Topic: GHash.IO has 51% of the network now (Read 4289 times)

means most if it is true, who holds a very large cex.io.
probably because many buyers GHS are there so that they invest more advanced

Yes, they are having issues.

Anybody else having still having issue(s) accessing ghash.io site?

*Pool hashrate ~8.58PH the last time I checked.

hey guys is cex.io opening or working. i am connected fine to the pool I just checked but i cant get to the website. Cex.io or ghash.io its been a few hours.

I call attention to Mongolia because graze lands were the most widely thought of example of a 'commons' back in the day and even carried that label specifically.  This specific example continues to be observed in that country.

Again, you are failing to be very specific about 'the commons' that you are analyzing.  'In Germany' is still a fail.


You are framing the problem as it relates to Bitcoin incorrectly (IMO).  'bitcoins' are not the resource and don't play a part in things.  The bitcoin network is the operative construct.  It is supposed (by most people) to be available for common use by anyone who feels so inclined.

I would argue with you and Angus that as soon as control measures come into existence (e.g., getting beat up by an angry mob, or taking defensive measures such as running off your competition's sheep to make more resources available for your own (rather than moving a mile to virgin grass)) then we are no longer talking about pure commons.  All you are saying is that 'the commons' are not workable except in unusual circumstances and people adapt.  Big deal.  Pretty much all life forms face this reality at some point and they all adapt else they would not be here.

Hardin was quite unpopular within many social science communities for his various views and prescriptions.  Similar to many of those who've studied other other sensitive topics such as human intelligence.  One could achieve instant popularity which was not in alignment with the quality of one's work by 'dis'n' the guy.  I think this happened from time to time in his case.

I read Hardin's tragedy work as a kid and several times since.  What I took away was mostly the observation that people have a propensity to maximize their personal gain and it impacts corner-cases such as pure commons and exploitation of resources within them.  I personally never took from it that 'privatization' was his preferred default way of dealing with the problem.  I'm a strong proponent of pubic ownership of bulk resources.  I live on a thin strip of private lands surrounded by a state forest, and I am very much in favor of public ownership of resources where it is feasible, though I am opposed to that being the exclusive mode.  The state forest (which I am seeing out my window as I type these words) is distinctly not 'commons' and exploitation of it is fairly carefully controlled.

Well I was pointing at the pastures where to term originated. I might have been more clear about that.


There are working Commons in Germany, not sure what you want to say with the emphasis on Mongolia here.

Let me quote from the book I was also point at earlier. I found it now.


PhD C. Ryan and MD C. Jethá - Sex at Dawn - 2010

Thus my argument earlier that social punishment of GHash.io and cex.io is the way to go and centralisation/authority or privatization (not even sure how this would work with bitcoin). But lets get to the problem at hand:

Mining bitcoins is the pasture here. Everyone can herd their sheep (start mining) there. There are limited resources (Bitcoins) for everyone to have. If one has to many sheep (over 50% hashpower) in the pasture they risk ruining it (bitcoin) for everyone. A big scale double spending attack would have a big impact on the bitcoin price and thus hurt the attacker. Perfect example of a common that works because if you start gaming the system the angry mob will fuck you up.

That is a complete nonsense statement.  The whole point of 'the tragedy of the commons' is that indeed 'the commons' work find as an economic model (and in other ways) when there are abundant resources.  Saying that 'Commons still exist and work fine' makes zero sense unless you are specific about what instance you are pointing to.

The principle applied to Bitcoin mining casts 'the commons' as the Bitcoin system generally with the underlying assumption (arguably incorrect) that centralization is bad.  Abundance would be when there is no threat of centralization.  In that instance maximizing personal gain can be done without threatening the system because it doesn't matter what pool he associates with.  In the more classic scenario it would be the same thing as the sheep herder growing his flock to the maximum number he can handle without worrying about ruining the graze on the commons since there is so much of it.

Yes, it is true that 'the Commons still exist and still work fine' in Mongolia.  They've ceased to exist and work fine in many other places where they once thrived.

---

It would be interesting to note when the first time Satoshi seemed to be aware of the concept of mining pools.  I suspect that it may have been one of the things that he (or they) really didn't anticipate very clearly in formulating the various constructs which were to influence the ecosystem.  One of the impressively few things I might add.

Of course it CAN be done. They can, if they wanted, force only p2p pools (which ar enothing like ghash and rest of em). They can do all sorts of changes to prevent massing of hash under control of 1 entity and they can do much muhc more. There are examples in other alt coins but hey...if it's easyer for you to think this way, who am i to break your dreams....

When I first heard about the tragedy of the commons (one of my profs was talking about) I though the idea behind it was correct. But then I read more about it by accident in another book which is more about human nature than about economy. (sex before dawn maybe - not sure)

Now I understand that these assumptions are wrong. Commons worked for several hundreds of years without any problems. Commons still exists and work fine.

The basic asumption is correct if one person in the group behaves against the intrests of the group everyone suffers. But you have to keep in mind what times you are talking about and what situations. They all knew eachother. They knew which individual of the group was the black sheep. Thus the group had social means to punish which did not require an authority figure (e.g. a lord or cestallan) or privatization (wasnt a thing in medieval times anyway).
Same today, if you know a miner or two you can talk to them about Ghash.io and that you are concerned about the hashingpower the pool assembled. If you dont know a miner you can talk about it here (or reddit or twitter or facebook or...) and raise awairness.
Humans are creatures of cooperation not of selfishness. We are social animals. We need eachother. Thats the leverage here.

If more PH of power are added each 10 days than removed (hash rate graph) as the rising difficulty shows too, then it'll be back to square one sooner rather than later.

You beat me to it Lets hope more miners follow suit

heh don't know anything but too bad the bitcoin protocol could not show 'favortism' to go smaller rather then larger (decentralized rather then centralized) obvioualy
if that was possible/easy the devs of bitcoin would have done so already

Bitcoin always a new zombie behind every door it seems

Searing

nothing is "solved". one pool having even 20% is a huge problem, and double spend attacks are not impossible under such conditions. this is a matter of probability. the problem is not "51%". the problem is centralization. and it is NOT solved.

i am amazed at how much blind trust bitcoiners can put into a hashing pool... why exactly are we here again?

yea! don't need the drama (even if to no ill effect) of bouncing around at 50 to 51% reminding everyone (and the press) of the dreaded 51% (hopefully)
boogie man!

it just goes to show the wisdom in such situation of Monty Python....(hey it always works if you run fast enough)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk

Run Away Run Away!

Searing

It is a miracle how this situation got solved with no central authority? Did disciplined miners switch pools or ghash changed IP and masked some of their hash rate as unknown? I am sceptical on this being "solved" 

This sure didn't last long.  The link posted in the OP now shows Ghash down to 41%.  Thank you to all the miners who switched to a different pool.

They should be decapitated anyways...

ghash gimme BTC bonus boss 

Because you can't. It's anonymous. You can not tell who actually mined a block. It would be easy for one pool to make itself look like five pools with 10% each but still being the one 50% pool.

Not really mate!
He explained it here clearly!