But it is not true at all that this reduces pool power. There is no security improvement.
-
-
Replying to @evoskuil @hugohanoi and
What about accessibility improvements (reducing cost to run a BetterHash pool). What about bandwidth usage to receive / transmit pool shares in the Work Pool, any improvement? My business uses cellular and we mine in remote locations, so this is interesting to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @SGBarbour @hugohanoi and
There may very well be optimizations, which would not be surprising given the very shitty state of existing protocols. However given the security design failure it’s necessary to consider the protocol strictly as an optimization. This may lead one to a different design.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @SGBarbour and
The big improvements BetterHash brings, IMO: 1/ Individual miners regain their right to propose blocks 2/ Authenticated connections between miners & pools - something Stratum didn't have 3/ Reduced latency by eliminating the dependency on a centralized getblocktemplate() service
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
Assuming BetterHash makes improvements on lowering the cost to run a pool (BetterHash ‘Pool Protocol’ operator vs Stratum pool operator), then does that not incentivize more competition between pool operators, thus improving security?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SGBarbour @hugohanoi and
No, the incentive for competition remains unchanged. If there is a financial benefit to the protocol, they simply all upgrade.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @SGBarbour and
1) No, this is unchanged vs. current pools. They of course have the "right" to change pools, but the larger pool wins. No improvement. 2) This is not a system security improvement, and is not necessarily an improvement. 3) No, in this case latency increases.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @SGBarbour and
1/ That’s assuming pooling will be winner-take-all, which is possible but not guaranteed - why hasn’t one single pool dominated the market *already*?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @evoskuil and
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
2/ That logic also doesn’t factor in the possibility of solving mining variance *without using pools*, e.g., thru external means such as financial hedges. See my thread on the topic of variance - finding blocks is not the only type of variance.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1004875566477004800 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour and
People selecting their own blocks and solving for variance using financial instruments is not a change, so this is a red herring. There is a cost to hedging, and that's your increased cost of capital that is the variance discount.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There's always a cost for hedging against variance. Doesn't matter if it's thru technical means or other means. I don't think it can come for free.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @SGBarbour and
Maybe it cannot be eliminated, but shifting the cost is not "solving mining variance".
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
