And why not it is not up to anyone to say who can and cannot take part in bitcoin 
your right. they are free to do what they like. but lets atleast not say its gonna help decentralization. lets atleast be frank and "call a spade, a spade"
Topic: One of Bitcoin's Biggest Miners is Launching a Second Pool (Read 1114 times)
your right. they are free to do what they like. but lets atleast not say its gonna help decentralization. lets atleast be frank and "call a spade, a spade"
And why not it is not up to anyone to say who can and cannot take part in bitcoin
In the end they simply want to silently claim the majority. It's business after all.
They can have 99% of the total hashing power, and while they would be able to make a lot more decisions and sway how the technology would be advanced, as long as they stay in split pools it isn't that bad of a thing. While I am not in favour of them having a majority of the hashing power, as long as they don't screw over a lot of what's happened and get power hungry, I'm fine with it. 
In the end they simply want to silently claim the majority. It's business after all.
Let's take the banking sector as a example. In 1896 several banks in London and the English provinces, notably Backhouse's Bank of Darlington and Gurney's Bank of Norwich, united under the banner of Barclays and Co., a joint-stock bank. They eventually changed their name and started to trade under the Barclays name headquartered in London.
This is how monopolies are formed. They start out trading as individuals and when the company decide to change strategy, they join together to form one multinational system. ^hmmmmmm^
This is how monopolies are formed. They start out trading as individuals and when the company decide to change strategy, they join together to form one multinational system. ^hmmmmmm^
dont forget barclays now owns
Lehman brothers
ING
ABSA
and a dozen other international banks.
but here is the part you really need to keep quiet.. the core-blockstream-PwC-barclays connection.. dont mention the bankers connection to core or you will get rekt and get told that you must be a banker employee and core (paid) devs are innocent
As if running the third-largest bitcoin mining pool wasn't enough, China-based Bitmain announced the launch of its second mining pool yesterday.
Unlike the other large mining pools, though, the new offering (launched through its subsidiary BTC.com) will be open sourced to its community of users. According to Bitmain, the pool is not meant as a replacement for its popular Antpool platform (which has roughly 13% of the network's market share) but rather to enhance the stability of the bitcoin network.
In interview, Nisthant Sharma, international marketing manager at Bitmain, explained that the goal is to use this software to "promote decentralization of the bitcoin mining network".
More @ http://bitts.in/Vh4f
Unlike the other large mining pools, though, the new offering (launched through its subsidiary BTC.com) will be open sourced to its community of users. According to Bitmain, the pool is not meant as a replacement for its popular Antpool platform (which has roughly 13% of the network's market share) but rather to enhance the stability of the bitcoin network.
In interview, Nisthant Sharma, international marketing manager at Bitmain, explained that the goal is to use this software to "promote decentralization of the bitcoin mining network".
More @ http://bitts.in/Vh4f
This is good news, i guess.
Mining is still profitable in China and they want to expand and grow.
Too sad that mining isn`t profitable in the western world.
Let's take the banking sector as a example. In 1896 several banks in London and the English provinces, notably Backhouse's Bank of Darlington and Gurney's Bank of Norwich, united under the banner of Barclays and Co., a joint-stock bank. They eventually changed their name and started to trade under the Barclays name headquartered in London.
This is how monopolies are formed. They start out trading as individuals and when the company decide to change strategy, they join together to form one multinational system. ^hmmmmmm^
This is how monopolies are formed. They start out trading as individuals and when the company decide to change strategy, they join together to form one multinational system. ^hmmmmmm^
Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool?
Well, I think the word "combine" is wrong, since we are talking about multiple pools and hundreds/thousands of miners. There's a distinct difference between everyone mining on 1 pool, and people mining on 5 pools owned by the same person (with different locations and servers). However, I get your point now. I've viewed this from the wrong perspective. Franky1 explained it, in a semi-decent way:you dont need to combine it.
-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
Tl;Dr: If you wanted a rule change, you could 'push' the updated software on all of your pools at the same time.-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
Sorry, I never was good at explaining things. I read his post and it makes more sense than what I was trying to say.
Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool?
Well, I think the word "combine" is wrong, since we are talking about multiple pools and hundreds/thousands of miners. There's a distinct difference between everyone mining on 1 pool, and people mining on 5 pools owned by the same person (with different locations and servers). However, I get your point now. I've viewed this from the wrong perspective. Franky1 explained it, in a semi-decent way:you dont need to combine it.
-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
Tl;Dr: If you wanted a rule change, you could 'push' the updated software on all of your pools at the same time. -snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
I am too concerned with centralization, although it is like Lauda says, better this than nothing. let's see how this pans out, I doubt Bitmain, as a company having pools, will see a huge increase of hashrate (hashrate on this new pool will probably be from existing users on their current pool and maybe some from others).
I am also eagerly waiting to see how "open source" will this mining pool be.
I am also eagerly waiting to see how "open source" will this mining pool be.
China seems to take the risk that is necessary to compete with the technology of the developed Western countries. I think, China has more reason to invest into BTC than US or Europe because if China does not excel in cutting edge technology, their lack of other resources to their extremely high population would lead into a dangerous situation. Investing into top tech is the smaller risk for them.
Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack?
you dont need to combine it.
EG say you had 13% on one pool
and wanted to change rule X
your one pool would get instantly orphaned because 87% of the hashrate (7 pools) still like rule A
you dont need to make your one pool 51%
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
which is the same as saying 4 pools want X 3 pools want A
which is a 51% attack, but not via one combined pool
even core feared the big 5 pools agreeing to rule X last year, and core done everything they could to quash that out.
but now core want rule Y and are going to try what they can to get it..
and another thing to consider..
back in the day pools hired staff to make and tweak their own software that met the fundamental rules of consensus but were still independent codebases..
but now it seems core want 95% of pools to run only core. and 95% of users to only run core.
funny how core become the "hostile take over" of controlling code even if there were 2,10,20 different pools.
they said goodbye to bitcoinJ, they said goodbye to atleast 5 other independent code bases.
soon core will reign supreme, where there is no other choice (apart from limp litenodes that dont validate)
if anyone else cannot see that decentralization is decreasing, under the mascaraed game of bait and switch they are usually the ones that want it to happen
back in the day pools hired staff to make and tweak their own software that met the fundamental rules of consensus but were still independent codebases..
but now it seems core want 95% of pools to run only core. and 95% of users to only run core.
funny how core become the "hostile take over" of controlling code even if there were 2,10,20 different pools.
they said goodbye to bitcoinJ, they said goodbye to atleast 5 other independent code bases.
soon core will reign supreme, where there is no other choice (apart from limp litenodes that dont validate)
if anyone else cannot see that decentralization is decreasing, under the mascaraed game of bait and switch they are usually the ones that want it to happen
If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.
You're talking about it like the pool owner is the owner of all the hashrate, not just the pool. They can't just easily "consolidate" all the hashrate of a huge number of miners, mining at several locations/pools, connected to different servers. However, your example is also a bit hyperbolic. I don't think Bitmain is going to gain a lot more hashrate (total combined of both pools), but who knows.Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool? Couldnt I point it to some small coin and drive the difficulty way way up and then move it somewhere else (its happened to some coins although maybe not on purpose) or other types of attacks? Or create a 6th pool and setup the other 5 as "workers" for the 6th?
I do agree that the example is a bit of an extreme but the point is the same. If a company wants to setup a second pool for whatever reason then fine but it cant be to help decentralize the network. That makes no sense.
i dont think they are now just scratching the bitcoin network they are now planning to go ferther they will tear the network in two now :p we have already seen how much chaina loves bitcoin mining but is this an profitable desecion as because i can not say it due to their heavy equipments they have really a power whoch they say
I hope you noticed the question mark at the end... I was thinking one location and two pools, not separate locations with different pools. I have my doubts if this is true decentralization. I would rather want to see separate companies hosting 1 pool than having 1 company hosting 2 or 3 pools under the same umbrella. If I am wrong, I apologize. 
I understand. I wouldn't prefer to see two pools being hosted at the same location under the same owner. This doesn't promote much decentralization as seen in my node example. I do agree with you (separate companies hosting their own pools).If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.
You're talking about it like the pool owner is the owner of all the hashrate, not just the pool. They can't just easily "consolidate" all the hashrate of a huge number of miners, mining at several locations/pools, connected to different servers. However, your example is also a bit hyperbolic. I don't think Bitmain is going to gain a lot more hashrate (total combined of both pools), but who knows. How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.
So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO).https://blockchain.info/pools
If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.
How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.
So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO).I hope you noticed the question mark at the end... I was thinking one location and two pools, not separate locations with different pools. I
have my doubts if this is true decentralization. I would rather want to see separate companies hosting 1 pool than having 1 company
hosting 2 or 3 pools under the same umbrella. If I am wrong, I apologize.
even the TV series "startup"(involving crypto) episode 9 explained the sneakyness trick of whats explained in OP
its called a hostile take over.
EG
instead of person A having 100%
or
instead of person A having 51% and person B having 49%..
what happens is person B says he wants to bring in another partner to dilute the control so it appears on paper A, B,C have equal 33% control. giving the person A a nominal 1% extra just to appear that person A still has some say in decisions.
but what happens behind the scenes is that although theres thousands of employees working hard in B and lots of volunteers in C...
the chairman of B and C is the same person.. so he has 66% of votes and dictates to his employees and volunteers to shut and lock the security gates of the door. locking out person A
hopefully by now everyone has watched the tv show "startup" (based around crypto) to see what im saying in visual form of the show.
in short bitmain maintains its 13% at antpool. but then gains more at BTC.com
so those that fear 51% attacks should consider BTC.com and ANTpool.com hashrate figures combined
because it doesnt matter if the 'workers' are paid direct or indirectly. they are taking orders and involved in the same work given by the same management
its called a hostile take over.
EG
instead of person A having 100%
or
instead of person A having 51% and person B having 49%..
what happens is person B says he wants to bring in another partner to dilute the control so it appears on paper A, B,C have equal 33% control. giving the person A a nominal 1% extra just to appear that person A still has some say in decisions.
but what happens behind the scenes is that although theres thousands of employees working hard in B and lots of volunteers in C...
the chairman of B and C is the same person.. so he has 66% of votes and dictates to his employees and volunteers to shut and lock the security gates of the door. locking out person A
hopefully by now everyone has watched the tv show "startup" (based around crypto) to see what im saying in visual form of the show.
in short bitmain maintains its 13% at antpool. but then gains more at BTC.com
so those that fear 51% attacks should consider BTC.com and ANTpool.com hashrate figures combined
because it doesnt matter if the 'workers' are paid direct or indirectly. they are taking orders and involved in the same work given by the same management
How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.
So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO). Jump to: