pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Artilektt 7h
Why are more "hashers" not switching to OCEAN? They aren't big enough to pay out quickly enough yet?
reply
75 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 4h
afaict three reasons:
- OCEAN uses a payout system that's similar to PPLNS which has relatively high payout variance relative to PPS/FPPS (which small pools can't provide because it's very risky/expensive), and big miners want less variance all things being equal
- To mine on OCEAN, you also have to run a bitcoin node so that you can build templates (which is a good thing), but more friction = less customers
- The pool is relatively young and network effects are in play
reply
155 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 21h
Now I think I should run Knots
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 20h
Why?
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 10h
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 21h
Excellent article!
reply
73 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 19h
This is a false dichotomy. No one advocating for "mempool consistency," which is a russell conjugation of "against transaction accelerators," is in favor of pool centralization. The main reason anyone would argue for "mempool consistency" is that filters cause people to use transaction accelerators which leads to ... mining pool centralization.
DATUM and Knots are independent of each other - you can run one without the other - but you can't use DATUM without OCEAN. This reads like an advertisement for OCEAN.
reply
76 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier 11h
It's a good advertisement, Ocean is the only mining pool that allows you to choose your block content.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 6h
A stratum v2 pool recently went live: https://www.dmnd.work/
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @coinhome 22h
Interesting article, waiting for the second part
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jer 19h
Great read. Thanks for sharing.
reply