How are large mining pools not a threat?

[DeboraMeeks]

I think it takes about 4-5 of these large pools (BTCGuild Size) to get the %51 enough for this. Now to get all these people insane and to target the network they benefit from can be considered as a conspiracy theory. also if this is noticed miners will simply leave that pool.

[1714992009]

1714992009

[dperfect]

I think it takes about 4-5 of these large pools (BTCGuild Size) to get the %51 enough for this. Now to get all these people insane and to target the network they benefit from can be considered as a conspiracy theory. also if this is noticed miners will simply leave that pool.

You can just go right ahead with your blind ignorance. I respect your freedom to do so.


For those of us actually concerned about Bitcoin's longevity, how about giving some thought to my proposal earlier: what if we (and the Bitcoin devs) just built the concept of P2Pool (something similar) into Bitcoin itself? Basically, for any block to be accepted anywhere, it would have to be mined by someone participating in the one - and only - decentralized "pool".

If a system is only as strong/secure as its weakest component, I would consider mining to be that for Bitcoin. The way mining currently works encourages centralized mining pools (which happen to consolidate over time into large pools). This flies in the face of Bitcoin's core, foundational objectives.


The Bitcoin protocol is a piece of software. As a software developer, I can tell you that no piece of software is EVER perfect. I often get the feeling that people on these forums assume Bitcoin is perfect in its current state. That is not the case (the Bitcoin devs will be the first to tell you it's not perfect), but it's getting better every day.

So, why not fix this aspect of Bitcoin now before it becomes a problem? Why leave it up for debate, letting people speculate about how feasible it may or may not be? Why not just, you know, actually face these problems like clear-minded adults? I realize that changing the protocol (especially to modify it in this way) is no trivial task. But the whole concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency was no trivial task either, yet it exists (thanks to some hard work), and it's pretty dang awesome in my opinion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it when weaknesses are identified (however "unlikely" we may think they are).

[Cryddit]

One serious problem with a 51% attack is that the attacker can just ignore other people's blocks.  Given more than half the hashing power, eventually the blockchain he creates all by his lonesome is longer.  At which point, he pockets all the block rewards. 

Heck, he could even start mining ten or twenty blocks in the past, forcing a chain reorg when he catches up, and thereby get block rewards that were given to someone else before his attack began. 

It is not at all unusual to see seven or eight out of every nine blocks go to one of the top three mining pools.  Even the top two account for more than half.  If they collude, then they can just freeze out all other miners until they feel like letting go. 

Of course you wouldn't want to do it for more than a few hours a week or so, because hey, people would notice and then the value of what you stole would crash to nearly nothing.

Y'all may be more worried about double spends, and a merchant who finds himself out of merchandise that someone bought with coins on an orphaned fork.  But that's surely not the only thing you need to worry about.