Author

Topic: Is there an incentive for pools to attack each other? (Read 1684 times)

newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 0


Entire papers have been written on the subject of bitcoin pool combat, so I won't go into the finer points except to say that the oneupmanship is progressing so quickly that, really, only the pool chiefs know the current state of interpool war technology, and they are dark, mysterious entities who we aren't allowed to name.

Where do I sign up to be a chief? F'n hilarious. I'll send you a bitcoin.

And yes hash browns are delicious computationally and "really."
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Yes that does happen. See what happens is, all the people involved in a pool chip in and buy what are called "pool sharks." The shark entities patrol internally until they are able to jump a competing pool. Then, the two groups of sharks fight, and the winner can usually grab a few bitcoins to take back to his pool before another shark is generated or the pool is economically "poisoned" to all sharks, enemy or ally.

However, deepbit moved on from sharks to A.P.E. programs, which are better for long-polling combat in the areas outside of pools. It takes longer for competing apes to find each other, but combat is more effective. Apes can jump into enemy pools to attack sharks, but not the inverse. However, apes cannot steal enemy bitcoins, with a few rare exceptions.

Where it gets really complicated is hash slinging. A pool can take some of their hashpower and direct it to another pool, thus confusing their miners. When your miner says "Result: hash rejected" it means that someone slung hashes into your work queue and you were fooled into doing worthless work. Right now, because I'm near the edge of the pool and thus get attacked by enemy hashes constantly, I have my own pool shark that is entirely supported by slung hashes, so it doesn't cost me anything until an ape attacks it. The evolutionary arms race has stepped up, recently, where brown hashes are slung instead of the typical rainbow tabled ones. Both are hash combinations, but hashbrowns are computationally "delicious" to sharks, which may be fooled into temporarily changing sides.

Entire papers have been written on the subject of bitcoin pool combat, so I won't go into the finer points except to say that the oneupmanship is progressing so quickly that, really, only the pool chiefs know the current state of interpool war technology, and they are dark, mysterious entities who we aren't allowed to name.


Post your goddamn bitcoin address. You win this thread.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Yes, there is an incentive. Given that miners will switch to other pools if one pool becomes flaky, it results in other pools getting more miners, and for pools that charge fees, it means more profits for the pool organizer since more blocks will be generated by that pool.
And that incentive is the same for every type of business. And while I'm sure that there probably exist some firms that partake in vandalizing their competitor's businesses, it isn't really that common.
Totally with you Smiley - vandalizing competitors has a very large disincentive if caught which far outweighs the incentive. But the OP asked if an incentive existed, and the answer is yes, there is that "incentive".
sr. member
Activity: 323
Merit: 251
Yes, there is an incentive. Given that miners will switch to other pools if one pool becomes flaky, it results in other pools getting more miners, and for pools that charge fees, it means more profits for the pool organizer since more blocks will be generated by that pool.
And that incentive is the same for every type of business. And while I'm sure that there probably exist some firms that partake in vandalizing their competitor's businesses, it isn't really that common.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Yes, there is an incentive. Given that miners will switch to other pools if one pool becomes flaky, it results in other pools getting more miners, and for pools that charge fees, it means more profits for the pool organizer since more blocks will be generated by that pool.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Shutting a pool down would keep difficulty low longer, there is an incentive.

And what's to keep the individual miners in that pool from simply switching to another pool. Or mining for themselves? The hashes/sec are still going to be present for the most part

Uh, yeah. n/m.
hero member
Activity: 886
Merit: 500
Shutting a pool down would keep difficulty low longer, there is an incentive.

And what's to keep the individual miners in that pool from simply switching to another pool. Or mining for themselves? The hashes/sec are still going to be present for the most part
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Shutting a pool down would keep difficulty low longer, there is an incentive.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Yes that does happen. See what happens is, all the people involved in a pool chip in and buy what are called "pool sharks." The shark entities patrol internally until they are able to jump a competing pool. Then, the two groups of sharks fight, and the winner can usually grab a few bitcoins to take back to his pool before another shark is generated or the pool is economically "poisoned" to all sharks, enemy or ally.

However, deepbit moved on from sharks to A.P.E. programs, which are better for long-polling combat in the areas outside of pools. It takes longer for competing apes to find each other, but combat is more effective. Apes can jump into enemy pools to attack sharks, but not the inverse. However, apes cannot steal enemy bitcoins, with a few rare exceptions.

Where it gets really complicated is hash slinging. A pool can take some of their hashpower and direct it to another pool, thus confusing their miners. When your miner says "Result: hash rejected" it means that someone slung hashes into your work queue and you were fooled into doing worthless work. Right now, because I'm near the edge of the pool and thus get attacked by enemy hashes constantly, I have my own pool shark that is entirely supported by slung hashes, so it doesn't cost me anything until an ape attacks it. The evolutionary arms race has stepped up, recently, where brown hashes are slung instead of the typical rainbow tabled ones. Both are hash combinations, but hashbrowns are computationally "delicious" to sharks, which may be fooled into temporarily changing sides.

Entire papers have been written on the subject of bitcoin pool combat, so I won't go into the finer points except to say that the oneupmanship is progressing so quickly that, really, only the pool chiefs know the current state of interpool war technology, and they are dark, mysterious entities who we aren't allowed to name.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
The more pool produces - more it makes. More users in a pool - pool produces more. $Bitcoins$
Difficulty irrelevant in this case - it effects bottom-line but doesn't level competitiveness

Incentive present.
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 258
https://cryptassist.io
ah that's right.  the 10 day window buffers out any short term effects.  don't know why I forgot about that.  thanks!
hero member
Activity: 886
Merit: 500
No, it doesn't work that way. The difficulty does not adjust in real time.

I guess if you could DDOS ALL the other pools for long enough that the difficulty decreases, that would help?

But then the individual miners who make up the pool would simply switch to other pools or to mining for themselves, so the difficulty would still not change significantly
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 258
https://cryptassist.io
let's say that hypothetically there were 3 pools each with 25% of the total hashing power with the other 25% being independent miners or smaller pools.  If one of the pools goes out for a day doesn't everyone else get 25% more coins for that period?
Jump to: