Pools for everyone
-
@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.
-
Also @tross @socalguy @ccminer can you guys see my last proposal on this thread and tell me if you guys are willing to reach a consensus for the greater good... Remember we are talking a 100% consensus and not just some pools or we are all together or this will not go ahead... ;D
My proposal discussion starts at post 16 ;D (https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/4865/pools-for-everyone/16)
If some pool owner is not in agreement please explain why so we can try to reach a consensus...
We all said things against each other (including me!) and we don't have to like everyone but let's put our differences aside and do this for the entire community?! After all, we are all here because we have all one thing in common, the fact that we like this coin and we want it to succeed!
@haitch if i forgot someone that is a pool owner and is in this forum please tag them... ;D
-
@Burstde hehehe i knew it xD
-
as far as a cap on a pool i dont think its realistic to place the cap on the individual you would be excluding people with large rigs from helping a pool , insted i feel a cap / freeze on new people joining a pool once it has reached a combined mining power excluding solo i count 18 pool wallets in the NW observer , network diff is currently a little over 25k correct me if im wrong but that means there are aprox 25 peta in the network = a lil over 1 peta per pool even .... you will never have an even distribution but you could say close a pool off to new miners if when the pool reaches a cap of 2 peta worth of mining power ... that would force people to join other pools and with growth force new pools to open up. of course you can not enforce this only sugest it and then impliment it on the pools that you do have control over.
-
Leave the pools as they are.
Why? Because we are focusing on something that isn't important. With only 7,056 miners, we should be focusing on bringing in new people.
We also should be developing new software and or hardware to entice new people to join up with burstcoin. If you build it, they will come...?
anyways, imo :)
-
@Gibsalot You are not excluding them, you are forcing them to divide their plots into different accounts make the rewards per account more fair for everyone, or forcing them to go solo wich is the truly purpose of all this because if we want a trully de-centralized network we have to have a lot more solominers instead of pools, so we have to force bigger miners to go solo instead of be using pools...
Pools are made for small miners to compete with larger ones not for big miners to goble all the rewards, this is the true purpose of the pools concept!
The max cap is not yet defined (hell nothing is yet defined lol) and will have to be agreed from every pool owner...
-
@socalguy What i'm proposing would make the network totally de-centralized and really fair rewards for everyone... The purpose of a decentralized network is to have a big number of full nodes and you can only force that to happen by making more worthy solomine than pool mine so people run their wallets and mine with them...
We have 7056 miners and 18 pools + 52 solominers = 70 full nodes mining, wich is around 1% of the total miners, don't you find this number too low? I do, and don't you think this can cause problems?
Also you said that we should be focusing on get more miners, that's true but don't you think if the rewards are more even there will be more incentive for new miners to come? I do...

