Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 161. (Read 458499 times)

They haven't been.  My point is that if they are afraid of what a pool may/may not do on a whim, they should get it all spelled out so everyone has the same expectations.

Protect themselves?  How was a miner in the pool harmed?

It's not an accusation, just a question, as he was the most active in the discussion and might have insight./

People are require to notify you when they mine? 

There are several mods, more than just gmaxwell.  Be careful with the accusations.

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.
That thread was DIRECTLY related to this discussion and was about as ON TOPIC as one can get, under the circumstances.

Both THIS post and that thread belong where they were intended.

I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc.  Spell it out.  That is the only way to protect yourself.

This supports my statement of "counterproductive" - Not including a TX means not collecting the fee. The folks that do this will need to fix their systems before long, especially when the reward halves.

Well said. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.......It's unfortunate that more people do not feel the same way.

That is my understanding.  There are miners on the bitcoin network that do the same thing.  They only mine for the generations and ignore any transactions.  Nothing requires a miner to include a transaction.

To mine blocks but intentionally discard transactions by not including them in the blocks is certainly counterproductive. Is this what happened?

I agree that there's a sense of mistrust.  It has always been ok for the pool operator to do what they will with the hashes.  I don't think anyone clearly thought this out in the past.  

As to verbal contract, it was a web sign up.  What you see is what you get.  The only terms were what is/was on the page when you agreed.

The larger hash power always wins.  That is how the e-currencies are setup and that is what everyone accepts.  It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains.  Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.
[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think it has ever been ok for a pool operator to do whatever they want. Why are they above morality?

It clearly is not a verbal contract you have with your pool. I mean its similar to one. Attacking alt coins is basically the opposite to mining your own. Whatever the agreement between the miner and pool that kind of behavior is extraordinary.

I reject the assumption that "united we stand, divided we fall" is grounds for an attack. The actions in question were malicious. I do not grant Luke or anybody else the authority to choose which coins will succeed or fail. I do not excuse bad behavior. This is not the wild west and it does matter how you act. I urge my fellow miners to vote with their feet and run from any pool that would take such liberties with their members.

EDIT: Stupid quotes. I don't understand them...

It is a split when the alt chain doesn't support merged mining or if you're mining on a pool that does support it but is so small that the blocks keep getting orphaned.

That's a set of KEEPERS.....quotes that will live in infamy.


....and once again, I propose (using YOUR rationalization of fair use that is)


How could someone be as THICK as you ? ......you seem to have no clue.

You realize of course, that everyone only knows about this because it was announced.  It wasn't hidden.  Now just imagine what the pools are doing and NOT telling you about.  Not just Eligius but DeepBit, slush, BTCGuild, etc..  If you're that concerned, solo mine.  Then you know, for certain, that your hashes are being used for whatever coin base(s) you want and nothing else.

I agree that there's a sense of mistrust.  It has always been ok for the pool operator to do what they will with the hashes.  I don't think anyone clearly thought this out in the past.  

As to verbal contract, it was a web sign up.  What you see is what you get.  The only terms were what is/was on the page when you agreed.

The larger hash power always wins.  That is how the e-currencies are setup and that is what everyone accepts.  It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains.  Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.

Luke would disagree, of course.

I propose forming a clearly named "attack pool". Why not simply do things above board? I'm sure such a thing will be popular with the kiddies and cause everybody lots of problems.

I hope you unknowingly sign up at a pool that uses YOUR hashing power to crack Government site passwords as well as re-encode Child Pornography videos for web publishing.... and your IP is logged as being part of the 'hashing power'.........but hey, as long as you get paid in BTC and NMC for each share, who cares what else is done with your hashing power, right ?

It seems to me that joining a mining pool is kinda like having a verbal contract with the operator. It's clearly stated that it's a mining pool and nowhere is it identified as an "attack pool". Has he broken laws? No. Has he abused the trust of the people mining in that pool? Yes.

What implications does this have for the community as a whole?

Basically if it's ok to do this then it's ok for a pool operator to do anything with the hashes. It could be construed to support any type of attack. So for an example, lets say there's a pool operator who starts a DDoS attack on the largest pools while simultaneously starting a 51% attack. Is this person within his/her rights? Is that ok? I think my example is similar to what Luke did.

I think he broke what is essentially a verbal contract and has displayed some of the worst behavior possible from a pool operator.

It's important that we differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not. Starting a war between pools and coins is counter productive. The larger hash power always wins? If that's the case it would make adopting a better (imaginary) coin impossible. There is no higher authority in this case. So the burden rests with the individuals. Do the right thing.