Topic: [ANN] BTC Guild's Mitigation Plan - page 2. (Read 24845 times)

To the BTC Guils comunity.

The Genesis Block has an article that addresses 2 concerns relevant to miners and pools.
http://www.thegenesisblock.com/go-fork-yourself-life-after-a-bitcoin-hard-fork/

First off I was wondering what this community (and eleuthria)  thinks of Dan Kaminsky view of ASIC's contribution to mining?

And Secondly what this community (and eleuthria's) thinking of Peter Todd's limiting the block size to encourage development of a layer of services on top of Bitcoin to address micropayments and the like. 

I propose that you encourage users of the pool to "add another pool" using "load-balance", and for those users, optionally allow them to select "Connect as load-balanced".

The purpose of this setup is so you can "limit" those "load-balanced" workers to auto-adjust their work, based on worker names. Thus, in times where the pool seems too large, you give us less work, on purpose. This WILL NOT affect us with logins on multiple pools, and will allow you to keep any users who do not use load-balanced setups to maintain a constant rate of work.

You should encourage load-balanced setups, stating the obvious. Having a connection to multiple pools increases your average PPLNS "Luck" to the percentage of pools which you are actively connected to. EG, connecting to one pool, your luck may be 10% one day, 50% another, 90% another... Connected to 50% of the active pools, that same work would bring you 50%/75%/90%, since you have the luck of the other pools PPLNS, in addition to the work done on your pool.

EG, you are playing 6 hands of cards in a 10 hand card game, instead of only having 1 hand of good luck.

That also helps to keep the entire network stable, as your processing just rises on the active connections more, without being hindered by the lower work coming from the other connections. Also, you don't loose "credit" from PPLNS, and are not "pool-hopping", which looses critical processing time in the hops.

In the event that your servers do go down, due to an attack, or just too many incoming work-connections... We loose nothing, and you get all the fastest connections available. (Since it is balancing based off "the most efficient connections" on our side.)

NOTE: The option in CGMiner is (BAT-File: --load-balance) or (CONF-File: "load-balance" : true,), Only works when multiple pools are loaded or "enabled". NOTE: You can solo-mine this way also, while participating in a pool, with your wallet running in "-server" mode. (For those who did not know that was a possibility.)

P.S. I encourage YOU to encourage THEM/US to assist pools who have smaller portions of the pool. That will greatly help-out everyone on the network, more than joining only the top pools. FYI: if we all did this, that would ensure and maintain that no one pool ever dominates over 33% of the network. Might also help to directly talk to other pool operators, and setup a "load-balance monitor that you all share, behind the scenes, with each-other. If one is a little over-burdened, they can let you know, and you can lighten your load balancing limits for that time.

First step of mitigation plan started yesterday when we are at 39.78%.  A small decrease in actual speed followed.  I'm expecting to see a continued small drop in speed over the next week as more miners become aware of the change.

Right now it's at 40.28%.

Did the pool ever reach 40% according to the below linked chart as was the requirement set forth in the OP?

http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/top.php

So what did you do to stop it?

You're out of your fucking mind.

Name one miner that does that on GBT ...

... and yes just coz you made up a new definition of decentralized, doesn't mean anyone else on the planet cares what you think it means.
We go by what it really means.

Edit: and of course the reality of it is:
If you change what you are doing on p2pool - change the rules - you can end up with your own share chain if you don't follow the rules of the main chain ... and can keep mining ... it's decentralised.
If you change what you are doing on a GBT pool - unless you are ONLY change the transaction selection - you CANNOT return work that the centralised pool will accept - you will lose all that work - you cannot override the rules of the CENTRALISED GBT pool.

p2pool is no more decentralized than GBT pools. GBT pools set down rules (so does p2pool!) and miners make their own work, deciding whether to follow those rules or not.

Luke, eloipool is not decentralized.  It is transparent when using GBT (at the cost of significantly more bandwidth for pushing work).  No pool other than p2pool is decentralized, they're all master->slave.  Pool dictates the work, miners mine it.  Just because the miner could decide to leave if they don't like what they see does not change the definition of decentralized.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate#For_miners

which?

There are many other decentralized pools that are easier to use and without the downsides of p2p.

It would work. Additionally, it would be very easy for a large government to shutdown Bitcoin without any up-front investment.

Moving forward miners should really start using a decentralised mining pool like p2pool https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1500-th-p2pool-decentralized-dos-resistant-hop-proof-pool-18313

I know it's very unlikely but.....

gov, master card or paypal could say to btc guild, 50btc and slush hey we will pay you 20 million each for your pools.

they then merge those to destabilise bitcoin with a 51% attack.

Would that even work?

You must be overlooking the point of why the pools were set up in the beginning ... to reduce variability. People already implicitly trust the pool when they direct their own mining power to it. As a miner, if you are really worried about the pool operator "abusing your hash power" why would you point your miner at it?

All Eleutheria is trying to achieve is to show to the bitcoin network he is beyond reproach, clearly his miners already think this or else how does he achieve > 51% in the first place?

As long as BTCGuild is not stamping more than 51% of the blocks it is immaterial where the hashpower comes from or goes to, or even who is directing it. In fact, if that pledge is given by BTCGuild (or whoever) and they are seen to be going above that then they would lose the power quite quickly I'd assume ... unless the miners really are as idiotically hellbent on over subscribing to one pool as they seem to be.

Who directs that hashpower? And can you trust them not to abuse the power at any point? 

Getting the blocks isn't really the issue. It's the fact that they have potential for it. And this should be avoided.

Well it all comes down to who got what blocks right?

If BTCGuild is not stamping out more than 51% of the blocks there is no threat ... it doesn't matter how that hashpower got directed towards the blocks.

Problem is having control of such hashing power in the first place. Distributing it around really doesn't help on that. There is still potential to grab it and use it.

They go and distribute the hashing power. Now, if they were to stop this at one point and try something like double spent attack? There is nothing to prevent this, apart from not gaining the power in the first place.

Could you not redirect the "surplus" hashpower to another pool of your choice (P2Pool springs to mind) until the "threat" has passed?

Details around fees might be problematic but I'd imagine there might be a smaller pool or two out there that might be happy to get the boost from time to time and forgo fees for a super miner like BTCGuild overflow.

You still have to trust same guys...

They don't want to have 51%+ of hashing power, EVER.