It would be interesting to see what is he doing with the BTC stolen from legit miners.
Is he selling already? Nothing was stolen from legit miners. Correct. If it was a botnet, the computer access and power are being stolen from those owners. If it is a ASIC, nothing is being stolen at all. |
|
|
|
|
I would be willing to sell limited amounts of BTC for CC for customers showing up in person (Baltimore), with swipeable (card that the mag stripe can be read, not needing to be manually typed in) credit card and MARYLAND drivers license or ID. ID address has to match the billing address of the credit card. That is a lot of conditions I know but gives you an idea of what a merchant needs to be safe.
Buying BTC quickly in the USA is best done with a service like bitinstant.com. I have used them and they are fast.
|
|
|
|
I am pretty sure it is either an ASIC miner or ArtForz. No evidence but I think that is what is happening.
This is no botnet. Maybe an institution or government ?
Why do you think this is no botnet? Do you think ArtFotz would sabotage his own investment in bitcoin by delaying transactions and reducing confidence? All signs lead to a botnet. Changing IP addresses. No transactions because transactions would lead to more internet traffic making the botnet easier to find. |
|
|
|
Yes, I published my fee policy recently  I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not. Link please? I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies. To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat. Usually my free zone is big enough for all pending free TXes to fit. Nice. Seems reasonable. |
|
|
|
Yes, I published my fee policy recently I tried to find it (your website, your thread in pools) and could not. Link please? I think this is a good thing, pools and miners publishing fee policies. To actually put a price (hopefully low) on speed and blockchain storage price will give incentives to reduce blockchain bloat. |
|
|
|
|
I am sure someone who knows more could estimate the speed, but if someone went through all of the work with programming just for it, it might do a few times more then a good CPU.
Manufacturer Intel
HD Graphics 3000 12@350-1350MHz
Codename Sandy Bridge
Pipelines 12 - unified
Core Speed * 350-1350 MHz
Shader Speed * 350-1350 MHz
Shared Memory yes
DirectX DirectX 10.1, Shader 4.1
technology 32 nm
|
|
|
|
Physics is not the only problem. Economic motivators may well play a bigger role. Will the budgets for chip R&D always be sufficient to follow Moore's Law? What if there is a prolonged depression, or a materials shortage? Who knows what new exotic semiconductor raw materials will be required in the future.
Will there be adequate demand to finance ever increasingly powerful chips? We are already seeing lower demand for desktop PC's, and a shift to mobile devices with low-power, thermally efficient CPU's. If server farms/supercomputers need more power, they can just keep stacking the latest modular hardware.
Moore's law has already survived depression and materials shortages. The one trend you site... lower demand for desktops may do it. Devices like iPads are taking more and more of a share, and custom built high end computers seem to be dwindling outside of specialty things like bitcoin and high end gaming. |
|
|
|
|
No matter what you use, you will have chargeback problems. I suggest you look into Dwolla but I can not say that it will work out. By going micro you do eliminate the big risk and most users are not going to try to scam you for 50 cents.... but I am sure you will still see fraud.
|
|
|
|
I believe right now, it's more important at figuring out who is mystery miner.
Who says it wasn't simply someone who purchased a ton of shares on gpumax? The GPUMAX system software. It only allows people to direct the hashes purchased to already established whitelisted pools to avoid that kind of situation. No, as far as I know it would do nothing to stop the stolen coins from being 'laundered' on gpumax. Not that I am saying GPUMAX should do anything, but it does not take much of a brain to do it. 1) make new account on whitelisted GPUMAX approved pool 2) purchase new hashes on that pool at GPUMAX with stolen linode coins 3) receive clean bitcoin from pool (legitimate GPUMAX work seller now has coins with linode history) Anyone with half a brain could do this with minimal risk of being tracked. |
|
|
|
I've an idea, shamelessly stolen from many other non bitcoin exchanges.
Start paying liquidity providers - or at least letting them trade for free. You can do this by increasing the trading fee for people demanding liqudity.
This will hugely benefit everyone by massively increasing liquidity and bringing market volatility down. It will also benefit you by increasing trading volumes.
MTGOX is liquidity in the bitcoin world. Sorry, that bitcoin is not big enough for you right now but MTGOX has 10x the liquidity of other exchanges. Paying might bring some more, but it is the other exchanges (that are not now paying) that need to pay just as one of them is. Free trading is the other way, and crypto did it for a short period and they had much better liquidity during that time. They can not do it forever, but I do not think they did it long enough to have the desired impact. |
|
|
|
Just lock this nonsense thread. Please.
No.
As a bitcoin user I'm not being harmed in any way whatsoever.
That is untrue. Transactions are being delayed. The questing is if the harm is significant enough to warrant doing anything. Currently I say no. But interested parties should monitor the situation.
And I say that greedy miners can go fuck themselves.
All others who think this is bad for Bitcoin for so and so reasons: You have no proof whatsoever. IRC bragging won't hold up in any court anywhere. Just quit it. It's for the best.
This is not a court case, it is a discussion. I personally do not recommend doing anything other then watching and discussing possible protocol changes that would encourage better miner behavior. It is also reasonable to look for possible botnet behavior. It is unreasonable to file abuse reports at this time as no direct evidence has been found as of now. |
|
|
|
|
The one trans blocks are now appearing to come from Eligius
|
|
|
|
If you're going this route, as a node, you could look at the number of transactions (maybe add up their fees) you have collected yourself from the network and require a certain percentage of that to be included in order for a given block to be accepted by you, say 20% for example. So if you have accumulated 20 transactions, a block would have to include at least 4 of these in order for you to accept it. This would guarantee the block to contain at least some fresh transactions.
I'm pretty sure this would have all kinds of implications and probably something prohibitive. It would certainly increase danger of chain-split.
I thought of this and posted it earlier in the thread with 10% minimum. Unfortunately this can lead to splits if transactions are not properly relayed. It probably wont happen often but it will happen. Rules could be made to overcome this, but all of this adds complexity and the possibility of unknown results. Having a minimum will just cause MM to include a repeating transaction or two of his own, not from the waiting list. |
|
|
|
Moore's Law (transistor count increase in same surface area, NOT computing power) MUST be broken. The laws of physics guarantee it. To keep up with Moore's Law, a 1-billion transistor count must increase to 1 trillion in just 10 cycles (15 years), and 10^15th transistors (1 billion times greater) in 30 cycles (45 years).
That is not Moore's Law, it is close though. It is the doubling of the number of transistors PER CHIP not per surface area. Die sizes have grown and 3d stacking is also happening. Since Moore's law is not specific, even stacked dies (like Apple uses) can be called a single chip. It can continue. Maybe not for 45 years, but for 15 yes. While the link below is not truly Moore's law, it is on topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPTMooresLawai.jpgI you put GPU computing on this map, it would arch up at an even faster rate. |
|
|
|
Changing the fundamental protocal would be death to bitcoin. At the begining this would be suitable, not now. Not ever now.
Everyone knew what they were getting into and will stick by the block loss year on year. all is good here.
+1 |
|
|
|
If it's a botnet, perhaps it could be using an unknown SETI@Home/BOINC exploit or trojan?
Very clever. |
|
|
|
I doubt it's a botnet. To amass such hashing power with random computers you'd need the biggest botnet ever known.
As I have posted before, unfortunatly that is not true. I wish it was. Botnets have reached over a million computers. Secondly, why must they be random? Botnet owners do inventory their systems, and can sell off (or rent) groups of computers. This is a selected group. It's probably someone with legit access to these machines and therefore doing nothing wrong at all.
That is much less likely. Not unless large organizations are equipping fleets of machines with high end ATI video cards. |
|
|
|
|
It would be hard, but a consensus of users (who stand to profit by stopping the deterioration of bitcoin) could come up reasonable formulas for the acceptance of transactions in blocks. The 1 trans miner could fix the problem and continue or try to resist. The point is the 1 trans miner would be working against bitcoin and therefore his juicy profits if he did resist. If they are smarter they will either fix it (which could be including just paid transactions) or keep to the rough level they are at now.
Just because one has a ton of power, does not mean using all is in their own best interest. There is a bell curve of profitability for this situation, and they are pretty close to the top right now.
|
|
|
|
I think it is most likely that an independent party has spent the money to make an ASIC farm, and found it easier to implement without including transactions. Becoming 20% of the network is about where you would find maximum profitability - if you doubled the total network hashrate yourself, you would only be earning 50% as many bitcoins per Thash.
Forgive my newbish ignorance, but depending on how they implemented it if a single entity actually reached 50% of the network with a cASIC would it not lead to basically the end of BTC? If you're a major miner you could look at developing your own ASIC, but the majority of the cost is already sunk for the 50% miner and they could simply churn out more wafers with the same mask. It might not be in the interest of the mystery miner to do a 51% attack, but it would be incredibly risky to sink hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into a cASIC design when there's a very good possibility that the person who's already at 50% could disrupt the network before your hashing power comes online. On the one hand, you're right. If I recall correctly, ArtForz once put it along these lines: Above 50% you're effectively competing against yourself. While it would not directly mean the end of BTC (let's say the >50% miner is benevolent), but it would probably make people feel so uneasy that the trust in bitcoin would deteriorate more and more, probably to the point where the whole things falls apart. So actually what you'd probably want to do in case you have all the up-front work and cost of ASIC covered is to sell about 50% of your production at the highest price you can get and put the other 50% into your own farm. If it is a botnet that continues 1 trans blocks (or any fakery of non-real transactions), i hope they realize that anything over 25% will cause the community to really work hard to stop it, and that the distortion of both the selling of the coins and the lost confidence will actually make them have LESS PROFIT. Adding too many machines will kill their $3000 a day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
