Isn't solo mining better for the Bitcoin network?

[dhenson]

I may be misunderstanding something, but wouldn't it be more advantageous to have more people running full nodes, mining solo than in 10-15 large pools? 

I realize this next question is a moving target, but how many GH/s would you say is a current minimum you would have to have before considering mining solo?

[1715080288]

1715080288

[1715080288]

1715080288

[-ck]

As difficulty keeps rising, there is no point taking one moment in time and saying "you'll get a block every 100 days" and expect solo mining to be okay with you averaging finding a block every 100 days. Taking into account the fact that diff rises, you need to ensure you get a reasonable amount before each difficulty change. Pulling numbers out of my arse, I'd say getting paid at least 4 times before each diff change would be the minimum necessary to benefit. That means at the current difficulty of 11.2 million, that you need at least 45 million shares per 2 weeks, or ~2200 shares per minute. This works out to about 160GH for now... Or doing the calculation another way, you need to get 4 out of the 2016 blocks per difficulty change which means you need to be almost .2% of the total network hashrate.

[Prattler]

Solo mining is best for the the network if you keep up with the software updates and you have the time to do your own fee policy. Most people don't want to bother with that, they're ok to delegate that power to others.

P2pool is the best option to solo mine (make your own blocks) with shared payment.

[Lethn]

I think mining will eventually be something that someone will do for the fun of it and to occasionally get lucky, I think yes, certainly solo mining is more advantageous for the network but a lot of people who are mining are purely in it for the money so they won't do it and scream at anyone who does. It does concern me sometimes how centralised Bitcoin is becoming in some areas, it certainly doesn't help as well that people on this forum insist on trolling anyone who asks for help with tech stuff regarding solo mining.

[-ck]

I think mining will eventually be something that someone will do for the fun of it and to occasionally get lucky, I think yes, certainly solo mining is more advantageous for the network but a lot of people who are mining are purely in it for the money so they won't do it and scream at anyone who does. It does concern me sometimes how centralised Bitcoin is becoming in some areas, it certainly doesn't help as well that people on this forum insist on trolling anyone who asks for help with tech stuff regarding solo mining.

Well I've certainly never "trolled" anyone for asking for help on solo mining. There are plenty of guides on how to do it. The real issue is, if we get every casual new miner only solo mining at this level of network difficulty, the vast majority will just give up after 6 months, having spent a lot on electricity and not earned a single cent. Those with enough hashpower to mine solo can't do it by default very easily either. The more miners bitcoin has, the better it is for bitcoin, so we need incentive for every single miner to join and stay on. Solo mining, unfortunately, does not provide that incentive, but pooled mining does. The network does not lend itself to a system of only solo miners - especially in this ASIC dominated world that bitcoin is becoming. I had high hopes for p2pool to fill that niche in the middle, but it has yet to scale to the new magnitude and hardware either. Thus we are left with pooled mining as the next best option. I have, however, suggested on a number of occasions that there is definitely room for more pools than currently exist. However, the barrier for entry to become a successful pool is currently massive, and the stakes are very high with an awful lot of money at stake.

People have argued for a micropayment type system instead of the big block every 10 minute idea that bitcoin has, but we would lose a lot of the security and gain a lot of the problems with frequent forks and orphans inherent in such a system. I lament the difficulty that there is inherent in many casual miners just joining bitcoin, but remember, this is part experiment as well as revolution, and the actual long term solutions are evolving around the system.

[BadPenny]

Solo mining is best for the the network if you keep up with the software updates and you have the time to do your own fee policy. Most people don't want to bother with that, they're ok to delegate that power to others.

Staying up-to-date can sometimes be a bad thing:

Hello everyone,

there is an emergency right now: the block chain has split between 0.7+earlier and 0.8 nodes. I'll explain the reasons in a minute, but this is what you need to know now:

• After a discussion on #bitcoin-dev, it seems trying to get everyone on the old chain again is the least risky solution.
• If you're a miner, please do not mine on 0.8 code. Stop, or switch back to 0.7. BTCGuild* is switching to 0.7, so the old chain will get a majority hash rate soon.
• If you're a merchant: please stop processing transactions until the chains converge.
• If you're on 0.7 or older, the client will likely tell you that you need to upgrade. Do not follow this advise - the warning should go away as soon as the old chain catches up.
• If you are not a merchant or a miner, don't worry.

*not a solo miner.

[Prattler]

So true! A solo miner should really really care about the bitcoin network and that takes lots of time. To catch that last disaster, you'd need to sit on IRC 24/7. If you have very little hashpower, it doesn't make much sense.

P2pool is still great! Solo mining with shared payment. Go check it out!

[azw409]

It seems that, pretty soon, mining will be inaccessible to most because ASIC's will dominate which are expensive and hard to obtain and mining on GPU's will be a pointless waste of electricity. It's only marginally economical now because the BTC/USD rate is relatively good. Unless the exchange rate increases in line with difficulty, I think we will see a large exodus in miners and the void will be filled with a small number of the ASIC owning aristocracy e.g. BFL 'testing' their customers' machines.

It would be nice to introduce some alternative proof of work algorithms into Bitcoin like scrypt so that miners had the choice which to use and could stay competitive with ASIC's. So long as the block was clearly marked with which algorithm was used and that the client could validate either then this could work well.

[-ck]

ASICs, when they finally proliferate, will not be expensive and out of reach (one day).

[cdog]

"ONLY ignoring luke-jr"

Wow, I have even MORE respect for you now...