I started with bitcoinpool. I got tired of idle miners.
I played around with some of the other pools, slush, etc. Didn't seem to provide enough info/data for me to know how I was doing.
Went to deepbit. No idling miners (so far), lots of data available to judge progress, etc.
People want minimum drama and results for their efforts. The security threat people are talking about is below 50% anyways, so it just sounds like jealousy to me at the worst, anti-free choice at best.
Topic: Deepbit Approaching 50% Once Again - page 4. (Read 19126 times)
Holy lap dancing jesus.
If we start to see a breakdown in Bitcoin security, then the value of bitcoin diminishes greatly. People will sell. The coin itself goes all great-depression on our asses.
Honestly, it is in not just OUR best interest, but DEEPBITS best interest to shave off some of that power.
Or DDOS. I'm not saying we should as a first resort, but DDOS is always an option when this magnitude of cash is at stake.
If we start to see a breakdown in Bitcoin security, then the value of bitcoin diminishes greatly. People will sell. The coin itself goes all great-depression on our asses.
Honestly, it is in not just OUR best interest, but DEEPBITS best interest to shave off some of that power.
Or DDOS. I'm not saying we should as a first resort, but DDOS is always an option when this magnitude of cash is at stake.
Right now:
This is bad news for bitcoin.
This is bad news for bitcoin.
It´s because everyone has the $ $ sings glowing in his eyes. Fast and easy money!11! independent currency? who cares about that idea?
Tycho, if you are long-term interested in this project then disable registrations for some time ...
Tycho, if you are long-term interested in this project then disable registrations for some time ...
hmm, I thought we were all on the same page regarding a single entity gaining 50% hashing power being bad, I'm very surprised that some people claim not to see the problem. apart from the double spend threat from the owner himself. somebody could take over deepbit and have instant control, not a hack, literally kicking his door down, for somebody looking to attack bitcoin, like the government or somebody else, the problem goes from how do possibly gain 50% of this?, 20 new supercomputers? or somehow get worldwide synchronised take downs with cooperating governments? hmm how will we get the budget for that? oh wait, there's deepbit... 1 SIMPLE DOOR! 50% ta daa! or it could be targeted via severe denial of service to be taken down briefly to weaken the total network for a fast attack, if any of those happen the confidence in bitcoin may never bounce back,
I remember somebody saying we could check to see if a double spend ever happened, like that's the end of that problem, but that is completely missing the point, its not the single double spend transactions he would get away with that's the problem, the fact that we know it happened after the fact would be the CAUSE of the massive loss in confidence in bitcoin, the news stories would be EVERYWHERE, panic selling would start immediately causing more panic selling it could potentially kill off bitcoin right now before it gets going,
it IS a big deal.
I remember somebody saying we could check to see if a double spend ever happened, like that's the end of that problem, but that is completely missing the point, its not the single double spend transactions he would get away with that's the problem, the fact that we know it happened after the fact would be the CAUSE of the massive loss in confidence in bitcoin, the news stories would be EVERYWHERE, panic selling would start immediately causing more panic selling it could potentially kill off bitcoin right now before it gets going,
it IS a big deal.
Nothing is going to happen once it reaches 50%.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
Perhaps nothing will happen the first day. But IT IS A security RISK and that's a fact.
You could play to try shooting yourself with one revolver and one bullet. And maybe the first time you won't die, but that doesn't mean it's not a risk.
It does need to be pointed out that the magical threshold is not 50%+1. It is theoretically possible for an adversary corrupting 30% or 40% of the computation to eventually succeed trick the rest of the network into forking the block chain within several hours to days according to a study performed by a group of MIT students for the 6.857 Computer and Network Security class. I don't have their graphs/slides, but I can ask them for their data (and suspect they already haunt these forums).
That means it already is a security risk.
Oh, wow! A security risk.
I swear, some people.
Some people = You.
Nothing is going to happen once it reaches 50%.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
Perhaps nothing will happen the first day. But IT IS A security RISK and that's a fact.
You could play to try shooting yourself with one revolver and one bullet. And maybe the first time you won't die, but that doesn't mean it's not a risk.
It does need to be pointed out that the magical threshold is not 50%+1. It is theoretically possible for an adversary corrupting 30% or 40% of the computation to eventually succeed trick the rest of the network into forking the block chain within several hours to days according to a study performed by a group of MIT students for the 6.857 Computer and Network Security class. I don't have their graphs/slides, but I can ask them for their data (and suspect they already haunt these forums).
That means it already is a security risk.
Oh, wow! A security risk!
I swear, some people.
Nothing is going to happen once it reaches 50%.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
Perhaps nothing will happen the first day. But IT IS A security RISK and that's a fact.
You could play to try shooting yourself with one revolver and one bullet. And maybe the first time you won't die, but that doesn't mean it's not a risk.
It does need to be pointed out that the magical threshold is not 50%+1. It is theoretically possible for an adversary corrupting 30% or 40% of the computation to eventually succeed trick the rest of the network into forking the block chain within several hours to days according to a study performed by a group of MIT students for the 6.857 Computer and Network Security class. I don't have their graphs/slides, but I can ask them for their data (and suspect they already haunt these forums).
That means it already is a security risk.
It does need to be pointed out that the magical threshold is not 50%+1. It is theoretically possible for an adversary corrupting 30% or 40% of the computation to eventually succeed trick the rest of the network into forking the block chain within several hours to days according to a study performed by a group of MIT students for the 6.857 Computer and Network Security class. I don't have their graphs/slides, but I can ask them for their data (and suspect they already haunt these forums).
We will see...someone pop the box and play make-a-chain.
Or, hopefully, a few will change those miner args and give it a break for a sec.
Or, hopefully, a few will change those miner args and give it a break for a sec.
I'd like to see deepbit take over more than half, so that people will stop complaining once they realize that Tycho is not going to do anything evil.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
And...I'd like to see a giant comet hit your house, then see if you complain, or exist.
It's not about Tycho and his intentions...its about the fundamentals plain and simple.
Man...moment...machine. Let's hope some intervention happens...
Nothing is going to happen once it reaches 50%.
And once it reaches that point we will all see.
I'd like to see deepbit take over more than half, so that people will stop complaining once they realize that Tycho is not going to do anything evil.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
And...I'd like to see a giant comet hit your house, then see if you complain, or exist.
It's not about Tycho and his intentions...its about the fundamentals plain and simple.
Man...moment...machine. Let's hope some intervention happens...
I'd like to see deepbit take over more than half, so that people will stop complaining once they realize that Tycho is not going to do anything evil.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
Sigh, people need to stop freaking out.
Right now deepbit is like 46% of the network 
But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.
To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it. Everyone gets all information from the network. You would have to modify the bitcoin protocol to limit someone from getting all information. It is a reactive response and against the ideals of the system.
The thread does not solve any problem, it proposes an alternative and has nothing tangible to show yet. It was written when there were only a few other pools than deepbit. There are more alternatives now, there are 6-7 other pools and growing every week. It does not solve the fact that there are other pools and people aren't using them.
I don't know what you mean by limiting someone from getting all information, or how it would be applied in this case. Maybe we aren't talking about the same problem. I haven't seen a proposal involving a protocol change in this manner.
The basic idea is, if the pool operator doesn't have deciding power on the transaction list that gets in the block, a "public" pool, or any colluding group of them wouldn't be considered an attacker with high computing power. I'm not suggesting that there is an easy way to do that, but merely, if it could be done, it would solve the problem at hand. I don't have a clue how to do this with a protocol change, it's best if we approach this from the angle of, where the pool gets work from.
The basic idea in the mentioned thread does solve this specific problem, if it can be feasibly implemented, which is something yet to be proven. Either way, I think it's a step in the right direction. Of course it doesn't solve the fact that there are other pools and people aren't using them, that's an unrelated matter. The idea is applicable whether there is only one pool or a multitude of them.
But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.
To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it. Everyone gets all information from the network. You would have to modify the bitcoin protocol to limit someone from getting all information. It is a reactive response and against the ideals of the system.
The thread does not solve any problem, it proposes an alternative and has nothing tangible to show yet. It was written when there were only a few other pools than deepbit. There are more alternatives now, there are 6-7 other pools and growing every week. It does not solve the fact that there are other pools and people aren't using them.
A better use of time would be implementing this: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7622.0 At least then if something showed up on the network that looked like the attacks that everyone is so worried might possibly happen then there would be verifiable proof and reason for those who pay attention to the forums to move somewhere else and make deepbit smaller.
But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.
To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it. FWIW, this ceases to be a concern with the PPS payout scheme. I get my earnings from continuumpool almost instantly.
Sure, and you pay a 7% fee for that privilege.Not a bad price to pay if you don't like variance. But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.
To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it.
Not sure if it's a solution, but is the 50 coin payout hard-coded into bitcoin?
When I got one of those, on my CPU, in a couple of days that was great - but surely would make more sense that as the difficultly went up, the payout was divided into it? (and therefore negating this whole pool mining malarkey).
When I got one of those, on my CPU, in a couple of days that was great - but surely would make more sense that as the difficultly went up, the payout was divided into it? (and therefore negating this whole pool mining malarkey).
Jesus, same bullshit with you guys every time. There is absolutely no support for your side so you just nitpick at little things to avoid confronting that fact. I specifically asked you to focus on one thing which you completely avoided twice. I failed to back up my claim? Because I specifically said I didn't want to focus on that. I don't see myself stating anywhere in that quote you provided of me saying that MS was forced to unbundle its software. Good job diverting.
I almost wish I had studied psychology because I'm so fascinated by how people can be so skilled at avoiding any reality in persistently believing whatever they want.
I disagree with the assumption that Standard Oil was a predatory pricing unfair free market natural monopoly. At it's peak they had something around 80% of the market. When prosecuted this had fallen to around 64%, and no doubt would have continued.
http://mises.org/daily/2317
Also, Microsoft depends on patents and other government grants of power to maintain it's position.
Jump to: