Talk:GHash.io

Blacklisted Links Found on Ghash.io

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ghash.io which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://blog.cex.io/official-statement-on-51-threat-and-closed-round-table/

  Triggered by \bcex\.io\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources

@David Gerard: the 51% hashrate incident received widespread coverage with top shelf sources. Added a few. No reason for the tag on this article. Few crypto articles are this well sourced and received so much coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that more for the first few sections - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blanked those unsourced sections. Looked roughly promotional and unrelated to defunct pool. Do you think the notability tag is still warranted?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Technically, 51% is gross error?

Isn't the threshold any number greater than 50%? Thus, 50.228% would be sufficient to attack a blockchain and double-spend. I find this to be a glaring and insurmountable error that undermines the entire point of the article, because this is what made this group notable. Maybe this discrepancy should result in its deletion and demise as a faux information source. This is embarrassing. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is ghash mining same as ghash.io

Is ghash mining company same as ghash.io

2C0F:FE38:2403:C9FD:1:0:E01:AEA7 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)