Putting a cap on pool size



  • Why cant we cap the size of each pool to make large miners spread out.



  • I think that is a good idea, don't know why they do not do that. What would be a good cap per pool? I think about 2.5PB per pool. That pool is insanely large! 🙂



  • @Tate-A I am sorry guys this is the Internet and Crypto. You can't go making rules like that, goes against everything that that is trying to be achieved. You could cap your pool but there will always be someone that does not want to be capped. Next thing you will try to set max size for a solo miner?

    Rich



  • Pool size isnt the issue, as shown even by BTC larger pools can operate just fine. The issue is the servers that those pools are stored on. If they arent capable of supporting the network it will never be solved regardless how you spread out the miners.

    Unless you spread the miners onto pools stored other servers that is.



  • @jj1k Oh so now the issue isn't the pool size / number of TB on a single pool? If you want my view the actual issue is the way that the Burst Algorithm / coping with very close deadlines from different servers and Pools / arbitration over which chain is the right chain that is at the root of our problems. But I suspect there is no solution to that other than starting again?

    Rich



  • @RichBC i can only go by the information i have seen documented on the different threads relating to the issue. All pool and wallets that have forked are stored on a single server network. Its clear that that network isnt able to cope with the bottleneck the resources are putting on it. This tells me that the servers have very limited IP access and frankly arent up to the job so they have to fork off from the stable network.



  • @jj1k Not my understanding of the problem, but also not my area of expertise, so will allow someone else to comment.

    Rich



  • You can read something like this with bitcoin
    http://www.coindesk.com/ahead-bitcoin-halving-51-attack-risks-reappear/



  • @Energy I do not think the issue here is a 51% Attack? More the stability of the network, be that because of the basic Algorithm, the hosting / robustness of the servers or the amount of TB on a single pool?

    Rich



  • @RichBC Of course everything influences, so the more you concentrate on one place, the slower it all goes.

    With the example of bitcoin, the 51% attack is supposed to be because concentrating so many transactions in one place with little you do can saturate the network easily.

    You have to think that it is not miners that in the end the one that finds the block is the pool in the theory although in practice it is not so.

    If the problem here is that a pool works better than the rest, what will have to do is get pools that work just as well



  • @Energy said in Putting a cap on pool size:

    @RichBC Of course everything influences, so the more you concentrate on one place, the slower it all goes.

    With the example of bitcoin, the 51% attack is supposed to be because concentrating so many transactions in one place with little you do can saturate the network easily.

    You have to think that it is not miners that in the end the one that finds the block is the pool in the theory although in practice it is not so.

    If the problem here is that a pool works better than the rest, what will have to do is get pools that work just as well

    But that just verifies what i said. Every pool and wallet based on these servers is forked. If the issue was just with large pools then the other pools and the wallets wouldnt be effected. The servers are the issue. You move the larger pool onto its own server with its own IP and this issue goes away.



  • @jj1k No, servers as hardware are not the problem for network saturation. Another very different thing is that a pool works badly for having a bad server or because it is saturated.

    Another thing is also that a pool falls and clear increases the saturation in the big, but it is that this can happen the same without falling alone with that more miners go to the bigger pool.

    For example for the network it will always be better that 2 pool control 50% to do it one

    Sorry if I am not explaining well but it is that in English it costs me a lot


  • admin

    @jj1k Each of the big pools are on their own servers.



  • Rich burst is big but not big enough! IF you let what happened with btc happen here then you might see burst fold up. It has to be handle a little different to keep it alive. If you are just in it for the money then pumping it dry is no problem but if you plan some kind of future with burst you want everyone to stay. Could burst survive on 3 big pools ? I dont know.