Topic: Too Many People on BTCGuild!!! (Read 2082 times)

Excuse my ignorance. but why is P2Pool different from the others?

Mine P2Pool.  Help test our new node at NastyFans.org:9332.  Just use your bitcoin address for your username.

It's visible only in a purely abstract way. Deepbit was frequently "eating its own tail" due to running multiple bitcoin daemons which would end up on competing forks and then load balancing miners between them (if it doesn't do this anymore its only because it doesn't solve enough blocks).

Not a single person in the world noticed this until Luke-Jr, bless his occasionally trolly heart, added code to BFGMiner to refuse to mine when a pool appeared to be forking itself.  But not many people run that code.

Moreover, it's only a very partial solution:  Say the network is on block A,  you don't include the transaction you want to conflict in A. Then then another miner solves A and the network moves on to A+1 but you stay on A. Eventually you solve A'+1+1+1 ... and with some luck reverse the transaction.  Miners never see any self-forking, and so the protection in BFGminer cannot help.

Performing the attack in this way simply constrains when you can start the attack (only right after another pool found a block), it does not reduce the success rate.

A number of years ago your pool delivered earning of something like 40% of expectations for months. A number of people were convinced that you were a thief because of it (that something was subtly broken, or there was some witholding attack seems like a more likely explanation, in my view), but that hasn't inhibited you from having the largest pool by far.

I cannot believe that many people would notice or care about a decline in revenue on the timescale of a single day or two.

Maybe they would. But thats a big maybe to stake the future of Bitcoin on, especially with people trying to open up new markets that allow them to take short positions. A substantial successful attack would dramatically undermine confidence in Bitcoin:  The existence of major hashpower consolations already defeats the security assumptions, but its a theoretical weakness and until an attack happens many don't believe what incredibly shaky ground we are on here.


Control over mining is orthogonal with pooling payments.  There is no reason that a pool couldn't simply hand out coinbase transactions to miners and credit them for any remotely sane looking shares that includes the requested coinbase transaction.   The pool would then only be a consolidation of miners payments and would have no risk for consolidating control of the blockchain consensus. Miners would become miners again, and not just people selling computing services for coin.

The risk that miners would intentionally have some junk transactions that get blocks orphaned would be strictly less than the block withholding risk which cannot be eliminated, as you could still ask miners to occasionally send whole blocks.

Had Satoshi though of this in 2010 I believe we would have a very different world today.

I guess I'm just sad because at 2.5 GH/s I can make .02 BTC a day on Slush's pool assuming that we can get a block.  The pps plan and the pplns plan on btcguild make it not worth my time because of all the users and 350 TH/s has rate...that's why I need to use a smaller pool...but in doing so I don't get the option of getting as many blocks, although I guess if I look at, I probably would get the same amount either way.

If I get .001 BTC per block from slush's pool (no matter how many hours it takes to find a block) or if I get .000003 BTC every block from BTC Guild and they find 1000x as many blocks a day then it evens out...

*Note, I know my math is wrong, it's merely an explanatory tool...

We've never hit 51% of *actual* network hash rate, but with good luck streaks we had 24-hour periods where we found more than 51% of the blocks.  It's not exactly the same.

The peak was around 43-45% of network hash rate, which is when the pool increased the PPS rate to encourage users of PPS to look for another pool, and it did help.  The biggest help was obviously ASICMINER going solo.  At the time they were ~35% of the pool's speed, so by leaving the dropped the pool down to ~25-30% of network hash rate.

BTCGuild has hit 51% before. Although Yes it is solving more blocks than most. Don't let that be a negative strike in your book. The network is too diverse to really make anything bad.

You mean variance, not luck, do you? Because luck doesn't depend on pool or hashrate, but variance does.
If you're that feared of variance you'd better mine of some PPS/CRBPPS/RSMPPS pool like 50btc, eligius, itzod.
Just saying

I usually root for the underdog and mine with Bitminter with occasional visits to BTCGuild and Slush's Pool.  But I've recently added some serious hashing power... well, serious for me anyways.  And I just can't take the 12-24 hour periods with zero luck any longer.  It just hurts too much!

So I've joined the dark side (BTCGuild) full time, lol.  And I have to admit 184% luck (currently) feels real nice.  Yeah, I know, luck evens out over time.  But it just feels like I'm losing too much to stick around A small pool.  But I'll happily return to BitMinter if they ever start to attract more miners. 

spread some of the hashing power to other pools so we don't get to 51% on a single pool

Holy Crap,
BTCGuild is solving blocks back to back...perhaps spread some of the hashing power to other pools so we don't get to 51% on a single pool...try slush's pool or something...jeez

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-btc-guilds-mitigation-plan-168108 Don't worry about that.