Template talk:Pools: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "What is considered "Major"? Looking at http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ the current "categories" are pools over 20%, some around 10% and the big majority is below 5%. Why hav..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What is considered "Major"? Looking at http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ the current "categories" are pools over 20%, some around 10% and the big majority is below 5%. Why have that separation Major/Active to begin with? "Major" is not necessary a good thing in a decentralised network. If there is no objections, I would change it to Active/Defunct only. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | What is considered "Major"? Looking at http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ the current "categories" are pools over 20%, some around 10% and the big majority is below 5%. Why have that separation Major/Active to begin with? "Major" is not necessary a good thing in a decentralised network. If there is no objections, I would change it to Active/Defunct only. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Maybe we should consider grouping them by network share? Active/Defunct only would be okay. I have to think however that most users would prefer to join an established, powerful pool (which is not necessarily a good thing). [[User:Taras|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras|talk]]) 01:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 4 November 2014
What is considered "Major"? Looking at http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ the current "categories" are pools over 20%, some around 10% and the big majority is below 5%. Why have that separation Major/Active to begin with? "Major" is not necessary a good thing in a decentralised network. If there is no objections, I would change it to Active/Defunct only. Newar (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)