I have explained earlier that it's an overrated claim that a big (or better, HUGE) pool has anything to win out of double spending. Chances are due to FUD spreading they will be forced to do the same somebody else did a while ago when they reached at the same point...
Relax and don't forget to...
HODL!!!!!!!!1
*Edit:
It's explained here too: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/december-8th-2013-weekly-pool-and.html
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 30428. (Read 26712856 times)
January 09, 2014, 04:01:42 AM
January 09, 2014, 03:26:57 AM
If I were a big BTC holder (like the winklevoss), I would set up a miningfarm just to balance this shit out a bit, It might even turn a profit, if not, it least it protects the network.
more importantly the money invested in the btc lol
January 09, 2014, 03:20:12 AM
Greedy miners digging their own grave and ours too..low treble digits is not a dream, should >51% be achieved at ghash and double spend occur..
January 09, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
when bitcoin depends on winklevoii to survive, then bitcoin is doomed.
January 09, 2014, 03:14:43 AM
If I were a big BTC holder (like the winklevoss), I would set up a miningfarm just to balance this shit out a bit, It might even turn a profit, if not, it least it protects the network.
January 09, 2014, 03:13:51 AM
if they did double spend when they had 25% they will most likely do it again, refer to this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
I'd like to hear other Wall-Observer's feelings on the BetCoinDice double-spend. I think what they did was "wrong," but I also think it did a bit of good too. It simultaneously showed (a) how hard it actually is to double spend (and that you'll be caught), and (b) that double-spends *are* possible in certain cases and one should develop the appropriate business model to deal with them. For example, could GHash with 25% hash power hurt just-dice.com with a double-spend?
January 09, 2014, 03:11:22 AM
Not to worry, I ordered an ASIC USB drive on ebay and it should be here soon. So I will likely tip all of the mining power on its ear once I plug it in. I promise if I go over 50% with it I will not double spend.
Crisis averted.
Crisis averted.
January 09, 2014, 03:07:22 AM
the paranoid thought process of a malicious attack gaining control of the dominant pool is what worries me most. opposed to double spend attempts by the pool itself. I also would hope to see miners shift to similar pools, sadly nothing forces people to hold up the integrity of the network.
Yes, I think this is the most rational fear of centralized hash power.
January 09, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes
I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue. Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.
But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.
really! what makes you think so? if they did double spend when they had 25% they will most likely do it again, refer to this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
they did double spend against Betcoin few months ago and we pointed that out, but no one cared, now it is time to give attention....
January 09, 2014, 03:05:21 AM
well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes
I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue. Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.
But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.
the paranoid thought process of a malicious attack gaining control of the dominant pool is what worries me most. opposed to double spend attempts by the pool itself. I also would hope to see miners shift to similar pools, sadly nothing forces people to hold up the integrity of the network.
January 09, 2014, 03:02:30 AM
January 09, 2014, 03:01:16 AM
well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes
I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue. Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.
But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.
January 09, 2014, 02:54:35 AM
Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?
bothHmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners. But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen. Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?
well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes
January 09, 2014, 02:53:02 AM
Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?
bothHmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners. But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen. Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?
most new comers jumping into bitcoin first think about mining thinking of the "free money" they can get from mining, they doesn't fully understand how Bitcoins works so they doesn't care or/and doesn't spend much time understanding the protocol and this is the biggest problem...
January 09, 2014, 02:52:47 AM
both.
there is a data center which needs to be removed.
there is a data center which needs to be removed.
January 09, 2014, 02:44:31 AM
Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?
bothHmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners. But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen. Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?
January 09, 2014, 02:38:56 AM
Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?
both
January 09, 2014, 02:38:01 AM
Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?
January 09, 2014, 02:33:04 AM
Well, this is something we need to address. I wonder where the majority of ghash.io hashing power is located geographically
January 09, 2014, 02:28:19 AM
in other note, for a moment pause speculating about the price and think about the network security, we are reaching a critical risk where Ghash.IO controls 45% of the network hashrate, this pool did double spend before and they can do it again..
look to this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
and this how the network hashrate distribution looks today
look to this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ghashio-and-double-spending-against-betcoin-dice-327767
and this how the network hashrate distribution looks today
Jump to: