ANTI-HARD FORK POOL - No B.S. like the big pools

kilo17kilo17 Member Posts: 31
edited June 2016 in Pool Discussion
I have over 5Gh mining and I have a private pool running sammy007's pool. I have not had any reason to promote it because it has been for personal use only.

After the underhanded way Ethpool/Ethermine notified miners of how to vote on the soft fork I have decided to make the pool available to anyone that does not want a hard fork. I am sure I will catch some heat about my comments but a couple of notifications here and there about the voting process was not adequate notification. The way I see it, they purposefully made it difficult to see and find to get people not to vote.

Look at the top of your miners page on either Ethpool or Ethermine - what do you see? I see a BIG BLUE BANNER about new servers in China. Why wasn't that type of notification done for the voting process? Secondly, did anyone see a notification on the HomePage about voting for the soft fork? I certainly did not. To me it was a way of dictating the outcome by eliminating the options.

I am not sure about places like Dwarfpool or f2pool but maybe someone else can elaborate.

My Pool is not fancy but runs perfectly. I have not altered Sammy007 code in any manner and it is a basic pool.

If you do not support the Hard Fork and do not want to worry if someone is leaving you out of the vote then you are welcome to come and mine on my pool.



  • kilo17kilo17 Member Posts: 31
    Please no political discussions on the Hard Fork on this Thread. Thank you
  • Benni93Benni93 Member Posts: 50
    edited June 2016
    Thank u for opening your private Pool for us.
    If u need an Server for EU just PM me, got an nice Domain on .de also.
  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    Just to clarify, in case you didn't know, for a HARD-fork, there will be no voting, as a hard-fork is NOT determined by miners, but all users, mainly this means exchanges, light-clients such as Ethereum Wallet etc. Yes, miners are also part of this, but you are thinking of a SOFT-fork, where miners determine the outcome.
    So a hard-fork will create two parallel ethereum blockchains, and the longer chain will prevail. If you're not on the longer chain, pretty soon your "losing" chain will not mine any blocks, and the blocks you mine will be invalid.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @Smokyish ultimately, miners do determine the fate of any hard-fork right now too; however, exchanges/investors have power over miners. In a hard-fork, the longer chain does not necessarily prevail - chain weight is only significant in soft-forks. Your corrections are quite incorrect.
  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    edited June 2016
    work said:

    @Smokyish ultimately, miners do determine the fate of any hard-fork right now too; however, exchanges/investors have power over miners. In a hard-fork, the longer chain does not necessarily prevail - chain weight is only significant in soft-forks. Your corrections are quite incorrect.

    Hard-fork is quite different from a soft-fork, you can test this for yourself, just install and run geth/ethminer combo from Frontier time, the previous hard-fork was Frontier -> Homestead.

    Homestead is introduced automatically at block number 1,150,000 which should occur roughly around March 14th, 2016, Pi Day.

    If you are running a node connected to the live network, it is important that you upgrade to a Homestead-compatible client. Such clients with their versions are listed under Ethereum Clients. Otherwise you will end up on the wrong fork and will no longer be in sync with the rest of the network.

    Once the Ethereum blockchain reaches block 1,150,000, the Ethereum network will undergo a hardfork enabling a few major changes such as explained in the following section.

    E: I understand that this is quite a different situation, but people should recognize the differences of soft- and hard-forks. As you and i said, miners will be part of selecting the fork, but in case of a soft-fork where miners only will determine the outcome, instead in the hard-fork the power shifts to more broad audience.
  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    So i'll try to make this simple.

    Before the hard-fork there is one chain, one network. All the ether that existed before the fork, will remain the same, what happens after the fork changes things.
    After the hard-fork there will be two chains, chain1 and chain2, they will exist in parallel and will not be in sync with each other. So what happens on chain1 will not be the same in chain2.

    So if you mine a block on chain1, you can not move that ether into chain2.

    For the sake of argument, let's say that the exchanges choose chain2.
    Now after the hard-fork, if you mine a block on chain1, you cannot move that ether to chain2, so you won't be able to trade or cash-in that ether if all exchanges are on chain2.
    If your Ethereum Wallet is synced on chain1 and you mine a block on chain2, you can not move your ether to that wallet.
    Thus, if exchanges choose chain2, if you want to be able to do something with your funds, you must choose chain2 also.
    So exchanges choose, miners follow, this is how the block-chain will continue to grow longer cause more blocks will be mined there and the other chain will start to diminish, as anything mined on the other chain can't really be used unless you want to build a completely new ecosystem around that chain.
    Miners can mine on either chain, but one chain has to prevail, otherwise it won't be an Ethereum block-chain (the other one of course will, but the other won't), the other chain can peacefully co-exist and start a new life, but then it's gonna be called something else and the community will be split in two.

    If this were a soft-fork, there would still be only one chain where different client's would co-exist with different parameters, but that is not the case in a hard-fork.

    So @work please do elaborate and give your input as to how am i quite incorrect here?
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    I don't think this is quite the right place for this discussion... but, hey...
    Smokyish said:

    If this were a soft-fork, there would still be only one chain where different client's would co-exist with different parameters, but that is not the case in a hard-fork.

    This isn't quite the whole story. A "fork" of any kind suggests there are multiple chains, or versions of what is the correct chain. A soft-fork is something that much be essentially backwards compatible, but enforce a new rule or add something to the protocol. A hard-fork can break backwards compatibility entirely by creating new rules, re-writing old rules, removing rule, or etc.

    A good way to think of it is, after fork code has been in place for a while, if everyone can remove it, and the network would still function and not revert to a previous state, you have a soft-fork. If you removed the fork code and the network reached consensus by reverting to prior to the fork, you had a hard-fork.

    Some changes can be done as soft-forks or hard-forks, and some things can only be done as hard-forks. But any fork (hard or soft) creates the possibility of having 2 chains, one of which will ultimately win, or maybe two will win and there will be two tokens on the exchanges (unlikely)!

    What was recently proposed (and then cancelled due to DOS potential) for TheDAO was censorship by soft-fork - essentially locking funds by ignoring transactions (and any blocks/chains including such transactions) that spend funds from TheDAO or children.

    Most of the recent proposals for TheDAO have been hard-forks that create a permanent re-write of the block-chain at a certain point, that (rather arbitrarily) changes the balances of accounts.


    I think it is fair to say that in the case of this pool,, the OP is saying that any hard-forks will be carefully reviewed and only adopted by mass on consensus of miners at the pool.

    Note: Many hard-forks are important and necessary network upgrades!


    @kilo17 can I suggest you read some good advice by bitcanuck:

    - remove getwork and put stratum info on the front page. Better just to disable getwork, it's a ddos opportunity waiting to happen.
    - what is the pool share target/difficulty? none stated
    - do you accept stale shares? no stated policy

    Good luck!
  • kilo17kilo17 Member Posts: 31
    I appreciate the feedback. I am not a Pool Operator other than what I have stated. I have never claimed to be as good as the guys doing it for the big pools.

    Having said that, I am aware of how a HF and SF works and that is not the issue I was raising. The issue I have is how those big pools have essentially "pulled a fast one" on the miners. As a miner I can have a say in the HF process and those that mine of this pool also have a say by mining on it.

    Two things are obvious, 1 is that I made the pool for private use but have opened it because I do not appreciate the way miners have been treated in previous discussions. Secondly, I do not know much about operating a pool and have never claimed that I have.

    In response to the comments above, I will allow someone (a respected member) to help if they desire to secure the pool etc. if that needs to be done. It really is not an issue if no one switches over to the pool. Either way I want to contribute to the community and give miners a voice that has been suppressed.


  • SmokyishSmokyish Member Posts: 203 ✭✭
    work said:

    I don't think this is quite the right place for this discussion... but, hey...

    Agreed! :)

    Thank you for that excellent reply @work .

    What i wanted try to explain here, are the technologically different aspects of forks as people don't seem to know the real difference. I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinions here, just trying to point out, that starting a yet another pool might not be the best option to oppose a hard-fork. I think that the best way to influence the voting on hard-fork will be to participate in the on-going discussions/debate on the issue and bring forth your rational and well-thought out arguments, since we don't even have a concrete suggestion on such a fork.

    @kilo17 sorry for hi-jacking your thread, wasn't my intention, and good luck with everything :)
  • DLRitterDLRitter Member Posts: 2
    The way I see it the question should not be hard or soft fork, but centralized or decentralized. The dirty deed has been done with the DAO. Going forward, it needs to be understood that crimes will be committed. I suggest a decentralized way to "hardfork" when crimes are committed. The only way I see this being done without "authorities" imposing themselves into the process, would be to have the party, (private key holder) which claims a crime has been committed, to submit the claim to private arbitration. At this point, the accused would be required to publicly identify themselves in order to make their case. I believe this could be done in a decentralized way. By default, all transactions could be arbitrated and assets frozen until an outcome is determined. There is nothing wrong with a hard or soft fork, it is considered wrong because it violates the tenets of the project. Decentralize the process. If anyone who is connected sees this as a worthy idea please pass it along to those who are able to make it happen. I think the current crisis could be viewed as a good thing with the above implementation.
  • kwell42kwell42 Member Posts: 35
    is this pool still up api seems unavailable, i want to add hash power, i will switch back to shift after consensus, because eth is dead now.... but i will help the anti fork
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @dr_pra posted an announcement on this very forum topic yesterday to inform miners of the vote. On the previous soft fork, I believe he also posted it on reddit. I'm not quite clear on what you expect him to do. If you're a miner on a pool, and you care about the issue one way or the other, why wouldn't you know whether your pool is making a voting mechanism available? And, if you can't identify one, query the pool directly on what they are doing to solicit the miners' opinion? Are the operators supposed to block access to your stats until you confirm you've read a notice of the vote? Let's face it, a lot of miners don't care. They'll hop on whatever chain wins, and pays, because that's all that matters to them.
  • kwell42kwell42 Member Posts: 35
    so they would mine a insecure edited blockchain?
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @kwell42 What makes it insecure? It's the same blockchain with one transaction edited. Same protocol, etc. Of course, you can mine the minority chain, if you think that's more "secure".
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    As dlehenky points out, there's nothing even slightly "insecure" about consensus rule changes. That's just a loaded word with no real meaning in this context. We can see kwell42's motivations here tho - "eth is dead now" - as if somehow a network upgrade suddenly made all traders unwilling to buy and all miners unwilling to mine. As far as I see, the network is still doing just fine and even thriving.
  • kwell42kwell42 Member Posts: 35
    It's far from a upgrade, in fine with upgrades, this is a edit

    raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.
    "the cost of upgrading each workstation is around $300"

    prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.

    I understand people want to look cool and do the morally right thing, but this is a risky maneuver
  • kwell42kwell42 Member Posts: 35
    edited July 2016 Just take a look at this someone is trying to give code feedback to the hard fork and no one is answering him perfect proof there is a very good chance of a bug

    We might see the Leroy Jenkins moment of block chain editing

    And all I have to say is, at least your not chicken
    Post edited by kwell42 on
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @kwell42 Double posting the same comment in different threads is a bit silly, and actually decreases the odds you'll get a good response... And FYI: that "code comment" isn't even about the hard-fork code! He probably hasn't received a response because what he's saying is clearly uniformed and borderline dumb.

    It is a network upgrade. New code is being added to change the consensus rules - that even fits the definition you quoted.

    It is not an edit - this is a misnomer. No transactions are being edited, removed, changed, anything. The fork simply moves funds without the need for the appropriate private keys. It's an exception to the normal rules.

    If you actually want to help, learn to program and audit the code yourself and make comments in the developer communities (github bug reports and pull requests being the right medium for that - definitely not blog comments). Many very smart developers have done this already.
  • TermieTermie Member Posts: 130
    "Stats API Temporarily Down"
    Can read this 99.5% of time.
    Not very inviting for new miners...
  • kilo17kilo17 Member Posts: 31
    My pool is running on the Classic Chain - and it is open with Payouts Enabled
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    This pool's average luck seems impressively high. Curious.
Sign In or Register to comment.