pull down to refresh

Because Antpool-group has ~40% of hashrate.

Loop concurs with the statement. Links to his confirmation risk calculator.

Are you waiting for more confirmations these days?

17 sats \ 17 replies \ @OT 9 Feb

That might be a bit of a stretch. Still, I don't know why miners are OK with continuing to point hash at Antpool-group. Do they not care?

reply

stupid-people.jpg

stupid people = fiat maxis mining BTC only for fiat profits

reply

So how can non mining plebs fight miner centralization?

reply

start mining ?

reply

This.

reply

You have to Solo Mine... or mine with Ocean or at least a 'non-chinese' small group.
And the hashrate from small 'home' miners is so small... we would need hundreds of thousands of them to make any noticeable difference.

reply
we would need hundreds of thousands of them to make any noticeable difference.

yes indeed, but is the only way.

reply

I have a home miner, an Apollo II.
Is it profitable? Eh at 100k I probably just break even maybe less.

But I've learned a lot using it, and I'm glad I bought it.

Having said that, we have as a community focused so much on 'self custody' (that still not enough people do) only to seriously forgo the conversation about mining and 'transaction selecting'.

There are still very few examples of 'censorship' in the wild today (maybe a dozen a year, a few dozen at max?) but if Bitcoin ever becomes a global geo-political asset for countries this will start to be a BIG issue.

does it make any difference if many of us start mining with bitaxes? It must solo mining then, right?

reply

you can only fight miner centralization by mining. if you don't own miners you can also buy mining contracts and point them to the pool of your choice to help out via rigly.io

reply

Cloud mining is a scam.

reply

indeed

reply
reply

This was spoken about in the recent pod done by the ocean team. The idea that people would do the right thing by pointing their hash elsewhere, when a pool gets centralized or malicious, is a long dead idea. The main reason is, according to Luke, "the large miners at foundry and ANT Pool aren't bitcoiners". That cannot be further from the truth. The miners we have today have a different philosophy and understanding of bitcoin than miners from a decade ago

reply

what do you mean they 'aren't Bitcoiners' and you disagreed with this statement?
They aren't.

Or they are large, industrial size mining pools who could care less about censorship they just want the $$$ even getting paid out in Dollars/fiat directly.

And even if they wanted to 'fight censorship' how can they if they have large industrial facilities, publicly listed companies, located onsite in Texas?

reply
47 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 9 Feb
Do they not care?

maybe it's related to this meme (among other things):

reply

Everybody's got a plan till they get punched in the face.

reply

I have agreed with this for over 1-year

#242608

I'm surprised more economic nodes aren't updating their min-conf policy to account for the risks of transacting onchain while mining is relatively centralized.

reply

While I think Luke has made some valuable contributions to bitcoin, I mostly think he is an absolute moron.

reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 9 Feb

FACT CHECK

Based on the 3mo report from mempool space, and looking for matching merkle hashes (for the WHOLE range) on stratum.work, I get to:

Antpool	0.1939
SecPool 0.0391
Binance	0.0192
Luxor 0.0190
Braiins 0.0176

EMCD <0.0005        -\
Poolin <0.005        |
Ultimus <0.005       |
Rawpool <0.005       +---- cannot be more than 0.0183 (other)
CloverPool <0.005    |
Headframe	<0.005   |
SigmaPool <0.0005   -/

0.1939+0.0391+0.0192+0.0190+0.0176+<0.0183 = total < 0.3071

30.71% - less than foundry (32.55%)

I'd like to know how Mr. DashJr gets to 48%.

reply
109 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kenobi 10 Feb

Btw, you can also now check the merkle brances on mempool space: #878573

reply

Why according to Loop's calculator if I put 200 confirmations it gives a low risk and 1000 confirmation 100% risk?

reply

There appears to be a bug in the calculation and anything over 808 confirmations at 48 percent of the hash rate says 100 percent reorg risk. 800 confirmations fives 5 percent reorg risk and if that calculation is correct than every confirmation after that will be lower than 5 percent.

reply

Hard fork the mining algorithm. Make their rigs expensive doorstops.

reply

Where did he the numbers from? Those numbers look extremely incorrect.

reply