Topic: if deepbit.net gets anymore hashing speed it could compromise the system - page 2. (Read 11894 times)

Read Satoshi's paper for an explanation.
He then explains how such an event is extremely unlikely under the assumption that (probability an honest node finds the next block) > (probability the attacker finds the next block)
This falls apart when one person controls >50% of the network's hashing power.

So from what I understand it works like this:
In case of a blockchain fork, the longest chain is considered the valid one, and with >50% hashing power, you can generate blocks faster than the rest of the network. Therefore, you can force a fork from an earlier block, catch up with the rest of the network, and still have your chain end up being the longest one. This invalidates all blocks on the other side of the fork and reverses the transactions included in those blocks.

There is no way to "take over the system" with just a high hashrate pool/miner. Please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the heart of the matter that if somebody controls 50% of the hashing power they can take over the system.

 I am using the voting only as an analogy to control of the entire bitcoin system . It seems like you think I am an idiot and I am thinking because I am getting "shares" on a round  I own part of a pool or should have voting rights or something ..We are talking about two different things

Double spending... see http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Also +1 for Eligius... low frills, low fees

If you're part of a group effort and have voting control then you can vote to change the circumstances, if you don't then your options are participate or leave. I won't mention deepbit either.

Didn't say it was an investment club.. it was a comment on control over a group effort (bitcoin)
Deepbit was not mentioned.

It's not an investment club, no one bought in. It's a service and the users are the ones creating the so called "potential issues" and "problems". Users don't own shares in deepbit and they're free to cash out and leave anytime but they don't because it's a good service.

Don't blame the service provider when the users are the one's causing the "potential issue".

My real life investment club has a rule where no one person can own more than 25% shares in the club... and I think this is a good thing.

Seems to me this pool situation is not what was originally intended and one person or group controlling 50%+  of the total hashing power is a potential issue. I don't like potential issues in a curency system.

What is this mythical "attack" that everyone keeps alluding to? Does anyone have any real details about what could possibly go so wrong or are they just regurgitating the same paranoid BS arguments that everyone else is? So far I've seen a much bigger list of what Tyco can't do to the network than what he could with >= 50% power. He doesn't own the protocol and he can't change it's behavior. So far the best argument is that it is centralizing hashing power and if it goes down the network will be affected. It's a decentralized P2P network, it will recover. More to the point, anyone who is regurgitating this argument will lose their convenient income, and that is really what it's about.

If I was in his position I wouldn't want to have >= 50% power because this exact thing happens. The petty, jealous, and paranoid come out of the woodwork because their worried about a central entity having control over their income and try to disguise it in some thinly veiled reference of being able to attack the network, with no details whatsoever. You either believe in the power, agility, and ideals that were put into the bitcoin network and the protocols or you don't, either way makes you a hypocrite. If you don't like deepbit being as big as it is, chances are you're part of the problem and free to leave anytime.

Like I said in the other thread Tyco, congratulations on being so successful that you're hated. Keep doing what you're doing and keep up the good work. I know it's an uncomfortable position for you and I'm sure this will all go away as soon as Slush gets back up to speed.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/h6ccf/ok_reddit_mining_server_is_running_register/

Reddit Pool - brand new, probably needs a lot of work done before "production ready"

Someone, who is 10x faster than me, has 10x higher chance to score during fast found block. When we both hit the fast block, he gots about 10x more than me.

However, when I miss the block completely, my profit is not 10x lower than his. Its exactly *ZERO*.

Its like rounding to cents error, but you can earn only fractions of cent.

..most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent
on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Were you listening to me or looking at the woman in the red dress?
Look again.

Ah, but you have forgotten all the short rounds where you DID get a share in, and your proportion was much higher than normal.

No, you would not. It all averages out. Slow miners have the exact same chance per MH/s to get a share into a short round as fast miners.

I found another problem with +500 GHash/sec on deepbit.net. As soon as your client miner lower its total participation (for example, 1 GHash equals to less than 0.2 % now), you may get *UNLUCKY* at the moments, when the pool is *LUCKY*.

When there is a block found using just few shares (like in 1 minute or less), your client may not get even the single share "in" and you get NONE reward. Its pitty, cos if your client would be a bit faster, you will score and earn more per day.

For last 24 hours, I can feel about 10% lower yield. May be due unlucky day, but the above may count for it, too.

Eligius is always open to more miners...

Thanks, guess I'll be a bit shopping around then. A + for you!

He has barely been able to keep it functioning for some time.  I think he may be giving up on it.  Tycho is supposedly going to call him and help him get his pool running again.   Do you think this is a good thing?

The hash rate won't go down when difficulty goes up.  The blocks will get bigger [on average] making it harder to find the solution.

Tycho told me it could't happen any time soon and that he wouldn't allow it to happen.  Then when faced with the prospect of it happening, he changed his tune.  I like his pool, but refuse to use it until he delivers on his promise.  He has an ethical duty to make sure his pool cannot be a tool to attack the network, and setting up a redundant pool [one in the US and one in Germany I believe] is hardly a defense; especially against a government who can easily hit both [it is not as if Germany and the US hate each other, but they may both hate bitcoin].  

I like what Tycho has done, but I think he is letting greed get the better of him and is willing to blind himself to the possibility of what could happen due to his inaction.

I have been suggesting to people to consider BTCMine as a better alternative to slush and frankly, miners have a duty to take workers away from deepbit.  He said himself that he believes in the market and that individual miners should do it.  Show him that individual miners can [I think most are ostriches with their heads in the sand and won't move though, proving him wrong, which I hope I am wrong about].