Timeline for Detecting dishonest merged-mining pool
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 22:22 | history | edited | Murch♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| May 19, 2012 at 1:35 | vote | accept | ThePiachu | ||
| Apr 6, 2012 at 13:04 | comment | added | ThePiachu | @DavidSchwartz I guess it's a moral grey area to merge-mine and not share the profits - while it is not dishonest per se, the pool's miners might shun the pool owner for such a practice. I couldn't find a better word to describe such a pool, so instead I'm exploring explicitly dishonest pool that claims not to merge mine, while doing so. | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 2:00 | answer | added | David Schwartz | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 1:59 | comment | added | David Schwartz | I disagree with the premise. If the pool hasn't agreed to share the profits from merged mining with its miners, then it has no obligation to do so. It's not dishonest unless the pool specifically represented that they're not doing merged mining. | |
| Apr 6, 2012 at 1:40 | answer | added | BinaryMage | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 23:39 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackBitcoin/status/188048128480518144 | ||
| Apr 5, 2012 at 21:30 | history | asked | ThePiachu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |