this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
15 points (100.0% liked)

Monero

1667 readers
15 users here now

This is the lemmy community of Monero (XMR), a secure, private, untraceable currency that is open-source and freely available to all.

GitHub

StackExchange

Twitter

Wallets

Desktop (CLI, GUI)

Desktop (Feather)

Mac & Linux (Cake Wallet)

Web (MyMonero)

Android (Monerujo)

Android (MyMonero)

Android (Cake Wallet) / (Monero.com)

Android (Stack Wallet)

iOS (MyMonero)

iOS (Cake Wallet) / (Monero.com)

iOS (Stack Wallet)

iOS (Edge Wallet)

Instance tags for discoverability:

Monero, XMR, crypto, cryptocurrency

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's definitely not ideal though, P2Pool is right there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Very true. I am sad that p2pool only has so little hash :(

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd hazard a guess that botnets and cryptominer worms cause the uptick in network hashrate for the centralized pools because it's easy to point hundreds of thousands of machines to 1 large pool.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Either way, it's not great.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do nanopool users know they have a majority?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

No way to know that.