Mining pools and bruteforce

[Tukotih]

Since difficulty constantly rises and pools control more computing power than ever before the BTC/computing power will go down and so will the $/computing power if exchange-rates stay the same or lowers.
I was just wondering if the pool owners could re-program their system so that the computing power can be used for bruteforcing?

If it was possible they could just pay off all the bruteforce computing-power with the equal amount of BTC/share without the miner knowing a thing.

So, could this lead to a scenario where it is possible to buy bruteforce computing-power?

[SomeoneWeird]

Since difficulty constantly rises and pools control more computing power than ever before the BTC/computing power will go down and so will the $/computing power if exchange-rates stay the same or lowers.
I was just wondering if the pool owners could re-program their system so that the computing power can be used for bruteforcing?

If it was possible they could just pay off all the bruteforce computing-power with the equal amount of BTC/share without the miner knowing a thing.

So, could this lead to a scenario where it is possible to buy bruteforce computing-power?

No because it would require a change to the miners program.

[mistersaturn]

why are there so many conspiracy-theories going on with pooled mining....oh no, deepbit is getting too big and he will unleash mighty cthulhu to destroy us all....cmon guys seriously, i know you shouldn't trust everyone on the internet but this whole "pools are dangerous" thing is way overrated.

[SomeoneWeird]

why are there so many conspiracy-theories going on with pooled mining....oh no, deepbit is getting too big and he will unleash mighty cthulhu to destroy us all....cmon guys seriously, i know you shouldn't trust everyone on the internet but this whole "pools are dangerous" thing is way overrated.

That has absolutely nothing todo with the OP's post.

[BombaUcigasa]

why are there so many conspiracy-theories going on with pooled mining....oh no, deepbit is getting too big and he will unleash mighty cthulhu to destroy us all....cmon guys seriously, i know you shouldn't trust everyone on the internet but this whole "pools are dangerous" thing is way overrated.

That has absolutely nothing todo with the OP's post.

Except for the mining pools part and the bruteforce available to deepbit part. That would be 100% of the OP's title btw.

OP, simple solution: prices will always change to match effort, and if nothing bad happens, it will cost less to produce bitcoin than to buy them.

[SomeoneWeird]

why are there so many conspiracy-theories going on with pooled mining....oh no, deepbit is getting too big and he will unleash mighty cthulhu to destroy us all....cmon guys seriously, i know you shouldn't trust everyone on the internet but this whole "pools are dangerous" thing is way overrated.

That has absolutely nothing todo with the OP's post.

Except for the mining pools part and the bruteforce available to deepbit part. That would be 100% of the OP's title btw.

OP, simple solution: prices will always change to match effort, and if nothing bad happens, it will cost less to produce bitcoin than to buy them.

I was just wondering if the pool owners could re-program their system so that the computing power can be used for bruteforcing?

[organofcorti]

Since difficulty constantly rises and pools control more computing power than ever before the BTC/computing power will go down and so will the $/computing power if exchange-rates stay the same or lowers.
I was just wondering if the pool owners could re-program their system so that the computing power can be used for bruteforcing?

If it was possible they could just pay off all the bruteforce computing-power with the equal amount of BTC/share without the miner knowing a thing.

So, could this lead to a scenario where it is possible to buy bruteforce computing-power?

Why not think about this in terms of "pay for computation"? The pools manage a distributed cluster. Say a University needs number crunching done. The pool publishes an update module for a special miner, you still get paid bitcoins for computation by the customer. When there's no work, back to bitcoin mining.

This is a plus for bitcoin (stimulating the economy) and a plus for miners (since you'd charge customers a percentage more than a share in a block).

Downside is of course blackhats could purchase time for bruteforcing, or other nefarious hash cracking reasons.

The other downside is a specific miner would be needed for each pool, and someone would have to make it modular enough that any specific computational requirement of a customer could be met. If someone has the nouse to do that, they'll be on a winner.

Maybe I'm missing something, but bitcoin mining shouldn't be the only use we put Thps computational power to.

[Sukrim]

Since difficulty constantly rises and pools control more computing power than ever before the BTC/computing power will go down and so will the $/computing power if exchange-rates stay the same or lowers.
I was just wondering if the pool owners could re-program their system so that the computing power can be used for bruteforcing?

If it was possible they could just pay off all the bruteforce computing-power with the equal amount of BTC/share without the miner knowing a thing.

So, could this lead to a scenario where it is possible to buy bruteforce computing-power?

Why not think about this in terms of "pay for computation"? The pools manage a distributed cluster. Say a University needs number crunching done. The pool publishes an update module for a special miner, you still get paid bitcoins for computation by the customer. When there's no work, back to bitcoin mining.

This would require the University/Customer to pay in Bitcoins, NOT in USD.

Other than that, I don't see many problems.

If you start to create a BOINC project with a few current (and this way also automatically updated!) Bitcoin miners to choose from, you could also easily switch the worker program between Bitcoin miners and other programs, if they are not too huge. BOINC already has some kind of "share" system in place (called credits) and a customer could just buy X credits of work for his own program and people still get paid the same amount per submitted credit (If you do it via a PPS/PPC system... proportional or scored might be a bit harder, but also not impossible).

This might even go so far that nVidia users could earn more BTC via "working" than "mining".

[organofcorti]

This would require the University/Customer to pay in Bitcoins, NOT in USD.

 - and that would be a big shot in the arm for bitcoin, forcing more coins into circulation.

If you start to create a BOINC project with a few current (and this way also automatically updated!) Bitcoin miners to choose from, you could also easily switch the worker program between Bitcoin miners and other programs, if they are not too huge. BOINC already has some kind of "share" system in place (called credits) and a customer could just buy X credits of work for his own program and people still get paid the same amount per submitted credit (If you do it via a PPS/PPC system... proportional or scored might be a bit harder, but also not impossible).

I wouldn't think pool hopping would be a problem since each job of "work" would be given to a pool, not all pools, so payment could be simpler for 'work' than 'mining'.

Distributed.net is a BOINC project that actually already does this, I see. Hmmmm. Might not be as hard as I thought. Thanks for the heads up, Tukotih!