Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7646C000D for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27A482C3C for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:38:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.101 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oC6ypbfSnLwq for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:38:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 191A782C3B for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 23:38:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1631057927; bh=fIcD5oKtYC0/OOnVJYxJrvFzBOSbz8puM2e0E9ULZHE=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZXgdya94dCtJlsEcfiZnbJqkCcXpylHzijVKg8sY0sBRVOjMoTDALkEZA5YZYUG95 Xr7lyx494QRY14SSHQr6Vxithr/jWGpsP7dmEM6x47t2ogdxCn0K28oOoxoFpJlXeT YjVNgAw2c4vDaMt3LGRDfg1PezC9R2kWgD/K7l/I= To: Prayank , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "billy.tetrud@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Braidpool: Proposal for a decentralised mining pool X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 23:38:51 -0000 Good morning all, A thing I just realized about Braidpool is that the payout server is still = a single central point-of-failure. Although the paper claims to use Tor hidden service to protect against DDoS= attacks, its centrality still cannot protect against sheer accident. What happens if some clumsy human (all humans are clumsy, right?) fumbles t= he cables in the datacenter the hub is hosted in? What happens if the country the datacenter is in is plunged into war or ana= rchy, because you humans love war and chaos so much? What happens if Zeus has a random affair (like all those other times), Hera= gets angry, and they get into a domestic, and then a random thrown lightni= ng bolt hits the datacenter the hub is in? The paper relies on economic arguments ("such an action will end the pool a= nd the stream of future profits for the hub"), but economic arguments tend = to be a lot less powerful in a monopoly, and the hub effectively has a mono= poly on all Braidpool miners. Hashers might be willing to tolerate minor peccadilloes of the hub, simply = to let the pool continue (their other choices would be even worse). So it seems to me that it would still be nicer, if it were at all possible,= to use multiple hubs. I am uncertain how easily this can be done. Perhaps a Lightning model can be considered. Multiple hubs may exist which offer liquidity to the Braidpool network, has= hers measure uptime and timeliness of payouts, and the winning hasher elect= s one of the hubs. The hub gets paid on the coinbase, and should send payouts, minus fees, on = the LN to the miners. However, this probably complicates the design too much, and it may be more = beneficial to get *something* working now. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Regards, ZmnSCPxj