[DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too

[Atroxes]

"What is problem?"

The risk implications of this:

Wake me up when we reach 51%.

[1702275810]

1702275810

[CbineUltra]

Right ok, I see your blinded with greed. I guess you'll have to learn the hard way.

He provides a service for a fee. People use his service.

As they would say in Soviet Russia: "What is problem?"

I don't know why people don't understand this its pretty basic. if you don't like the fee go elsewhere but as you can tell there is a reason we stay. 

[hazek]

If you knew anything about statistics, Atroxes, you'd know that even right now there's already a good chance his pool finds a few blocks in a row, 51% is a myth.

Even with 40% he will get 6 blocks in a row 0.41% of the time meaning he only needs 244 attempts to succeed once. Is that in any way shape or form good for the health and security of Bitcoin? I seriously doubt Satoshi would be happy if he saw a client have this much of the total hashing speed, and it even arguably defeats the whole point of mining.

EDIT: And I understand that everyone is participating voluntarily it's just that I don't want to see us suffer even a single fraud attack which could potentially bring the whole thing down.

[leepfrog]

Tycho I dont know how much you know about server/application security, but I hope it is enough to realize that there is absolute nobody who is 100% secure from hacking/cracking attempts.
Lets assume you know this and you also honor the values of BTC (aside the fact that it might have made you a rich man) it must be evident to you that it is not a good thing to have a pool having around or even above 50% hashing power.

Well there is a desicion what you put first:

• personal benefit
• well-being of the bitcoin economy

In case it should be the latter you relly should take some actions to prevent your pool growing even more.
We are talking about a system which allowed you to yield some serious profit and you are just about to create an instance which will (even if this is not your intention) be able to permanently harm this very system!

So I think it would be only fair in the face of people which support your personal benefit (by joining your pool) to secure the integrity of the bitcoin system by preventing your pool to grow bigger than 40% (even if this means some minor cut in your personal benefit).

/edit: Oh, and before I get mistaken. I honor your efforts to create deepbit.net and make it the biggest pool by providing what the miners actually want. But that does not change anything of the root problem.

[CubedRoot]

I dont understand why everyone is so upset with Tycho... he doesnt FORCE anyone to using his pool.  There are alot of other pools out there now, and there is still Solo mining.  If anything, the haters should be upset with the miners using deepbit more than the pool owner.

I think Tycho works hard for his users, and I dont want to minimize what he's doing. He doesnt "own" the majority of hashing power, all the miners in his pool do...and they can leave at any time.  Currently, I am mining over at BTCGuild, just because I like the email notification of a downed miner, and I like their web interface alot better.  When I started mining, I was at deepbit.  So, in closing I guess I am saying is why the hell is everyone griping at Tycho for running his pool?

[leepfrog]

I don't think anyone is directly upset with tycho. But as a matter of fact he is the only one who can change something in this situation. All new miners will chose one of the biggest pools (or even _THE_ biggets) out of insecurity. So tycho is the instance which has to put a "STOP" sign before it.

I think nobody doubts that tycho worked (and works) hard to provide a good service to his users, but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.

/edit: correcting spelling mistakes

[hazek]

I don't think anyone is directly upset with tycho. But as a matter of fact he is the only one who can change something in this situation. All new miners will chose one of the biggest pools (or even _THE_ biggets) out of insecurity. So tycho is the instance which has to put a "STOP" sign before it.

I think nobody doubt's that tycho worked (ans works) hard to provide a good service to his users but that simply is not the thing that matters here. It is the thread that a single instance with more than 50% hashing power (may it be intentional harmful or not) poses to the whole system.

Precisely.

[bullox]

I urge Tycho to close new registrations.  The money you are generating running this service will be worthless if the security of the network is deemed insecure.  It is in your own best interest to not let this happen.   While the hashers should send their GPU's to other pools or solo, YOU are able to directly control this potential problem in lieu of others bad decisions who don't understand the big picture.

[TurdHurdur]

I urge Tycho to close new registrations.  The money you are generating running this service will be worthless if the security of the network is deemed insecure.  It is in your own best interest to not let this happen.   While the hashers should send their GPU's to other pools or solo, YOU are able to directly control this potential problem in lieu of others bad decisions who don't understand the big picture.

Why would he prevent himself from being the winner of Bitcoin? Could you provide some incentive other than assumptions about how the network's security is deemed?

[leepfrog]

Could you provide some incentive other than assumptions about how the network's security is deemed?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

[TurdHurdur]

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Incentive to the owner of the pool.

[leepfrog]

Or to the people trying to get access to the pool/the pools servers.
To stress it again: it is irrelevant if the pool owner or external people are the bad guys. What matters is the existence of an instance with over 50% hashing power - no matter what the original intensions might be.

[TurdHurdur]

Or to the people trying to get access to the pool/the pools servers.
To stress it again: it is irrelevant if the pool owner or external people are the bad guys. What matters is the existence of an instance with over 50% hashing power - no matter what the original intensions might be.

Ah, you're not urging Tycho to close registrations, alright.

[tehcodez]

49% of $100M is $49M. 51% of 0 is 0.

Speed kills...greed kills.

[Veldy]

So with the difficulty increases will mining at some point become completely unprofitable no matter how much mh/s or gh/s you have and we all will have to stop? Or does it always even out no matter what the difficulty is? If it does end up unprofitable for everyone will bitcoins die out, or do you guys/gals that have been doing this for a while know there will always be a profit in this?

If people keep building giant expensive rigs, the difficulty will rise quickly until they are the average [meaning that they are not making more than what they started with if they merely kept up with difficulty.  Long story short, is that, yes, if enough people continue to put massive mining power online [often with significant debt], it may make the more average miner become small potatoes and cause them to potentially drop out [depends on the price of the bitcoin I guess] and many who invested a lot of money will become the new "average Joe" and potentially never earn back what they put into mining.

Yes, it is a possibility.  Pretty much anything is right now though.

Also - I believe you should have posted this in a different thread.

[Veldy]

49% of $100M is $49M. 51% of 0 is 0.

Speed kills...greed kills.

That was a completely worthless analogy  .  0 is completely invalid, because simply put, you are not mining so it doesn't matter what the percentage fee is.

I pointed out before, 3% is too high for you, then go somewhere else.  However, Tycho has charged 3% all along and he is running the largest pool there is.  You can't argue with facts.  The market can take care of itself in matters such as this.

[[Tycho]]

Well, looks like I have to repeat my opinion again.

1. I care about my users and I will do my best to offer the best service. Closed registration doesn't looks like the part of best service to me.

2. You are saying that in case of attack people will see that bitcoins are not reliable and the bitcoin value will drop, that's why you want me to do something.
But this fact itself means that all the bitcoin security depends on the free will of ONE man ? Are you really think it is that insecure ?

[error]

Well, looks like I have to repeat my opinion again.

1. I care about my users and I will do my best to offer the best service. Closed registration doesn't looks like the part of best service to me.

2. You are saying that in case of attack people will see that bitcoins are not reliable and the bitcoin value will drop, that's why you want me to do something.
But this fact itself means that all the bitcoin security depends on the free will of ONE man ? Are you really think it is that insecure ?

This is why I left Deepbit.

[yetis]

Split the pool in two or more bells is my suggestion.

[tehcodez]

49% of $100M is $49M. 51% of 0 is 0.

Speed kills...greed kills.

That was a completely worthless analogy  .  0 is completely invalid, because simply put, you are not mining so it doesn't matter what the percentage fee is.

I pointed out before, 3% is too high for you, then go somewhere else.  However, Tycho has charged 3% all along and he is running the largest pool there is.  You can't argue with facts.  The market can take care of itself in matters such as this.

Notice I didn't quote the percent as a proportion of the fee you refer to (or actually anything else). I'll make it simple for you, since analogies aren't your strong suit. My point serves to highlight what pool stands to gain and lose (and absolutely nothing to do with fees. Trust > fees at this point).  Through whatever means, critical failure = violation of trust = corruption of concept = game over. Majority block/mining power is a known weakness. Known.

His intentions to "serve his users" maybe be good, but...

Maybe this cliche helps: The road to hell was paved with good intentions. In this case, it was also done by a road crew making 138 BTC/day with a pool script.

Then again, if he (and we) doesn't do it, some bank's ASIC clusters eventually will.