GHash is at 48% WTF - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

noSlave

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: Justin00 on June 08, 2014, 03:16:13 AM

anyways if ghash a pool or a company ?
i always thought ghash was part of cex.io or what ever its called ?

yes they are. And that's why it's not enough when miner leaving their pool. ....they own the hardware.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: freedomno1 on June 08, 2014, 03:19:20 AM

I'm glad some hash decided to leave Ghash and move somewhere else we don't want to see a single network controlling more than 50%

click on 24 hr - it shows 43% at this moment

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

Quote from: busterroni on June 07, 2014, 11:46:03 PM

Quote from: noSlave on June 07, 2014, 11:45:27 PM

48%....shit. It's going to be real.

Do you have a screenshoot for me? I'd like to share it with twitter.

39% now. https://blockchain.info/pools

I'm glad some hash decided to leave Ghash and move somewhere else we don't want to see a single network controlling more than 50%

Justin00

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

anyways if ghash a pool or a company ?
i always thought ghash was part of cex.io or what ever its called ?

Justin00

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

So if I read correctly, you guys are saying its time to move to LTC hehe ?
i joke i joke

findftp

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1008

Delusional crypto obsessionist

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 02:45:24 AM

Right now they are at 42%. The Bitcoin Foundation should issue a directive to the GHash guys, to split their pool to two or more smaller ones. Or it should support the other mining pools, so that they could wean away some of the miners from GHash.

I don't know what's worse.
The bitcoin having that power or a pool at 51%

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Right now they are at 42%. The Bitcoin Foundation should issue a directive to the GHash guys, to split their pool to two or more smaller ones. Or it should support the other mining pools, so that they could wean away some of the miners from GHash.

findftp

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1008

Delusional crypto obsessionist

Quote from: ?? on ??

FUD BUT FACT NOTICE

The real threat isn't a 51% attack, the real fear should be with more than 51% of the nethash they could force any revision to the client or protocol they wanted. If you didn't accept accept the new protocol or client, then goodbye wallet!

That should be what scares you, not some 51% attack.

/END FUD

~BCX~

No, not goodbye wallet.
We would end up with two different blockchains.

e4xit

sr. member

Activity: 302

Merit: 250

You realise that you can do a "double spend attack" with less than 51% of the hashing power if you want to right?

Having 51% of thee hash power just gives you a greater than 51%'chance of it succeeding (therefore becoming 'worthwhile' to attempt...

tomjohnson

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

oh, it's very dangerous.

markus1000

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

guys dont be naive. just because in the past pools that have controlled 51% or more didn't do anything, doesn't mean the people who control the pools will act in the interest of bitcoin in the future.

When there is opportunity to do something it will be done. Even better when you could earn a lot of money or destroy something big at the same time.

Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, and its not in its interest to have mining pools with a big market share. In the long run the the 51% vulnability has to be somehow removed.

PalmerLaura

member

Activity: 116

Merit: 10

IPSX: Distributed Network Layer

The problem with them is that they own the hardware that people buy at cex.io. If we see that as a problem (which it might be, but we can't really say that without having more data) then p2p pools don't do anything to solve that problem.

PalmerLaura

member

Activity: 116

Merit: 10

IPSX: Distributed Network Layer

If they were to try to pull a 51% attack with their pool and they didn't own a lot of hardware then the miners would quickly change to another pool.

Willisius

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

I'm really quite sane!

I doubt they would do anything malicious as well. But that's not the point. The point is that Bitcoin is trustless, yet I have to trust them.

PalmerLaura

member

Activity: 116

Merit: 10

IPSX: Distributed Network Layer

The problem is that a lot of people are touting while they know nothing. P2P pool isn't a solution at all. The sole, and I really mean sole problem is the hardware that they own.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: eleuthria on June 08, 2014, 12:48:28 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on June 08, 2014, 12:27:53 AM

Deepbit had controlling share in the network a couple of times and we survived. They won't do anything because it's in their best interest to play nice. Think about it a minute. They're holding a mass of btc profit from running a successful pool. They could continue making more money but instead they decide to make their holdings worthless by fucking with the network. Yeah, that makes sense. Calm down people, the sky isn't falling.

Their "mass of BTC profit" isn't from their pool. Their pool costs them money, it makes them nothing. It has, from day 1, made absolutely no economic sense for their pool to exist at all. Their private farm is as large or larger than any other pool as is, so the argument of letting others join them to reduce their variance is moot. They're too large for variance to make an impact on their monthly revenues. They're paying to run servers for people for nothing, unless they're skimming from the top.

We have no idea what their business model is but it does make sense to lower their variance by allowing people to hop on their large private farm. Or their game plan might be to remove the competition (such as yourself) by stealing as many customers as possible and then creating a fee that is profitable. Skimming is very possible and, as you know, has been done many times before.

Creating fear isn't going to change anything. Removing the PoW system and moving to Proof of Stake can fix the problem for good. But we can't change our beloved Bitcoin can we? Heaven forbid we fix basic design flaws like the PoW system or prune the fucking blockchain. That would be just awful. /endrant

haploid23

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Beliathon on June 08, 2014, 12:15:34 AM

So much paranoia on these forums, and so much forgetting about rational self-interest. What do you think happens to the fool who destroys the wealth of tens of thousands of hackers?

And what if they're coerced by an organization or government to run an attack, against their will? Or what if they're corrupt, and were offered much more money than what the pool brings? It would cost someone far less money to pay a pool to run a 51%, than it would cost to buy enough hardware to run a 51% attack. If these people or organization's goal was end bitcoin, paying a pool to do it would be so much cheaper than carrying it out themselves.

kingscrown

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

http://fuk.io - check it out!

you never know if they dont have the few % missing to 51% in this 'unknown' - many peopel state that they do.

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on June 08, 2014, 12:27:53 AM

Deepbit had controlling share in the network a couple of times and we survived. They won't do anything because it's in their best interest to play nice. Think about it a minute. They're holding a mass of btc profit from running a successful pool. They could continue making more money but instead they decide to make their holdings worthless by fucking with the network. Yeah, that makes sense. Calm down people, the sky isn't falling.

Their "mass of BTC profit" isn't from their pool. Their pool costs them money, it makes them nothing. It has, from day 1, made absolutely no economic sense for their pool to exist at all. Their private farm is as large or larger than any other pool as is, so the argument of letting others join them to reduce their variance is moot. They're too large for variance to make an impact on their monthly revenues. They're paying to run servers for people for nothing, unless they're skimming from the top.

DolanDuck

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

After thinking about it with calm, I agree that the panic isn't justified, but at the same time I don't feel secure at all.

Topic: GHash is at 48% WTF - page 5. (Read 7069 times)