ghash.io is becoming SHOCKINGLY AGGRESSIVE NOW, closing in 45%

[Peter R]

Is ghash.io's hashing power primarily from independent miners pointing at them, or from their own in-house mining (cex.io, etc)?

Does anyone know who the two big bitcoin mines, one in Iceland and the other in Hong Kong, mine for?  Are they owned by one of the major pools, or are they solo miners that have nothing to do with the big names in pooled-mining?

[cryptocoinsnews]

https://blockchain.info/pools

did btcguild users jumped over to ghash?

or did ghash keep buying machines?

Can't imagine what is going to happen if they keep increasing their hashing power at this rate......

Just posted the warning here: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/09/warning-ghash-io-nearing-51-leave-pool/

[RandyMagnum]

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Admit it guys, you all want to see what would happen if a pool reaches >=51%. I sure do, maybe they will have a change a heart and maybe...surprise, they wouldn't do anything.

[2017orso]

Admit it guys, you all want to see what would happen if a pool reaches >=51%. I sure do, maybe they will have a change a heart and maybe...surprise, they wouldn't do anything.

No, I don't want to see that.

[Dafar]

Is this a time to jump into fiat?

[Peter R]

Indeed, the pie chart is based on the actual solved blocks and not the physical hash rate.  Given the random nature of solving a block, we expect normal statistical variation to make certain pools appear stronger than they really are for a while, and other pools appear weaker.

Nevertheless, I think we'd all prefer to see no pool with more than 25% of that pie.  

[greyman]

As we know, ghash.io has their own hardware, which they are leasing through cex.io, and then also there are "external" miners who joined their pool. Do we know which percentage are the external miners?

Another question is, why other pools also don't do merged mining to incentivize more miners?

[Akka]

There is not only the issue of a possible 51% attack.

Remember that Bitcoin Hardforked in the Beginning of 2013? This issue was resolved very quickly (I didn't even notice it happened) thanks to pool owners that worked together with the developers very well.

The Question is would this work out as well, if such an event would happen now? Would ghash.io owners even care? Do they even communicate with the devs?

But on the basis, let's just see. Bitcoin is an experiment if an entirely unregulated decentralized system can work. If Bitcoiners are willing to sacrifice the security of the system for minimal provit, than the answer to that experiment is simply: No.

[Peter R]

Ok lets stop the FUD people. Remember 51% attack only happens if the pool does it. Do you think that Ghash.io who have techinically two businesses are going to pull of a 51% attack if they get to 51% of the hash rate. Probably not since they are making really good money, why stop the income now? Wait so the government is actually Ghash.io OMG now lets freak out but wait! If all this money is pumped into bitcoin, lets let it take care of the situation. People a lot smarter than me and anyone in this thread, are probably monitoring this with some crazy complex patch to solve this.

So when do we panic and sell off bitcoins for dogecoins making it the supreme crypto-coin, when everyone says this experiment is over, lets go home, it was a great run.

By the way if bitcoin is worthless in the morning, just send them to me, I will gladly still accept them

I think most of us agree that miners controlling >50% are not incentivized to double spend or otherwise hurt the network: they would be hurting the value of their holdings and their reputation as a mining pool.  If GHash gets 51% for a week, it will very likely be a non-issue.  

But do you not also agree that it would be preferable to have smaller pools?  This would make those improbable "attacks" even less probable.  

Perhaps by having this discussion, someone thinking about joining GHash "because of merged mining" would join Eligius instead.  

[matt608]

Maybe this is an opportunity to justify a hard fork with anonymity built into the core protocol as well as the solution to this issue, such as Proof of Stake mining or requiring every other block to be mined with Scrypt?  

[ericools]

But on the basis, let's just see. Bitcoin is an experiment if an entirely unregulated decentralized system can work. If Bitcoiners are willing to sacrifice the security of the system for minimal provit, than the answer to that experiment is simply: No.

Well, clearly it can work.  It's working now, maybe not perfectly, but pretty damn good.  Worst case scenario we slightly modify the system and try again, or jump to an another pre-existing system (peercoin perhaps).

[Grouver (BtcBalance)]

We need more pools which offer 0% fee.

[Peter R]

As we know, ghash.io has their own hardware, which they are leasing through cex.io, and then also there are "external" miners who joined their pool. Do we know which percentage are the external miners?

Another question is, why other pools also don't do merged mining to incentivize more miners?

I'd like to know the answer to these two questions as well.

[mastersith88]

I would not be worried about an honest pool breaking 50% for a short period of time but there is evidence that ghash.io is not an honest pool.


Double-spending for example:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

[Kazimir]

Is this a time to jump into fiat?

Yes! In fact, it's time for PANIC SELLING!

[Buffer Overflow]

This is the reason everyone should be using p2pool.

[jubalix]

Ahhh PeerCoin pos....

[wachtwoord]

I agree it's better when no-pool is so massive and p2pool should be used anyone.

Having said this, we have had this problem before for an extended period and Deepbit didn't take at advantage of it. Also 51% (so just 1% more than 50%) only gives very limited double spending options unless you're willing to work at it for a very long time. Finally everyone in the entire world will know you've done this destroying any an all fate in you and instantly devaluing Bitcoin (the thing you gain by double spending in the first place).

This is not the apocalypse.

[descarte]

I agree it's better when no-pool is so massive and p2pool should be used anyone.

Having said this, we have had this problem before for an extended period and Deepbit didn't take at advantage of it. Also 51% (so just 1% more than 50%) only gives very limited double spending options unless you're willing to work at it for a very long time. Finally everyone in the entire world will know you've done this destroying any an all fate in you and instantly devaluing Bitcoin (the thing you gain by double spending in the first place).

This is not the apocalypse.

If you are a bitcoin lover and believe in its philosophy, you wouldn't want to risk it. I see the consequences much more severe than what most people might think.