won`t all the miners join the same pool? or 1 pool become bigger than the rest?

Khaos77

member

Activity: 200

Merit: 73

Flag Day ☺

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TimeBits on August 20, 2019, 06:14:56 PM

yah but in the end, they will have to run in a pool in order to operate not at a loss, and if 1 pool is bigger, they will get all the tx fee`s, so there only will be 1 pool.

But :
1. There are many Bitcoin pools and 11 of them have hashrate at least 1% (https://btc.com/stats/pool)
2. Bitcoin network constantly "overload" (many unconfirmed transaction) which makes all pools could earn tx fees

(https://btc.com/stats/pool)

BTC.com 22.6%
Antpool 13.6%
F2Pool 13.3%
Poolin 13.3%
________________
Total = 62.8%

At the moment only 4 mining pool operators could easily 51% attack the entire network.
The other 11 are irrelevant if the top 4 pool operators collude.
--snip--

Which is off-topic, you've mentioned it previously and i've shared my views about it previously.

Do you have hard time to stay focus, concentrated or/and on-topic?

We are talking about the mining pools, seems pretty on topic to me.

That time of month for you, you seem a little snippy. Wink

bitart

hero member

Activity: 1442

Merit: 629

Vires in Numeris

Quote from: dothebeats on August 21, 2019, 04:12:30 AM

Larger pools with lots of miners in them would need to split the bounty entirely on those huge numbers, meaning that even if you get all those blocks, chances are your rewards would also lessen compared to when there are individual miners taking a chance on the pot with fewer members to split the shares.
...

Even if the miners of the biggest pool find blocks more frequently, because of the large number of the pool members and the need to split the bounty for smaller parts, miners would consider to join to a smaller pool, just to have higher rewards in the end.
Greed will sort this one as well

Miners will search for the highest return and hopefully join to the pools according to this, this will balance the members of the pools on the long run.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

If a pool decided to attack Bitcoin, wouldn't its members withdraw, and thus remove its capability to attack.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

Quote from: TimeBits on August 20, 2019, 06:14:56 PM

yah but in the end, they will have to run in a pool in order to operate not at a loss, and if 1 pool is bigger, they will get all the tx fee`s, so there only will be 1 pool.

Mining is not a competition where the stronger gets everything, blocks are found proportionally to one's hash power. If you have 1% of network's power, you will find 1% of blocks. In the long run it doesn't matter a lot if you are mining in a big pool or a small pool, as long as your pool is not too small. There are many other factors when miners choose a pool, like pool's fee, location, terms and so on, so joining the biggest pool is not always the best.

antisocial77

jr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 4

Mining became monopol already.my thought is there will be a few mining companies and market will obey their rules.personal mining has already dead.

slaman29

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1226

Livecasino, 20% cashback, no fuss payouts.

There already have been many times when mining pools became bigger than the rest. But luckily, because miners also know that the majority of all others will always act in the good interest of the entire ecosystem, then the monopoly is generally prevented. I have even read of big pools that voluntarily split up or cease operations when they became too big.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Larger pools with lots of miners in them would need to split the bounty entirely on those huge numbers, meaning that even if you get all those blocks, chances are your rewards would also lessen compared to when there are individual miners taking a chance on the pot with fewer members to split the shares. Theoretically when block reward only relies on tx fees, pooling up all the miners in a single entity is fine, however again the constant struggle between shares would always be there, and knowing that 'luck' is a factor in bitcoin mining, sizable mining farms would likely just split up and hash on their own than joining that one giant pool and just hope that luck plays out a good spell on their ventures.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: TimeBits on August 20, 2019, 06:14:56 PM

yah but in the end, they will have to run in a pool in order to operate not at a loss, and if 1 pool is bigger, they will get all the tx fee`s, so there only will be 1 pool.

Each pool gets the tx fees for the blocks they are mining. And they are distributing that to the miners.
Making a pool to avoid certain loses makes sense if we discuss only about the pool fees.
Most of the pools have certain threshold (which can be set by the user) and the payments are set only after the threshold is reached. This is how you will lose less with the fees.

And back to one big pool idea: no.
1. Each big farm will tend to have its own pool.
2. There will always be some independent miners.
3. The miners want to earn money. If one pool has more than 50% of the hash rate, it'll rise a suspicion that it can do bad things (51% attack) decreasing the price of Bitcoin. Miners are smart enough and will avoid that, if it'll ever be the case.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: TimeBits on August 20, 2019, 05:10:37 PM

won`t all the miners join the same pool? or 1 pool become bigger than the rest?
at the end of bitcoin.

What is so special at the "end" of bitcoin, supposing you're talking about the end of bitcoin distribution?
Miners could even now migrate to the same pool, yet they are not doing it, it doesn't matter how much the block rewards and how much the tx fee is, the incentive is the same.

Also, use the search function and search for ghash.io (now defunct), and go through all the drama, there were hundreds of threads about it when it crossed the 51% mark, yet, nothing happened.
Why would a miner choose to destroy its source of income, killing the golden goose?

Herbert2020

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1137

you have to first make up your mind whether you want to discuss about mining "pools" and their size or mining "farms" and their size. they are not the same thing. and people joining the same pool doesn't make the "farm" bigger!

you still have the same luck and get paid the same if you join a pool with a lot of hashrate or a small one with lower hashrate. and 1 pool with a lot of hashrate is still doing the same amount of work as multiple pools with the same sum of hashrate. you won't be pushed out! the only reason why people join a couple of them only is because there are few mining pools and their options are better.

TimeBits

member

Activity: 224

Merit: 62

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on August 20, 2019, 06:04:08 PM

The size of a pool only affects it's variety - a solo miner or a tiny pool would need hundreds or thousands of years to find a block, but any big enough pool finds enough blocks to keep operating. It's balanced by the fact that profits are more diluted in bigger pools, so being a part of a large pool isn't significantly more beneficial than mining in smaller pool.

And we actually had a situation when one pool - ghash.io had more than 50% of the hashrate, and they understood that it makes everyone uneasy, so they took measures to limit their hashpower. It's a good example how miner's greed forces them to make decision that are good for the network overall, because their profits are tied to the price of Bitcoin.

yah but in the end, they will have to run in a pool in order to operate not at a loss, and if 1 pool is bigger, they will get all the tx fee`s, so there only will be 1 pool.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

The size of a pool only affects it's variety - a solo miner or a tiny pool would need hundreds or thousands of years to find a block, but any big enough pool finds enough blocks to keep operating. It's balanced by the fact that profits are more diluted in bigger pools, so being a part of a large pool isn't significantly more beneficial than mining in smaller pool.

And we actually had a situation when one pool - ghash.io had more than 50% of the hashrate, and they understood that it makes everyone uneasy, so they took measures to limit their hashpower. It's a good example how miner's greed forces them to make decision that are good for the network overall, because their profits are tied to the price of Bitcoin.

TimeBits

member

Activity: 224

Merit: 62

won`t all the miners join the same pool? or 1 pool become bigger than the rest?

at the end of bitcoin.

Otherwise how will you solve a block to get some tx fee? The bigger farms will only get bigger and push out all the small farms.

Topic: won`t all the miners join the same pool? or 1 pool become bigger than the rest? (Read 187 times)