Pools for everyone
-
@haitch LOL like i said Mother of All Servers xP
Ok so i think this idea is a great theory but would not be feasible anyway and my 10 minutes of madness were just that, 10 minutes of madness... xD
@haitch @tross I hope that something is done regarding this issue...
I would like to see people brainstorming ideas regarding what can be done to de-centralize things instead of attacking each others...
Many people have talked about this in the past (including me) and i also believe it's a big problem we are facing and will continue to face until a) there is +10 ninja pools or b) +60% of the network be mining in solo mode...
I know very little about this matters so i can only through ideas and others with a deeper knowledge about de-centralized networks can opine on them and if we get lucky a good idea will come up and solve the problem...So maybe a good thing would be to make all pools with a max cap (like the mobile pool has but ofc with a higher cap, 1Tb would be too smal ofc) on it instead of splitting pools with minimum limits and who has big miners just solo mine wich i think should be the target of a trully de-centralized network...
I think that the biggest pools will oppose to it but i think this would incentivizing solo miners and consequently de-centralize the whole network making it more reliable and fair...
-
@gpedro By adjusting the minimum deadline, the pools can regulate, sort of, the minimum capacity for the pool. I don't see it as reasonable to have a max capacity on pools other than the mobile pool - I prefer the "hey, this pool is not for you" approach.
Over the past few days I've had several people contact me for the Ninja Pool code, and downloaded the VM - so more pool choice should be coming up. Claiming that a pool targeted to big miners is hurting small miners is ridiculous. Every miner has the same chance of winning the next block whether they're in a small pool or a big one. It's your capacity vs. the rest of the network. The burst-team.us pool has more registered miners than ninja and burst mining club combined, but only 16% of the number of won blocks. Those blocks are going to the same miners regardless of if they're in a small pool, big pool, or mining solo.
A more fair distribution of miners across the pools would be great - but it's not happening, and a new pool pool is not making it worse.
-
@haitch I am not a ninja fan but I watch the network daily cause I have no life. I seen that a couple days and guess what I complained and guess what nobody cared. I am not worried about your 11 minions I am worried about the solo miners you attract or the large miners that might come from my pool. You are not retarded but cant you see this happening. If I am right then what would you say OH how did that happen. I give up there is no helping you. Do what you do best screw up this party! I post no more cause the stupidity is making me mad!
Good bye and good life!
-
@tross I'm not trying to pull miners from others pools.
Miners will make their own decisions about what is the best path for them.
Closing down ccMiners pool just gives them one less choice. If they decide they want to pool mine instead of solo, they have one less choice. How does less choice help?
More choice = more distribution.
-
@haitch what can be done to set up more pools? i would be willing to work on it. can these be hosted on AWS etc?
-
@falconCoin I have a downloadable template, and instructions for configuring. It just requires a vmWare Host. If you AWS provider will spin up an ESX host, you can run it.
-
@haitch said in Pools for everyone:
More choice = more distribution.
As i see it is not exactly like that because if there are less pools, it should worth more to solomine and that leads to much more de-centralization then have more pool choices or am i wrong?
If pools do a well thinked max limit by address (like 20-30 Tb idk) this leads to the same path i talked in the above paragraph without releasing the number of choices on the network because this would make the biggest miners to a) replot their drives to multiple addresses (wich should mean more miners but more equality in mining power) or b) they don't like the hassle and downtime of replot their drives to fit the new rules and move to solomine wich leads to much more de-centralization...
At least this is what i think but i may be wrong ofc! If i am right this is a win-win solution...
-
@haitch said in Pools for everyone:
vmWare Host
I have a few Linux machines laying around, tried getting wallet on that, not accomplished yet lol...
But i would toss it one of those if it will help.
-
@gpedro Taking a very brief look at Luxe's monitor - there are over 7,000 pool miners, and 53 solo miners. The majority of miners are in pools, the question is how to get them to distribute rather than concentrate on one.
-
@falconCoin you'd need to wipe it and install the free ESX hypervisor - you'll also need a public IP address.
-
@haitch That is exactly my point... The problem is not the small miners but the concentration of the bigger ones so if all pools create a max cap per address their miners have to change a lot or are forced to go solo and that would really decentralize the network...
The idea of mining in pools is not to concentrate big miners but to be used by small miners to compete with the bigger ones, this pool concept is in Burst and in every other crypto... Having the biggest miners in pools is the real problem, that was why i suggested like 1 month ago in BN that both ninja and club were splitted in at least another pool, they didn't looked against it but didn't showed desire to accomplish this ASAP too...
On one hand I can agree with @tross when he says that building another ninja is not the way to go but on the other hand I can agree with you that if we don't have the ninja and club splitted, having another ninja pool is not entirely a bad thing, but IMHO this is like a bendict not a solution...
I think the last solution i proposed of a max cap per address in every pool would be a really solution instead of a bendict, provably the cap of 20-30 Tb is not the better but that would be something that someone with a better know-how than me should speak off...
I agree this would be a big hassle to the majority of the miners, but it's for the best to the communitty and the coin... Not to benefit no one personally but everyone, being who is mining for a really long time and is mining with 1 Pb or who just arrived and is mining with his newly 10Tb...
Please do me the favour of don't discard this option just yet and consider it for some minutes and think how this can change everything by making the whole network more reliable, de-centralized and end all the network issues for good...
-
@gpedro I still see problems, but primarily: By creating a max cap on pools, you're pushing mega miners to an ultra large mining pool, that now has excessive influence.
-
@haitch I'm talking we all reach a consensus and make every pool out there follow these rules... At least every pool that don't want to harm the network and not following these rules after a consensus would tell to the communitty that the pool owner don't want to protect the communitty but milk the coin, that should be enough to make people not go to his pool...
Again the purpose of this is to destroy completely aggregated big miners... Remember what i said: pools are for small miners to compete with the big miners... Solo mining is the real de-centralization not a bunch of pools... This are growing pains of Burst, mining power is getting to big to let this issues be not resolved and just bendicted... Just my thoughts...
-
@gpedro I have absolutely no issue with a negotiated cap limit, but I think you'll have a problem across the wall ........
-
@haitch @gpedro I think the concept is what a p2pool is. I like the idea except the block reward isn't big enough. Second I don't know that we could have one pool wallet for everyone.
I also think that similar to when bitcoin first started with usb miner that with burstcoin 1tb is no longer the min needed. Thus it is a competetive market and miners will need to invest in more tb power.Moving forward Uray created some bad blood right @Haitchi and since then The idea of creating a different pool code surfaced. This is the love hate relationship now.
Uray code can be unpredictable sometimes so The newer Ninja code also took care of that and this is what has made so many larger miners happy with consistent pay. @SirGibs is correct with uray code and it can be unpredictable if the pool owner doesn't understand how it works.However in the long run if the larger miners gave it a try then they would see that a pool that figured out how urays works can payout the same as a ninja pool if it finds the same amount of blocks in a day and frankly that is the key.
-
@haitch So do you agree this would be a good thing if it happens and that you are willing to reach a consensus in order to put all more reliable and de-centralized?
I'm glad we are reaching somewhere with all this...
-
@gpedro I would be willing to do it with 100% of pool consensus.
-
@Burstde Have you read the whole thread or are you still at the middle? lol
I think you are talking about my first madness idea and we all agreed is not feasible, but i proposed another thing and that is what we are discussing right now... ;D
-
@haitch Cool i will try to reach other pool owners on BN and see if they are willing to do something like this and if so try to arrange a meeting with all pool owners so we can try and solve this whole mess going on... I know i will face some challenges but what is life without challenges right? hahahaha
-
lol ...okay you caught me ...I'll read more.
