Could you provide some incentive other than assumptions about how the network's security is deemed?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
Topic: [DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too - page 204. (Read 1601343 times)
June 05, 2011, 07:19:52 PM
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
June 05, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
I urge Tycho to close new registrations. The money you are generating running this service will be worthless if the security of the network is deemed insecure. It is in your own best interest to not let this happen. While the hashers should send their GPU's to other pools or solo, YOU are able to directly control this potential problem in lieu of others bad decisions who don't understand the big picture.
Why would he prevent himself from being the winner of Bitcoin? Could you provide some incentive other than assumptions about how the network's security is deemed? June 05, 2011, 06:59:15 PM
I urge Tycho to close new registrations. The money you are generating running this service will be worthless if the security of the network is deemed insecure. It is in your own best interest to not let this happen. While the hashers should send their GPU's to other pools or solo, YOU are able to directly control this potential problem in lieu of others bad decisions who don't understand the big picture.
June 05, 2011, 06:34:44 PM
I don't think anyone is directly upset with tycho. But as a matter of fact he is the only one who can change something in this situation. All new miners will chose one of the biggest pools (or even _THE_ biggets) out of insecurity. So tycho is the instance which has to put a "STOP" sign before it.
I think nobody doubt's that tycho worked (ans works) hard to provide a good service to his users but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.
I think nobody doubt's that tycho worked (ans works) hard to provide a good service to his users but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.
Precisely.
June 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
I don't think anyone is directly upset with tycho. But as a matter of fact he is the only one who can change something in this situation. All new miners will chose one of the biggest pools (or even _THE_ biggets) out of insecurity. So tycho is the instance which has to put a "STOP" sign before it.
I think nobody doubts that tycho worked (and works) hard to provide a good service to his users, but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.
/edit: correcting spelling mistakes
I think nobody doubts that tycho worked (and works) hard to provide a good service to his users, but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.
/edit: correcting spelling mistakes
June 05, 2011, 06:18:21 PM
I dont understand why everyone is so upset with Tycho... he doesnt FORCE anyone to using his pool. There are alot of other pools out there now, and there is still Solo mining. If anything, the haters should be upset with the miners using deepbit more than the pool owner.
I think Tycho works hard for his users, and I dont want to minimize what he's doing. He doesnt "own" the majority of hashing power, all the miners in his pool do...and they can leave at any time. Currently, I am mining over at BTCGuild, just because I like the email notification of a downed miner, and I like their web interface alot better. When I started mining, I was at deepbit. So, in closing I guess I am saying is why the hell is everyone griping at Tycho for running his pool?
I think Tycho works hard for his users, and I dont want to minimize what he's doing. He doesnt "own" the majority of hashing power, all the miners in his pool do...and they can leave at any time. Currently, I am mining over at BTCGuild, just because I like the email notification of a downed miner, and I like their web interface alot better. When I started mining, I was at deepbit. So, in closing I guess I am saying is why the hell is everyone griping at Tycho for running his pool?
June 05, 2011, 06:07:55 PM
Tycho I dont know how much you know about server/application security, but I hope it is enough to realize that there is absolute nobody who is 100% secure from hacking/cracking attempts.
Lets assume you know this and you also honor the values of BTC (aside the fact that it might have made you a rich man) it must be evident to you that it is not a good thing to have a pool having around or even above 50% hashing power.
Well there is a desicion what you put first:
In case it should be the latter you relly should take some actions to prevent your pool growing even more.
We are talking about a system which allowed you to yield some serious profit and you are just about to create an instance which will (even if this is not your intention) be able to permanently harm this very system!
So I think it would be only fair in the face of people which support your personal benefit (by joining your pool) to secure the integrity of the bitcoin system by preventing your pool to grow bigger than 40% (even if this means some minor cut in your personal benefit).
/edit: Oh, and before I get mistaken. I honor your efforts to create deepbit.net and make it the biggest pool by providing what the miners actually want. But that does not change anything of the root problem.
Lets assume you know this and you also honor the values of BTC (aside the fact that it might have made you a rich man) it must be evident to you that it is not a good thing to have a pool having around or even above 50% hashing power.
Well there is a desicion what you put first:
- personal benefit
- well-being of the bitcoin economy
In case it should be the latter you relly should take some actions to prevent your pool growing even more.
We are talking about a system which allowed you to yield some serious profit and you are just about to create an instance which will (even if this is not your intention) be able to permanently harm this very system!
So I think it would be only fair in the face of people which support your personal benefit (by joining your pool) to secure the integrity of the bitcoin system by preventing your pool to grow bigger than 40% (even if this means some minor cut in your personal benefit).
/edit: Oh, and before I get mistaken. I honor your efforts to create deepbit.net and make it the biggest pool by providing what the miners actually want. But that does not change anything of the root problem.
June 05, 2011, 05:40:06 PM
If you knew anything about statistics, Atroxes, you'd know that even right now there's already a good chance his pool finds a few blocks in a row, 51% is a myth.
Even with 40% he will get 6 blocks in a row 0.41% of the time meaning he only needs 244 attempts to succeed once. Is that in any way shape or form good for the health and security of Bitcoin? I seriously doubt Satoshi would be happy if he saw a client have this much of the total hashing speed, and it even arguably defeats the whole point of mining.
EDIT: And I understand that everyone is participating voluntarily it's just that I don't want to see us suffer even a single fraud attack which could potentially bring the whole thing down.
Even with 40% he will get 6 blocks in a row 0.41% of the time meaning he only needs 244 attempts to succeed once. Is that in any way shape or form good for the health and security of Bitcoin? I seriously doubt Satoshi would be happy if he saw a client have this much of the total hashing speed, and it even arguably defeats the whole point of mining.
EDIT: And I understand that everyone is participating voluntarily it's just that I don't want to see us suffer even a single fraud attack which could potentially bring the whole thing down.
June 05, 2011, 05:39:44 PM
Right ok, I see your blinded with greed. I guess you'll have to learn the hard way.
He provides a service for a fee. People use his service.
As they would say in Soviet Russia: "What is problem?"
I don't know why people don't understand this its pretty basic. if you don't like the fee go elsewhere but as you can tell there is a reason we stay.
June 05, 2011, 05:31:10 PM
Wake me up when we reach 51%.
June 05, 2011, 05:28:44 PM
June 05, 2011, 05:26:34 PM
Right ok, I see your blinded with greed. I guess you'll have to learn the hard way.
He provides a service for a fee. People use his service.
As they would say in Soviet Russia: "What is problem?"
June 05, 2011, 05:23:52 PM
Right ok, I see your blinded with greed. I guess you'll have to learn the hard way.
June 05, 2011, 05:22:54 PM
So, I'm kind of dying to know Tycho, what magnitude of Bitcoins have you made from your pool?
three figures, four figures, five figures?
three figures, four figures, five figures?
A pool speed of 2.000Gh/s and a 3% fee, means he's currently "mining" at 60Gh/s.
Put that into the mining calculator
June 05, 2011, 05:22:00 PM
Intel has absolutely nothing to gain from trying to be less competitive where in your case if the network gets compromised because your pool got too big and you get hacked it could severely shake the confidence in Bitcoin and it is in your best interest that that does not happen.
Confidence in Bitcoin will be even better when people see how the system instantly heals itself in case of such event. June 05, 2011, 05:18:01 PM
So, I'm kind of dying to know Tycho, what magnitude of Bitcoins have you made from your pool?
three figures, four figures, five figures?
three figures, four figures, five figures?
June 05, 2011, 05:16:06 PM
Your analogy is flawed in that Intel has absolutely nothing to gain from trying to be less competitive where in your case if the network gets compromised because your pool got too big and you get hacked it could severely shake the confidence in Bitcoin and it is in your best interest not to allow that to happen.
And don't tell me you can 100% guarantee the safety of your server.
And don't tell me you can 100% guarantee the safety of your server.
June 05, 2011, 04:53:24 PM
Tycho, would it kill you if you had a limit on how big your pool in relation to the total hash rate of the network is and maintained it below say 40%?
Bitcoin is a decentralized system and should be controlled by itself. If some people want the hashing power to be spread over many pools - they have to create a better offer to users.Closing registration wouldn't really help and my users won't like it.
It's not like I should make my service bad, it's other people should make their service better.
Can you imagine AMD representative coming to Intel office and asking them to stop advertising, make their processors slower and more expensive ? :)
Competition doesn't works like that.
June 05, 2011, 04:41:03 PM
Tycho, would it kill you if you had a limit on how big your pool in relation to the total hash rate of the network is and maintained it below say 40%?
June 05, 2011, 03:37:21 PM
Just to let ppl know my worker mode has been automatically changed from PPS to Prop 
I have to manually switch it back.
I have to manually switch it back.
Jump to: