LOPP_RETURN Wars: The problem is deeper than spam filters, Stratum v1 has to die \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

LOPP_RETURN Wars: The problem is deeper than spam filters, Stratum v1 has to die europeanbitcoiners.com/lopp_return-wars-the-problem-is-deeper-than-spam-filters-stratum-v1-needs-to-die/

2005 sats \ 14 comments \ @oomahq 10 May bitcoin

view all related items

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @Artilektt 11 May

Why are more "hashers" not switching to OCEAN? They aren't big enough to pay out quickly enough yet?

75 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 11 May

afaict three reasons:

OCEAN uses a payout system that's similar to PPLNS which has relatively high payout variance relative to PPS/FPPS (which small pools can't provide because it's very risky/expensive), and big miners want less variance all things being equal
To mine on OCEAN, you also have to run a bitcoin node so that you can build templates (which is a good thing), but more friction = less customers
The pool is relatively young and network effects are in play

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 14h

OCEAN is virtue signaling and hiding that miners who spamfilter are free riding on miners who don't. anti-censorship, but not anti spam, is the future of bitcoin:

#978118

165 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11 May

Now I think I should run Knots

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 11 May

Why?

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 May

43 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 11 May

Excellent article!

73 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 11 May

While most developers won't agree with me, I posit that destroying pool operator centralization is a much more worthwile endeavor than protecting mempool consistency at all costs.

This is a false dichotomy. No one advocating for "mempool consistency," which is a russell conjugation of "against transaction accelerators," is in favor of pool centralization. The main reason anyone would argue for "mempool consistency" is that filters cause people to use transaction accelerators which leads to ... mining pool centralization.

DATUM and Knots are independent of each other - you can run one without the other - but you can't use DATUM without OCEAN. This reads like an advertisement for OCEAN.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @oomahq OP 19h

An free one, to boot. I have no affiliation with Ocean besides believing that the work they're doing is awesome and important.

I believe mining pool centralization is the prerequisite for transaction accelerators, not the consequence. Hence why I think it's important to promote the emergence of more real mining nodes in an incentive-compatible way like they do.

Having said that I have no quarrel against other pools with the same goals. A week or two ago I spoke with someone involved with DMND and he told me they were still in private beta, hence why I did not make Sv2 a focus of the article.

1000 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 16h

An free one, to boot. I have no affiliation with Ocean besides believing that the work they're doing is awesome and important.

I didn't mean to imply you were paid. Sorry about that. It was just decisively arguing for DATUM which is only available through Ocean because the pool code isn't open source yet (and I'd guess won't be for awhile because the "spot checks" are likely not perfect and are better off being obscured).

I believe mining pool centralization is the prerequisite for transaction accelerators, not the consequence. Hence why I think it's important to promote the emergence of more real mining nodes in an incentive-compatible way like they do.

Great point. I agree. Transaction accelerators exist though so we have to deal with the incentives they create regardless. A bunch of us running knots and making our own blocks don't fix that afaict.

76 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier 11 May

It's a good advertisement, Ocean is the only mining pool that allows you to choose your block content.