BTC Pool Stats

[kavuncu]

So I'm new to this. I learned %51 attack is possible but not likely because whole ecosystem is affected and pool owners don't want that.
I checked https://btc.com/stats/pool and I see 2 pools have more than %50 power. Isn't it bad for ecosystem? Why do miners stay in 2 big pools and give them more than %50 power? Even if they don't use it for evil.

Foundry USA: %27.2
Antpool: %24.5

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

[1714613284]

1714613284

[1714613284]

1714613284

[1714613284]

1714613284

[1714613284]

1714613284

[Coyster]

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

Mining is open for everyone, so it isn't about what we think is better, some pools will definitely generate more hashrate than others and if one doesn't think that's right, the only thing you can do is to join/support smaller pools if you indeed have the resources to do so. These pools with higher hashrates aren't going to attack the network or anything, and that's because they stand more to gain if they use their computational power to look for blocks than to attempt an attack. Having said that, miners are definitely going to pull out of any pool that turns malicious and they are going to lose most of their hashrate, so there's prolly nothing to worry about.

[Myleschetty]

So I'm new to this. I learned %51 attack is possible but not likely because whole ecosystem is affected and pool owners don't want that.
I checked https://btc.com/stats/pool and I see 2 pools have more than %50 power. Isn't it bad for ecosystem? Why do miners stay in 2 big pools and give them more than %50 power? Even if they don't use it for evil.

Foundry USA: %27.2
Antpool: %24.5

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

First, none of the pools in the link you provided have 30% computational power (hashrate) not to say 50% and the pool with the highest hashrate is foundry which is currently at 26.9%.
I think you do understand the meaning of 51% attack
A 51% attack is a possible security vulnerability in cryptocurrencies that always happens when a single entity achieves control of more than 50% of the total hashrate of a crypto network.

[BitMaxz]

First, none of the pools in the link you provided have 30% computational power (hashrate) not to say 50% and the pool with the highest hashrate is foundry which is currently at 26.9%.
I think you do understand the meaning of 51% attack
A 51% attack is a possible security vulnerability in cryptocurrencies that always happens when a single entity achieves control of more than 50% of the total hashrate of a crypto network.

I think he talks about how if these two pools are combined it is more than 51% that can be used to attack the network.
I don't think it would happen since they are two different businesses and the mining pool stats are not accurate.

I don't know the reason why these two have more hashing power compared to other pools but I think the only reason why most of the miners mine on these pools is because of the pool fee they offer 0% pool fee.

[albert0bsd]

I think he talks about how if these two pools are combined it is more than 51% that can be used to attack the network.

Well, that may depend of the agenda of each miner, most of them are there just for profit, So i don't see them attaking the network or something like that.

They may monopolize the blockchain yes!. Thay may let a lot of other miner's blocks orphan, well yes a 51% can do that..

But a 51% can't move balance for one wallet to another without having those wallet's privatekeys, they can't create more coints than the mined coins limit, they can't change the consesus rules or anything like that.

I'm not an expert, i know that 51% "attack" is bad, but is not the worse right? I think that there should be a topic for that more detailed, please if somebody have that link put it here.

Regards!

[Findingnemo]

I checked https://btc.com/stats/pool and I see 2 pools have more than %50 power. Isn't it bad for ecosystem?

Less concentration of mining power is the actual decentralization so it is kind of jeopardizing the decentralized nature of bitcoin.

Why do miners stay in 2 big pools and give them more than %50 power? Even if they don't use it for evil.

Miners operates for making more money so its obvious that they can sustain being profitable only if they are under the pools where there is high chance of getting rewards and also geolocation plays a vital role in profit making so miner has to choose place the location where electricity is cheaper that is why it is scattered on few locations not all over the world.

But the fact is the Foundry USA and Antpool started to gain more miners when china restricted the mining operation that is th reason you may find the these two pools have very less total computational power compared to now.

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

2 or 4 doesn't make any big difference, as long as someone is having the control of 51% of total hash rate they can control the BTC network but practically they need to spend billions to make millions which doesn't make any sense that is the reason why 51% attack will never likely to be performed by someone even if they have control over 51% hash power.

[MusaMohamed]

So I'm new to this. I learned %51 attack is possible but not likely because whole ecosystem is affected and pool owners don't want that.
I checked https://btc.com/stats/pool and I see 2 pools have more than %50 power. Isn't it bad for ecosystem? Why do miners stay in 2 big pools and give them more than %50 power? Even if they don't use it for evil.

Foundry USA: %27.2
Antpool: %24.5

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

To wipe out your fear, you must read some articles. I hope you will read those articles but to summarize, there are some big mining pools that have big hashrates and some pools were believed to owned by same owners. They did not do any attack when they had chances because your fear shows the reason, they will not get benefit by doing this. Bitcoin network is decentralized and is believed to safely against attack that makes its high value. If any attack happens, its price will be destroyed, drop a lot and mining pools will be in the hell too. They don't need hell as they have a lot of capital spent for their mining farms as well as hold many bitcoins.

There are some insightful information and charts in those articles for dominating, big mining pools. Some big mining pools like Deep Bit, BTC Guild, GHASH.io, Slush pool but they all refused chance to do network attack.



How many Bitcoin confirmations is enough?
The evolution of mining pools and miners’ behaviors in the Bitcoin blockchain
Visual Analytics of Bitcoin Mining Pool Evolution: On the Road Toward Stability?

Two tools to check what percent of global hashrate does the potential attacker have?
https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/
https://web.archive.org/web/20181231045818/https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html

[Upgrade00]

Isn't it bad for ecosystem? Why do miners stay in 2 big pools and give them more than %50 power? Even if they don't use it for evil.

It theoretically poses some risk, but practically it does not. These pools are profit oriented and with their individual hashrates they have a guaranteed chance of getting one of four blocks confirmed, that's a chance to hit a reward every ~40 minutes.
Even if hypothetically both miners could merge to attack the network, there is no guarantee that they will be successful, their chain will likely be abandoned by all nodes and they will have miners pull out en masse from their pool into other ones.

It seems safer to take a guaranteed profit every 40 than gamble with no long term possibility.

Wouldn't it be better if total of the biggest pools are less than %50? Would you prefer 4 pools for %50 rather than 2 pools for %50?

Miners are profit oriented too. They stand a higher chance of making a profit if they associate with the top pools as long as they meet the specification to join.
I will rather 4 or 8 pools for 50%, but it's not a real bother.

[hugeblack]

I think you should know that the 51% attack is a sabotage attack^[1], so these pools will not do it because instead of exploiting the mining energy to obtain more Bitcoin, using it in the 51% attack is a waste of money, as a block can be mined from abroad then all the profits from new mined blocks will be zero, and everyone can stop using Bitcoin, so the attack will be useless, not to mention the collapse of the price of Bitcoin that will occur accordingly, which will lead to damage to these pools.

In short,if a 51% attack occurs then your coins will be safe (as long as you do not use Bitcoin network) and the damage from such an attack will be to these pools first, so they will not do it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#:~:text=Sabotage%20is%20a%20deliberate%20action,in%20sabotage%20is%20a%20saboteur.

[Cricktor]

...

The 51% (or more) is an attack or sabotage possibility which in the evolved state of PoW for Bitcoin isn't quite a feasible attack option. Consider the amount of investment in mining gear and energy required to perform such an attack. It doesn't make any sense to do it.

You can't change other participant's transactions, you can only temporarily censor transactions by deliberately excluding them from your own blocks, rewrite last few blocks at most and double spend your own coins. In doing so, you would ruin Bitcoin market confidence and trust and very likely the price of Bitcoin as a result. You don't benefit from this, your investment will burn, too. Honest mining will gain you more than foul play!

For Bitcoin a 51% attack is no viable option to gain profit and thus overrated by newbies. For the proper design of a cryptocurrency it is important to take care of and something to watch for closely when a new blockchain is started. But once the amount of PoW surpassed certain thresholds and sufficient decentralisation is in effect it doesn't really much matter anymore.

[hugeblack]

For Bitcoin a 51% attack is no viable option to gain profit and thus overrated by newbies. For the proper design of a cryptocurrency it is important to take care of and something to watch for closely when a new blockchain is started. But once the amount of PoW surpassed certain thresholds and sufficient decentralisation is in effect it doesn't really much matter anymore.

It may be a threat when the market value of Bitcoin reaches several trillions and it is used in international trade, but at the present time, everyone who wants to spend these resources will be noticed and easy to track. I do not think that such an attack will continue for a long time, but it is enough to set Bitcoin back several years. Since this did not happen in the past, we will not be afraid of mining basins or at the present time.