Deepbit Approaching 50% Once Again

[rainsford]

From a variance standpoint, Bitcoin's design makes the largest pools the most attractive.  Which is bad for the security of the currency, and unfortunately an unavoidable result of how Bitcoin works.  You can trust that people will "do the right thing" and move to smaller pools, or you can trust the pool operators not to abuse their power, but the whole point of Bitcoin was to avoid having to place that kind of trust in individuals.

Well, the individual miner is just in for profit and has nothing to gain from the pool's ability to disrupt the functionality of the network, so we could safely assume that s/he has an incentive to take away this ability from the pool. So, assuming that we have a mining system that does this with few enough disadvantages, almost everyone with significant stakes will switch. If this is possible, I wouldn't call the current problem an unavoidable result of how Bitcoin works.

Here is one approach: https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9137

Another could be creating a more distributed mining environment. For instance, we could embed an optional standardized pool functionality within mining software, that could be turned on at the user's will. Miners could constantly switch nodes that they get work. In this case though, a trust system or a sophisticated distributed accounting system would be needed.

My comment about it being an unavoidable part of Bitcoin was the finding of increasingly rare (from the standpoint of any individual miner), but increasingly valuable blocks being a key part of Bitcoin's security.  Those make it valuable for individual miners to join pools to make the rewards of mining more stable.

But as you point out, switching pools is an easy and obvious thing for miners to do.  And it doesn't take THAT big of a pool to even out the rewards of mining.  I'm not sure being part of deepbit is better from that perspective than being part of any number of other, smaller pools.

[1713531428]

1713531428

[1713531428]

1713531428

[1713531428]

1713531428

[1713531428]

1713531428

[1713531428]

1713531428

[jfourmo]

The guiminer has deepbit as #2 in the list. The #1 went down shortly after I setup my miners so I tried deepbit, saw it had a really helpful interface and have since had no reason to switch. I would guess this might play a roll in its popularity.

[Lupus_Yonderboy]

For the kids who don't remember the browser wars, the first antitrust case against Microsoft was in 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft . That case is the only reason that Apple is still a company, that Linux wasn't throttled early on, oh and it is also the reason your precious Firefox was able to be developed. MS was forced to open up their APIs by the resulting judgement from that case (amongst several other things). US V. Microsoft changed a lot of things in the computing world. But please, don't let facts stand in the way of your preconceived notions.

And for this hours public service announcement....

This is completely wrong.  Your memory must be fuzzy.

Not only did it not have anything to do with Apple and Linux development, but it wasn't really a factor.  Deep integration of IE on Windows based systems has nothing to do with Redhat going out of business and the Linux kernel being forgotten.

There's a movie on Netflix you can watch for some actual interviews, opinions and facts.  I think it was called 'Revolution OS.'

My memory was perhaps a bit fuzzy at first, but I did take the time to read the article, at least:

Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others.

Left unchecked, Microsoft would have used its power to elimnate all of its competition. Another quote from further down the aritcle:

Jean-Louis Gassée, CEO of Be Inc., claimed Microsoft was not really making any money from Internet Explorer, and its incorporation with the operating system was due to consumer expectation to have a browser packaged with the operating system. For example, BeOS comes packaged with its web browser, NetPositive. Instead, he argued, Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market.

The lawsuit was multifaceted. While the deep integration of IE was a major portion of it, that was not the entirety of it, as the article plainly stated in the 1st paragraph.

[mjsbuddha]

Tycho EARNED every percentage point deepbit gets with his hard work. If you don't like that he is approaching half the network, make your own pool to compete with his. The reason he has what he has is because of the feature his pool offers and his dedication to the stability of his pool. It is simply the best pool. Everyone hates people that do things they can't do.

[bcpokey]

What evidence do you present that the monopolies formed under a free market are balanced by an invisible potential competitor? Internet Explorer is a terrible example, as it was sued under Anti-Trust laws and the evil government forced Microsoft to change its practices to create more "fair" competition.

Please provide some kind of evidence for this claim. How exactly did the government intervene so that Internet Explorer was forced into more "fair" competition? Has Microsoft stopped bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? No, they haven't.

Since you've failed to back up your claim, I can only assume you are referring to the European Commission's settlement with Microsoft whereby Microsoft agreed to present users with a browser selection screen. The problem with that theory though is that it only applies to EU countries and only happened with Windows 7, several years after Firefox had already been chipping away at Internet Explorer. Unless you provide some new information, your claims don't hold water. Firefox is exactly the evidence you required yet, unsurprisingly, it doesn't "count".

That's not accurate unfortunately.  That assumes that Nike will act ethically and that their only recourse to maintain their monopoly is the manipulation of their product's price and quality.  If Nike has a monopoly then nothing prevents them from acting unethically and taking other steps to prevent competition such as using their size to demand exclusive contracts for raw materials necessary to produce shoes or overpaying for those materials thereby increasing the market's barrier to entry.

This is the same way with an ultra-powerful monopolistic pool.  They can use their size and resources to prevent competition by dDosing for example.

The same argument applies to the raw materials monopolies. You are just welcoming competition by not selling to whoever bids the highest.

Jesus, same bullshit with you guys every time. There is absolutely no support for your side so you just nitpick at little things to avoid confronting that fact. I specifically asked you to focus on one thing which you completely avoided twice. I failed to back up my claim? Because I specifically said I didn't want to focus on that. I don't see myself stating anywhere in that quote you provided of me saying that MS was forced to unbundle its software. Good job diverting.

I almost wish I had studied psychology because I'm so fascinated by how people can be so skilled at avoiding any reality in persistently believing whatever they want.

[shivansps]

Deepbit does not have any great features that other pools dont, even so, the stats update is one of the worse out there. i mean, 1 hour balance update, wtf. Most of other pools are in real time, or nearly to.
Instant payouts is pointless for me... waiting for confirmed too, why i will ever want instant payout?? thats good for starters only, and after two weeks they lost interest in it too.

The only advantage of deepbit over other pools i see it is the payment methods, they are kind of unique, swepool now has the PPS too, but it is a new pool. Some people dont like the score method, and those are staying in Deepbit, the other mayor pools out there (Slush, BTCGuild and BTCMine) are using score methods, Slush, BTCGuild and BTCMine seen to be better pools for me, i like the stats of Slush and BTCMine, those are much better than Deepbit. BTCmine only lack a way to known how many money im doing per day like Slush.

Addicionally, the fees of Deepbit are excessive at this point.

You whant to known why Deepbit is the bigger pool? because it its the older one, Deepbit was on pair with Slush until 2 months ago, when the total hash rate of the network was ~1.5Thash and dificultty something in the ~90.000, then the Hash rate started to climb like crazy, that was because of the publicity, and the news about "Bitcoins" and "free money with vga cards" started to be posted on forums of all around the planet.

So far ive see about 20 guides on diferent forums around, all of those "Bitcoin starting guides" are writting about using Deepbit to mine, most of them are the same, copy&pasted on another forum...

Thats why Deepbit is the bigger pool.

Personally, i feel both Slush and BTCMine to be better, in all aspects. BTCMine has been having problems with LP lately, but i think is working ok now. Seriusly, i need a good pool with a good averange hash rate, no problems with disconnections (thats why i leaved slush), with good stats and security(i love th BTCMine bitcoin adress lock)... i dont need imposed fees and the useless instant payouts. Bitcoin.lc seems to be good but way too small to join at this point.

This is like "Internet Explorer", there are much better browsers, why it its the most used??? it may have something to do with Windows

Sorry for grammar errors, im from Arg.

[Transcendental]

Come join continuum pool, new pool started by martok just last month, we have 10Ghash, pps, *new* web and old RPCinterface, and 0% overhead (whatever martok's expenses for running the server are are deducted from the winnings, and that's it.) I have been making much more btc ~50% with continuumpool than I did on deepbit, even though payout is sporadic.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8660.0
http://www.continuumpool.com

[supa]

Jean-Louis Gassée, CEO of Be Inc., claimed Microsoft was not really making any money from Internet Explorer, and its incorporation with the operating system was due to consumer expectation to have a browser packaged with the operating system. For example, BeOS comes packaged with its web browser, NetPositive. Instead, he argued, Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market.

The lawsuit was multifaceted. While the deep integration of IE was a major portion of it, that was not the entirety of it, as the article plainly stated in the 1st paragraph.

Here's where you're a bit fuzzy on a few things:
- This was for residential/home computers.
- Apache was beating the pants off of IIS and it's stupid single-instance expenses.
- This literally has nothing to do with A) a machine someone isn't browsing from, B) any commercial machines.
- Firefox would've been adopted, anyway, the experience would've just sucked (oh, wait, that happened......)
- IE being "cool" wouldn't have swayed the adoption of Linux into Governmental and Scientific industries.
- Over 9,000 other parts of the big picture.

Back on topic -

OMG sky is falling double-spending I don't understand how this works my mining rig isn't profitable kilowatt per hour Captain Planet!

[smooth]

I say again, the advantage of the biggest pool is the lowest payout variance.  Pools like Eligius have some great features like zero fees, etc. but they suffer because sometimes they get zero blocks in an entire day.  That never happens with deepbit.  Deepbit gets a few blocks an HOUR most of the time.

Pooled mining is a natural monopoly for this reason.  There needs to be some kind of technical fix, like the one previous linked in this thread. 

And even if deepbit is kept below 50%, it's still the case that the big pools as a group have the same natural advantage and will tend to control a big share of the network.  Two or three pools that control 50%+ (quite a bit over in fact) is not good because it is too easy for two to three pool operators to collude.  In fact there is no way in general to know that two "separate" pools aren't actually run by the same person.

[grndzero]

It will always be easy for pool operators that make up >=50% hashing power to collude.
You will never know whether pool operators are colluding. Which ones can you trust? Best not to use any of them.
Yes, they are out to get you.  

[gsan]

I say again, the advantage of the biggest pool is the lowest payout variance.  Pools like Eligius have some great features like zero fees, etc. but they suffer because sometimes they get zero blocks in an entire day.  That never happens with deepbit.  Deepbit gets a few blocks an HOUR most of the time.

Pooled mining is a natural monopoly for this reason.  There needs to be some kind of technical fix, like the one previous linked in this thread.  

FWIW, this ceases to be a concern with the PPS payout scheme. I get my earnings from continuumpool almost instantly.

[grndzero]

I say again, the advantage of the biggest pool is the lowest payout variance.  Pools like Eligius have some great features like zero fees, etc. but they suffer because sometimes they get zero blocks in an entire day.  That never happens with deepbit.  Deepbit gets a few blocks an HOUR most of the time.

Pooled mining is a natural monopoly for this reason.  There needs to be some kind of technical fix, like the one previous linked in this thread.  

FWIW, this ceases to be a concern with the PPS payout scheme. I get my earnings from continuumpool almost instantly.

Sure, and you pay a 7% fee for that privilege.

[gigitrix]

It boggles the mind that the majority (or disturbingly close to) of miners are joining a pool with 3%/10% fees when free alternatives exist...

[grndzero]

It boggles the mind that the majority (or disturbingly close to) of miners are joining a pool with 3%/10% fees when free alternatives exist...

We're well into the phase of people setting up miners for friends and family and just letting it run or non detail interested people following instructions with deepbit as the pool example to set up. As long as either can stand the noise, heat, or extra electricity usage they will just let it run. Some might even be watching to make sure they're getting someone out of it. Either way, they're most likely not reading all the doomsday prophecies here.

Doesn't boggle me a bit.

[gsan]

FWIW, this ceases to be a concern with the PPS payout scheme. I get my earnings from continuumpool almost instantly.

Sure, and you pay a 7% fee for that privilege.

5%

Not a bad price to pay if you don't like variance. But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.

[CoinSpeculator]

Jesus, same bullshit with you guys every time. There is absolutely no support for your side so you just nitpick at little things to avoid confronting that fact. I specifically asked you to focus on one thing which you completely avoided twice. I failed to back up my claim? Because I specifically said I didn't want to focus on that. I don't see myself stating anywhere in that quote you provided of me saying that MS was forced to unbundle its software. Good job diverting.

I almost wish I had studied psychology because I'm so fascinated by how people can be so skilled at avoiding any reality in persistently believing whatever they want.

I disagree with the assumption that Standard Oil was a predatory pricing unfair free market natural monopoly.  At it's peak they had something around 80% of the market.  When prosecuted this had fallen to around 64%, and no doubt would have continued.

http://mises.org/daily/2317

Also, Microsoft depends on patents and other government grants of power to maintain it's position.

[goldcd]

Not sure if it's a solution, but is the 50 coin payout hard-coded into bitcoin?
When I got one of those, on my CPU, in a couple of days that was great - but surely would make more sense that as the difficultly went up, the payout was divided into it? (and therefore negating this whole pool mining malarkey).

[grndzero]

FWIW, this ceases to be a concern with the PPS payout scheme. I get my earnings from continuumpool almost instantly.

Sure, and you pay a 7% fee for that privilege.

5%

Not a bad price to pay if you don't like variance. But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.

To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it.

[gsan]

But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.

To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it.

I'm at a loss here. What's the connection with the protocol? And why would you object? What do you say to this proposal?

[grndzero]

But yes, bigger pools have lower variability on proportional or score based schemes as well. So best way to solve the current problem would be taking away the control of the list of included transactions from the pools.

To do that you would have to modify the protocol. Go ahead and write a patch to do that. It won't be accepted into the official bitcoin client and I won't download any client that has that in it.

I'm at a loss here. What's the connection with the protocol? And why would you object? What do you say to this proposal?

Everyone gets all information from the network. You would have to modify the bitcoin protocol to limit someone from getting all information. It is a reactive response and against the ideals of the system.

The thread does not solve any problem, it proposes an alternative and has nothing tangible to show yet. It was written when there were only a few other pools than deepbit. There are more alternatives now, there are 6-7 other pools and growing every week. It does not solve the fact that there are other pools and people aren't using them.

A better use of time would be implementing this: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7622.0 At least then if something showed up on the network that looked like the attacks that everyone is so worried might possibly happen then there would be verifiable proof and reason for those who pay attention to the forums to move somewhere else and make deepbit smaller.