They're getting a bit too close......
Topic: Deepbit Approaching 50% Once Again - page 7. (Read 19135 times)
They're getting a bit too close......
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies.
In a free market, even with monopolies there is still the threat of competition. Let's say that NIKE has a monopoly in shoes. As long as everyone is getting what they want at a reasonable price, who cares? The reason why, even with a monopoly, NIKE isn't going to start charging $1,000 for a pair of low quality shoes is that they know it would entice competition. They want to keep their monopoly so they refrain from doing that because, at a reasonable price and reasonable quality, there's no incentive for competition. Hence, the mere fact that someone could enter the shoe market will prevent NIKE from getting uppity.
Monopolies aren't bad unless they're enforced involuntarily which requires government action. Voluntary monopolies aren't a problem.
Unless it was really hard/expensive to begin making shoes, there was a very steep learning curve, or some other similar reason that someone could not easily enter the shoe market. Then Nike would have a lot more leeway in charging prices.
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies.
In a free market, even with monopolies there is still the threat of competition. Let's say that Nike has a monopoly in shoes. As long as everyone is getting what they want at a reasonable price, who cares? The reason why, even with a monopoly, Nike isn't going to start charging $1,000 for a pair of low quality shoes is that they know it would entice competition. They want to keep their monopoly so they refrain from doing that because, at a reasonable price and reasonable quality, there's no incentive for competition. Hence, the mere fact that someone could enter the shoe market will prevent Nike from getting uppity.
Monopolies aren't bad unless they're enforced involuntarily which requires government action. Voluntary monopolies aren't a problem.
offtopic: We should have to get a license to mine, and another one to post.
I think the regular person approaching bitcoin can be prone to anxiety. I know I am at least, and if I need to wait to get my BTC shares, I have the feeling that I'm makiing less BTC. I guess we should simply do the math and get some experience. But deepbit is recommended to newbies as a good starter pool. So it makes sense that if the community grows, deepbit grows also.
I think the regular person approaching bitcoin can be prone to anxiety. I know I am at least, and if I need to wait to get my BTC shares, I have the feeling that I'm makiing less BTC. I guess we should simply do the math and get some experience. But deepbit is recommended to newbies as a good starter pool. So it makes sense that if the community grows, deepbit grows also.
Are people using the pay per share option? That's the only place that deepbit excels over other pools. And it's a terrible option unless you're a very intermittent miner. BTW PPS is not 7%, it was only 7% during the "apology period". It is normally 10%.
offtopic: We should have to get a license to mine, and another one to post.
I think the regular person approaching bitcoin can be prone to anxiety. I know I am at least, and if I need to wait to get my BTC shares, I have the feeling that I'm makiing less BTC. I guess we should simply do the math and get some experience. But deepbit is recommended to newbies as a good starter pool. So it makes sense that if the community grows, deepbit grows also.
I think the regular person approaching bitcoin can be prone to anxiety. I know I am at least, and if I need to wait to get my BTC shares, I have the feeling that I'm makiing less BTC. I guess we should simply do the math and get some experience. But deepbit is recommended to newbies as a good starter pool. So it makes sense that if the community grows, deepbit grows also.
@all power miner
Please switch to a smaller pool, if deepbit is to huge the price of bitcoins fall and bitcoins won't get accepted as normal currency.
Please switch to a smaller pool, if deepbit is to huge the price of bitcoins fall and bitcoins won't get accepted as normal currency.
On the latest charts it shows the "other" section at 6.57%. This means that 93.46% of the network hashrate is currently in pools. Really, you shouldn't worry about the double spend, etc attacks. Just think of the personal economic gain of having 2.7% of the entire network hashrate for your own. Meaning if the pools concentrated down to a monopoly and one pool had 90% of the network hashrate, with a 3% fee (.9*.03=.027). Multiply that by the average number of bitcoins mined per day (7200, I believe?) and at the current exchange rate of ~$18US...(.027*7200*18)=~$3500US PER DAY. Or roughly $100k per month, and that is if the price stays constant (and it won't).
People get killed over far less money. Don't be surprised when some ethically challenged indviduals make this a serious business. The world is not as pure as some would apparently like it to be. It will be in someone's best financial interest to eliminate their competition either by buying them out or other, more persuasive measures. Not neccessarily lethal, but there are many, many things that can be done to take someone off the net for months or years, all relatively cheap.
I'm sorry that the way things work in the real world, with real people, does not meet the idealogical expectations of many on this board. The pools will consolidate over time, and a savvy operator will own multiple pools, so as to deflect suspicion and/or >50% fears. Miners will tend to go with pools that have less downtime and bigger payouts (whether real or perceived.) It is a natural progression of the market, and eventually where things will wind up.
Please note that I am in no way accusing anybody of any sort of malfeasance, but there is a lot of incentive for it out there, and that incentive will only increase as the value of bitcoins does. Even if there is no wrongdoing though, the network hash rate will still be controlled by a very small number of people.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. This is what a free, unregulated market looks like in the real world. Capitalism at its finest.
People get killed over far less money. Don't be surprised when some ethically challenged indviduals make this a serious business. The world is not as pure as some would apparently like it to be. It will be in someone's best financial interest to eliminate their competition either by buying them out or other, more persuasive measures. Not neccessarily lethal, but there are many, many things that can be done to take someone off the net for months or years, all relatively cheap.
I'm sorry that the way things work in the real world, with real people, does not meet the idealogical expectations of many on this board. The pools will consolidate over time, and a savvy operator will own multiple pools, so as to deflect suspicion and/or >50% fears. Miners will tend to go with pools that have less downtime and bigger payouts (whether real or perceived.) It is a natural progression of the market, and eventually where things will wind up.
Please note that I am in no way accusing anybody of any sort of malfeasance, but there is a lot of incentive for it out there, and that incentive will only increase as the value of bitcoins does. Even if there is no wrongdoing though, the network hash rate will still be controlled by a very small number of people.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. This is what a free, unregulated market looks like in the real world. Capitalism at its finest.
So what? What actually happens if deepbit controls half of the hashing power? They get the most BTC? Oooooh, big deal, mine on deepbit then.
Geez, people.
Geez, people.
Go educate yourself
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
So what? What actually happens if deepbit controls half of the hashing power? They get the most BTC? Oooooh, big deal, mine on deepbit then.
Geez, people.
Geez, people.
Wow, so a 24 hour loan is worth that much to you? I thought people were smarter than that
worth what...? the 7% fee...? yep, I'll still get more paying a 7% fee on a larger amount than I will paying a 2.5% fee on a much smaller amount, or maybe I just don't get it...? that is just my assumption, care to explain...? I'm pretty new to this, but the bottom line numbers seem to speak for themselves imo...
Wow, so a 24 hour loan is worth that much to you? I thought people were smarter than that
Hey guys, just wanted to point out some (somewhat unsettling) stats again:
Deepbit is approaching 50% of the hashing power once again
While I dont have any beef with the operator of Deepbit ([Tycho] I believe), I have a beef with the security of our beloved Bitcoin.
As most of us know, the blockchain is secure as long as nobody controls more than or equal to 50% of the total hashing power of the network.
Deepbit seems to be ~40 percent, and has been climbing due to the massive influx of new miners and hardware. I'm not OK with that (Nothing personal, Tycho).
I suggest that those on Deepbit should switch to other, smaller pools, or some of the more powerful miners at least divert some of their resources to other pools to maintain a good hashing distribution equilibrium.
Furthermore, I would like to put in a plug forhttp://www.Bitcoins.lc; they are a 0% fee pool supporting long polling. Check em out.
Here is a chart of the current distribution:
Thanks for reading and supporting the security of Bitcoin
Deepbit is approaching 50% of the hashing power once again
While I dont have any beef with the operator of Deepbit ([Tycho] I believe), I have a beef with the security of our beloved Bitcoin.
As most of us know, the blockchain is secure as long as nobody controls more than or equal to 50% of the total hashing power of the network.
Deepbit seems to be ~40 percent, and has been climbing due to the massive influx of new miners and hardware. I'm not OK with that (Nothing personal, Tycho).
I suggest that those on Deepbit should switch to other, smaller pools, or some of the more powerful miners at least divert some of their resources to other pools to maintain a good hashing distribution equilibrium.
Here is a chart of the current distribution:
Thanks for reading and supporting the security of Bitcoin
during the time Deepbit was down a week or so ago I went to BTC Guild and Slush's pool IIRC, and mined there while Deepbit was down, what a fuckmess, for the hours (probably a couple hours on each pool) I put in I got zero payout, ZERO, fuck that shit, my payout balance goes up every hour on Deepbit, so if Deepbit is where I can get "paid" (so to speak) that's where I'll mine...
Most of you are totally missing the point. It is completely irrelevant if tycho can be trusted or not.
Simply the fact that a pool > 50% might exist is a huge security issue for the network.
Somebody has just (and I am saying "just" because no matter how much you pay attention to potential security risks, there is always a chance you get hacked, e.g. by undisclosed exploits) to take over the servers and then can be harmful to the network.
Another potential issue: Somebody with huge hashing power and the right knowledge could take down all major pools at once (e.g. via DDoS, there are kinds of ddos you can hardly mitigate, so this IS doable) which then would only leave the solo miners, according to the chart at about 400Ghash/s.
Then somebody could crank up his own mining equipment (at maybe 450ghash) and would have over 50% of hashing power under control.
Simply the fact that a pool > 50% might exist is a huge security issue for the network.
Somebody has just (and I am saying "just" because no matter how much you pay attention to potential security risks, there is always a chance you get hacked, e.g. by undisclosed exploits) to take over the servers and then can be harmful to the network.
Another potential issue: Somebody with huge hashing power and the right knowledge could take down all major pools at once (e.g. via DDoS, there are kinds of ddos you can hardly mitigate, so this IS doable) which then would only leave the solo miners, according to the chart at about 400Ghash/s.
Then somebody could crank up his own mining equipment (at maybe 450ghash) and would have over 50% of hashing power under control.
Precisely. This is so obvious that it boggles the mind that so many people here keep missing the point.
decentralized mining may offer a solution:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9137
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies. At the end we will wind up with a single large pool and perhaps a few other minor ones that people are in for ideological reasons. At some point a less than ethical pool operator will appear and he will figure out that it is in his best interest to take out the other pools by any means available to him. As long as he kept his mouth shut it would be impossible for anyone else to know he was instigating trouble with the other pools. For a recent example, if btcex had not said anything, nobody would have known he was ddosing MtGox.
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
This ridiculous crap again? Please go shit in someone else's thread.
You are a fool, and your post is inappropriate. Lupus_Yonderboy is absolutely correct, and he is outlining the single biggest threat to bitcoin. He is also making his point in the correct thread.
See this thread for a possible solution:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9137
This urgent problem demands an immediate solution.
I just like that [Tycho] gets ~60GH/s. Thats quite a good break if you ask me ;p
I wish I had made a pool.
I don't think my 700MH/s would be enough to attract people though ;p
I wish I had made a pool.
I don't think my 700MH/s would be enough to attract people though ;p
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies. At the end we will wind up with a single large pool and perhaps a few other minor ones that people are in for ideological reasons. At some point a less than ethical pool operator will appear and he will figure out that it is in his best interest to take out the other pools by any means available to him. As long as he kept his mouth shut it would be impossible for anyone else to know he was instigating trouble with the other pools. For a recent example, if btcex had not said anything, nobody would have known he was ddosing MtGox.
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
This ridiculous crap again? Please go shit in someone else's thread.
I always find these threads amusing, especially from the 'free market' types. Unregulated markets naturally tend towards monopolies. At the end we will wind up with a single large pool and perhaps a few other minor ones that people are in for ideological reasons. At some point a less than ethical pool operator will appear and he will figure out that it is in his best interest to take out the other pools by any means available to him. As long as he kept his mouth shut it would be impossible for anyone else to know he was instigating trouble with the other pools. For a recent example, if btcex had not said anything, nobody would have known he was ddosing MtGox.
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
As the difficulty rate goes ever higher, you will see miners join toward the largest pools. After all, would you rather mine in a pool that finds blocks in hours or one that takes days or weeks to find one? There will come a point at which 100-300 Ghash/s pools just don't cut it anymore. These pools will in turn either dissolve or get absorbed by other, larger pools, thus increasing the larger pools' hashing power, and making it difficult for smaller pools to find blocks...all in a vicious circle.
There are reasons that every industrialized country in the world has anti-trust laws. Because they have already learned the hard way what happens when you let the market 'self regulate' itself. You get things like Standard Oil. If the US and EU did not have anti-trust laws, everybody reading my words would be doing so with IE on a Windows based computer.
If markets don't tend toward monopolies...then why has nobody made a successful competitor to MtGox?
Somebody who sees a danger in BTC to his own buisiness (which could be quite a few institutions, banks, paypal, governments) can easily raise that amount of hardware (If they do not already own it).
Assume for example that a 1,7ghash rig costs about 900€, that would be less than 250k Euro.
You have to recall the fact that it won't be the small miner who wants to harm the systems, but rather big organizations
Assume for example that a 1,7ghash rig costs about 900€, that would be less than 250k Euro.
You have to recall the fact that it won't be the small miner who wants to harm the systems, but rather big organizations
I want to state that I never intended to imply or otherwise question Tycho personally or otherwise.
I am questioning the majority of miner's intent and commitment to the project.
Then somebody could crank up his own mining equipment (at maybe 450ghash) and would have over 50% of hashing power under control.
Where do you happen to have 450GH "lying around" ?
Jump to: