if deepbit.net gets anymore hashing speed it could compromise the system

[hazek]

EDIT: I'm not trying to imply deepbit.net has any such intentions!

Looking at http://bitcoinwatch.com/ we can clearly see that deebit.net mining pool has acquired the biggest minority share of the total hashing speed of the entire network. It's almost 50%.

So I was wondering if this isn't a dangerous situation since who ever has control of a client with half or more of the total hashing speed could with a good chance start attacking the Bitcoin system with fraudulent double spending?

[vuce]

Looking at http://bitcoinwatch.com/ we can clearly see that deebit.net mining pool has acquired the biggest minority share of the total hashing speed of the entire network. It's almost 50%.

So I was wondering if this isn't a dangerous situation since who ever has control of a client with half or more of the total hashing speed could with a good chance start attacking the Bitcoin system with fraudulent double spending?

they have no incentive to do so other than screwing with the system, and even if they did they couldn't do much.

[TiagoTiago]

People seem to trust the operator, so the risk seems smaller. There was/is some discussion about this on the official Deepbit thread (the one you arive at when you click the "Forum" link on their site); the operator himself seems to be working on finding a solution for this concern.

[Hawkix]

I can see another threat:

Imagine that difficulty went to +150k and suddenly the deepbit pool went down, e.g. due to attack or malfunction. I tried several other pools, but these have problems. Many low-par hashrate users would not dare "to mine on mine" = solo, so the effect may be that there will be drastic delays between each new block found. The transactions would slow down a lot.

Concentration of the power of net into single pool is bad thing, imho.

[da2ce7]

If they start attacking the system we will just DDOS them!

[hazek]

Btw I wasn't trying to imply anything bad about deepbit.net. I realize it's not in their interest to start performing fraudulent and harmful actions if they want to keep their customers. I just wanted to point out the facts and hear peoples opinions.

[Raoul Duke]

Btw I wasn't trying to imply anything bad about deepbit.net. I realize it's not in their interest to start performing fraudulent and harmful actions if they want to keep their customers. I just wanted to point out the facts and hear peoples opinions.

Probably because of what you say i have transactions sent paying fees with 0 confirmations for 24hrs...

Where are my coins? They disappeared from my wallet and never arrived to where i sent them, so WHERE ARE THEY?

[Cdecker]

Btw I wasn't trying to imply anything bad about deepbit.net. I realize it's not in their interest to start performing fraudulent and harmful actions if they want to keep their customers. I just wanted to point out the facts and hear peoples opinions.

Yes, having a single instance with >50% is bad for the network, deepbit just happens to be the first ever to reach that limit. I'd encourage people to start creating new pools. Having slush's pool down (for whatever reason) should provide you with enough users to justify investments
And hopefully slush's pool comes back up soon

[Cdecker]

The Difficulty would go down if the hash rate were to drop dramatically like you are suggesting.

Actually no, the difficulty is adjusted each 2016 blocks, so a sudden drop right after an adjustment might take really long to have an effect on the actual difficulty (if we are left with 25% of the hashing power it takes up to 8 months to adjust the difficulty)

[Anonymous]

There is an incentive for an entity to ddos every public pool after a sharp decrease like that. They could then more easily mine while taking out all competition.

[BioMike]

I set up a pool miner for the first time this morning on the computer of my wife (a gamer, so she a better card then I have). I also chose deepbit.net, because someone else mentioned it to me before. It would be nice to have a good comparison sheet, comparing all the pools besides each other on various points.

[xf2_org]

If you want to compete with deepbit, xf2.org (see signature) offers pool service that scales with traffic.

[geebus]

I set up a pool miner for the first time this morning on the computer of my wife (a gamer, so she a better card then I have). I also chose deepbit.net, because someone else mentioned it to me before. It would be nice to have a good comparison sheet, comparing all the pools besides each other on various points.

There have been numerous comparisons made, but as the pools, and their features, change constantly, it's difficult for anyone to stay on top of it.

Here are some basic comparisons based on what I know of the pools:

Deepbit.net
3% or 10% fee (pay-per-share vs. proportional)
Fastest Pool
Most users (meaning payments are split more ways)
Long Polling
JSON stats (using API auth token)
Mints it's own transactions into it's own solved blocks
Email notifications (not sure what though)

Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz)
2% (up to 6% at user discretion) for score-based shares, which favors faster cards that submit shares more frequently.
2nd Fastest Pool
2nd Most users
No long polling
JSON stats (using API auth token)
Mints it's own transactions into it's own solved blocks (I believe)
Email notifications on payments

BTCMine.com
0 - 5% fee (don't know if it's forced)
3rd Fastest Pool
Long polling
JSON stats (using API auth token)
No clue about transactions
No clue about email notifications

BitcoinPool.com
No fees
4th Fastest Pool
Long Polling
JSON stats
Private Forum
Mints transactions into it's own blocks
Transparent stats for all users
Email notifications for payments, block solves, account changes

Eligius
Fairly new, I don't know too much about it, but you can read about it in their forum post.

...and I'm sure there are others.

[JWU42]

On BTCmine...

Voluntary donation once the pool was closed last week.  The voluntary is still in effect
E-mails on payouts, miners down, blocks found, and much more!

[xf2_org]

xf2.org pool

- 0.45 BTC/month flat fee, no percentage
- long polling
- web stats
- payouts go to xf2.org account balance
- 24/7 monitoring, in case of server problems

(or you can start your own pool, and set your own rules)

[xenon481]

xf2.org pool

- 0.50 BTC/month flat fee, no percentage
- long polling
- web stats
- payouts go to xf2.org account balance

(or you can start your own pool, and set your own rules)

For clarity's sake, is the fee 0.50BTC/month per client, 0.50BTC/month taken off the top of all earnings, or etc?

I don't understand how the "billing" of the fee would work.

Edit: When would the fee be taken as well? First round of every month? If so, I'd just work a different pool for that round.

[xf2_org]

xf2.org pool

- 0.50 BTC/month flat fee, no percentage
- long polling
- web stats
- payouts go to xf2.org account balance

(or you can start your own pool, and set your own rules)

For clarity's sake, is the fee 0.50BTC/month per client, 0.50BTC/month taken off the top of all earnings, or etc?

I don't understand how the "billing" of the fee would work.

Edit: When would the fee be taken as well? First round of every month? If so, I'd just work a different pool for that round.

The fee is the xf2.org account fee, which must be paid 6 months in advance (3 BTC).  That gives you access to the pool servers for six months.

All earnings are then credited to your xf2.org account, which you may withdraw at any time.

Edit: Fee is 0.45 BTC/month, due to continued exchange rate increases.

[[Tycho]]

Deepbit.net
3% or 10% fee (pay-per-share vs. proportional)
Fastest Pool
Most users (meaning payments are split more ways)
Long Polling
JSON stats (using API auth token)
Mints it's own transactions into it's own solved blocks

I have more important features :)

• No need to wait for 120 confirmation blocks, instant payment is possible
• Paying for invalid blocks too

[Veldy]

EDIT: I'm not trying to imply deepbit.net has any such intentions!

Looking at http://bitcoinwatch.com/ we can clearly see that deebit.net mining pool has acquired the biggest minority share of the total hashing speed of the entire network. It's almost 50%.

So I was wondering if this isn't a dangerous situation since who ever has control of a client with half or more of the total hashing speed could with a good chance start attacking the Bitcoin system with fraudulent double spending?

Tycho told me it could't happen any time soon and that he wouldn't allow it to happen.  Then when faced with the prospect of it happening, he changed his tune.  I like his pool, but refuse to use it until he delivers on his promise.  He has an ethical duty to make sure his pool cannot be a tool to attack the network, and setting up a redundant pool [one in the US and one in Germany I believe] is hardly a defense; especially against a government who can easily hit both [it is not as if Germany and the US hate each other, but they may both hate bitcoin].  

I like what Tycho has done, but I think he is letting greed get the better of him and is willing to blind himself to the possibility of what could happen due to his inaction.

I have been suggesting to people to consider BTCMine as a better alternative to slush and frankly, miners have a duty to take workers away from deepbit.  He said himself that he believes in the market and that individual miners should do it.  Show him that individual miners can [I think most are ostriches with their heads in the sand and won't move though, proving him wrong, which I hope I am wrong about].

[Veldy]

I can see another threat:

Imagine that difficulty went to +150k and suddenly the deepbit pool went down, e.g. due to attack or malfunction. I tried several other pools, but these have problems. Many low-par hashrate users would not dare "to mine on mine" = solo, so the effect may be that there will be drastic delays between each new block found. The transactions would slow down a lot.

Concentration of the power of net into single pool is bad thing, imho.

The Difficulty would go down if the hash rate were to drop dramatically like you are suggesting.

The hash rate won't go down when difficulty goes up.  The blocks will get bigger [on average] making it harder to find the solution.