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

[Fiyasko]

When I have other things I'm typing / searching through, it's easier to just let someone reply with the answer.  :-)

I will be adding you to my ignore list now.

That's not a bad idea.

Random reply!

Look He's cheating for forum post counts!! Cheater!!! xD
The biggest cheat is what im about to do

+1

[DiabloD3]

Friendly neighborhood mod here:

Current network hashrate has dropped to 6Thash, with Deepbit at 3Thash I request everyone jump to another pool until either Deepbit drops below 2hash or network hashrate starts increasing again.

ArsBitcoin, ABCPool and Bitcoins.lc are good targets to jump to.

[slush]

Hey Diablo, what's your commision from Ars, ABC and Bitcoin.lc? I can pay a little more to be the first on your list ;-)

[gmaxwell]

Hey Diablo, what's your commision from Ars, ABC and Bitcoin.lc? I can pay a little more to be the first on your list ;-)

Obviously you need to change your pool name to AAABitcoin. 

But really, moving hash power from the biggest to the second or third biggest doesn't improve the over consolidation of hash power much.   50% isn't this magical point where it's all terrible where 49% is just fine.  (since with a simple majority you'd have to hold it for a long time to pull of any interesting attacks).

I know you were kidding, but some people around here don't have a sense of humor. Promoting some of the small but not tiny is the simple, rational thing to do and doesn't require any kickbacks.

[DiabloD3]

Hey Diablo, what's your commision from Ars, ABC and Bitcoin.lc? I can pay a little more to be the first on your list ;-)

I just listed the three largest pools with no fee.

[[Tycho]]

I request everyone...

Oh, so that's where bitcoin's central authority is :)

You are a bit wrong comparing apples and oranges. You don't know network's total hashrate, you can only know network's resulting "blocks per unit of time" speed.
It may be a 12 TH/s with a very bad luck, or the opposite. So if you are comparing network with some pools, you should compare same parameters, like that "blocks per unit of time" (which is almost useless because it's based on past luck).

What I'm trying to say is that deepbit's hashrate didn't changed dramatically in last days and I really doubt that only those who aren't mining in deepbit are leaving the network (which can explain such increase of pool's part if it was real), so this deviation is probably just caused by luck.

[DiabloD3]

I request everyone...

Oh, so that's where bitcoin's central authority is

You are a bit wrong comparing apples and oranges. You don't know network's total hashrate, you can only know network's resulting "blocks per unit of time" speed.
It may be a 12 TH/s with a very bad luck, or the opposite. So if you are comparing network with some pools, you should compare same parameters, like that "blocks per unit of time" (which is almost useless because it's based on past luck).

What I'm trying to say is that deepbit's hashrate didn't changed dramatically in last days and I really doubt that only those who aren't mining in deepbit are leaving the network (which can explain such increase of pool's part if it was real), so this deviation is probably just caused by luck.

No, Deepbit's hasn't changed dramatically, the network's has. Besides, I'm just asking temporarily, I don't particularly like any pool having a crack at a 51% attack.

[Unacceptable]

Wow,what a paranoid group (bitcoin miners) we have become,the only one to fear is BitcoinExpress,DUH!!!!!! Ok,maybe a couple of others too

[DiabloD3]

Wow,what a paranoid group (bitcoin miners) we have become,the only one to fear is BitcoinExpress,DUH!!!!!! Ok,maybe a couple or others too

I thought the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?

[Unacceptable]

Wow,what a paranoid group (bitcoin miners) we have become,the only one to fear is BitcoinExpress,DUH!!!!!! Ok,maybe a couple or others too

I thought the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?

See,now we're fearing fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fiyasko]

I request everyone...

Oh, so that's where bitcoin's central authority is

You are a bit wrong comparing apples and oranges. You don't know network's total hashrate, you can only know network's resulting "blocks per unit of time" speed.
It may be a 12 TH/s with a very bad luck, or the opposite. So if you are comparing network with some pools, you should compare same parameters, like that "blocks per unit of time" (which is almost useless because it's based on past luck).

What I'm trying to say is that deepbit's hashrate didn't changed dramatically in last days and I really doubt that only those who aren't mining in deepbit are leaving the network (which can explain such increase of pool's part if it was real), so this deviation is probably just caused by luck.

No, Deepbit's hasn't changed dramatically, the network's has. Besides, I'm just asking temporarily, I don't particularly like any pool having a crack at a 51% attack.

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.
WHY?!?!
Because Nothings gonna fucking happen. Why would he fuck himself outta his (est i really dont have a good idea) 3,500/mo paycheck that the pools getting him just to grab some coins!

It would ease peoples minds about the whole "OMG IF IT PASSES 51% WERE ALL FUCKED"
But at the same time, If the fake blocks are made, Well shit. DOWN HILL GOES BITCOINS for a lonnnnnng lonnnnngggg time.

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

[os2sam]

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

Hmm, wasn't that the main premise of the Star Wars story?
Sam

[Fiyasko]

Personally i think we should only have One pool, One nice big 90%nethash pool, Run by all the leaders, Democracy style, Where NO INDIVIDUAL has any power, But as a group can make changes.

Hmm, wasn't that the main premise of the Star Wars story?
Sam

You sir. Get One Hundred And Fifty Points.
But in starwars, The "rebels" didnt win now did they?
Quite confident that theirs (in starwars) like a 20% Jedi Order (the "rebellion") and 80% Imperial ("the bad guys") (assuming that the Point in Time Within the starswars series, Im speaking asif were on book #7)

Soo. That in metaphor To ME, Translates into

75% in one pool 25% off solo mining

[[Tycho]]

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

[johnj]

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question:  Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

[Eveofwar]

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question:  Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

You're late.

No, the "total network hashrate" is just an estimate, based off of the blocks generated per time.

[sadpandatech]

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

I may be late to the party, quick question:  Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

You're late.

No, the "total network hashrate" is just an estimate, based off of the blocks generated per time.

  Your statement is true but does not answer the question.  Yes, theoretically he could refuse new connections based on some aribitrary set of rules. But the better question is, why should he?  He is one guy, running a pool verses thousands of people connecting. If the majority cared so much about the 50% thing they would not connect when it reached such a point.

  Tycho, even if the pool did have over 50% someone would still have to hack and control all the bitcoin daemons right? Beyond that arn't you running multiple daemons on seperate server instances anyhows?(assuming) Since I have not looked into any of the pool software to see how it handles connecting to daemons or if it would support connecting to a daemon that was not 'localhost'.

  Cheers

[[Tycho]]

I may be late to the party, quick question:  Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

1) There is no way to know for sure if it's more than 50% or not.
2) Exceeding 50% doesn't hurts my pool or my users, so there is no need for such countermeasures, especially when wast majority of bitcoin community do not care about that.

[johnj]

I may be late to the party, quick question:  Would it be possible for you to throttle your connections to where if you start to exceed 50% of the total network, it refuses any other workers from connecting?

1) There is no way to know for sure if it's more than 50% or not.
2) Exceeding 50% doesn't hurts my pool or my users, so there is no need for such countermeasures, especially when wast majority of bitcoin community do not care about that.

1) Ahh I see

2)  While I disagree, I may be in that minority that does care.

In either case, thanks for the quick reply!

[Fiyasko]

I think it would do the CoinNetwork some GOOD, if deepbit At Some Point temporarily controlled >51% of the network hash rate.

Some people think that this already happened more than once.
I believe that nothing bad will happen in this case and if someone else will gain >50% and do "bad things", the network will heal itself.

The community should either a) create a good monitoring service, b) develop something to prevent any bad things from happening when some entity is over 50%, c) stop complaining
because if a pool can be over 50%, then other miners can do this too, and then you won't be able to stop it.

So lets shutup and hope to hell One dude doesnt manage this eh boys?