New pool: HonestPool,

timothyjcoultertimothyjcoulter Member Posts: 14
edited June 2016 in Pool Discussion
Hi there,

This fork has brought much debate in our community, at best stopping a thief from running away with our cash and at worst causing an unmendable rift in our community. Whatever your opinion is about the fork, one thing is clear: The voting process should be fair. Miners should be honestly represented.

At HonestPool, we don't think that's the case. Mining in pools has obvious benefits, but there's one downside that's never talked about, and that's miners giving up control of their mining power to someone else. You can see this in action in current pool's voting processes, where "no" votes are ignored and non-votes are treated as if they're not even there. These two pools, ethpool and dwarfpool, along with f2pool, control more than 61% of the network, more than enough to decide the outcome of this fork. And yet, more than 70% of their users haven't even voted. Only a small percentage has -- around 20% -- and even less than that have voted yes. If you take 20% of their total 61% network power, this means only 12% of the network can decide the outcome of this fork decision.

We think this is wrong. This was not the intention of the Ethereum developers, and it circumvents the security of our network. As miners it's our duty to uphold this security.

So we created another pool, If you mine with us, for this fork decision -- and this fork decision only -- we won't vote the fork.

Note that we're not just trying to rep our pool here -- if we were we'd be voting for the fork. Instead, we're trying to give no votes a place to go where they'll be fairly counted. Here's how we see the breakdown, along with our recommendation:
  1. If you want the fork, and you're using a pool, stay at the pool you're using. Switching is obviously cumbersome, and your vote will be counted correctly there.
  2. If you don't want the fork and you're using the top three pools, you'll be inaccurately represented, as none of your hashing power will actually go toward voting "no" on the network. If you switch to HonestPool, however, it will.
  3. If you haven't voted, and don't care about this decision specifically, then your vote in the top three pools will be an automatic yes. We find this disconcerting, as the creators of Ethereum specifically stated that 51% of all miners need to vote "yes" in order to enact a fork -- not just more people than those that vote "no". We think this is important to the safety and security of the Ethereum ecosystem, and at HonestPool we want to uphold miner's voting power. You can switch here if you a) don't care about the fork decision, but b) do care about maintaining a proper voting system.
No matter what you think the outcome should be, we can all agree that everyone should vote. This secures our network, and as miners upholds our duty to the community as a whole. So please: Vote in your pools. Vote with your mining power. Make sure this is the decision that everyone wants.

Please maintain health discussion on this. All opinions welcome.


Tim Coulter,
Creator of HonestPool


  • adasebadaseb Member Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭
    I didn't vote either because I looked at the results and they were like 4x as much for "soft fork" and I figured I don't need to vote. Many are probably doing the same thing.

    If it was edging closer to 50/50, I would vote then.

    We need a soft fork. Without the fork, the price of ETH will crash. We got no choice.

    But if the funds are released to the attacker, everybody will sell their ETH because they will think the attacker will dump them all at once on an exchange.

  • timothyjcoultertimothyjcoulter Member Posts: 14
    Don't disagree you. I want to make sure we uphold the voting process the Ethereum creator's intended. That as important if not more important than DAO holders getting their funds back.

  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @timothyjcoulter I really don't understand your thinking, which is fine, it's your thinking and it's not important or necessary that I understand it. However, if every election that has ever taken place was deemed unfair or irrelevant because everyone didn't (but could) vote, then nearly all elections would be such. Believe it not, some people don't care. In addition, a non-vote is a vote for the default, which is to soft fork, in this case. So, perhaps the non-vote is not voting because that's what they agree with, so they need not take any action for that to be the outcome. What is it that you want? Do you want to put a gun to everyone's head and demand they vote or, otherwise, discount the whole process? Sorry, but from my experience, that's not reality.
  • ethfanethfan Member Posts: 458 ✭✭✭
    Must be Aussie... Compulsory to vote down there!
    That does not feel correct, there should be a right to NOT vote if a voter feels that way.
  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    I think that all the options should be equally valid.

    It is important that there are pool(s) for those who wish to vote no in the actual voting, not in the within-pool voting, as i think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and vote. Or not to vote, that is also an option and a choice that should also be respected if that is what these people choose.
    Even if they won't vote on these within-pool votes, doesn't mean they aren't voting, they are staying on that pool and not switching, which is an indication of their will. None of these major pools that you mentioned have given incentives to people to go with their vote, i have only seen a non-fork pool try to "bribe" miners with a 0% fee.

    So i think you have a cause that is justifiable, giving people the power to do as they like in this situation, but your reasoning in this post (and you' don't seem to be the only one with this argument) is very poor and makes it seem that it's more agenda driven than an actual freedom of choice. That only makes it seem that you want to push people in your direction instead of having an actual rational discussion about the issue.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @Smokyish Well, you always have the option of mining solo with the latest geth version 1.4.8 and setting the soft fork option to your liking, rather than mine on a pool, for the next several days.
  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    dlehenky said:

    @Smokyish Well, you always have the option of mining solo with the latest geth version 1.4.8 and setting the soft fork option to your liking, rather than mine on a pool, for the next several days.

    That is a viable option, but i think most will still prefer a pool unless they have enough hashrate to find a block ie. once a day on average, not to loose mining income for several days.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    Given that the gas limit has already come down enough on the network to trigger the soft fork, I think the discussion is over:

    It appears that ever pool, just about, has gone for the soft fork, whether they asked their miners to vote or not (most did in one fashion or another).
  • timothyjcoultertimothyjcoulter Member Posts: 14
    @dlehenky "It appears that ever pool, just about, has gone for the soft fork, whether they asked their miners to vote or not (most did in one fashion or another)."

    And that's the problem. The decision should never be in the pool operator's hands. We hope to change that.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @timothyjcoulter The soft fork mechanism can *only* be implemented in the network "client", i.e. geth/eth/parity. If you're mining on a pool, the pool runs the network client. So, whatever the pool chooses to do, that's it. Nearly every pool operator sought to determine the pool miners' concensus on how the pool should go. The sentiment from the miners was quite definitive. Although it would be great if everyone solo mined, and had direct control because each would be running their own network client, that's not reality. For small miners, and even for larger ones, a pool has many benefits, not the least of which is DDOS protection and miner monitoring.
Sign In or Register to comment.