Official announcement from Ghash.IO

[Lethn]

This is what programming is about, finding problems and solutions to problems, if we don't then the government or central banks really will try to attack Bitcoin and shut it down, despite the initial rage I think long term it would be the most beneficial option.

[1714811097]

1714811097

[fryarminer]

Anyone who thinks that 51% means nothing can just look at how bitcoin prices reacted when 51% was reached. It crashed $100 in the day that it was at 51%. That calculates at roughly a week of 51% before the value of bitcoin is....?

Other pools care enough about bitcoin to prevent their pool from getting larger than 30%. Clearly Ghash.io has not got bitcoin's interest as their priority. Whatever their interest is, it's not for the good of the community.

And why does a pool need to be that big?

The press release is weak. "We won't pull the trigger, even if we have the gun to your head." "Please don't be mean to us, we are just trying to be nice."

[alexeft]

Official announcement from Ghash.IO

Rapid growth of GHash.IO mining pool, seen over the past few months, has been driven by our determination to offer innovative solutions within the Bitcoin ecosystem combined with significant investment in resource.

Full:  http://www.pressat.co.uk/releases/ghashio-is-open-for-discussion-93ee9eeb66b80e94bbe31705d451780e/

My short answer is "stay away from 50% ghash".

The long answer is that, if a 50% solution was implemented, you (or someone else) would become the biggest pool by far, which is undesirable. The very risk that this might happen, warrants that no solution to 50% is found.

Way to go Satoshi Nakamoto!!!!!

[sgk]

This has happened before and the pool stopped accepting new miners to avoid reaching to 51% mining power.

Doing a 51% attack will only hurt them as there will be no more trust in BTC network, BTC will bite the dust and they will lose their only income.

[alexeft]

Anyone who thinks that 51% means nothing can just look at how bitcoin prices reacted when 51% was reached. It crashed $100 in the day that it was at 51%. That calculates at roughly a week of 51% before the value of bitcoin is....?

Other pools care enough about bitcoin to prevent their pool from getting larger than 30%. Clearly Ghash.io has not got bitcoin's interest as their priority. Whatever their interest is, it's not for the good of the community.

And why does a pool need to be that big?

The press release is weak. "We won't pull the trigger, even if we have the gun to your head." "Please don't be mean to us, we are just trying to be nice."

Precisely!!!

[alexeft]

This has happened before and the pool stopped accepting new miners to avoid reaching to 51% mining power.

Doing a 51% attack will only hurt them as there will be no more trust in BTC network, BTC will bite the dust and they will lose their only income.

I think that's security enough!!!

[reg]

This is what programming is about, finding problems and solutions to problems, if we don't then the government or central banks really will try to attack Bitcoin and shut it down, despite the initial rage I think long term it would be the most beneficial option.

+1 this needs a dev solution and I am optimistic that one can found if there is the cooperation at the conference needed. However may I remind everyone that the banksters have controlled the fiat system for 150 years. They own all politicians in all countries. Thinking the bitcoin community marketing personal and fledgling mining pools can prevent a take over of btc is extremely naive (in my opinion) and it must not happen.  We need to do something whilst we can.

[S4VV4S]

Ghash is just a business. even with over 51% of hash, they are showing no intent to change code to perform any attack. which is good. but if anything protocol wise that needs to change i am certain that a pool owner would not shoot themselves in the foot by implementing themselves.

that includes mischievous code, or code to dilute their customer base, and as such any code to keep the customer base below 51% of any business should be done at the bitcoin-core level and not at the business level.

due to the fact that if GHASH implemented a customer dilution practice, and discus/eligius didnt. it would be unfair on GHASH and would just cause another 51% drama event with a different pool. thus it would have to be an 'all or nothing rule' covering all pools

... so would you want bitcoin-core to have a rule that stops any IP from having more then 10% of network hash, thus giving all pools a fair chance/slice of the pie. or to blame individual pools for being greedy by not turning customers away, or to continue as we are and every few months cry like babies when different pools reach 51% worrying about if they will shoot themselves in the foot.

in short if you dont want another 51% drama event, speak to the bitcoin-core dev team, as there is no point pointing fingers at the pools

^^^ This

[alexeft]

Ghash is just a business. even with over 51% of hash, they are showing no intent to change code to perform any attack. which is good. but if anything protocol wise that needs to change i am certain that a pool owner would not shoot themselves in the foot by implementing themselves.

that includes mischievous code, or code to dilute their customer base, and as such any code to keep the customer base below 51% of any business should be done at the bitcoin-core level and not at the business level.

due to the fact that if GHASH implemented a customer dilution practice, and discus/eligius didnt. it would be unfair on GHASH and would just cause another 51% drama event with a different pool. thus it would have to be an 'all or nothing rule' covering all pools

... so would you want bitcoin-core to have a rule that stops any IP from having more then 10% of network hash, thus giving all pools a fair chance/slice of the pie. or to blame individual pools for being greedy by not turning customers away, or to continue as we are and every few months cry like babies when different pools reach 51% worrying about if they will shoot themselves in the foot.

in short if you dont want another 51% drama event, speak to the bitcoin-core dev team, as there is no point pointing fingers at the pools

^^^ This

The only drama affects ghash (or any other 50%er) and nobody else. You saw the market reaction. Let ghash punch themselves in the face!!!!

[ljudotina]

How short sighted people can be? Everyone is talking about ghash....ghash this, ghash that. It's not ghash fault! They are doing their business, and doing it really good! If you want to blame anyone, than blame bitcoin protocol or, even better, people that maintain it and refuse to change it so 51% attack is prevented.

It's like noone knows that 51% situation already happened before ghash. And still, people that have power to fix it, are not doing anything.

So on one side we have pool that does it's job and on other side we have people who have power to fix problem at the source. Who should we blame....i know...let's blame pool. How dare they doing their job THAT good?!
(I'm selling pitchforks and torches if anyone is interested...0.001 per torch, 0.005 per pitchfork)

[alexeft]

How short sighted people can be? Everyone is talking about ghash....ghash this, ghash that. It's not ghash fault! They are doing their business, and doing it really good! If you want to blame anyone, than blame bitcoin protocol or, even better, people that maintain it and refuse to change it so 51% attack is prevented.

It's like noone knows that 51% situation already happened before ghash. And still, people that have power to fix it, are not doing anything.

So on one side we have pool that does it's job and on other side we have people who have power to fix problem at the source. Who should we blame....i know...let's blame pool. How dare they doing their job THAT good?!
(I'm selling pitchforks and torches if anyone is interested...0.001 per torch, 0.005 per pitchfork)

If the 50% non-problem is fixed, another, real one will occur! What do we do if ghash (or anyone else) does such a good job that they reach eg 80%?
I think it's better to not fix the non-problem.

[Peter R]

... so would you want bitcoin-core to have a rule that stops any IP from having more then 10% of network hash, thus giving all pools a fair chance/slice of the pie. or to blame individual pools for being greedy by not turning customers away, or to continue as we are and every few months cry like babies when different pools reach 51% worrying about if they will shoot themselves in the foot.

in short if you dont want another 51% drama event, speak to the bitcoin-core dev team, as there is no point pointing fingers at the pools

A malicious entity committed to 51%-attacking the network would simply use multiple IP addresses.  This proposal would make the situation worse because it would tend to decrease transparency.  

Here are the best suggestions I've heard:

1.  Soft-fork the format of the blockheaders so that "hashers" can determine using only an SPV client if they are working on an attack chain.  The purpose of this is to increase transparency so that hashers can see more clearly how their hashpower is being deployed.  

2.  Promote P2Pool to attract additional hashpower and reduce reward variance.  Make the process of setting up a bitcoin node and connecting to P2Pool simple and write clear tutorials on the process.

3.  Work towards commoditization of SHA256 ASIC chips.  Right now, the significant obstacle to setting up million dollar + mining operations is securing a reasonable price for hardware.  If we could further decouple hardware producers from the SHA256 ASIC technology, it would create a more competitive market allowing many new large mining operations to come online.  These large operations will be incentivized to solo mine or use P2Pool to retain control of their hashpower.

4.  Educate the community: understand that a 51% attacker cannot create coins, spend coins that aren't his, change network rules, or much of anything really.  All they can do is double-spend their own coins (but it will be obvious in hindsight), and prevent transactions from confirming (this too will be obvious as well as likely stoppable using the Gavin-technique).  

  

[coinmaster222]

This was posted on reddit too rigth? Receiver alot of hate there.

[Eotnak]

... so would you want bitcoin-core to have a rule that stops any IP from having more then 10% of network hash, thus giving all pools a fair chance/slice of the pie. or to blame individual pools for being greedy by not turning customers away, or to continue as we are and every few months cry like babies when different pools reach 51% worrying about if they will shoot themselves in the foot.

in short if you dont want another 51% drama event, speak to the bitcoin-core dev team, as there is no point pointing fingers at the pools

A malicious entity committed to 51%-attacking the network would simply use multiple IP addresses.  This proposal would make the situation worse because it would tend to decrease transparency.  

Here are the best suggestions I've heard:

1.  Soft-fork the format of the blockheaders so that "hashers" can determine using only an SPV client if they are working on an attack chain.  The purpose of this is to increase transparency so that hashers can see more clearly how their hashpower is being deployed.  

2.  Promote P2PtoPool attract additional hashpower and reduce reward variance.  Make the process of setting up a bitcoin node and connecting to P2Pool simple and write clear tutorials on the process.

3.  Work towards commoditization of SHA256 ASIC chips.  Right now, the significant obstacle to setting up million dollar + mining operations is securing a reasonable price for hardware.  If we could further decouple hardware producers from the SHA256 ASIC technology, it would create a more competitive market allowing many new large mining operations to come online.  These large operations will be incentivized to solo mine or use P2Pool to retain control of their hashpower.

4.  Educate the community: understand that a 51% attacker cannot create coins, spend coins that aren't his, change network rules, or much of anything really.  All they can do is double-spend their own coins (but it will be obvious in hindsight), and prevent transactions from confirming (this too will be obvious as well as likely stoppable using the Gavin-technique).  

  

+++++1!

1. GHash grows to 51%, watches price drop...
2. GHash shrinks back below 50%
3. New great and wonderful pool is created that everyone flocks towards, shrinking GHash further down to 30%
5. New pool grows to 30%
6. GHash and new pool are owned by same interests
7. BTC price is great, sheeple are content

[reg]

This was posted on reddit too rigth? Receiver alot of hate there.

if you get a lot of hate you are probably close to the main points of interest- this was a good attempt to outline some possible solutions and I liked it. However although sometimes doing nothing avoiding (the law of unintended consequences) is good I do not think so in this case,. Already a lot of smaller miners cannot keep up with equipment costs to get an roi because of the hash rate. so if all the btc go to one entity ( open source includes banks and government) then one entity will hold all the btc produced in the next 20 years about 9 million. That is a breach of the covenant unwritten and disputed but I think implicit that every individual has a right to autonomy over their own finances, political or religious interests. If one entity or cabal controls btc we are back to something similar to what exists now. I think it must not be allowed to happen. 

[QuestionAuthority]

You all don't really think Ghash is below 50% overnight, do you? What is the total of Ghash + unknown?

https://blockchain.info/pools

I do appreciate them going out of their way to make the pie chart less scary again though?

[alexeft]

I do appreciate them going out of their way to make the pie chart less scary again though?

The market is to be appreciated for that, not ghash.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

How short sighted people can be? Everyone is talking about ghash....ghash this, ghash that. It's not ghash fault! They are doing their business, and doing it really good! If you want to blame anyone, than blame bitcoin protocol or, even better, people that maintain it and refuse to change it so 51% attack is prevented.

It's like noone knows that 51% situation already happened before ghash. And still, people that have power to fix it, are not doing anything.

So on one side we have pool that does it's job and on other side we have people who have power to fix problem at the source. Who should we blame....i know...let's blame pool. How dare they doing their job THAT good?!
(I'm selling pitchforks and torches if anyone is interested...0.001 per torch, 0.005 per pitchfork)

Unfortunately you are correct. Ghash is very customer focused. Most other pools are run by people who are more technical focused, who understand the mining process well but have trouble with the advertising/marketing side of things.

[Grinder]

Unfortunately you are correct. Ghash is very customer focused. Most other pools are run by people who are more technical focused, who understand the mining process well but have trouble with the advertising/marketing side of things.

Or the other pools just don't want to work for free. The only marketing that has ever worked well in bitcoin mining is having a lower price than the other pools. What you should be asking yourself is why ghash.io wants every miner to mine for them so badly that they are willing work for free right now. I can see several reasons, but not a single one that's good for Bitcoin and it's users.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Unfortunately you are correct. Ghash is very customer focused. Most other pools are run by people who are more technical focused, who understand the mining process well but have trouble with the advertising/marketing side of things.

Or the other pools just don't want to work for free. The only marketing that has ever worked well in bitcoin mining is having a lower price than the other pools. What you should be asking yourself is why ghash.io wants every miner to mine for them so badly that they are willing work for free right now. I can see several reasons, but not a single one that's good for Bitcoin and it's users.

eligius has a 0% fee and other pools have very low fees as well. What they are missing are their fancy stats pages that updates in real time