If HunterMinerCrafter (see his posts) was here, i'm sure he'd create a pool. But he disappeared 3 months ago.
I've always wondered if he was Satoshi. Maybe he was.
It is reassuring that only the disappeared crazies with supposed satoshi level would try to create a pool.  It somehow proves my point. |
|
|
|
My point is only that there is very little incentive to (attempt to) implement a pool. That doesn't mean someone won't try anyway though.
The discussion remains interesting regardless.
Yes, the discussion is highly entertaining and fruitful. And if there is very little incentive to implement a pool, then spreadcoin wins by default.  Because that's what we want to prove, that it is so uneconomical and complex to try and setup such an experimental pool, that you will have a very hard time to even find someone who is willing to do that. (after a short effort estimation they will all say: "Not worth it") That's the whole point: we are not going to artificially create a beneficial incentive for this experiment by offering a very high bounty. Why should we? That would be like doing a kickstarter to collect 1 Billion $ for the FED so they can try and do a successful double spend on bitcoin. The free market says it's unfeasible! |
|
|
|
Why would someone be motivated more (compared to value today) by expected future value of a bounty if his actions necessary to obtain that bounty are likely to reduce the value proposition of the deliverable for the bounty?
I understand that this is your assumption. But my assumption is the exact opposit. A workable escrow pool with collateral that can run profitable for 30 days is not going to happen. It will be horribly expensive, dangerous and will not be profitable. And if YOU want to disprove that, it should be YOU who has to pay for this experiment. The bounty is just a little present, we are not going to pay you for your expenses, if that is what you would like! In the contrary, your expenses are what will cause you to give up such an experiment, and we are firmly counting on that. |
|
|
|
I think the issue more right now is that the value of making a pool simply isn't there. It cost almost $20k USD in bounties to get a pool running for CryptoNote coins when we did so with Monero, alongside the possibility of making fees from miners.
That's our conclusion too. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is it feasible? Not really, because who in his right mind would be ok with those uneconomic incentives. |
|
|
|
MrSpreads latest messages from spreadcointalk.org.
I'm not sure MrSpread's argument makes economic sense... Coinbase or BTC-e could also steal all their clients coins at any time, and have way more coins than a single pool ever will. However, pools are a business with real revenue and profit, which is lost in the event of theft for a small tangible reward. Certainly exchanges do run off with coins, but it seems like much fewer coins will ever exist on the pool, disincentivizing the pool from stealing the deposits. As has already been mentioned, all deposits can also be stuck in 2-of-2 multisigs with the pool owner and the miner, so that in the event that either the pool or the miner wants to try to steal the deposit, they can not. At this point I think there is no reason that I can see that a pool cannot be made, the difference with Bitcoin, etc is that such a pool would be bonded mining as opposed to there being no fee for entry in BTC. But Coinbase and BTC-e are not pools, they are exchanges/onlinewallets. That's awholenother beast. A pool can only steal as much as it takes a miner to realize there's something wrong. So if a miner checks the statistics even just once a day, the damage a stealing pool can do is very limited in size. And the damage of reputation a pool might have from this is much higher than the actual profit that stealing might bring them. |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. 3500 SPR has nothing to do with 1 BTC. Please don't confuse those two. That's nonsense. It's almost exactly 1 BTC worth presently. They are interchangeable. But then, who is doing the cheap talk here? You just assume that you are going to make the pool work today, and get the money immediately? Is that the reason you take the current BTC/SPR rate?  Show results first, and then you can claim the bounty and its conversion rate! Might take a few weeks or months, right? That's why we express the bounty in SPR, because 3500 SPR will still be 3500 SPR no matter if someone succeeds today or in 6 months, IF EVER! |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. 3500 SPR has nothing to do with 1 BTC. Please don't confuse those two. |
|
|
|
Started the first round of the tweet @Cryptsy to add spreadcoin to their exchange on twitter with my followers. I Will be personally messaging my followers to tweet them all week until there mentions are filled with nothing but Spreadcoin. haha Working to get us added to One exchange at a time. If you have a twitter account. Tweet @Cryptsy to add #Spreadcoin join the fun. Also follow me twitter.com/mrcashking  Nice job! I sent you a tip. |
|
|
|
I can't wait for Mr. Spread to finish the next testnet version. I miss the good times we had in round 1.  |
|
|
|
Anyway, the term "pool prevention" still applies to spreadcoin. And maybe we just need to step the pool prevention up a notch.
It's an active area of research; amiller wrote a paper about it recently that was pretty neat. https://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/nonoutsourceable.pdfYes! Alex Millar is who I had in mind when I said "automated escrow". I saw one of his videos a few months ago, that explained it all very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRPrGuzqjE(wait Andrew Miller not the same person as Alex Millar, weird coincidence.lol) |
|
|
|
I would love to see such a propsed "escrow pool" that uses automated escrow by using multisignature on the SPR blockchain itself.
I wonder if this could work out.
I don't think multisig would work because I think that (a) coinbase needs to output to a single P2PKH output and (b) you'd have to have all members of the pools receive all blocks from each other and sign them before determining if they met difficulty, which would be super slow. You could maybe send the coinbases to a multisig account after, and have all the pool members sign off on payouts, but that seems overly complicated. Can this even be automatized? This all sounds we would need to trust someone to initiate all that, so this will just introduce a single point of failure again, which is what will prevent such pools from appearing in the first place. |
|
|
|
This solves the problem fairly elegantly I believe. It's still not the ease of running a "standard" pool, and there are additional considerations, like: how popular would a BTC pool be if you had to deposit 25 BTC to mine there (even considering that their wouldn't be any other pools where you didn't have to do this)? Edit2: this plays on the "(which isn't much)" above; what if it was a "lot"?
Edit: tacotime, why wouldn't you send the SPR equivalent of one block reward? BTC would be subject (I believe unnecessarily) to exchange rate volatility.
Oh, just to make accessibility to the pool easier. Mining a SpreadCoin block solo could be kind of a pain, and otherwise you'd have to buy the coins from an exchange (with BTC). Obviously you can just use SpreadCoins themselves too if you want to keep it 1:1, but more users will probably join a pool than only requires a tiny amount of BTC to join and the amount of risk losing SpreadCoins versus equivalent Bitcoins is probably pretty similar. If SpreadCoins were worth more you might want to use them instead I guess. As far as say, a block equivalent in BTC: right now that's about $220 USD * 25 = $5,500. But at Bitcoin's current market cap, the vast majority of small miners are being phased out anyway, so maybe a $5,500 entry fee (that you'd eventually get back) isn't such a big deal. It's hard to say. It's difficult to see SpreadCoin getting anywhere near that value in the short term, too. Why involve BTC at all? I would love to see such a proposed "escrow pool" that uses automated escrow by using multisignature on the SPR blockchain itself. I wonder if this could work out, and where potential problems will appear. Anyway, the term "pool prevention" still applies to spreadcoin. And maybe we just need to step the pool prevention up a notch. |
|
|
|
So, for a pool, I think what you would do is just have people send the BTC equivalent of one block's reward to the pool (which isn't much), then if the miner's steal the reward, the pool still retains their deposit so net miner gain is 0. You would have the miners themselves mine to their own pubkeyhashes, and you'd submit partial solutions to these blocks to the pool itself. When the miner gets a block, they would be given n many blocks to get the coinbase from their block to the pool to redistribute to the other miners. If they didn't return the reward to the pool, the pool would then just take their deposit and ban them.
So, I don't think there's a big issue with pooling, just a slightly more complicated implementation.
you are talking about something like an "Automated Escrow", right? Make everyone pay into a pot first, so should they dare to steal, you just keep what they previously payed. And if they play nice, they can have their collateral back. |
|
|
|
Creating a new thread may look weak for SPR in the here and now, but if 6 months from now people read the comments on the other thread it will cause long term destruction. In the long term scheme of things it will be far more beneficial to look like a mature business who is constantly growing. What big investor would invest after reading the last thread?
Yes, also let's motivate people to really pose the hard questions here in this thread. Let's show that we can have a deep discussion without calling anyone a "troll" immediately. (I remember that in early april I myself was called a troll a few times in the darkcoin thread here... how could that happen???) Maybe even make it our motto, to NOT call anyone a troll in this thread. Instead just moderate the obvious saboteurs away, and just keep on talking to the people who don't yet understand spreadcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Also, if the BCT moderators don't do the moderating, then we are forced to do it ourselves...
I mean how much more obvious can it be that we have veritable trolls who try to sabotage this coin?
They even registered all important usernames regarding "spreadcoin" and "spreadnodes" so they can hijack the meme, and spread the disinformation.
How much more obvious can it be than trolls who put disinformation in their signature???
I would have assumed that a BCT moderator would have recognized that by now and reacted accordingly.
But no, not yet. Let's see. Let's wait for Mr. Spread.
|
|
|
|
Please dont go self-moderated. I had high hopes in this coin. Every coin in the altcoin section has to go through the rain of trolls, but as long as you are serious about it, you will survive out there. Now how should people trust SPR?
Let's see what happens in 5 days, when Mr. Spread gets back. I think it is his decision. If he wants to close the other thread then he shall do so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
