Topic: GHash.IO Statement Regarding 51% Threat (Read 3132 times)
thanks for info sir
I love how ghash.io has been this transparent in their public declaration.
The original paper proposes that if the majority of the nodes are honest nodes then the network will be safe from manipulation. If the majority of the nodes are dishonest nodes, an attack is possible.
Don't know about the 39.99% perhaps gentlemen's agreement between Pool operators.
To be fair, I see this as a failing of the other pool operators versus a GHash issue. Earn your piece of the pie, do marketing, drop your fees, increase rewards, have a lottery, pay 10 BTC to the finder of the block like Nakamoto suggested: "Either way, the user who submits the hit that solves the block should get an extra amount off the top, like 10 BTC"....this is meant to be a free market is it not?
IF you "vote with your CPU", clearly other Pool operators need to improve their campaigns to get more "CPU votes."
Don't know about the 39.99% perhaps gentlemen's agreement between Pool operators.
To be fair, I see this as a failing of the other pool operators versus a GHash issue. Earn your piece of the pie, do marketing, drop your fees, increase rewards, have a lottery, pay 10 BTC to the finder of the block like Nakamoto suggested: "Either way, the user who submits the hit that solves the block should get an extra amount off the top, like 10 BTC"....this is meant to be a free market is it not?
IF you "vote with your CPU", clearly other Pool operators need to improve their campaigns to get more "CPU votes."
The problem in this case was clealy demonstrated to be mindless sheep mentality. The same way intelligent people complain about the government inefficiencies but the sheep ruin everything. Other pools have demonstrated to be better performing and yet people flock to something with 0% Fee and 2 extra coins because they think they make more all while bending over and dropping 2-4% orphan rate
The original paper proposes that if the majority of the nodes are honest nodes then the network will be safe from manipulation. If the majority of the nodes are dishonest nodes, an attack is possible.
Don't know about the 39.99% perhaps gentlemen's agreement between Pool operators.
To be fair, I see this as a failing of the other pool operators versus a GHash issue. Earn your piece of the pie, do marketing, drop your fees, increase rewards, have a lottery, pay 10 BTC to the finder of the block like Nakamoto suggested: "Either way, the user who submits the hit that solves the block should get an extra amount off the top, like 10 BTC"....this is meant to be a free market is it not?
IF you "vote with your CPU", clearly other Pool operators need to improve their campaigns to get more "CPU votes."
Don't know about the 39.99% perhaps gentlemen's agreement between Pool operators.
To be fair, I see this as a failing of the other pool operators versus a GHash issue. Earn your piece of the pie, do marketing, drop your fees, increase rewards, have a lottery, pay 10 BTC to the finder of the block like Nakamoto suggested: "Either way, the user who submits the hit that solves the block should get an extra amount off the top, like 10 BTC"....this is meant to be a free market is it not?
IF you "vote with your CPU", clearly other Pool operators need to improve their campaigns to get more "CPU votes."
They won't be so popular for much longer if they do - there are reasons why other front-running pools have fallen back behind.
Well at least the 51% talk will ease..
Well at least the 51% talk will ease..
I'm a bit new to the mining scene. Can anyone explain what 51% means and why they are avoiding 39.99%?
I feel like discus fish is the bigger threat at this point....
They won't be so popular for much longer if they do - there are reasons why other front-running pools have fallen back behind.
Well at least the 51% talk will ease..
Well at least the 51% talk will ease..
It was on like the 2nd page on discussion so for that, fuck you.
[/quote
July 18, 2014, 09:30:13 PM
No, Fuck you
[/quote
July 18, 2014, 09:30:13 PM
No, Fuck you
It was on like the 2nd page on discussion so for that, fuck you.
Why would people even mine on GHash when they can mine with other decent sized pools and get daily payouts still.. some people confuse me
And why are you trying to get more posts for your sig campaign on an old thread? Some retards confuse me
Why would people even mine on GHash when they can mine with other decent sized pools and get daily payouts still.. some people confuse me
Quoting myself for relevant content here:
I absolutely agree that we should not become complacent. As you point out, the community at large has some power, and also has responsibility. Yes, we as a community of miners are actively keeping an eye on things, pointing out areas that require attention, etc. The pool operators are also responsible for taking proper action. The warning message is certainly a great start. It is only that, though: a start. Further action needs to be taken by the pool. If GHash.io truly means what they say, then such action would be taken by them.The way they make announcements to a wide audience without ever communicating directly with any of the users here on the forums reminds me of the smug behaviour of deepbit during its dying/quietly fading days but in an even worse manner showing what looks like a complete lack of respect to miners. Compare their communication to Eleuthria's of BTCGuild who has continually responded to almost every single comment no matter how mundane.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Posting warnings here is useless. They should raise fees and start disconnecting slower miners.
How is disconnecting slower miners the solution? What is considered "slow"? Wouldn't that just encourage faster miners to then connect since they don't have to be concerned? I'm also not too sure about the raising fees proposition. What does that do except get GHash.io richer? They buy more hardware, have more "cloud" mining on cex.io.I believe that raising fees did in fact work on another pool back before GHash was so popular. I think it was about 1.5 years ago. At some point when fees are rising, it just doesn't make sense for miners to be there, and GHash has the incentive to raise fees because it will make them more money.
Quoting myself for relevant content here:
I absolutely agree that we should not become complacent. As you point out, the community at large has some power, and also has responsibility. Yes, we as a community of miners are actively keeping an eye on things, pointing out areas that require attention, etc. The pool operators are also responsible for taking proper action. The warning message is certainly a great start. It is only that, though: a start. Further action needs to be taken by the pool. If GHash.io truly means what they say, then such action would be taken by them.The way they make announcements to a wide audience without ever communicating directly with any of the users here on the forums reminds me of the smug behaviour of deepbit during its dying/quietly fading days but in an even worse manner showing what looks like a complete lack of respect to miners. Compare their communication to Eleuthria's of BTCGuild who has continually responded to almost every single comment no matter how mundane.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Posting warnings here is useless. They should raise fees and start disconnecting slower miners.
How is disconnecting slower miners the solution? What is considered "slow"? Wouldn't that just encourage faster miners to then connect since they don't have to be concerned? I'm also not too sure about the raising fees proposition. What does that do except get GHash.io richer? They buy more hardware, have more "cloud" mining on cex.io.I believe that raising fees did in fact work on another pool back before GHash was so popular. I think it was about 1.5 years ago. At some point when fees are rising, it just doesn't make sense for miners to be there, and GHash has the incentive to raise fees because it will make them more money.
***Dear miners, we are approaching 39.99% of the Bitcoin hashrate. Please, move your mining hardware to other pools. Thank you for understanding!***
***Dear ghash miners, they are approaching 39.99% of the Bitcoin hashrate AGAIN . Please permanently move your mining hardware to other pools. Thank you for understanding!***
Quoting myself for relevant content here:
I absolutely agree that we should not become complacent. As you point out, the community at large has some power, and also has responsibility. Yes, we as a community of miners are actively keeping an eye on things, pointing out areas that require attention, etc. The pool operators are also responsible for taking proper action. The warning message is certainly a great start. It is only that, though: a start. Further action needs to be taken by the pool. If GHash.io truly means what they say, then such action would be taken by them.The way they make announcements to a wide audience without ever communicating directly with any of the users here on the forums reminds me of the smug behaviour of deepbit during its dying/quietly fading days but in an even worse manner showing what looks like a complete lack of respect to miners. Compare their communication to Eleuthria's of BTCGuild who has continually responded to almost every single comment no matter how mundane.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Posting warnings here is useless. They should raise fees and start disconnecting slower miners.
How is disconnecting slower miners the solution? What is considered "slow"? Wouldn't that just encourage faster miners to then connect since they don't have to be concerned? I'm also not too sure about the raising fees proposition. What does that do except get GHash.io richer? They buy more hardware, have more "cloud" mining on cex.io.
I have my doubts…. The day before they were about to crack the 51% total, they were sending out spam email asking people to jump in and help them… That shows me they had clear intent… No need to go any further then that .
Posting warnings here is useless. They should raise fees and start disconnecting slower miners.
Quoting myself for relevant content here:
The way they make announcements to a wide audience without ever communicating directly with any of the users here on the forums reminds me of the smug behaviour of deepbit during its dying/quietly fading days but in an even worse manner showing what looks like a complete lack of respect to miners. Compare their communication to Eleuthria's of BTCGuild who has continually responded to almost every single comment no matter how mundane.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
Users have more power than they think and the bitcoin mining community at large has held many groups to task over the last few years and it remains the responsibility of users to continue protecting other users and bitcoin. The reason ghash did not reach 51% was because of the many warnings posted here and elsewhere. While you're all complaining that a simple announcement by ghash to tell miners to direct their hashes elsewhere is nowhere near enough of a total solution to the possible destabilisation of the network by them receiving a majority of the hashrate, bear in mind the only reason they have made this announcement is because of continued pressure by the community and it should be seen as a major milestone, but I agree we must not become complacent by this one step alone.
The actual solution would be to deny new connections once it has reached the limit it wants to. That way, there is no new hashpower. Their current policy is to send out messages and warnings, but that is useless.
Another option is to disconnect all miners, and only the ones that reconnect quickest will be able to stay. They can also increase fees to reduce hashrate.
Another option is to disconnect all miners, and only the ones that reconnect quickest will be able to stay. They can also increase fees to reduce hashrate.
This is probably the best solution. We ask end users to control themselves and this of keeping the network distributed. If they fail to do so then it is up to the pool op to see a workaround (assuming ghash.io truly doesn't want to see 51%). Don't allow any new connections. Other coins already do this when they get above 35% on some pools, this should have been implemented some time ago.
The actual solution would be to deny new connections once it has reached the limit it wants to. That way, there is no new hashpower. Their current policy is to send out messages and warnings, but that is useless.
Another option is to disconnect all miners, and only the ones that reconnect quickest will be able to stay. They can also increase fees to reduce hashrate.
Another option is to disconnect all miners, and only the ones that reconnect quickest will be able to stay. They can also increase fees to reduce hashrate.
This is probably the best solution. We ask end users to control themselves and this of keeping the network distributed. If they fail to do so then it is up to the pool op to see a workaround (assuming ghash.io truly doesn't want to see 51%). Don't allow any new connections. Other coins already do this when they get above 35% on some pools, this should have been implemented some time ago.
Jump to: