Statement from hash.io
Bitcoin mining pool GHash.IO is preventing accumulation of 51% of all hashing power GHash.IO, the worlds largest and most powerful mining pool, has entered 2014 with overall hashing power of over 40%, making it the #1 pool currently in the Bitcoin network.
The pool has gained significant hashing power due to the 0% pool fee, merged mining of alt coins, excellent real-time data presentation as well as quality 24/7/365 support service.
The hashing power of GHash.IO consists of:
•~45% BitFury ASIC based miners
•~55% independent miners
Although the increase of hash-power in the pool is considered to be a good thing, reaching 51% of all hashing power is serious threat to the bitcoin community. GHash.IO will take all necessary precautions to prevent reaching 51% of all hashing power, in order to maintain stability of the bitcoin network. We have put a plan in place to see that 51% of all hashing power, will not be maintained by Ghash.IO by executing the following actions:
•We will temporarily stop accepting new independent mining facilities to the Ghash.IO pool.
•We will implement a feature, allowing CEX.IO users to mine bitcoins from other pools.
So when they purchase GH/s they can put it towards any pool they choose.
We will not be implementing a pool fee, as we believe the pool has to remain free.
GHash.IO does not have any intentions to execute a 51% attack, as it will do serious damage to the Bitcoin community, of which we are part of. On the contrary, our plans are to expand the bitcoin community as well as utilise the hashing power to develop a greater bitcoin economic structure. If something happened to Bitcoin as a whole it could risk our investments in physical hardware, damage those who love Bitcoin and we see no benefit from having 51% stake in mining
Our plans are to develop additional services, to help expand the use of bitcoins. The services include, but not limited to:
•A bitcoin payment system, which utilises the extended features of the bitcoin protocol. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals)
•An escrow service, which will help secure transactions between members of the bitcoin community
•Micro-payments aggregation, which will enable users to receive small amounts of Bitcoins from third parties. •Instant bitcoin payments for merchants, which will increase the share of Bitcoin e-commerce transactions in the global economy.
Non-standard transactions, such as mentioned above, can not be relayed to the blockchain network, however they are still valid, and can be mined using the hashing power accumulated on GHash.IO.
Feedback is more than welcome. For additional information, please contact [email protected] Media Contact: Jeffrey Smith
Topic: Important to all miners and manufacturers (Read 1285 times)
Please someone explain to me how a pool can be "trustworthy" if they have no problem with controlling 51%+ of the network hashing power?
Regardless if they did/could/would double-spend or whatever... it goes against the basic idea of Bitcoin and why it was created and will seriously undermine the trust in the currency and could have serious implications on its future.
If they gave a crap about Bitcoin, they wouldn't pull this shit!
Why don't most miners understand that?
Regardless if they did/could/would double-spend or whatever... it goes against the basic idea of Bitcoin and why it was created and will seriously undermine the trust in the currency and could have serious implications on its future.
If they gave a crap about Bitcoin, they wouldn't pull this shit!
Why don't most miners understand that?
Thanks for pointing this out.
Time to move my miners to a different pool.
Time to move my miners to a different pool.
Well that sucks 
I knew that a double spend was theoretically possible but not that it has actually happened. This is a huge issue: double spends could completely undermine bitcoin. I'm not saying that is the current situation, but if this is occasionally happening now something needs to be done or it will start happening more. Maybe no longer allow zero fee transactions?
I knew that a double spend was theoretically possible but not that it has actually happened. This is a huge issue: double spends could completely undermine bitcoin. I'm not saying that is the current situation, but if this is occasionally happening now something needs to be done or it will start happening more. Maybe no longer allow zero fee transactions?
we should never put too much trust on one individual, Satoshi nakomoto designed the Bitcoin protocol so the trust is distributed among all miners and not one single pool/organization/individual, what is happening is a potential risk no matter how trustworthy the operator is....
otherwise I would not count on Ghash.IO because they are not trustworthy, what miners are not aware of is that this same pool tried to double spend few months ago when they had only 23% of the network hashpower and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again, especially now when they control this amount of power. for reference https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
please explain to me, why they have 0% fee ? what is the point ? now that they are being a big risk why didnt they do something about it ? the only effort they did is to release a statement that once they reach 51% that they will give the chance for people buying power there to point their miners to other pools but then it will be too late....
it seems that all effort we are doing doesn't count for anything, and it seems that miners doesn't give a flying fuck about the network security, and it seems that each time we talk about this risk is like we do them a free advertisement because their hash rate keep growing ever since.
you miners are the only ones that can change this, so please start acting responsibly.
otherwise I would not count on Ghash.IO because they are not trustworthy, what miners are not aware of is that this same pool tried to double spend few months ago when they had only 23% of the network hashpower and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again, especially now when they control this amount of power. for reference https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
please explain to me, why they have 0% fee ? what is the point ? now that they are being a big risk why didnt they do something about it ? the only effort they did is to release a statement that once they reach 51% that they will give the chance for people buying power there to point their miners to other pools but then it will be too late....
it seems that all effort we are doing doesn't count for anything, and it seems that miners doesn't give a flying fuck about the network security, and it seems that each time we talk about this risk is like we do them a free advertisement because their hash rate keep growing ever since.
you miners are the only ones that can change this, so please start acting responsibly.
I am really really pissed off, I cant believe how much ignorant this community has became really, I was expecting a drop in the hash power of that pool when I woke up, just to see that they are calmed down and everything is the same all because of an "official statement" from Ghash.IO "don't worry we wont fuck your wives and kids when we reach 51%"
this is called horse shit, they did double spend @ 23% and nothing is preventing them from doing so now, they shouldn't have more than 33% ( read the selfish miner) neither any other pool no mater how honest the operator is, you never put trust on any individual it must be distributed equally among everyone on the network.. the is what Bitcoin as concept came to solve...
"it is ok" , "it is not 51% yet" "they are honest" "who would destroy their business model" well I guess you think the same about your banks, it is now that we do something about it or it is too late....
this is called horse shit, they did double spend @ 23% and nothing is preventing them from doing so now, they shouldn't have more than 33% ( read the selfish miner) neither any other pool no mater how honest the operator is, you never put trust on any individual it must be distributed equally among everyone on the network.. the is what Bitcoin as concept came to solve...
"it is ok" , "it is not 51% yet" "they are honest" "who would destroy their business model" well I guess you think the same about your banks, it is now that we do something about it or it is too late....
Since this is the _hardware_ subforum, perhaps it would be useful to discus how hardware purchases create or prevent this outcome?
My understanding is that a substantial portion of ghash.io's hashpower is a result of income from bitfury sales being reinvested by the manufacturer into building hardware for their own business.
It's always been my view that you should never buy hardware from someone who is making hardware to mine for themselves (or the same via some multi-company shell game)— you're effectively paying someone to compete with you, bad business. It's a hard position to take when the party in question has some of the better hardware available though.
My understanding is that a substantial portion of ghash.io's hashpower is a result of income from bitfury sales being reinvested by the manufacturer into building hardware for their own business.
It's always been my view that you should never buy hardware from someone who is making hardware to mine for themselves (or the same via some multi-company shell game)— you're effectively paying someone to compete with you, bad business. It's a hard position to take when the party in question has some of the better hardware available though.
Agreed, the global hashrate is getting dangerously centralised.
good point
Hope to see manufacturers getting involved in the effort of bitcoin decentralization as well, for example like what has been mentioned by mmitech and by pointing their hosted miner at smaller pools.
this is how it looks like now.... it is really really not ok anymore..... move your miners to P2pool or other small pools
For those that might now know what the concern is about:
From: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
From: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
Quote
Attacker has a lot of computing power
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:
The attacker can't:
With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.
It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.
Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:
- Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
- Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
- Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
The attacker can't:
- Reverse other people's transactions
- Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
- Change the number of coins generated per block
- Create coins out of thin air
- Send coins that never belonged to him
With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.
It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.
Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.
Ok now we reached that point that there is a potential risk and something has to be done now, today I was checking again to just see this
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
Miners point your miners to other pools now, manufacturers please start including user manuals of how to join p2pool and on how important is to spread the hash power among other pools.
Ghash.io did double spend before and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
moderators please don't move this...
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
Miners point your miners to other pools now, manufacturers please start including user manuals of how to join p2pool and on how important is to spread the hash power among other pools.
Ghash.io did double spend before and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
moderators please don't move this...
Jump to: