gdbutler (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
 |
April 04, 2013, 10:39:05 PM |
|
According to blockchain.info, BTC Guild currently holds 49% of the total network hashing power.
This goes against everything that bitcoin is about. We are centralizing our mining power into a single mega pool. Although I have nothing against BTC Guild, this cannot continue. Miners, if you are currently mining with BTC Guild, please consider switching to another pool to help promote decentralization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3578
Merit: 1090
Think for yourself
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:09:45 PM |
|
According to blockchain.info, BTC Guild currently holds 49% of the total network hashing power.
This goes against everything that bitcoin is about. We are centralizing our mining power into a single mega pool. Although I have nothing against BTC Guild, this cannot continue. Miners, if you are currently mining with BTC Guild, please consider switching to another pool to help promote decentralization.
Ohh Nooooo Stop mining at Deepbit!!!!!!! |
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:15:12 PM |
|
According to blockchain.info, BTC Guild currently holds 49% of the total network hashing power.
This goes against everything that bitcoin is about. We are centralizing our mining power into a single mega pool. Although I have nothing against BTC Guild, this cannot continue. Miners, if you are currently mining with BTC Guild, please consider switching to another pool to help promote decentralization.
Blockchain.info uses a 24 hour window. That is completely useless information because luck can play a HUGE factor in reported pool "% of network". BTC Guild is still LESS THAN 40% of the network: http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/chart.phpBTC Guild has LOST speed (not much) recently. But today's luck has been insane (look at our PPLNS stats and compare the Per Share rates on recent closed shifts to the PPS Rate). |
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
fredtrader
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:17:07 PM |
|
Is the 51% danger based on hash power or mined blocks? and could a pool use it despite being comprised of many miners?
|
|
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:23:27 PM |
|
Is the 51% danger based on hash power or mined blocks? and could a pool use it despite being comprised of many miners?
The only way to reliably execute the double-spend shenanigans is to have >= 51% of the speed (thus being able to ALWAYS eventually produce 51% of the blocks). Right now you're seeing what happens when a large pool has extremely good luck, while other pools are apparently having bad luck. In a 24-hour window (which is WAY too small for anything remotely reliable), that causes very fun charts that make people's heads explode apparently. |
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
os2sam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3578
Merit: 1090
Think for yourself
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:26:37 PM |
|
Is the 51% danger based on hash power or mined blocks? and could a pool use it despite being comprised of many miners?
The 51% danger is based on the intent owner/controller of the hash power. Whether it's Deepbit or BTCGuild there is nothing to really worry about. That being said if it did happen and for a sustained period of time I would be uncomfortable with it as well. But when 51% has happened in the past it was for very brief periods of time AND nothing bad happened. Sam |
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
|
|
fredtrader
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 04, 2013, 11:29:11 PM |
|
Is the 51% danger based on hash power or mined blocks? and could a pool use it despite being comprised of many miners?
The only way to reliably execute the double-spend shenanigans is to have >= 51% of the speed (thus being able to ALWAYS eventually produce 51% of the blocks). Right now you're seeing what happens when a large pool has extremely good luck, while other pools are apparently having bad luck. In a 24-hour window (which is WAY too small for anything remotely reliable), that causes very fun charts that make people's heads explode apparently. That's cool, no danger right now then. But if they increased their mining speed, even if they don't try to use it for anything malicious it will still cause problems of confidence in bitcoin since it will prove its possible to attain that kind of speed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nancarrow
|
|
April 05, 2013, 07:23:36 AM |
|
FWIW I moved my piddly 5 GH/s over from BTCguild to MtRed last week. But a couple of the bigger players ought to consider moving to smaller pools. Not that I have anything against eleuthria, he's done an amazing job and I'm happy to have mined at BTCguild for most of my bitlife.
|
If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
|
|
|
MaGNeT
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1002
Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na
|
|
April 06, 2013, 04:33:22 PM |
|
I use the "--balance --rotate 20" parameter option in CGMiner to mine at 3 pools for 20 minutes an hour.
It's also a failover system, if one or two pools go down (ddos?) it chooses the working pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
c1010010
|
|
April 06, 2013, 10:10:56 PM |
|
I use the "--balance --rotate 20" parameter option in CGMiner to mine at 3 pools for 20 minutes an hour.
It's also a failover system, if one or two pools go down (ddos?) it chooses the working pool.
TIL, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
