Oddbean new post about login | logout Glad to see Ocean.xyz's hash rate continue to sharply rise. More decentralized mining pools are good for Bitcoin. https://m.primal.net/HRdD.png
I don’t see anything about this pool that is decentralized in any way. More pools is good, though.
As I understand it the current mining pools collect all the bitcoin and distribute it to the miners executing the hash. Ocean pays out directly from the coinbase transaction without a waiting period or intermediary. Ocean also doesn't construct the template, which means the miners are in control of what transactions are included and which are not. I am no expert, but I see that as an improvement. Do you see it differently?
Ocean absolutely does construct the template.
For the moment I think. The next rollout is for the miner to do it.
I haven’t seen anything publicly which states that, though I’m told they’ve privately indicated they want to build that.
From their website https://image.nostr.build/cedecf83594c48b5e3b3087365cf54fd4a15cf7a3c4e225fb323d7a5a7f2668c.jpg
I missed the last part, thanks! I’d still suggest the pool is not at all “non-custodial” - they both mention needing to be a custodian for small miners, but also, from a miner’s perspective, there’s just as much trust in them as any other pool. The pool can always decline to pay out and there’s no recourse available in-protocol.
Also, most pools provide detailed analytics of miner hashrate, and often even hardware monitoring. I’m really happy more people are building pools, but I really struggle with the marketing here - it seems like there’s really nothing special (they’re far from the only pool that has said they want to support StratumV2), but the marketing is all about how they’re the only pool that’s providing some kind of fantastical properties.
I think defining custody here is pretty important, because being plausibly non-custodial is useful for sidestepping KYC requirements. Paying out from the protocol rather than through an address directly controlled by the pool is different than other pools, no?
It’s different, yes (though generally it’s not done that way for legitimate technical reasons), but I’m incredibly dubious that it’s different in any legal sense. The pool is ultimately still tracking clients and deciding when and how much to pay them.
If they decide not to pay a specific miner, technically where would the bitcoin go instead? Not to their own address, so instead spread out to other miners minus that one miner, or something else? If so, they would sound more like breach of responsibilities rather than a custodial relationship. Are there precedents for being labeled a custodian despite not holding someone else’s bitcoin in an address you control?
The pool in this setup is perfectly capable of simply pocketing the money for as long as there are still miners mining on it. Sadly there’s no technical enforcement of the pool behaving correctly, and building that is not really practical (without just rebuilding p2pool from scratch and starting over).
1) If they were to do that, wouldn’t it be more transparent than other pools? It would be more provable that this occurred? 2) As long as they are not doing that, I’m not sure that would constitute a custodial relationship. At no point do they put bitcoin in an address they control that belongs to someone else. Courts might need to broaden definitions of custody to include that. But legal experts in this area would know more than me. Now, if they do at some point withhold funds, there could be a debate whether it’s custodial failing or a breach of duties.
1) not sure how, I mean they can just change the website and remove miners they don’t want to pay and pretend they were never there. Or add some fictitious miners with huge hashrate to siphon money off to themselves. 2) yea, dunno, obviously they’re custodial for smaller miners. I’m dubious “custodial” is the right way to think about a pool. More like “liability” - the pool has some liabilities to their users which build up over time, and the user can withdraw at some points. They aren’t depositing and don’t really hold custody, they just build up liabilities.
More generally, I don’t think “custodian of user money” isn’t really the way pools will be regulated, if they are - they’d be regulated under very different laws.
I think a #mainvolume issued license is required to think. I think I am European, Swedish in fact. I think I am created by Sina for #mainvolume https://apps.apple.com/de/app/sys/id1439243037?l=en-GB 🤫
There are limits to what they'll allow, though, even if they do that. They may be constrained by OFAC considerations, for example. But, in general, think about the nightmare of how to properly account for some miners choosing to construct blocks with much lower fees. Should they receive the same share of earnings as a pool member who always maximizes fees? Obviously neither fair nor sustainable. But making payouts fair in that case will be both conceptually and practically harder.
Okay. This conflicts with what I have heard so far, but I am still learning. Hope you have a nice day
Which Luke loves because now he can censor transactions more effectively by leading this whole marketing campaign veiled in "decentralized, no KYC" when really Ocean is using knots and not core to censor transactions Luke doesn't think are legitimate.
Do you think the intent is to stop BRC20 and Ordinals?
Ocean's minimum payout is ~1m sats, which is the same as, e.g., ViaBTC. And, since they don't support payouts over Lightning (yet), it's actually inferior to NiceHash. I think they are trying to do the right thing, and will eventually get better, but we shouldn't overstate where they are today, at launch.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification
Miners build the blocks, not the pool.
That is not true as of today. They’ve stated privately they want to move to StratumV2 where that would be the case, but I don’t see anything on the website publicly committing that that.
And you can switch pools (miners) by entering a different URL in your firmware and clicking a button. So again, how does it help decentralize? You presume you can't switch pools within seconds if one gets too big or censors transactions. You know... How Ocean censors transactions....
My question about #Ocean.xyz: how is it going to impact transaction fees if every miner is receiving a payout from the block reward? I personally would want to batch my UTXOs to some degree to avoid huge tx fees both now and in the future
When I saw this I thought... Looks the same as it did last night. It does because the previous hash rate addition is dwarfed by the one today! Very cool to watch this unfolding in real time.
Have you seen the questions by @Seth For Privacy what are your thoughts on it?
He blocked @Seth For Privacy for asking those questions… seems like he doesn’t want to answer specifics about how the mining pool will operate
Who blocked Seth?
@Luke Dashjr this guy
- Translated from Spanish by Argos - The #bitcoin narrative tells us that miners can choose transactions that lie in a block, because if a miner wants to censor my transaction, others may include it or I myself can mount a mining node and undermine my transaction. But this is not true. With the energy needs of miners, potentially most miners can be identified and pressured, and the economic needs to mount a mining node make it out of reach 99% of bitcoin users and with a greater adoption at state level, mining can become a war scenario (limit access to my nodes, attack other nodes, censor transactions.etc...). Wouldn't it be better than transactions to enter a block were determined in the code, by first the commission, second the time of arrival at the mempool and third alphabetical order or something? Emerging owners of the code!
This is just Luke rebooting Eligius but it’s not actually decentralized. I’m not entirely certain why they needed a $6 million seed round either when the only developer appears to be Luke.
Already nearly doubled! nostr:nevent1qqsvkafvwmqqu2kefp3rhaqy6yztn5g8mfysnv86k5gla6w6p0uun4gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qvzqqqqqqycdd26j
Can someone ELI5 how this helps decentralize mining pools? nostr:nevent1qqsvkafvwmqqu2kefp3rhaqy6yztn5g8mfysnv86k5gla6w6p0uun4gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qvzqqqqqqycdd26j
Having hashrate split out on multiple pools instead of only on 1 or 2 large mining pools reduces the possibility of 51% attacks or for said large pools to act maliciously due to controlling majority of the total hashrate
Adding one more pool to an already over dozen pools does not decentralize them... People are free to switch pools whenever they like at the click of a button within seconds. You really don't need more than four or five to prevent 51% attacks. Bitcoin is fine because there's dozens already. Saying adding one more will decentralize all of mining is just a ridiculous marketing scheme.
Can @Luke Dashjr comment on this? Would love to continue to hear more perspectives on this topic.
En fait je vous ai retrouvé trop timide dans le docu et plus que gêné pour regarder le public. Posture à travailler devant votre miroir. Mais compréhensible dans certains domaine d'activités, idem que Jack '. À deux je pense qu' il vous faut un ordinateur plus qu'un pubilc.. La seule question l'eau utilisée pour le minage comment il est recyclée par la suite. J'avais vu qu'en Kenya avec Grindless de Hermann dit white African l'eau pouvait permettre aux population surtout les femmes de faire de la culture maraîchère ou pour cultiver des plantes et fleurs. Merci
You really don't want to be supporting Ocean https://iris.to/note1zfy60nkmfdy96ezd9egpadkrf94ua3ad449u5dquasy3jucc6vcs5xj9z9
The links you are posting are silly considering the pool hasn't even hit a block yet, they haven't censored anything. What pool are you suggesting miners partner with as the alternative to not mining with Ocean? I've used Braiins and Luxor so far. The rest that actually hit blocks are nearly all kyc.
Hi Lyn, love your content. Please kindly contact some of the miners who are actually trying to work on decentralization about this business before posting your opinions. This dude has blocked Seth for Privacy for asking straight forward legitimate questions we all are waiting for answers to… and it seems anyone else who asks for clarity. Seems like all is not what it seems or what is being promised
Going to clean my miner out then turn it back on for winter Guess which "pool" I'm going to use? nostr:nevent1qqsvkafvwmqqu2kefp3rhaqy6yztn5g8mfysnv86k5gla6w6p0uun4gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzp64suatdx2uqhn2xfu7cgjuqgqcrqadp864uxkv6wckf43atj860qvzqqqqqqycdd26j
Would be great to hear your and nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63ms take on whether you agree with censoring ordinals transactions. I'm no fan of ordinals, but this is an important discussion. I'd also love to hear more broadly about the risks of pool centralisation in regards to state capture and tx censoring.
