Bitcoin Forum

Two little questions:

1. Have you - personally - seen any i0c- or iXc-coins mined at this pool?

2. Do you comply with the 51-attack to CLC?

It's a heavy abuse of trust: you give your hashing-power and the OP is doing what ever he wants to do with it...

Yeah, there could be only one conclusion: leaving that pool with that OP, misusing his given power

Have a look at the hashrates of iXc and i0c shown on http://allchains.info/index.html

this hashing-numbers and the elegius-op performance "i will do the same to i0c and iXc" around this theme

What do you think where these hashes come from?
Yeah, one of our leading pools has such a hashrate...

Maybe it was a test with CLC, which is dead now and he will do the same to iXc and i0c.

The price for these currencies are down and he is not able to make btc's with it any more.
First profit and then fire off...

Jesus I only noticed now that those are at near 400gh thanks to this fucktard.

I bet even Christ hates this cunt.

It had NOTHING to do with merged mining. It was a deliberate and malicious attack on the chain and refusal to process transactions, killing everyone else in the process using the power of his mining pool.....without anyone's consent. Many of us witnessed this as he posted a link to the Coiledcoin thread, with him saying "Coiledcoin is now closed" and him boasting about the attack in chat on BTC-e exchange....where he was banned from not long there after.

His pool should be banned from this forum and him marked as a scammer, as well as being removed entirely from the Bitcoin Project.

I will personally sell every Bitcoin asset I have and invest everything into driving Luke Dash Jr's involvement in Bitcoin into the ground if he is a part of it publicly, with as much bad press as I can possibly muster, just to see him go down unless ties are cut with him.

He has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he belongs with the ranks of Bruce at this point. Chalk up another win for CryptoCoin trust (or mistrust as it were)...

To the hell with this sinner  :D

Oh noes.  Don't do that.  Please.


I haven't seen proof of anything.  Still your childish and impotent threats just make you silly.

Honestly Bitcoin has survived DDOS attacks, Mybitcoin, largest chain being attacked, a rise to $32 and then a fall to $2, endless hype and then crushing negative press, reports of stolen wallets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It survived all that but it can't survive you?  Inflated sense of self worth?

Allow me to rephrase....
My attack(s) are and would be intended for Luke Dash.....not Bitcoin. It would just be unfortunate if his negative publicity hurt Bitcoin, that's all.
Inflated sense of READING skills on your behalf ? Next time, try reading it out loud, then again...and repeat if required.

Why not make some innovation in alternative blockchains?
Make them take off! That will make a better world~~

Since ixc & i0c &otherc worth so less, i think i don't care luke mine some of them,

cause this is 0 fee pool, merged mining nmc.

You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

See the tail end of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.0) for other views on the "attack."

Because for the low price of 250 BTC per event I could knock down bitcoin world wide as often as I want.

Also— please take care here, Luke did not roll back anyone's transactions or double-spend or anything like that.  He's simply mining all the blocks and not processing more transactions.

How are you going to do that without the majority of hash power?

I would ask the same question alone, and also with the consideration that each "event" motivates development and refinement of clients performing automated analysis on the competing block chains to make a more intelligent choice.  (e.g. automated analysis of the transactions in the competing chains, and a bias toward keeping the chain that causes the least disruption instead of an automated shutdown)

Attacking a chain is perhaps lame, but I dont see it as a crime.
If its true however, Luke used the participants of his pool's hashing power to carry out the attack, that would be serious indeed. No one should entrust his hashing power to a pool operator that uses it at will for any purpose he sees fit. Its no different than deepbit deciding to attack bitcoin for a laugh.

as serious as killing a fly

Assuming the first statement is true (which is quite the assumption), the second is hilarious!

It's ok to run a DDOS on alt coins now?

What is your proof that he used miner's resources?

So another unsupported claim to "support" your unsupported claim.

Fellas! We're on the same side! What's been done is done. Let us hash our way forward, and just keep an eye out for shady dealings.

Recent updates have made it an excellent alternative to existing pools. For this reason it has gained some good hashrate, and that is making it so much the better ;D

I agree.  I certainly want to be notified if my client finds a new chain and have the option to keep the old one.  How would we identity different chains?

agreed.  my backup is solo, and I dont hesitate to switch to solo when things look awry

Ive seen the posts where he took "credit" for taking it down. You will have to forgive me for  being too lazy to find them.
 I havent seen him admit he used his pool's hashing power, but thats a fair assumption to make, as I doubt he (or almost any individual) has enough hashing power of himself.

Yes, but gmaxwell is using the Merged Mining angle to legitimize this attack (that is, if the pool WAS found to be used).....OR on the other hand....coming from Luke, that this actually WAS an attack, in which case, only Luke's own personal resources were used.

They all seem to have conflicting defences and excuses.

Merged mining only means eglesius pool members wouldnt have been penalized by luke's actions, as in, they wouldnt have suffered BTC or NMC losses. It doesnt mean those pool members didnt involuntarily contribute to the attack on coilcoin.

Besides the IRC logs which are posted on this board which support that claim, on page 6 of the following thread Luke-JR says:
"CoiledCoin now closed. Have a nice day."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.40

Which doesn't provide any evidence he used his pool.

Here I'll help you guys out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23768.msg678080#msg678080 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23768.msg678080#msg678080)


Whether I or anyone else believes that statement is a different matter of course.

It can be shown that the Eligius pool is likely multiple block chains by looking at the coinbase of the generated bitcoin transactions. Here's a coinbase from an Eligius  bitcoin block that was used for namecoin only merge mining:


The details of the coinbase are available in the merged mining specification (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification). From this you can see that the number of entries in the aux merkle tree is 1. This means up to 1 other chain is being mined. That's probably namecoin. You can look up the hash of the namecoin block. It's hash 4976cbf9003c0705e29e581038d3ddbe260a5d324c2b17b24779b6ca48c4f832 or  block 36067.

Now look at a slightly later block. Say 160499:


The aux merkle tree size is 4. So up to four other alt chains are being mined. Why the increase if it's only namecoin being mined? Also note that the hash in the coinbase no longer corresponds to a namecoin block. This is another sign multiple chains are being mined. This is during the period that i0coin and ixcoin hash rates increased.

Now a more recent block:

The aux merkle tree size here is 8. Why the increase? Coiled Coin and Devcoin are both active at this time and would have required the aux merkle size to be upped. I got the Eligius found blocks from here (http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/).

What I posted just means it's likely Eligius is mining alternate chains, nothing more. It could just be namecoin for example with weird merkle tree sizing. Someone more motivated would have to dig further into the chains if they wanted to find anything else out.

It's nice to see that Eligius has taken a 50-odd GH/s hit in loss of mining power, but that is simply NOT ENOUGH.

People need to WAKE UP and leave that pool. As has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, YOUR MINING POWER is being used not only to line the pockets of Luke Dash Jr himself, but also to attack other chains in the process.

DEMAND COMPENSATION, or run for the hills.

Wait isn't that an Oxymoron?

If the hashing power is used to attack CLC then aren't the CLCs worthless? 
On the other hand if the CLC have value wouldn't that indicate the attack isn't working?

Come on....really ?
For a so-called married & religious male, Luke sure seems to have alot of male suitors.

The term ATTACK, as I am using it......

Recipe:
1) Throw large amounts of hashing power at weak chains, using OTHER'S HASHING POWER (not your own).
2) Collect all alternative chain proceeds yourself, EXCLUSIVELY, WITHOUT COMPENSATING YOUR POOL'S MINERS WHO UNKNOWINGLY PROVIDED SAID POWER FOR THE ATTACKS.
3) Take said proceeds and fire-sale them on the market(s) to further DRIVE DOWN THE VALUE, WHILE DRIVING UP THE DIFFICULTY ON THE CHAIN(S) TO DESTROY THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHERS TO PARTAKE, IN A FAIR FASHION.

I0C, IXC, CLC = all targeted and ATTACKED by Luke Dash Jr. PROVEN.
DVC = threat of being ATTACKED by Luke Dash Jr. DOCUMENTED.
LTC = out his his reach thankfully, as he doesn't have the financial or 3rd party 'pool' resources to stage any type of relevant 'attack' on the chain, as it requires CPU Power to dominate.....EXPENSIVE CPU POWER (Intel I7 or better). OBVIOUS.

....Anything else ?

I only started mining on that pool about two weeks ago, and so far have been paid everything I was entitled to. As long as I'm paid for my hash rate, I really don't give a shit what it's used for. The way I see it is we buy pool management service from Luke for a small fee, and he buys our hashing power with bitcoin. If he pays for it, he owns it.

I would consider pure PPS as the only "mining for hire", you agree to mine for a particular payment per share as disclosed on the pool web site. SMPPS is rewarded partially on block finding and the pool reserve, so it deviates from this, and you are more participatory. In a pool where rewards partially depend on pool luck like SMPPS, you aren't getting paid for a block you found if there is merged mining going on behind the scenes.

All I know is my mining hardware is supposed to be able to mine a certain amount of bitcoin a day, and Eligius has delivered all of it daily, so if any hashing was diverted to other activities, I still got paid for it.
On the other hand, what's this I hear about Luke-Jr being a religious fundamentalist?

Most Bitcoin miners could give two flying craps about the ScamCoins.  I agree p2pool is necessary (hybrid pools are another options) but technically we only need 51% of miners on "smart" (miner independent) pools to protect Bitcoin.

The honest answer is if Eligus went away tomorrow a good chunk of those miners would likely end up at deepbit not p2pool.  That is a larger concern than Luke playing God and smiting scam coins.

I remember hearing about hybrid pools in the past and thinking they were a good idea, but I forget how they are intended to work. From what I recall, it is a set of p2pool "supernodes" basically. Is that correct?

Luke seems to think it's ok to do anything that *can* be done, so I assume that for instance mining with him and not submit winning shares would be perfectly ok.

I've never said anything of the sort.

That would hurt yourself and other miners, not me in any direct manner. It's also detectable, and if I find anyone doing it, you can be sure I will block them.

Share witholding is really only an issue in PPS pools and there are countermeasures.

More simplistically it is just a "normal" pool where the miner is smart.  Like in p2pool the miner chooses it own transactions.  How it differs from p2pool is you still have a traditional pool front end to handle rewards, manage accounts, check stats, etc.

A hybrid pool could integrate into p2pool being a super node to reduce variance (for both the pool & p2pool).

OK, so somewhat like http://p2poolparty.net/ or do I still not get it?

Yes like p2poolparty but one doesn't need to use p2pool to be a hybrid pool.    p2poolparty is a good example though.  Yeah it is centralized but its power is very limited.  It could ripoff its users but it couldn't attack Bitcoin.  It couldn't generate double spends, it couldn't participate in a Finney attack.