I guess the operators of Nanopool are really good guys deciding not to do a double spend attack on the network while having more than 55% of the total hashrate 🫠

Why don’t miners want to use the P2Pool even though it strengthens the network and also has great incentives like zero fees with a very low payout threshold?

  • monerobull@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Having 55% of hash doesn’t mean you’ll make profit by attempting a doublespend. I don’t see how you could gain more from one and dumping the assets price + your reputation as a pool than by just behaving and passively collecting your fees forever. Nobody event talks about how 1 or 2 pools control 70% of zcash hash (although that’s probably because nobody uses it) and even BTC has 2-3 companies (not even proper pools) controlling the majority of the hashrate.

    It sounds scary but there really isn’t that much a non-malicious, profit-driven pool could even do. Even a malicious pool could at worst mine empty blocks for a while.

    • Max@nano.garden
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having 55% of hash doesn’t mean you’ll make profit by attempting a doublespend

      But a pool could be turned into a malicious pool by an adversary that takes control of it. A clear disadvantages of centralization is that it creates a single point of failure.

      Even a malicious pool could at worst mine empty blocks for a while.

      Why is this the case? I still have not studied the Monero protocol yet.

    • 4rkal@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shorting Monero and then attacking would most probably be the most profitable.

      • IP2@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt anyone could be that certain his attack will work. Especially mining on a public pool, it is likely destined to fail.