used by individuals in a P2Pool or by a corporation solo-mining with 40% on the network hash rate.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.Lambchop is saying that people shouldn't invest in AM. Do you really agree with that or did you just not understand what he was saying?
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.That being said, if two mining companies at 10 + 1% respectively are mining on P2Pool, and then a large chunk of the network joins in... that would be good.
What I think is missing that the moment though is a proxy into P2Pool, so instead of a simple node that pays out directly to your address, one that accepts the payment itself and breaks up PoW to its users so that smaller miners can enjoy P2Pool, without waiting a month for a single share.
So you're basically saying we need p2pool-pools in order to successfully mine there? This this some fractal-stuff or recursion right there! Cue the Dawg memes...
Pretty much, well. At least for smaller miners to mine there.
The good thing about it though, is because its still all contributing to one central ledger it doesn't matter if a sub-pool only has 0.5% of the p2pool network, it would still be usable.
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.That being said, if two mining companies at 10 + 1% respectively are mining on P2Pool, and then a large chunk of the network joins in... that would be good.
What I think is missing that the moment though is a proxy into P2Pool, so instead of a simple node that pays out directly to your address, one that accepts the payment itself and breaks up PoW to its users so that smaller miners can enjoy P2Pool, without waiting a month for a single share.
So you're basically saying we need p2pool-pools in order to successfully mine there? This this some fractal-stuff or recursion right there! Cue the Dawg memes...
Protip: If you would like to keep Bitcoin mining decentralized, don't invest in mining companies.
I have to agree with Lambchop here.That being said, if two mining companies at 10 + 1% respectively are mining on P2Pool, and then a large chunk of the network joins in... that would be good.
What I think is missing that the moment though is a proxy into P2Pool, so instead of a simple node that pays out directly to your address, one that accepts the payment itself and breaks up PoW to its users so that smaller miners can enjoy P2Pool, without waiting a month for a single share.
If anyone is familiar with P2Pool, could then give an overview of the pros and cons?
I'm not that familiar, so please someone fill in the gaps or correct me. But basically, you have a somewhat decentralized pool where people join like any other pool. The catch is that they have their own mini-blockchain that has a difficulty that's ajusted in a way that a new block is being found every 30 seconds. If they find a block that has a hash that's low enough for the real blockchain, they submit that block and the previous miners of the p2pool are being paid according to their contribution to the pool's blockchain.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool
Lets not make the same mistakes ghash.io and others made. I hope AM can be a good steward for Bitcoin and use P2Pool.
I think we don't have to worry about AM achieving even near 50% of the total hash rate right now. We can be more than pleased if we achieve 10% right now. But yeah, if they decide to use a pool, looking into P2Pool would be nice.
This. AM and PETA should transition to p2pool, should be a strong catalyst in pushing smaller operations and independent miners towards a more decentralised mining ecosystem -- the publicity alone should start off a slight snowball effect.
I guess PETA already voted in favor of doing exactly this. At least the shareholder have done so. I guess there was some incompatibility problem with their software, hardware or something that made them delay their plans. I don't know if it really is true, though.
Lets not make the same mistakes ghash.io and others made. I hope AM can be a good steward for Bitcoin and use P2Pool.
I think we don't have to worry about AM achieving even near 50% of the total hash rate right now. We can be more than pleased if we achieve 10% right now. But yeah, if they decide to use a pool, looking into P2Pool would be nice.
Exactly, that's a great side-effect! P2Pool needs some big mining enterprises in order to gain a lot of traction and achieve a lower variance! Maybe GHash.IO can switch some of its hashing power over there
Jump to: