pull down to refresh
1161 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 11 Jul
Suppose Antpool has demonstrated a pattern of mining on the competing fork (as opposed to mining on their own block during a fork).
https://m.stacker.news/39252
As you explained, if Antpool were trying to maximize profits (short term) then they would mine on their own block during a chainsplit.
What are you opinions on the following reasons why Antpool would abandon their own block during a fork?
-
Antpool does not want to be "liable" for a 2+ block chainsplit that could appear as an attempt to reorg blocks (its a way to guard reputation as an "honest" pool)
-
Antpool is using the Tit for Tat Strategy (its a long-term strategy of mutual cooperation)
Do you have a theory why a pool would mine on the competing fork?
reply
130 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xB10C OP 12 Jul
I don't think AntPool mining on it's own block could easily cause a 2+ block chainsplit. If they find a block on their own block, their side of the split wins by having the most work chain. All other pools will switch to it no matter where they mined before.
In this case, the Tit for Tat Strategy isn't working out against Foundry. It's known that Foundry will switch and mine on their own block (see e.g. https://x.com/0xB10C/status/1803082081385246738).
https://m.stacker.news/39329https://m.stacker.news/39328
My guess is that they are either not aware of the game theory (doubtful as they've been in the industry for quite long), or they don't care enough. After all, there's maybe one or two forks a month involving AntPool, and even fewer ones where they end up loosing due to not mining on their own.
reply