One of Bitcoin's Biggest Miners is Launching a Second Pool

[vodaljepa]

As if running the third-largest bitcoin mining pool wasn't enough, China-based Bitmain announced the launch of its second mining pool yesterday.

Unlike the other large mining pools, though, the new offering (launched through its subsidiary BTC.com) will be open sourced to its community of users. According to Bitmain, the pool is not meant as a replacement for its popular Antpool platform (which has roughly 13% of the network's market share) but rather to enhance the stability of the bitcoin network.

In interview, Nisthant Sharma, international marketing manager at Bitmain, explained that the goal is to use this software to "promote decentralization of the bitcoin mining network".

More @ http://bitts.in/Vh4f

[1714238769]

1714238769

[1714238769]

1714238769

[1714238769]

1714238769

[1714238769]

1714238769

[pereira4]

As if running the third-largest bitcoin mining pool wasn't enough, China-based Bitmain announced the launch of its second mining pool yesterday.

Unlike the other large mining pools, though, the new offering (launched through its subsidiary BTC.com) will be open sourced to its community of users. According to Bitmain, the pool is not meant as a replacement for its popular Antpool platform (which has roughly 13% of the network's market share) but rather to enhance the stability of the bitcoin network.

In interview, Nisthant Sharma, international marketing manager at Bitmain, explained that the goal is to use this software to "promote decentralization of the bitcoin mining network".

More @ http://bitts.in/Vh4f

We need more McAffees in the west, rich people that can afford to start mining business outside of china to compete against the chinamen who are getting all the hashpower due the cheap costs. We need competition outside of china.

[~Bitcoin~]

It sound good that they actually launched mining pool with open source software. I thought that they will be charging 0% fee over lifetime but found this is only promotional offer.

Because of this, and the 0% fee that Bitmain is charging until the end of the year,

[Lauda]

We need more McAffees in the west, rich people that can afford to start mining business outside of china to compete against the chinamen who are getting all the hashpower due the cheap costs. We need competition outside of china.

No, not really. That guy is using that primarily as a way to pump up the value of their company with investments. You should check out the tweets from Kim Doctom regarding the venture of McAffee.

I thought that they will be charging 0% fee over lifetime but found this is only promotional offer.

Charging a zero percent fee for lifetime is a ridiculous idea that won't be adopted anytime soon. You do realize that these are businesses, and as such, they have to generate their share of the profit?
I like the general idea behind it because it is primarily promoting decentralization. Let's see whether it will work out.

[Kprawn]

We need more McAffees in the west, rich people that can afford to start mining business outside of china to compete against the chinamen who are getting all the hashpower due the cheap costs. We need competition outside of china.

No, not really. That guy is using that primarily as a way to pump up the value of their company with investments. You should check out the tweets from Kim Doctom regarding the venture of McAffee.

I thought that they will be charging 0% fee over lifetime but found this is only promotional offer.

Charging a zero percent fee for lifetime is a ridiculous idea that won't be adopted anytime soon. You do realize that these are businesses, and as such, they have to generate their share of the profit?
I like the general idea behind it because it is primarily promoting decentralization. Let's see whether it will work out.

How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the

illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.

A few years ago, we had a situation with one pool, gaining 51% hashing power, and people shifted pools to stop that from happening.

Now people think they have separate pools, but it is still under one umbrella. 

[AmDD]

We need more McAffees in the west, rich people that can afford to start mining business outside of china to compete against the chinamen who are getting all the hashpower due the cheap costs. We need competition outside of china.

No, not really. That guy is using that primarily as a way to pump up the value of their company with investments. You should check out the tweets from Kim Doctom regarding the venture of McAffee.

I thought that they will be charging 0% fee over lifetime but found this is only promotional offer.

Charging a zero percent fee for lifetime is a ridiculous idea that won't be adopted anytime soon. You do realize that these are businesses, and as such, they have to generate their share of the profit?
I like the general idea behind it because it is primarily promoting decentralization. Let's see whether it will work out.

How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the

illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.

A few years ago, we had a situation with one pool, gaining 51% hashing power, and people shifted pools to stop that from happening.

Now people think they have separate pools, but it is still under one umbrella. 

Exactly my thoughts. Nothing is decentralized here.

[Lauda]

How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.

So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO).

[franky1]

even the TV series "startup"(involving crypto) episode 9 explained the sneakyness trick of whats explained in OP
its called a hostile take over.

EG
instead of person A having 100%
or
instead of person A having 51% and person B having 49%..

what happens is person B says he wants to bring in another partner to dilute the control so it appears on paper A, B,C have equal 33% control. giving the person A a nominal 1% extra just to appear that person A still has some say in decisions.

but what happens behind the scenes is that although theres thousands of employees working hard in B and lots of volunteers in C...

the chairman of B and C is the same person.. so he has 66% of votes and dictates to his employees and volunteers to shut and lock the security gates of the door. locking out person A

hopefully by now everyone has watched the tv show "startup" (based around crypto) to see what im saying in visual form of the show.

in short bitmain maintains its 13% at antpool. but then gains more at BTC.com

so those that fear 51% attacks should consider BTC.com and ANTpool.com hashrate figures combined
because it doesnt matter if the 'workers' are paid direct or indirectly. they are taking orders and involved in the same work given by the same management

[Kprawn]

How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.

So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO).

I hope you noticed the question mark at the end... I was thinking one location and two pools, not separate locations with different pools. I

have my doubts if this is true decentralization. I would rather want to see separate companies hosting 1 pool than having 1 company

hosting 2 or 3 pools under the same umbrella. If I am wrong, I apologize.  

[AmDD]

How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.

So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO).

https://blockchain.info/pools

If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.

[Lauda]

I hope you noticed the question mark at the end... I was thinking one location and two pools, not separate locations with different pools. I have my doubts if this is true decentralization. I would rather want to see separate companies hosting 1 pool than having 1 company hosting 2 or 3 pools under the same umbrella. If I am wrong, I apologize.  

I understand. I wouldn't prefer to see two pools being hosted at the same location under the same owner. This doesn't promote much decentralization as seen in my node example. I do agree with you (separate companies hosting their own pools).

If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.

You're talking about it like the pool owner is the owner of all the hashrate, not just the pool. They can't just easily "consolidate" all the hashrate of a huge number of miners, mining at several locations/pools, connected to different servers. However, your example is also a bit hyperbolic. I don't think Bitmain is going to gain a lot more hashrate (total combined of both pools), but who knows.

[jak3]

i dont think they are now just scratching the bitcoin network they are now planning to go ferther they will tear the network in two now :p we have already seen how much chaina loves bitcoin mining but is this an profitable desecion as because i can not say it due to their heavy equipments they have really a power whoch they say

[AmDD]

If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.

You're talking about it like the pool owner is the owner of all the hashrate, not just the pool. They can't just easily "consolidate" all the hashrate of a huge number of miners, mining at several locations/pools, connected to different servers. However, your example is also a bit hyperbolic. I don't think Bitmain is going to gain a lot more hashrate (total combined of both pools), but who knows.

Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool? Couldnt I point it to some small coin and drive the difficulty way way up and then move it somewhere else (its happened to some coins although maybe not on purpose) or other types of attacks? Or create a 6th pool and setup the other 5 as "workers" for the 6th?


I do agree that the example is a bit of an extreme but the point is the same. If a company wants to setup a second pool for whatever reason then fine but it cant be to help decentralize the network. That makes no sense.

[franky1]

and another thing to consider..

back in the day pools hired staff to make and tweak their own software that met the fundamental rules of consensus but were still independent codebases..

but now it seems core want 95% of pools to run only core. and 95% of users to only run core.

funny how core become the "hostile take over" of controlling code even if there were 2,10,20 different pools.
they said goodbye to bitcoinJ, they said goodbye to atleast 5 other independent code bases.

soon core will reign supreme, where there is no other choice (apart from limp litenodes that dont validate)

if anyone else cannot see that decentralization is decreasing, under the mascaraed game of bait and switch they are usually the ones that want it to happen

[franky1]

Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack?

you dont need to combine it.

EG say you had 13% on one pool
and wanted to change rule X
your one pool would get instantly orphaned because 87% of the hashrate (7 pools) still like rule A
you dont need to make your one pool 51%
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
which is the same as saying 4 pools want X 3 pools want A
which is a 51% attack, but not via one combined pool

even core feared the big 5 pools agreeing to rule X last year, and core done everything they could to quash that out.

but now core want rule Y and are going to try what they can to get it..

[Foref1982]

China seems to take the risk that is necessary to compete with the technology of the developed Western countries. I think, China has more reason to invest into BTC than US or Europe because if China does not excel in cutting edge technology, their lack of other resources to their extremely high population would lead into a dangerous situation. Investing into top tech is the smaller risk for them.

[unamis76]

I am too concerned with centralization, although it is like Lauda says, better this than nothing. let's see how this pans out, I doubt Bitmain, as a company having pools, will see a huge increase of hashrate (hashrate on this new pool will probably be from existing users on their current pool and maybe some from others).

I am also eagerly waiting to see how "open source" will this mining pool be.

[Lauda]

Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool?

Well, I think the word "combine" is wrong, since we are talking about multiple pools and hundreds/thousands of miners. There's a distinct difference between everyone mining on 1 pool, and people mining on 5 pools owned by the same person (with different locations and servers). However, I get your point now. I've viewed this from the wrong perspective. Franky1 explained it, in a semi-decent way:

you dont need to combine it.
-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%

Tl;Dr: If you wanted a rule change, you could 'push' the updated software on all of your pools at the same time.

[AmDD]

Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool?

Well, I think the word "combine" is wrong, since we are talking about multiple pools and hundreds/thousands of miners. There's a distinct difference between everyone mining on 1 pool, and people mining on 5 pools owned by the same person (with different locations and servers). However, I get your point now. I've viewed this from the wrong perspective. Franky1 explained it, in a semi-decent way:

you dont need to combine it.
-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%

Tl;Dr: If you wanted a rule change, you could 'push' the updated software on all of your pools at the same time.

Sorry, I never was good at explaining things. I read his post and it makes more sense than what I was trying to say.

[Kakmakr]

Let's take the banking sector as a example. In 1896 several banks in London and the English provinces, notably Backhouse's Bank of Darlington and Gurney's Bank of Norwich, united under the banner of Barclays and Co., a joint-stock bank. They eventually changed their name and started to trade under the Barclays name headquartered in London.

This is how monopolies are formed. They start out trading as individuals and when the company decide to change strategy, they join together to form one multinational system. ^hmmmmmm^