‪     Laurentia Pool speaks to hashrate dispersion, as decentralization calls in pooled stratum mining is a unicorn. Unfortunately, there’s no leprechaun, no pot of gold, no rainbow, in the mining landscape, but simply to reintroduce mining at the validator level, in node operation, ie. as in 2009. Stratum pooled mining cannot be decentralized. Dispersion through small segregated pools would achieve more than a few miners selecting block templates for large pools ever would. As only those with substantial hashrate have the highest probability to blockfind to truely utilize such “implementations”.

‪     Fact remains the best thing for bitcoin mining decentralization, in pooled mining; is small, disruptive pools to the monopolies and control of network hashrate and reward these large pools have. Losing this control, this power, is likely scary and now some are passing as “experts in field” when they bought into decades of work, on the backs of others. Engaging in poor tactics through fear, uncertainty, and doubt, to retain what they have.

‪     There are many users/miners with substantial hashrate where alone they could mine a pool, or a small pool and still find/reach a cadence to reward (payout) that suits their need. ~700PH may seem like a lot of hashrate to a small miner but is nominal to many in the field and presently would garner approximately a blockfind a day.

‪     The limit to coinbase payouts isn’t scalability issue with our pool code. As Con’s code is massively scalable to thousands of users, and proven as such with the years he operated a group pool alone.

     The issue is the firmware being produced for asics limits this ability to pay from a coinbase transaction at blockfind to multiple and/or many addresses. Maybe I have a tin foil hat, but one doesn’t need to look very deep to see who is producing the firmware for asics, their relationship/ownership to pools, and why there’s incentive to limit a coinbase output through their firmware.

‪     Spreading uncertainty about small pools is easy, as yes, to join one likely will produce little or even zero reward in relation to short term payouts from a large pool. Still the network overtime, due to math and probability of, all work eventually will garner their deserved reward. As this is how a proof of work network is designed.

‪     Time preference at the user level isn’t for debate either as each user can freely choose based on their own desire. Opting for less reward in a shorter amount time is their choice, we would even agree the better choice for a small amount of hashrate.

‪     Still with attempts to sweep small pool’s relevance under the rug, even with those cheering from the stands at mis/disinformation. There’s one pool, a small pool where over a number of years of analysis in the mining landscape became sick of the drivel, and tired of the status quo. As even with the limitations in firmware, still have taken measure to allow self custody, and a protected, organized mining environment. Free from reward disruption, incentivizing long term, single chain mining, and competition with peer(s) and network. 

     All without any grandeur of subsidy through grants, or venture capital.

‪     UX/I is an issue for small pools without heavy funding. Still the issue is easily resolved when users/miners vote with their hashrate. As improvements to their user experience is likely first on their list of “to do’s”. 

     Priority to the user over wasting pool revenue, grant money on marketed services that will have a net zero effect to a users daily operations and less than nominal effect on “decentralization” or fabricated calls of.

     Essentially we’re on an antithesis of user rediscovery of what mining is/was originally and is supposed to be, concerning the bitcoin network specifically. 

     “Don’t believe the hype” -Public Enemy, circa 1988

    Cc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM

‪ #mineon