50%

[rainsford]

I'm really not so sure.  People don't really have any reason to pledge allegiance to any particular pool long term, nor is there the real life problem of making a choice (voting) and then being stuck with it for years.

I mine with BTCGuild because I like their website.  A day from now I could decide I like someone else and mine in their pool.  A day later I could switch back.  There is hardly any cost in doing so, for me or any other miner, so any power a pool operator has is extremely temporary and entirely contingent on keeping their miners happy.  That makes a pool operator doing bad things seem at least fairly unlikely.

Wrong.

Its a fundamental issue in trust...investor confidence. Once the trust is broken, it won't be restored.

Sooo that means, when a broken chain is discovered (and when can lag), how does the joe-investor who just dropped $100k on btc recover?

He sells...

Which is also a powerful incentive for pool operators to NOT mess with the block chain.  If they do it an are discovered, they screw themselves out of all the BTC they're earned so far (which in the case of deepbit is a LOT).  If they aren't discovered but there is even the hint of wrongdoing, miners jump ship.  The best choice for them is being above board, I think.

But I'm also playing devil's advocate here, to be honest.  I would feel more confident about the whole thing if hashing power was distributed a bit more evenly.

[1714115238]

1714115238

[1714115238]

1714115238

[1714115238]

1714115238

[KnuttyD]

I'm really not so sure.  People don't really have any reason to pledge allegiance to any particular pool long term, nor is there the real life problem of making a choice (voting) and then being stuck with it for years.

I mine with BTCGuild because I like their website.  A day from now I could decide I like someone else and mine in their pool.  A day later I could switch back.  There is hardly any cost in doing so, for me or any other miner, so any power a pool operator has is extremely temporary and entirely contingent on keeping their miners happy.  That makes a pool operator doing bad things seem at least fairly unlikely.

Wrong.

Its a fundamental issue in trust...investor confidence. Once the trust is broken, it won't be restored.

Sooo that means, when a broken chain is discovered (and when can lag), how does the joe-investor who just dropped $100k on btc recover?

He sells...

Which is also a powerful incentive for pool operators to NOT mess with the block chain.  If they do it an are discovered, they screw themselves out of all the BTC they're earned so far (which in the case of deepbit is a LOT).  If they aren't discovered but there is even the hint of wrongdoing, miners jump ship.  The best choice for them is being above board, I think.

But I'm also playing devil's advocate here, to be honest.  I would feel more confident about the whole thing if hashing power was distributed a bit more evenly.

Well, lets assume that if somebody has a very large amount of coin, they can sell that for a very large price. 1000 bitcoins = 25,000$. Tycho almost certainly has magnitudes more than that.
He could just cash out and run; however I dont want to be a fear malingerer so Im not saying he would do that.

But if someone did want to take down Bitcoin, now would be the time.

[frozen]

Hm... does anyone else notice how small btcguild's slice looks? According to btcguild's website, they are getting about 400Ghash/s... wouldn't that slice be a bit bigger?

Also, btcmine.com is now down for maintenance it seems...

[tehcodez]

And if they do it for a $100k payoff tomorrow, what's the difference?

Most of the supportive crap to this guy gives them the benefit of the doubt, or is based on subjective analysis of their possible intentions....not based on firm evidence. (I didn't notice the Tycho Foundation's charitable giving to the March of Dimes yesterday).

Seems like trust should be computable nowadays...lol. Instead, all most miners obviously need is a slick page and working api.

[KnuttyD]

Hm... does anyone else notice how small btcguild's slice looks? According to btcguild's website, they are getting about 400Ghash/s... wouldn't that slice be a bit bigger?

Also, btcmine.com is now down for maintenance it seems...

Its proportional to the entire power of the network, so I think its OK.

bitcoins.lc is also down.....

[frozen]

Look at that. Chart has been updated. btcguild's slice is much more respectable now.

[frozen]

Hm... does anyone else notice how small btcguild's slice looks? According to btcguild's website, they are getting about 400Ghash/s... wouldn't that slice be a bit bigger?

Also, btcmine.com is now down for maintenance it seems...

Its proportional to the entire power of the network, so I think its OK.

bitcoins.lc is also down.....

Look at the updated chart, it confirms what I suspected

[kiwiasian]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

[IlbiStarz]

Btcmine is down too...no where to go now!! Except deepbit...

Must..not...

[rezin777]

Simply no reason to put so much trust in one person. Regardless if he is Jesus Christ reborn, someone else can take advantage of the situation.

[tehcodez]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

[tehcodez]

Maybe this proves most of the world is run by the ignorant, and the rest of us are just too "unlucky" to notice, care, or do anything about it.

I believe in the future...I'll give a btc bounty right now to whatever education system produced these wonderful people.

[grndzero]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

[KnuttyD]

Btcmine is down too...no where to go now!! Except deepbit...

Must..not...

Points virtual bitcoin launcher aat IlbiStarz

[KnuttyD]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

[IlbiStarz]

Btcmine is down too...no where to go now!! Except deepbit...

Must..not...

Points virtual bitcoin launcher aat IlbiStarz

lolol

[Genrobo]

I really hope the deepbit server itself has very high security.
If someone gained unauthorized remote access...
Well, let's say our trust in Tycho would not be the issue.

[grndzero]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell out and close up shop.

Rather, the possibility of exploit.

[KnuttyD]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell out and close up shop.

But the protocol is insecure once someone gets >50% (or even close). So why would anyone trust it after a failure like that?

[tehcodez]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell out and close up shop.

I love the laissez-faire attitude with the emerging technology. Obviously a real champion for bitcoin stability and prosperity among all segments, especially the early-adopter and more recent screwed groups.