Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-09-06 📝 Original message:Switching pools has always ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-09-06
📝 Original message:Switching pools has always been possible. But the largest pool is the most profitable, and centralized pools are easily controlled. Decoupling selection without decoupling payout is an engineering change without a pooling pressure change.
e
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 10:01, David A. Harding <dave at dtrt.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 09:29:01AM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>> It doesn’t centralize payment, which ultimately controls transaction selection (censorship).
>
> Yeah, but if you get paid after each share via LN and you can switch
> pools instantly, then the worst case with centralized pools is that
> you don't get paid for one share. If the hasher sets their share
> difficulty low enough, that shouldn't be a big deal.
>
> I'm interested in whether braidpool offers any significant benefits over
> an idealized version of centralized mining with independent transaction
> selection.
>
> -Dave
📝 Original message:Switching pools has always been possible. But the largest pool is the most profitable, and centralized pools are easily controlled. Decoupling selection without decoupling payout is an engineering change without a pooling pressure change.
e
> On Sep 6, 2021, at 10:01, David A. Harding <dave at dtrt.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 09:29:01AM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>> It doesn’t centralize payment, which ultimately controls transaction selection (censorship).
>
> Yeah, but if you get paid after each share via LN and you can switch
> pools instantly, then the worst case with centralized pools is that
> you don't get paid for one share. If the hasher sets their share
> difficulty low enough, that shouldn't be a big deal.
>
> I'm interested in whether braidpool offers any significant benefits over
> an idealized version of centralized mining with independent transaction
> selection.
>
> -Dave