Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?
There's always a non-zero risk of defaulting in any loan situation. As a compulsive loaner on IRC, pirateat40 was just another borrower to me, and I evaluated him as I do with anyone else and decided it seemed safe enough for me to risk it. His actions since my initial loan to him have reinforced my trust in him, but anyone who assumes you can make big money with no risk is going to get burned eventually. Personally, I'd be pretty bummed if he disappeared with my money, but I won't have trouble making the rent and will probably keep dealing bitcoins with other people. And on the grand scheme of things, I still think this deal has probably one of the highest reward/risk ratios out there. So anyway, I think it's a lot more likely to end well than to end badly, but one can never be sure  the only difference between us is that I've dealt with pirateat40 a hell of a lot more than you have. That could either cloud my objectivity or give me more information to form a correct opinion, and I guess time will tell which  tl;dr: yours is a valid concern, and is definitely one that all lenders should be aware of at all times, but I think the risk is low, and I'm risk-tolerant enough to bet a lot of "real money" on that viewpoint Aren't you dating his sister? |
|
|
|
Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?
Hey, troll somewhere else. kthnx |
|
|
|
I've requested that Jenkins should be banned, so it is now only a matter of time.
There's no point in everyone fighting amongst themslves. You have to atleast try and understand the frustration that he is feeling....and a back-and-forth of 'feeding the fire' is not doing either party any good. As I said a few posts ago, I would like to keep the topic of Luke's Pool Resource misuse alive and on topic, to keep it alive that is. We all don't need to argue or fight with each other. bitlane is just another jenkins clone, ignore him. |
|
|
|
Ok, so be it First Pirate Savings and Trust it is! I like the sound of that.
First post! |
|
|
|
Wow, its interesting how quiet this thread is. It seems all the people calling names have no balls. Got all pissed off because of something they thought was going on, called a bunch of people names, then come to find out, they were wrong. No apology, nothing. Classy. Real Classy.
reportedly they may not have been wrong, it's really an assumption that Luke is telling the truth that leads you to this conclusion. Maybe some independent verification is in order? What led them to their original conclusion that their hashes were ever wasted or whatever? What makes them think their info is involved? Perhaps they should submit their evidence? |
|
|
|
|
Wow, its interesting how quiet this thread is. It seems all the people calling names have no balls. Got all pissed off because of something they thought was going on, called a bunch of people names, then come to find out, they were wrong. No apology, nothing. Classy. Real Classy.
|
|
|
|
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Yes. If he wants to get greedy about it, I know some people above him in line |
|
|
|
While there are personal attacks in this thread which are bad, most of the discussion of what was done with the pool and coilcoin (or whatever it is) are relevant to the topic of the pool and should not be deleted. Why does it seem like people don't read anything? The Coiledcoin nonsense is NOT RELATED TO THE POOL. It is directly related to the pool since you used it to attack the coin, your users should be informed of your actions with their hashing power. Then consider what you will do with it in the future whenever your next target comes up. He just stated he didn't use the pool to do it. I was mistaken that he used merged mining. You should read his post better. Took long enough to clarify that. Slightly different slant on it now. I will apologize now for mentioning the merged mining, as I misunderstood how things were done. I would, however, like to point out how often I was personally insulted as a result of disagreeing. I would say that certain individuals that have responded in this thread need to reevaluate their behavior. While those individuals might disagree with what luke-jr did, there was no point in making insults. |
|
|
|
While there are personal attacks in this thread which are bad, most of the discussion of what was done with the pool and coilcoin (or whatever it is) are relevant to the topic of the pool and should not be deleted. Why does it seem like people don't read anything? The Coiledcoin nonsense is NOT RELATED TO THE POOL. It is directly related to the pool since you used it to attack the coin, your users should be informed of your actions with their hashing power. Then consider what you will do with it in the future whenever your next target comes up. He just stated he didn't use the pool to do it. I was mistaken that he used merged mining. You should read his post better. |
|
|
|
Did deepbit just delete his post or did a mod do that?
He did, since gmaxwell is defending himself now.. |
|
|
|
There's an ongoing discussion in #bitcoin-otc about this right now. Direct quote: <btc_novice> luke-jr also, it was unethical to take your users' hashing power and use it for other purposes
<+luke-jr> btc_novice: I didn't.
<btc_novice> luke-jr did you use your hashing power, or eligius combined hashing power?
<+luke-jr> btc_novice: all hashing involving CLC was done by me |
|
|
|
I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc. Spell it out. That is the only way to protect yourself.
Protect themselves? How was a miner in the pool harmed? They haven't been. My point is that if they are afraid of what a pool may/may not do on a whim, they should get it all spelled out so everyone has the same expectations. |
|
|
|
I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.
Don't worry, its just one developer looking out for another.  There are several mods, more than just gmaxwell. Be careful with the accusations. |
|
|
|
|
I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc. Spell it out. That is the only way to protect yourself.
|
|
|
|
To mine blocks but intentionally discard transactions by not including them in the blocks is certainly counterproductive. Is this what happened?
That is my understanding. There are miners on the bitcoin network that do the same thing. They only mine for the generations and ignore any transactions. Nothing requires a miner to include a transaction. |
|
|
|
It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains. Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.
These were merged mined that were stabbed in the back by the "United we stand, divided we fall" crowd it seems, so no split at all, but don't let facts get in your way. It is a split when the alt chain doesn't support merged mining or if you're mining on a pool that does support it but is so small that the blocks keep getting orphaned. |
|
|
|
When you sign up for Eligius, the terms state you will be paid X BTC per share and Y NMC per valid share you submit. NO WHERE does it say that the shares will be used for the exclusive purpose of advancing the bitcoin and/or namecoin blockchains.
I hope you unknowingly sign up at a pool that uses YOUR hashing power to crack Government site passwords as well as re-encode Child Pornography videos for web publishing.... and your IP is logged as being part of the 'hashing power'.........but hey, as long as you get paid in BTC and NMC for each share, who cares what else is done with your hashing power, right ? You realize of course, that everyone only knows about this because it was announced. It wasn't hidden. Now just imagine what the pools are doing and NOT telling you about. Not just Eligius but DeepBit, slush, BTCGuild, etc.. If you're that concerned, solo mine. Then you know, for certain, that your hashes are being used for whatever coin base(s) you want and nothing else. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that joining a mining pool is kinda like having a verbal contract with the operator. It's clearly stated that it's a mining pool and nowhere is it identified as an "attack pool". Has he broken laws? No. Has he abused the trust of the people mining in that pool? Yes.
What implications does this have for the community as a whole?
Basically if it's ok to do this then it's ok for a pool operator to do anything with the hashes. It could be construed to support any type of attack. So for an example, lets say there's a pool operator who starts a DDoS attack on the largest pools while simultaneously starting a 51% attack. Is this person within his/her rights? Is that ok? I think my example is similar to what Luke did.
I think he broke what is essentially a verbal contract and has displayed some of the worst behavior possible from a pool operator.
It's important that we differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not. Starting a war between pools and coins is counter productive. The larger hash power always wins? If that's the case it would make adopting a better (imaginary) coin impossible. There is no higher authority in this case. So the burden rests with the individuals. Do the right thing.
I agree that there's a sense of mistrust. It has always been ok for the pool operator to do what they will with the hashes. I don't think anyone clearly thought this out in the past. As to verbal contract, it was a web sign up. What you see is what you get. The only terms were what is/was on the page when you agreed. The larger hash power always wins. That is how the e-currencies are setup and that is what everyone accepts. It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains. Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing. |
|
|
|
What YOU are basically saying is that, it's nobody's business what the hashing power is used for, as long as it is partially used for BTC......
The Pool Op can do whatever he/she chooses to do with it....WITHOUT the miner's consent.
You almost got it.. What I'm saying is that for all PPS pools, you are being paid for shares. Those shares can be used however the pool wants. Hell, some pools pay you for stale shares just because they want to. You do work (make shares) and get paid for it. How the work is then used is up to whomever bought it in the first place. If you don't like those terms, find somewhere that has more agreeable terms to you. |
|
|
|
Where on the pool site does it support what you just said?
Are you an idiot ? ....as an example: WOULD YOU DONATE SUPPORT, TIME OR MONEY TO A CHILDREN'S CHARITY IF THE MONEY/PROCEEDS WERE BEING SENT TO WAGE WAR IN IRAQ INSTEAD OF HELPING CHILDREN ? When I donate to a charity, I make sure they guarantee/describe what the money will be used for. If I later find out they broke that guarantee, I could take action, either demanding a refund, suing in court, etc. WELL THEN, it looks like Luke's miners have a grievance to file, in regards to THEIR hashing power being used in a malicious fashion, for Cyber Vandalism MERGED with Bitcoin and Namecoin mining, RIGHT? Their hashing power is directed to the pool and managed as a TRUST. I honestly can't wait for a smart pool op to further merge password cracking for his own means, using his pool's hashing power without their knowledge. Now THAT will stir up a huge shit storm. When you sign up for Eligius, the terms state you will be paid X BTC per share and Y NMC per valid share you submit. NO WHERE does it say that the shares will be used for the exclusive purpose of advancing the bitcoin and/or namecoin blockchains. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
