Ghash has released plans to prevent 51%

[karbonxx]

Atleast they are doing something about it.

https://ghash.io/ghashio_press_release.pdf

Bitcoin mining pool GHash.IO is preventing
accumulation of 51% of all hashing power
!
GHash.IO, the worlds largest and most powerful mining pool, has entered
2014 with overall hashing power of over 40%, making it the #1 pool
currently in the Bitcoin network.
!
The pool has gained significant hashing power due to the 0% pool fee,
merged mining of alt coins, excellent real-time data presentation as well as
quality 24/7/365 support service.
!
The hashing power of GHash.IO consists of:
•~45% BitFury ASIC based miners
•~55% independent miners
!
Although the increase of hash-power in the pool is considered to be a good
thing, reaching 51% of all hashing power is serious threat to the bitcoin
community. GHash.IO will take all necessary precautions to prevent
reaching 51% of all hashing power, in order to maintain stability of the
bitcoin network.
!
We have put a plan in place to see that 51% of all hashing power, will not be
maintained by Ghash.IO by executing the following actions:
 
•We will temporarily stop accepting new independent mining facilities to
the Ghash.IO pool.
•We will implement a feature, allowing CEX.IO users to mine bitcoins from
other pools. So when they purchase GH/s they can put it towards any pool
they choose.
!
We will not be implementing a pool fee, as we believe the pool has to
remain free.
!
GHash.IO does not have any intentions to execute a 51% attack, as it will do
serious damage to the Bitcoin community, of which we are part of. On the
contrary, our plans are to expand the bitcoin community as well as utilise
the hashing power to develop a greater bitcoin economic structure. If
something happened to Bitcoin as a whole it could risk our investments in
physical hardware, damage those who love Bitcoin and we see no benefit
from having 51% stake in mining. !
Our plans are to develop additional services, to help expand the use of
bitcoins. The services include, but not limited to:
!
•A bitcoin payment system, which utilises the extended features of the
bitcoin protocol. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/
Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals)
•An escrow service, which will help secure transactions between members
of the bitcoin community
•Micro-payments aggregation, which will enable users to receive small
amounts of Bitcoins from third parties.
•Instant bitcoin payments for merchants, which will increase the share of
Bitcoin e-commerce transactions in the global economy.
!
Non-standard transactions, such as mentioned above, can not be relayed to
the blockchain network, however they are still valid, and can be mined
using the hashing power accumulated on GHash.IO.
!
Feedback is more than welcome.
!
For additional information, please contact webmaster@ghash.io
!
Media Contact: Jeffrey Smith

Mod note: removed referal spam

[Colin Miner]

•We will implement a feature, allowing CEX.IO users to mine bitcoins from
other pools. So when they purchase GH/s they can put it towards any pool
they choose.

This is a smart move, well done cex.io

[TechByPC]

Except that has been in their FAQ all along. I'd like to see a timeline, but yes a very good move.

[eleuthria]

•We will implement a feature, allowing CEX.IO users to mine bitcoins from
other pools. So when they purchase GH/s they can put it towards any pool
they choose.

This is a smart move, well done cex.io

A good move, but it doesn't actually prevent them from controlling 51%.  It actually makes it so now you won't know how much they really control.  At any point all that leased GH/s could be redirected at their own servers, because they still do CONTROL that hashrate.

The pool has gained significant hashing power due to the 0% pool fee,
merged mining of alt coins, excellent real-time data presentation as well as
quality 24/7/365 support service.
....
We will not be implementing a pool fee, as we believe the pool has to
remain free.

So the sole reason they've gained any momentum (it sure isn't their support or uptime), and also the *only* way they're going to make people move to other pools, they have no intention of changing.

[HellDiverUK]

Yep, they're still dodgy as fuck.   

[PatMan]

Yep, they're still dodgy as fuck.   

+1 They have been since day 1.

[hyphymikey]

Yep, they're still dodgy as fuck.  

+1 They have been since day 1.

If 45% of their hash rate is their miners on lease and 55% of hash rate is miners pointing to their pool, then I expect some 10-15% of their leased hash power will move onto other pools, and 15-20% of the miners using it as a pool will leave a never return. Leaving them with 65% of what they have now.

As most of their power is miners using them as a pool, and some leave, I do not see how they can make them come back to attempt anything with a 51% attack.

Ghash.io just needs to split up into multiple pools, problem solved.

[eleuthria]

Yep, they're still dodgy as fuck.  

+1 They have been since day 1.

If 45% of their hash rate is their miners on lease and 55% of hash rate is miners pointing to their pool, then I expect some 10-15% of their leased hash power will move onto other pools, and 15-20% of the miners using it as a pool will leave a never return. Leaving them with 65% of what they have now.

As most of their power is miners using them as a pool, and some leave, I do not see how they can make them come back to attempt anything with a 51% attack.

Ghash.io just needs to split up into multiple pools, problem solved.

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Their pool fee effectively takes the form of the so-called maintenance fee on cex.io miners. They won't be waiving that, and they aren't adding an additional fee for their own pool. SO effectively the choice they are giving to Cex.io users is:

Either you pay 1 fee, and mine in our pool or...
You pay the fee twice, and mine in someone else's pool.

Guess what hardly anyone will choose?

[Rub3n]

Switched

[empoweoqwj]

Yep, they're still dodgy as fuck.  

+1 They have been since day 1.

If 45% of their hash rate is their miners on lease and 55% of hash rate is miners pointing to their pool, then I expect some 10-15% of their leased hash power will move onto other pools, and 15-20% of the miners using it as a pool will leave a never return. Leaving them with 65% of what they have now.

As most of their power is miners using them as a pool, and some leave, I do not see how they can make them come back to attempt anything with a 51% attack.

Ghash.io just needs to split up into multiple pools, problem solved.

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

True, but perception is everything. If people perceive the problem isn't there anymore, at least people won't panic sell and destroy bitcoin that way.

[Entropy-uc]

•We will implement a feature, allowing CEX.IO users to mine bitcoins from
other pools. So when they purchase GH/s they can put it towards any pool
they choose.

This is a smart move, well done cex.io

A good move, but it doesn't actually prevent them from controlling 51%.  It actually makes it so now you won't know how much they really control.  At any point all that leased GH/s could be redirected at their own servers, because they still do CONTROL that hashrate.

The pool has gained significant hashing power due to the 0% pool fee,
merged mining of alt coins, excellent real-time data presentation as well as
quality 24/7/365 support service.
....
We will not be implementing a pool fee, as we believe the pool has to
remain free.

So the sole reason they've gained any momentum (it sure isn't their support or uptime), and also the *only* way they're going to make people move to other pools, they have no intention of changing.

It certainly wouldn't hurt you to compete on fees a bit.  I doubt it costs you 1 days rake to run your pool for a month.

[oakpacific]

Anyway it's a relief to know that only 45% of that 40% belows to Bitfury itself, so without the cooperation of other miners they are not a threat.

[DrHaribo]

Didn't they already do a double-spend or attempt one against a casino?

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

This is important to understand. Too much hashpower controllable from one point is the danger. It doesn't matter where the machines are hashing right now, or whether the people usually in control are super nice.

[Jcw188]

Didn't they already do a double-spend or attempt one against a casino?

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

This is important to understand. Too much hashpower controllable from one point is the danger. It doesn't matter where the machines are hashing right now, or whether the people usually in control are super nice.

It's my understanding they attempted a double spend against a dice game.  That doesn't speak well to their intentions.  I also agree that the problem is they COULD do a 51% at any time, even if they "let" their members direct their hashing at other pools.  They need to agree they will put a hard limit on the amount of hashing power they'll accept.

[empoweoqwj]

Didn't they already do a double-spend or attempt one against a casino?

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

This is important to understand. Too much hashpower controllable from one point is the danger. It doesn't matter where the machines are hashing right now, or whether the people usually in control are super nice.

It's my understanding they attempted a double spend against a dice game.  That doesn't speak well to their intentions.  I also agree that the problem is they COULD do a 51% at any time, even if they "let" their members direct their hashing at other pools.  They need to agree they will put a hard limit on the amount of hashing power they'll accept.

Just curious - where did you get your "understanding" from? That's a pretty serious allegation ....

[krampus]

Didn't they already do a double-spend or attempt one against a casino?

Splitting into multiple pools doesn't change anything.  The same with allowing miners to redirect cloud mining.  They still control the hash rate.

This is important to understand. Too much hashpower controllable from one point is the danger. It doesn't matter where the machines are hashing right now, or whether the people usually in control are super nice.

It's my understanding they attempted a double spend against a dice game.  That doesn't speak well to their intentions.  I also agree that the problem is they COULD do a 51% at any time, even if they "let" their members direct their hashing at other pools.  They need to agree they will put a hard limit on the amount of hashing power they'll accept.

Just curious - where did you get your "understanding" from? That's a pretty serious allegation ....

Here, let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ghash.io+double+spend