[Proposal] Accountability & Transparency in Mining Pools

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 23, 2011, 10:03:13 PM

Correct, which is why Eligius is a good first step along this path, because you *can* verify that at least the number of shares present in the mysql db were generated for given round, even if you can't prove that no shares from clients were incorrectly rejected. But it's possible to do better than this *and* have increased reliability.

That's a step in the right direction. Cheesy

Let's hope the major pools can join in on this

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 10:16:53 PM

And that's great if that's what you want. The proposal is to try to impose it on every pool operator rather just using a pool that does what they want.

Nobody suggested this. The only way this could happen is if pool operators voluntarily adopted the new protocol, or new pools using it were created and became popular.

Why do you seem so angry?

lizthegrey

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 10:16:53 PM

And that's great if that's what you want. The proposal is to try to impose it on every pool operator rather just using a pool that does what they want.

Nowhere have I said that I have any desire to impose it upon every pool operator. I'm sorry if I was unclear and there was a misunderstanding.

I am saying that personally, I prefer to use pools with greater levels of transparency, and I'm creating software to increase transparency past the current limits of ultimately trusting a single operator. This does nothing to affect existing pools, but would provide a family of alternatives for those looking for a low-overhead method of starting their own distributed pools or joining someone's transparent distributed pool.

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 23, 2011, 10:03:13 PM

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:54:57 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 23, 2011, 09:42:56 PM

Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

Yeah it does because the double standard is sickening. No one is forcing you to use a pool that doesn't show everyone's work either.

Correct, which is why Eligius is a good first step along this path, because you *can* verify that at least the number of shares present in the mysql db were generated for given round, even if you can't prove that no shares from clients were incorrectly rejected. But it's possible to do better than this *and* have increased reliability.

You could even anonymize the shares by not associating them with a specific worker, just dumping all the shares out so people could verify the share totals are correct.

And that's great if that's what you want. The proposal is to try to impose it on every pool operator rather just using a pool that does what they want.

Basiley

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

RFC for p2p overall pools stats may be nice, but how about security ?
but thats not fix pools problem with offense/exploitation vulnerability and danger to p2p BTC flow then.
and make miners depend on "human error" -factor too, btw.

lizthegrey

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:54:57 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 23, 2011, 09:42:56 PM

Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

Yeah it does because the double standard is sickening. No one is forcing you to use a pool that doesn't show everyone's work either.

Correct, which is why Eligius is a good first step along this path, because you *can* verify that at least the number of shares present in the mysql db were generated for given round, even if you can't prove that no shares from clients were incorrectly rejected. But it's possible to do better than this *and* have increased reliability.

You could even anonymize the shares by not associating them with a specific worker, just dumping all the shares out so people could verify the share totals are correct.

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitterTea on May 23, 2011, 09:42:56 PM

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 23, 2011, 08:20:41 PM

A draft design document that may address some of these. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#

This seems like a fantastic idea. I look forward to seeing how this project pans out. I'll be more than willing to test the software when that time comes.

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:14:38 PM

You're not buying anything. It's a very bad analogy. It's more like you are an independent consultant to the pool. You send it proof of work and it sends you payment in BTC.

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

Yeah it does because the double standard is sickening. No one is forcing you to use a pool that doesn't show everyone's work either.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 23, 2011, 08:20:41 PM

A draft design document that may address some of these. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#

This seems like a fantastic idea. I look forward to seeing how this project pans out. I'll be more than willing to test the software when that time comes.

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:14:38 PM

You're not buying anything. It's a very bad analogy. It's more like you are an independent consultant to the pool. You send it proof of work and it sends you payment in BTC.

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 23, 2011, 09:34:16 PM

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:14:38 PM

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

Yes. This is necessary, because otherwise a dishonest pool could inflate the number of shares submitted in a round and nobody would be the wiser.

Just like it is absolutely necessary for all financial institutions because they could screw you over too.

lizthegrey

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 09:14:38 PM

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

Yes. This is necessary, because otherwise a dishonest pool could inflate the number of shares submitted in a round and nobody would be the wiser.

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: grue on May 23, 2011, 09:08:47 PM

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 08:03:05 PM

Do you also demand a list of every transaction that ever happened from any banking, credit, or insurance companies that you use?

I would at least demand a receipt

You're not buying anything. It's a very bad analogy. It's more like you are an independent consultant to the pool. You send it proof of work and it sends you payment in BTC.

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: grndzero on May 23, 2011, 08:03:05 PM

Do you also demand a list of every transaction that ever happened from any banking, credit, or insurance companies that you use?

I would at least demand a receipt

lizthegrey

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

A draft design document that may address some of these. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#

grndzero

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: grue on May 23, 2011, 07:37:22 PM

anyone?

Do you also demand a list of every transaction that ever happened from any banking, credit, or insurance companies that you use?

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

anyone?

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 09, 2011, 05:32:42 PM

Obviously few people would actually check, but it only takes one. The situation could be made better by getting the common clients to make a permanent log of all the blocks their system actually solved, alone with a blockexplorer URL. Few people would pay attention to all the blocks, but I think many people would pay attention to the few blocks where their node was the actual solver.

that's also a good idea.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: Ulysses on May 09, 2011, 11:07:43 AM

Another way to defeat this system is to declare the block invalid or do not show the block (pretend, that it wasn't solved).

Easily detectable. Obviously the pool must send the miners the block hashes that they're working on. If your client remembered this data then you could easily check to see if any blocks you've previously worked on showed up in the chain.

Obviously few people would actually check, but it only takes one. The situation could be made better by getting the common clients to make a permanent log of all the blocks their system actually solved, alone with a blockexplorer URL. Few people would pay attention to all the blocks, but I think many people would pay attention to the few blocks where their node was the actual solver.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: Ulysses on May 09, 2011, 11:07:43 AM

The idea is good, but it allows to inflate the shares amount by 0.3%-1.5% (depending on the number of long polling clients) with stale shares.
Another way to defeat this system is to declare the block invalid or do not show the block (pretend, that it wasn't solved).

at least this way, users can clearly see they're getting ripped off. Normally, a cheating pool operator can blame the low income on "bad luck".

Grinder

legendary

Activity: 1284

Merit: 1001

It's easy for the user to see and compare how many stale shares they get on different pools, and it should always be included in the decision when you're choosing a pool. It doesn't really matter to the user why it is what it is, it reduces the income by the same amount.

Ulysses

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

The idea is good, but it allows to inflate the shares amount by 0.3%-1.5% (depending on the number of long polling clients) with stale shares.
Another way to defeat this system is to declare the block invalid or do not show the block (pretend, that it wasn't solved).

Topic: [Proposal] Accountability & Transparency in Mining Pools (Read 3407 times)