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.
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.)
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.
