Quote from: Minotaur26 on January 25, 2015, 04:40:29 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on January 25, 2015, 04:17:00 PM

Quote from: oblox on January 25, 2015, 03:53:18 PM

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized?

Hmmm...

Quote from: oblox on January 25, 2015, 03:53:18 PM

Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.

There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each.

What was your point again?

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored. In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

This SPR chart is different from the others because it's historical (not current) and includes only addresses that mined over 1k coins. That means it doesn't cover the whole network hashrate, making all those numbers actually much smaller pieces of the entire pie. The top "miner" SNYq only mined for one month last year, but his 25k coins is still the highest proportion among mining addresses. There may be farms, but SPR is still supported by many small miners.

http://spreadcoin.net/explorer/index.php?q=SNYqcyEtXr5UWpxMds8mQ9x8jo8fWFJVKz

Mr. Spread, is it possible to make that clear on the Network Hashrate page? Or a way to make a comparable chart? I think everyone is used to looking at current hashrate charts.