stop mining at ghash.io you FUCKTARDS

[spooderman]

Someone please make a bitminter type client for p2pool

Really? If I make you a client you would mine p2pool?

If you're not being sarcastic....yes!

Do you think many other would? What type of hardware do you mine with? The "client" is just a guy over cgminer or bfgminer I can't remember which.

I mine with a bfl. Plan to mine with a blackarrow or something in the future.

[Gator-hex]

Someone please make a bitminter type client for p2pool

Really? If I make you a client you would mine p2pool?

If you're not being sarcastic....yes!

Do you think many other would? What type of hardware do you mine with? The "client" is just a guy over cgminer or bfgminer I can't remember which.

I mine with a bfl. Plan to mine with a blackarrow or something in the future.

GHash sells the bitcoins directly to investors which is a big draw to people who want to mine fiat.

I'm using Bitminter and avoiding big pools because I like to spend in Bitcoins to help start a Bitcoin economy. If people only mine for fiat no Bitcoin economy will get off the ground.

I also use P2Pools as mybackups, they need no account and I love getting virgin unspent coins, but the main problem with it is that it's frequent micro payments. You need a lot of hashing power to get it to pay out over the 0.001BTC dust level per block.

BTW: www.p2pool.org is not the only option. Also check out http://p2pool.hostv.pl/ for a list of others.

[Holliday]

Miners don't have the incentive to undermine peoples' trust in Bitcoin.

Well... not until JPMorgan Chase decides to provide the incentive for a large pool operator to attack Bitcoin....

Miners can find out easily and will complain loudly, "I found a block, but my node doesn't even see it on the network! Something fishy must be going on with the pool!"

I think you put too much faith in your typical hasher...

Should an attack come from centralization of the hashing power, it's damage will already be done before the miners can react. This is why a proactive approach is preferred (do not centralize the hashing power).

[dyask]

I don't remember people panicking as much with deepbit in 2011.

did deepbit try to double spend on a dice game?

There were no dice games to double spend on at the time, but people are forgetting two things:

a) it is possible to double spend with less than 51% and for some reason...
b) ... it happens very, very rarely. Miners don't have the incentive to undermine peoples' trust in Bitcoin.

B = Don't care, I don't want someone to have the option.
A = I know, that is why I'm saying stop NOW rather than "wait until they get exactly 51% and then stop." Obviously I would like noone to have more than about 10%.

Wow!  That kind of thinking seems to be common.   With a fiat currency there is a vast amount of crimes and fraud.   Yet fiat currencies survive just fine.   Most likely Bitcoin would survive a 51% attack and whoever did it would be found out.   Then it would be a matter for the courts.   The fear is irrational.

However, if there were an attack it probably won't happen from a pool, it will probably come from a government that has vast resources compared to the Bitcoin network.   In that case there isn't anything that can be done to prevent it and all this running around and screaming about ghash.io is just a waste.

[Biomech]

Someone please make a bitminter type client for p2pool

Really? If I make you a client you would mine p2pool?

If you're not being sarcastic....yes!

Do you think many other would? What type of hardware do you mine with? The "client" is just a guy over cgminer or bfgminer I can't remember which.

I would certainly try it. I'm still experimenting anyway. Started on Eligius, went to BTCguild while he's getting that fixed, was gonna try Bitminter next. Prolly still am. So far, I like Eligius the best, but time and experience will tell. Once I get more equipment, I'll probably mine more than one pool/method anyway. I have yet to try p2pool, so why not?

[God_FatheR]

bump!! stay away pls !! eligious is far better !

[krampus]

Wow!  That kind of thinking seems to be common.

That's because it's common sense. Bitcoin is only secure when no single entity has too much power.

With a fiat currency there is a vast amount of crimes and fraud.   Yet fiat currencies survive just fine.

Generally speaking, the crimes and fraud committed with fiat currency don't destabilize the entire currency. This point is irrelevant.

Most likely Bitcoin would survive a 51% attack and whoever did it would be found out.

We don't know that. But why risk it?

Then it would be a matter for the courts.

Unlikely. There aren't any specific laws against a 51% attack, and the jurisdictional aspect of it is a nightmare. The ghash.io operator is (I think) in The Ukraine. Not much that a court anywhere else can do about that, and I doubt the courts in The Ukraine give a shit.

The fear is irrational.

Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, and calling this fear irrational paints you as naive, at best.

However, if there were an attack it probably won't happen from a pool, it will probably come from a government that has vast resources compared to the Bitcoin network.   In that case there isn't anything that can be done to prevent it and all this running around and screaming about ghash.io is just a waste.

Good point. We should all just sit on our hands and do nothing, then. Might as well give up now, and just stop trying.

 

[dyask]

Wow!  That kind of thinking seems to be common.

That's because it's common sense. Bitcoin is only secure when no single entity has too much power.

It isn't common sense, it is FUD.  With something like a 51% attack, of which there are many possible forms that have nothing to do with having a majority of the network, there would be a hard record left of exactly what happened.   That limits the scope of any such attack.  

If you don't what ghash.io to grow over 51% then the solution is to offer better alternatives.   The combination of cex.io/ghash.io is a winning concept.   Competition is the solution, not running around like a chicken with its head cutoff.  

With a fiat currency there is a vast amount of crimes and fraud.   Yet fiat currencies survive just fine.

Generally speaking, the crimes and fraud committed with fiat currency don't destabilize the entire currency. This point is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant?  It is exactly the same issue!   Learn some history, crime has destabilized currencies in the past, generally when carried out by governments.  That is the primary problem is counterfeiting which is basically the same as a double spend.  Most crimes don't destabilize a current currency and bitcoin would be the same.   The Bitcoin network would survive because the blockchain would forked with changes in place to address the issue.  

Most likely Bitcoin would survive a 51% attack and whoever did it would be found out.

We don't know that. But why risk it?

Because you can't prevent it by the methods you are using.   The only sure prevention is competition and growing Bitcoin.  This kind of fear mongering doesn't help and only hurts Bitcoin.

Then it would be a matter for the courts.

Unlikely. There aren't any specific laws against a 51% attack, and the jurisdictional aspect of it is a nightmare. The ghash.io operator is (I think) in The Ukraine. Not much that a court anywhere else can do about that, and I doubt the courts in The Ukraine give a shit.

Maybe, maybe not.  Cex.io is operating out of London, but I have like you don't know where all the owners are for sure.   Anyway you are automatically assuming that Cex.io is a criminal organization.   It is just more likely they came up with a killer concept and are cleaning up because of it.   If you don't like it, offer something better!

The fear is irrational.

Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, and calling this fear irrational paints you as naive, at best.

Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, and creating this irrational fear paints you as naive, at best.

Wow!  Something we both basically agree on.   See there is some common ground.  

---------------------------------------

The solution is simple to understand, may be harder to implement.  Offer people better choices!   Competition is what will spread the distribution of miners out.   Self policing isn't a real solution.  

[smoothrunnings]

As title says!

I will only stop mining if you do!

[krampus]

Wow!  Something we both basically agree on.   See there is some common ground.

Welcome to my ignore, you stupid fuckwit.

[spooderman]

As title says!

I will only stop mining if you do!

I of course do not mine there.

Do you think that I, the creator of the thread "stop mining at ghash.io you FUCKTARDS" would...mine at gash.io?

I use eligius

[Trongersoll]

In what world does calling people names get them to do what you want?

[Minefield4]

In what world does calling people names get them to do what you want?

IMHO At the very least it grabs your attention. 

[AussieHash]

6.05PH/s of hashrate are still mining at ghash now, despite their terrible reliability, the 8/77 block reject rate last week, and their currently 5/100 reject rate right now

They should be mining 2.3 blocks/hour but in the middle of this all they had the following run, with 2 rejected blocks

an hour, an hour, an hour, an hour, 38 mins, an hour, 3 hours, an hour, an hour, an hour, 17 mins

[Trongersoll]

I wonder if anyone has stopped mining there just because of this thread and no other reason.

[btcash]

I wonder if anyone has stopped mining there just because of this thread and no other reason.

I doubt that. These greedy a#holes mining at ghash don't care if someone calls them fucktards.

I don't remember people panicking as much with deepbit in 2011.

1. Ghash is more than unstrustworthy. I trust BFL more than I do ghash.
2. There is much more at stake now.

[bitcoinmining]

do you earn in progress with continuous errors if the error persists inappropriate

[Testing123]

As title says!

I will only stop mining if you do!

I of course do not mine there.

Do you think that I, the creator of the thread "stop mining at ghash.io you FUCKTARDS" would...mine at gash.io?

I use eligius

lol.

[Sonny]

6.05PH/s of hashrate are still mining at ghash now, despite their terrible reliability, the 8/77 block reject rate last week, and their currently 5/100 reject rate right now

They should be mining 2.3 blocks/hour but in the middle of this all they had the following run, with 2 rejected blocks

an hour, an hour, an hour, an hour, 38 mins, an hour, 3 hours, an hour, an hour, an hour, 17 mins

Why the reject rate is that high recently?
I didn't recall such bad situation previously in ghash.io...

[AussieHash]

x/post - 5% again

This chart:



indicates that BTC Guild's percent of orphaned blocks was 1.3%.  Since BTCG pays for orphaned blocks, am I correct in thinking that this effectively reduces the 3% transaction fee to 1.7% (not considering other factors that reduce the fee further)?

1.3% is slightly above normal for BTC Guild.  I always use 1% as the rule of thumb for orphans.  So compared to other pools which do not pay orphans, it is effectively a 2% fee for BTC Guild.  Less if the other pool fails to pay transaction fees or namecoins.

email conversation with Organofcorti

>I think including orphans in the calculations would be a mistake. For example in Giga's last week of operation it had 2 orphans. If they were included the calculations would have been horribly skewed. Better to include stale/orphans in a separate column.

I understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into account.
1.The "luck" calculation is based on the number of shares per solved block - not shares per block accepted by the network.
2. Orphaned blocks should be assessed separately, but I haven't found a reliable way to do that yet. I can simply report the number of orphans, but that doesn't tell anyone whether that is too many or too few or expected due to variance.
3. I would like to report average earnings (which would take orphaned blocks into account) but the various reward methods make this problematic.

So when looking at the luck of a pool that does not pay for orphans, stale/orphaned/rejected blocks will negatively impact earnings but these rejects are still counted in the luck calculation making it artificially high

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vu7z0/ghash_8_rejected_blocks/

As of right now, ghash has 5% block reject rate