submitted 1 year ago by wrs369@monero.town to c/monero@monero.town

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] monerobull@monero.town 8 points 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 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.