Nothing crazy, just interesting to see this playing out.
pull down to refresh
1102 sats \ 0 replies \ @jasonb 18 Jun
Hmmm, yeah, I bet I’m not the only non-tech person interested in reading (and zapping) an in-depth article explaining how this isn’t evidence that foundry has a dangerous percentage of the global hash rate.
reply
101 sats \ 6 replies \ @tomlaies 18 Jun
I don't understand why people are surprised by this. This is called "selfish mining":
- has been happening in Bitcoin for many years now
- has been theorized before it first happened
- compatible according to protocol
- is a good thing, indicative of a good and healthy mining industry with entrepreneurship and risktaking
- not a big deal
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 19 Jun
No it's not.
This is how Bitcoin Core nodes have always worked. Miners don't know how much hash power is working on their block. So the obvious thing to do is to just work on extending the chain you have and hope that's what everyone else is working on too.
reply
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @02bcd3eeb0 18 Jun
Lol. Do you even hear how ridiculous you sound? In a good and healthy mining industry selfish mining would be a complete waste of resources. It happens precisely because the industry is so unhealthy that there are only 2 entities producing block templates.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @tomlaies 18 Jun
Those are not my words. It's the consensus judgement by cryptographers from the day selfish mining was thought of before it even happened for the first time ever.
It's what happens in free market competition. Free markets are a self-balancing system. Inefficiencies create incentives for people (=smaller miners) to arbitrage them (=switching pools)
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @petertodd 19 Jun
Lol, no. Selfish mining was actually discovered by bitcoiners, and is one of the reasons we didn't increase the block size. Markers are not always "self-balancing systems". Winner take all markets are extremely harmful for decentralization.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @joda 19 Jun
Can you say more vis-a-vis block size?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 19 Jun freebie
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQYAVbYaIAAeQJe?format=jpg&name=small
pool allocates resources inefficient ➡️ miners switch to more efficient pool⤵️
⬆️ miners switch to more efficient pool ⬅️ other pool dabbles in selfish mining
Capitalism takes taking Ws, Commies like Peter Todd keeps taking Ls
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 18 Jun
This is why it’s good practice to wait for more than 1 confirmation
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @16d86e9daa 18 Jun freebie
what about the issue of them not mining on their own tip?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BallLightning 19 Jun
I was wandering do block explorers like mempool.space visualize chain splits?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xB10C OP 19 Jun
fork.observer shows forks and stale blocks
reply