Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:34:14 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is there a way to combat this mining concentration AND get paid (some question  (Read 2379 times)
Disposition
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
January 27, 2012, 04:32:11 PM
 #21

I'm buying BTC to try to make $$$ and am "tech-challenged."

There's your mistake, though it is not too late to learn and catch up. mining is profitable again in the USA, assuming you have existing hardware.

but mining is no way by far the only method to obtaining profit when it comes to bitcoins.
1481416454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416454
Reply with quote  #2

1481416454
Report to moderator
1481416454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416454
Reply with quote  #2

1481416454
Report to moderator
1481416454
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416454

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416454
Reply with quote  #2

1481416454
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
os2sam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Think for yourself


View Profile
January 27, 2012, 07:00:10 PM
 #22

I have no axe to grind about any pool.  If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity.  Being anti-deepbit just because they are successful isn't productive.  But folks are free to choose to do so.

Yeah, um, I think you WAY overreacted with your "crusade against socialism" here

Maybe so.

But this thread was started for the purpose of discussing pools having too much veto power over a specific change to the way Bitcoin will work in the future.

My twofold opinion is one that people have the right to mine where they want no matter what others may think.  Or the veto power a large pool may have.  The miners choose to give said pool that power.

And two that we should be cautious of making changes to the bitcoin protocol/blockchain for the sake of increased security.  We don't know what the internet is going to look like in the future so these changes could be detrimental in that unknown future.  It seems to me that the security can be, and is, being enhanced in software (encrypted wallet) devices (smartphones/PDA's/Secure USB sticks) or services such as online bitcoin banks.

Sam

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
os2sam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Think for yourself


View Profile
January 27, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
 #23

Success is NOT a bad thing.
Sam

In this case it is.  Success = Centralization.  Centralization = Bad

And who will the arbiter that decides what constitutes too much success/centralization?  And what methods should be employed to prevent it?  Are there any lessons in history to draw on?
Sam

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932



View Profile
January 27, 2012, 07:06:02 PM
 #24

I have no axe to grind about any pool.  If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity.  Being anti-deepbit just because they are successful isn't productive.  But folks are free to choose to do so.
>implying those two are mutually exclusive

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
os2sam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Think for yourself


View Profile
January 27, 2012, 11:51:04 PM
 #25

I have no axe to grind about any pool.  If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity.  Being anti-deepbit just because they are successful isn't productive.  But folks are free to choose to do so.
>implying those two are mutually exclusive

Which two things?

1. I have no axe to grind about any pool.
2. If I'm going to use a pool it will be one that charges a fee and provides good service and has a business model that provides for longevity
3. But folks are free to choose to do so.

Sam

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Ranvier
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 02:25:19 AM
 #26

And trust me, pools get DDOS'd quite often. A couple of months ago a MASSIVE DDOS attack was launched that noticeably brought down the difficulty. At one time Slush's Pool, Deepbit, and several others were offline.

With p2pool this wouldn't happen, as there are no servers to DDOS (also, no fees are nice).

Just by 0.02 BTC
Killdozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 204



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 09:53:19 AM
 #27

Quote
If deepbit is the problem then the solution is to get rid of pooled mining altogether.  The idea that because a pool is successful that it must be evil is offensive.  I would hope that all pools have the goal of success.  In my view a pool that wish's to fail is the one that is more evil.

Yeah, that would be great, and there is a way for this already: the p2pool, but how do you "get rid" an aspect of a decentralized currency, a p2p network, that no one entity controls? That is the problem, and why there are discussions and some people shitting bricks over this new change, and why it's not just implemented and provided to everyone as a simple update directly.

Quote
I haven't looked into the P2Pool, maybe I should.  But when it comes to money and greed there will always be way for someone to take advantage.  There is no such thing as something for nothing or a get rich quick scheme.

Look into it, get the facts. Right now you've just written some cool movie phrases which have nothing to do with the situation. (don't really apply.). (And yeah there are get rich quick schemes, just that not everyone is ever going to find one obvisouly.)

Quote
And my, consistent, point is why change it at all?  The impetus to make these changes is to make it harder to hijack someones unsecured wallet.  Hasn't that problem been solved with encrypted wallets?
Sam

Why do you ask that here? Please search the forums, not so long ago Gavin created an even "dumb it down" thread where he explains this exactly. The issue have been discussed EXTENSIVELY in the past months, why repeat it in this thread also?


To the point of the question:
Is the problem now that people just don't switch to p2pool even though it's already good, or is p2pool still small to provide small enough variance?
If latter is the case, I am proposing a scheme where we would set a date in the future, of "next wave" of p2pool users.
I understand that many don't want to switch to a pool that would mean risking big losses to variane, even if they wanted to help the health of the bitcoin ecosystem. But at the same time, if enough people switched at once, that would not longer be a problem.
So if we set a date, many of the miners would know this in advance, and when the date comes, they would just switch to p2pool, and in just an hour or maybe a day, could see directly, how many people there are out there that really would switch to p2pool.
Now if the variance would be low already, that would be it, people would just stay there. If it would be too high, they could switch back to their regular miners and set a new date for the next wave of switching, and they would know it would be bigger than the first one, because most people in the first wave would of course switch during the second one as well, because they obviously want this, just can't deal with the variance.

This way we could pretty exactly estimate the real amount of people out there that could switch to p2pool, and most of them would just risk a little mining time, instead of going p2pool fulltime and potentially loosing a lot more.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!