[ANN] BTC Guild's Mitigation Plan

[Mylon]

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.

- Start off by disabling new accounts.
- Have a warning pop-up when a new miner gets added, that fees have to rise, in order to prevent the 51% issue. (and that any new miner added, gets a PPS rate penality, depending on how big the pool is at that time)
- Not sure how much things your API can do, but if somebody is monitoring their rigs off your emails, you should be able to send a mass-email in the same way explaining/warning users.
- When hitting above 45% start daily emails on everyone you have emails on.
- Start hourly warning on active miners. (you might alert some of your users, that catch these alerts, that you wouldn't alert otherwise)
- Make sure to explain that the moment the pool drops enough again, fees will go down again.

(extra add) - Would it be possible, to deny new miner connections to the pool, once you hit a certain % / Gh? Don't have much knowledge about the stratum protocol, but if you can deny new connections and just keep existing connections alive, you would be golding imo.

In sort, any feature that gets used to alert miners are down, or is used to announce other important messages, get it out there. (PPS rate increase, is just as hurt-full as down miner for most people)

But yes, beyond making sure you get the message is out there as widely as possible, and giving it enough time. There is nothing you can do but increase PPS rate, once again keep spamming the message and some people will leave. Whether it is for the PPS rate, or to help prevent the 51% issue.

[iCEBREAKER]

When Guild goes over 51%, let's fork the blockchain, re-distributing all coins ever mined to Guild members on a proportionate basis.

Bitcoin shall henceforth be known as Guildcoin...   

[MashRinx]

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

I think this is a good option to pursue, if possible, as well.

User 67117 has almost 7 times the number of submitted shares than even the 2nd highest contributor to the pool, and that account has been hashing how long compared to some who probably have been mining with BTC Guild solidly since you started in April 2011?

[eleuthria]

I have emailed the ASICMINER team about their plans for the distribution of hash rate.  They are supposed to be deploying a significant amount of hash power soon.  Depending on where that hash power is pointed, this entire problem may be gone very soon (at least for the BTC Guild part...ASICMINER may be the new threat though if BFL doesn't get their act together after screwing around for 9 months).

[Beutelschneider]

I'v joined BTCguild as one of the first thousands (few weeks before you got that cute kitten ) and haven't increased my few MHash over the time (i don't have to pay for power, i hold shares of a small hydroelectric plant )

I would favor a way to penalize those powerful miners by an increasing fee. All the small miners would still be on 5% 'til they reach 50MHash, next step could be 250MHash with 6.5%, all over 500MHash 8% for example.

Fee depending on the number of shares you put in on the last 24hrs/block compared to the small scale miners (like me) would be an option, too.

Goal should be to encourage the big ones to point some of their power to another pool, not scare them away and make them leave!

[jovicastmn]

I think the best is don't allow new accounts in next few weeks, and reduced block found on that way.

[Mike Hearn]

I just wanted to say thanks to eleuthria for this. It takes someone seriously committed to the projects future to start turning away new customers. This kind of thing makes me think, you know what? Maybe we actually have a chance of success with this crazy adventure

[Kluge]

Miners with a protocol supporting automatic switching by pool request? Only need 10-15% of BTC Guild hashpower running it to make a difference.

Maybe el could work with another pool op, where he maybe splits the normal fee 50/50 when miners need to be re-routed. Offer users a slight bonus when they're switched during "overage" to promote use of miners supporting the protocol. BTC Guild & another pool would need software to communicate when users need to be routed (and which), as well as when they can be safely switched back over. El would have a pooled account set up at the other pool to do this, where instructions on where/how to re-route are provided by the pool with the overage.

This could keep BTCGuild at an "ideal" 40% or lower while not punishing users, not totally ruining el's revenues, and without miners needing to know everything going on. Dunno if it's feasible, just throwing ideas out.  

[eleuthria]

I've received a response from the ASICMINER team.  They are aware of BTC Guild's growing share of the network, and have told me that their next batches of power will be split among more pools or even solo mining to avoid a pool reaching 51%.  They have also identified that selling hardware is on the table if their own share of the network approaches the 51% level.  This doesn't mean the 51% plan in place will change, but it hopefully means the pool will not hit the 45% stage, and any increases in fees if we hit 40% should only last for 1-2 weeks.

[Adrian-x]

a long read but worth it.

I started mining in a pool in 2011, and after using 5 or 6 services, settled with BTC GUILD.

BTC Guild was my prefer choice because of the simple easy to understand UI and the fact the payments were consistent and fair. 

Your success is not for any other reasons in my opinion. (I might add I never received my Stratum Beta Rewards balance and I lost some coins when you transition to a new platform way back, so not a perfect track record)

I see Mining much like I see politics, a democracy it starts out with democratically elected representatives in an House of Representatives (in this case Miners are representatives), they then Group together to form political parties to push forward there common interests (and So Mining Pools are born).

You should not squander and punish users for your success; this is a perversion of free market thinking.

I would like you to start a real Bitcoin Miners Guild the Guild should then become a member of the https://bitcoinfoundation.org/  I propose you employ a part time representative someone with a Austrian background in economics to work with the BTC Foundation (put all the applicant to a vote by all BTC Guild Members). This representative will then dumb down all sorts of considerations and put it to a vote for Guild Members - that will be his mandate.
(i belong to the CFIB here in Canada and they do a great job of getting members input this way)

By doing this you keep miners in controlee, and keep the free market principles alive. 

I propose you also (radical I know) open source your platform and web API and compete with it privately.  Either invests your good fortune in making the Bitcoin backbone open and stronger or give some back as profit.

[Adrian-x]

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.

@eleuthria your motives are good you need to change your game and play with the new tools you have been given.

My big frustration as a miner in a mining pool is I have no say in how the blockchane evolves, if you raise fees, use it for something related get involved with the BTC foundation, start a Google summer of code type program, find out what your miners want, you won't keep the opportunity if you do something wrong, you will only keep the power if you use it, don't throw it away.

[jgarzik]

+1 thanks for being responsible and responsive about this issue.

BTC Guild is currently my favorite ASIC mining pool, because it is the most stable and has the most features.

Just switched to Eligius (2nd favorite) until hash rate gets down a bit.

It sounds odd, but:  if BTC Guild hash rate comes down, I will definitely switch back.

Great website UI and very reliable service.

[AniceInovation]

If over 45%, start pointing the excess hash rate to another pool and warn miners. Problem solved.

[spudy12]

It's good to see someone who cares about the community and bitcoin!

Keep up the good work!

[tiktoc]

If over 45%, start pointing the excess hash rate to another pool and warn miners. Problem solved.

Not as simple as it sounds. How will the miners get paid for their shares?

[NightAss]

I dont know if it has been sed or not by why not just make a difrent pool


pool1.btcguild.com:4575   pool2.btcguild.com:5452

and combine them on the websites frunt end

[Ekaros]

I dont know if it has been sed or not by why not just make a difrent pool


pool1.btcguild.com:4575   pool2.btcguild.com:5452

and combine them on the websites frunt end

You still have to trust same guys...

They don't want to have 51%+ of hashing power, EVER.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Could you not redirect the "surplus" hashpower to another pool of your choice (P2Pool springs to mind) until the "threat" has passed?

Details around fees might be problematic but I'd imagine there might be a smaller pool or two out there that might be happy to get the boost from time to time and forgo fees for a super miner like BTCGuild overflow.

[Ekaros]

Could you not redirect the "surplus" hashpower to another pool of your choice (P2Pool springs to mind) until the "threat" has passed?

Details around fees might be problematic but I'd imagine there might be a smaller pool or two out there that might be happy to get the boost from time to time and forgo fees for a super miner like BTCGuild overflow.

Problem is having control of such hashing power in the first place. Distributing it around really doesn't help on that. There is still potential to grab it and use it.

They go and distribute the hashing power. Now, if they were to stop this at one point and try something like double spent attack? There is nothing to prevent this, apart from not gaining the power in the first place.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Could you not redirect the "surplus" hashpower to another pool of your choice (P2Pool springs to mind) until the "threat" has passed?

Details around fees might be problematic but I'd imagine there might be a smaller pool or two out there that might be happy to get the boost from time to time and forgo fees for a super miner like BTCGuild overflow.

Problem is having control of such hashing power in the first place. Distributing it around really doesn't help on that. There is still potential to grab it and use it.

They go and distribute the hashing power. Now, if they were to stop this at one point and try something like double spent attack? There is nothing to prevent this, apart from not gaining the power in the first place.

Well it all comes down to who got what blocks right?

If BTCGuild is not stamping out more than 51% of the blocks there is no threat ... it doesn't matter how that hashpower got directed towards the blocks.