Topic: Ghash.io reached 45% - page 2. (Read 3730 times)

mining pools are just one of the first steps in the evolution, a cumbersome child of quickly growing difficulty. p2pool would become a mining standard, I think in several years block rewards would be just equally split between all participating miners, without this "lottery" effect of large pools.

Since they're already getting close to 51% (let's face it 45% is pretty dang close), I would like to see them implement the feature of choosing your pool. If you purchase Gigahashes, and you really own them, you would think this would be an available option...

Just curious when they plan on allowing users to choose their own pool? When they reach 50.9% of hashing power?

yeah but the problem is the current price of their contracts isn't worth it

They did mention an option they're planning to implement to allow for mining hardware to be directed to other pools. Might use that to finish up mining with Slush's pool and then either go back to them or point them at something else like a Peercoin mining pool instead.

Let's face it, CEX.io and Cloudhashing.com have made mining a bit more accessible for those who don't want to jump through all the hoops of buying and setting up ASICs and FPGAs and end up worrying about software crashes or power consumption. In other words, it's the free market at hand.

If Bitcoin is going to be the currency of the future, it's going to take more than reassurances from mining pools that they'll act responsibly.  It's going to take more than people screaming on reddit to switch pools or else "teh sky will fal".  It'll take more than CEX lamely claiming they did not condone a double spend attack originating from their pool.  A protocol which secures billions of dollars of wealth (and potentially trillions) must enforce good behavior from consumers all the way to the miners.  This currency cannot assume that actors 1) will act in their own best interest and 2) have interests that are aligned with Bitcoin's success.

It's different this time (tm).  It doesn't matter if pools have exceeded 51% in the past with no ill effect.  We're talking $12 billion at stake here.  We're talking about a currency poised to replace the banking sector, sans regulatory interference.  We're talking about a technology that can replace credit cards.  To rely on the good behavior of market participants in ludicrous.

Bitcoin was the first of its kind.  A prototype, perhaps never intended for mass acceptance in its current form.  If we're going to make this prototype the gold standard of crypto-currencies, it's going to take more than name recognition + a shitload of miners with tremendous amounts of sunk capital cranking away if the code base itself is lacking in necessary features.  Bitcoin is at risk of becoming that stereotypical gigantic corporation, easily outflanked by the smaller, nimbler competition.  I hope I am wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

i wouldn't call 5 years in "early", and it has nearly happened before. the main problem is that miners currently (and probably forever) are incentivised to join pools for a more reliable mining income, which is simply one tendency towards centralisation, similar to the tendency towards centralised exchanges (goxopoly) in the earlier years. however, i'm confident that the community as it stands today is both knowledgeable and active enough to avoid the possible crisis scenarios by leaving the pool if you are involved, monitoring the blockchain for suspicious transactions, and promoting awareness through various well-trafficked outlets like /r/bitcoin and these forums. we've shown incredible decentralised cooperation in the past and the entire story of the bitcoin project continues to amaze me as a proof of concept of how dishonest or irresponsible actors can be neutralised in decentralised systems far better than in the centralised ones to which we are accustomed.

--arepo

very true;

I admit I don't like this given GhashIO's history.

But when I first got into bitcoin, Deepbit (remember them) was 80% of the hash rate and they had 80%for a long time.

Deepbit at 80% didn't destroy the network because: 1) that is not in a pool's interest and 2) any attempts are highly public and would result in the majority of your subscriber base immediately leaving.

A pool is only as strong as the trust individuals place in it.

they did the "right thing" after reaching ~50%, and it seems that ghash.io will do the same: https://ghash.io/ghashio_press_release.pdf

Thanx.

Change the rules to something nobody likes and fork off, for all I care.

I was going to say:  how is the evil ghash.io going to change all the clients?  But you beat me to it...

Everyone's concerned about double-spending.  I'm more concerned about them changing the rules to something that nobody likes.

One pool of miners with a majority of the hashing power is not the same thing as one malicious entity that wants to harm/kill/double spend Bitcoins with a majority of the hashing.

So, relax.

I have been here for years.  The same "OMG the sky is falling" threads happened when DeepBit attained a majority of the hashing.  Where is DeepBit now?  Where is Bitcoin now?

So, relax.

good point

that's from the last 2016 blocks. last 24 hours is 40%

If anyone controlling 51% of the hash power is not a cause for concern at all then please provide your knowledge and relieve the concern instead of just sitting there and calling people dumb

It's sad to see people panic over this...another proof that a concerning number of humans are dumb.

Except BTC Guild did the right thing and didn't allow it to happen... it sounds like a different story with Ghash.io and wouldn't be surprised if there are some shady fuckers behind that group