[ANN] BTC Guild's Mitigation Plan

[Isokivi]

I have updated the plan a little bit to proposals that include increased fees to push some miners out to other pools, rather than relying on registrations being cut off.  Cutting off registrations will not prevent old miners from turning on ASICs they receive, and with over 80,000 accounts on BTC Guild, it's far more likely for the new hash rate to come from old users than new ones at this time.

Thank you, I know it's not easy turning down customers (miners) when you have aqquired them by clearly offering a superior service. But it is the right thing to do. Veterans of these forums undoutably understand that a 51% attack serves no ones interest, especially the entitys who controlls the hashrate, but the masses who are just discovering and experementing with bitcoin do not. This serves a preemtive measure against Fear, Uncertanity and Doubt.

[Luke-Jr]

I have updated the plan a little bit to proposals that include increased fees to push some miners out to other pools, rather than relying on registrations being cut off.  Cutting off registrations will not prevent old miners from turning on ASICs they receive, and with over 80,000 accounts on BTC Guild, it's far more likely for the new hash rate to come from old users than new ones at this time.

Thank you, I know it's not easy turning down customers (miners) when you have aqquired them by clearly offering a superior service. But it is the right thing to do. Veterans of these forums undoutably understand that a 51% attack serves no ones interest, especially the entitys who controlls the hashrate, but the masses who are just discovering and experementing with bitcoin do not. This serves a preemtive measure against Fear, Uncertanity and Doubt.

In case you're claiming the risk of "51% attacks" is FUD, let me assure you it isn't.
If there were no risk, then you might as well be using PayPal.

[Gaff]

I have updated the plan a little bit to proposals that include increased fees to push some miners out to other pools, rather than relying on registrations being cut off.  Cutting off registrations will not prevent old miners from turning on ASICs they receive, and with over 80,000 accounts on BTC Guild, it's far more likely for the new hash rate to come from old users than new ones at this time.

Thanks. I see the dilemma involved with raising fees. However it's also very important to align economic incentives with the goals of the bitcoin project as a whole otherwise the whole thing will never work. I like the updated plan - hopefully the threat of increased fees alone will be enough to re-balance the pools without any operators having to go through with it.

[os2sam]

One way to easily mitigate this would be for someone to release some sort of generically configured Bitcoin Mining Pool application or packaged archive that is easy to install and get running to help grow the mining pool community.   Even with your mitigation efforts, the true problem lies in the fact that there are only a few large mining pools. The more other mining pools that spring up the better for the decentralization of the overall Bitcoin network.

The last thing the Bitcoin needs to do is start subsidizing Pool startups.  Pools should only be done by folks who are interested starting real business and who understand both the risks as well as the benefits.  Each new pool needs to earn their own income and respect in the community by their own hard work and investment.  That is why we can have a pool approaching 50% and not really worry about it too much, because BTCGuild has proven itself to be trustworthy.
Sam

[os2sam]

Having a single entity with blind control over even 25% of the network blocks is a threat that devalues everyone's bitcoins

Darn the devalueing of my bitcoins they are only worth $143.  What will I do?

[eleuthria]

One way to easily mitigate this would be for someone to release some sort of generically configured Bitcoin Mining Pool application or packaged archive that is easy to install and get running to help grow the mining pool community.   Even with your mitigation efforts, the true problem lies in the fact that there are only a few large mining pools. The more other mining pools that spring up the better for the decentralization of the overall Bitcoin network.

I think this actually hurts more than it helps.  We used to see new pools opening up every other week in 2011 for a while, because somebody made a frontend (SimpleCoin and MFCE(might be wrong on spelling)) for pushpool.  What you ended up with was a lot of pool ops who were "hacked", disappeared, or didn't have a clue how to configure and manage servers.  I think it ended up driving people even harder towards the largest pools because they were obviously more prepared and capable.

[centove]

But But... BTC has such a web interface... The others are just fugly and slow!

[thorvald]

If you or any pool operator will make a virtual machine pool that can be downloaded for a fee , you will see some users  go solo
the virtual pool will bring also some income for the service and  provided there will be regular update/support for it a mantenance fee
at least 100 avalon users that might go solo .
is not that the users can`t make a solo server, the problem is that it may take some time to make it online and properly workin

Thorvald

[coinhammer]

Raising fees for people that made the pool a success in the first place is a slap in the face but I guess its your sandbox and your rules.

[eleuthria]

Raising fees for people that made the pool a success in the first place is a slap in the face but I guess its your sandbox and your rules.

There isn't much alternative.  Most of this speed is not coming from new users, but users that already have accounts since most people who ordered ASICs were already involved in mining.  The only solution is encouraging users to move off voluntarily.  The options are to either kick people off or make it so they are encouraged to look at other options.  This isn't like raising fees just to increase how much the pool makes, it's to make it less desirable, thus reducing market share.

[Vorksholk]

Perhaps you could hold the extra % cut you decide to take and then distribute it later?  (Say PPS is only 80% right now, and that you'll get your extra 15-17% in one month). People still get their money, but they are deterred from mining because of the wait to get their coins out during this period of high volatility.

[Hawkix]

Any chance to discuss with friedcat to move his ASICMINER out of this pool (and setup its own)?

[coinhammer]

Any chance to discuss with friedcat to move his ASICMINER out of this pool (and setup its own)?

+10000

[meowmeowbrowncow]

How about you screw externalities, keep on adding users and let the free market sort it out?

This is part of the "free market sorting it out":
Having a single entity with blind control over even 25% of the network blocks is a threat that devalues everyone's bitcoins (including their own).
Therefore, it makes economic sense for BTCGuild to try to deter this from occurring.

Too bad they won't allow miners to audit their block data by supporting GBT.

If it's true that Stratum is not as transparent re: miner visibility to the work then, yes, I would agree.

[candoo]

If you or any pool operator will make a virtual machine pool that can be downloaded for a fee , you will see some users  go solo
the virtual pool will bring also some income for the service and  provided there will be regular update/support for it a mantenance fee
at least 100 avalon users that might go solo .
is not that the users can`t make a solo server, the problem is that it may take some time to make it online and properly workin

Thorvald

+1

[peewee]

Any chance to discuss with friedcat to move his ASICMINER out of this pool (and setup its own)?

ASICMINER and BTC guild are operating transparently...this is what we want.  If you move ASICMINER off even the raw speculation that a single private entity would own enough hashpower to overwhelm the network would be massively destabilizing.  However, it would be nice if their power were more evenly distributed.

[BitMinerN8]

..SNIP..
If Pool Speed is Over 40% of Network
BTC Guild will begin limiting the creation of new accounts.  Additionally, the fee on PPS will be increased from 5% to 7% on all new miners, and will be moved to 7% on old miners after the difficulty changes.  PPLNS will remain at the 3% + tx fees rate initially.
..SNIP..

If possible, it would be a nice feature that if your account is going to be subject to a increase in fees, that there is a clear indicator on the Dashboard. Example:
"Your current fee using PPS payout method is: 5%, an increase to: 7% will go into effect in: 1043 blocks at network difficulty: 8874695"

[razorfishsl]

So the plan is to solve the problem with your own get rich quick scheme......
at the current rate of $160USD per bitcoin@ 7%

[BitMinerN8]

So the plan is to solve the problem with your own get rich quick scheme......
at the current rate of $160USD per bitcoin@ 7%

[sarcasm]
Yeah, I think 7% is too low, most people won't bother. Make it 10%, that should really motivate people to leave. 
[/sarcasm]

I believe Eleuthria is all ears when it comes to ideas on how to balance the load among the other pools in the community. Since he has time and time again shown he is very trustworthy pool op, a get rich quick scheme is not his intention.

[eleuthria]

So the plan is to solve the problem with your own get rich quick scheme......
at the current rate of $160USD per bitcoin@ 7%

I'd love to hear your idea of how to get users to leave the pool willingly.  Kicking them off entirely is not an option since not all miners have backup pools defined.  Not accepting new users is not an option since the vast majority of speed being added comes from pre-existing accounts.

I'm giving users advance warning of what will happen if the pool continues to grow too fast.  They also have time to move before fee increases actually effect them.  The whole point is trying to make other pools seem more attractive so that users will re-distribute more evenly, not try to lock in users and then jack up fees.