|
The old antrouter and the heatbits were locked to certain pools. But hacking around that is (was) somewhat trivial.
It depends how much time & effort they put into locking it down and how much of a controller they have onboard.
If they took the cheapest - slowest - most basic SBC they could find to run it, then a fixed firmware setup that does not even have a GUI might be what you get.
OTOH, if they are using something that runs the full setup that they have on their regular miners then it's a different story.
Will have to wait and see.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the crazy usage their entire page / domain has to get with so many people hitting the page over and over and the fact that it's a free service with no ads it's kind of impressive how well it does hold up.
But, over the years it has 'burped' before usually it's back in a few minutes.
Would be interesting to know their usage stats and what they do have on the back end running everything.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
The lack of communication to people with accounts there is awful. Nothing on their home page, nothing in the trade pages. Guess they are hoping to just pack it up Feb 1 and keep what is left.
This seems like an exit scam than a regulatory restriction. They have been operating since 2015 and are based in Argentina. The 15-day period for withdrawing funds does not seem sufficient, and some people will inevitably be surprised that their funds are still there. In many cases, the withdrawal permission is 6 months or a year after submitting a request or Communication with a third party. It's a bit more then 15 days closer to 23 but yeah, it's WAY to short. Got the email today about their closing same info as the link I posted above: https://southxchange.gorgias.help/en-US/important-update-regarding-southxchange-383212I'm thinking with the new government in Argentina taking over and everything else going on down there they are just packing it in. I know of a bunch of businesses that are fleeing to Brazil or Bolivia because they are at the moment better governed and appear to be more stable. -Dave |
|
|
|
Flag opened. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3269Feel free to support it :-) Negative feedback left. If you have a moment and feel it's needed you should leave some too. Should also tag the other users saying how great the service is, but I am on mobile so I'll get to that later. -Dave |
|
|
|
There is a risk of starting on the next block beforehand. Which is You find a block, within a couple of seconds someone else finds the next block, a couple of seconds after that you find your next block which contains transactions that the other pool mined because you had already been working on it for 3 or 4 seconds. You now have an invalid block. It's a very very very (add a few more very) small risk but still there. Someone with better math skills can probably come up with the % of hash you have to have to make that risk / reward amount work. Keep in mind the people behind foundry have deep pockets. They probably do have some math guy sitting in a cube figuring out all kinds of things like this. -Dave |
|
|
|
No, that's not the way mining works.
It's very simple to avoid mining empty blocks, you just have to take the risk of loosing a block to another miner.
I made this thread about Foundry in specific because to me it's logical that they being the biggest mining pool would not be willing to take this risk. Naturally, the larger a pool becomes, the larger the opportunity cost of having certain chances of losing a block. So, with network security measures as you mention, can that risk be minimized to an extent that it's negligible even for a pool that has ~1/3rd of the hashrate? Because if not, they might be doing something else. You are looking at it the wrong way: With the assumption that they have the security measures in place they will probably have fewer (or no) empty blocks. All the data is sifted and filtered before being passed back to their nodes. Because of that their nodes shuold have more time to think about the next block. The downside is, that while they are scanning the data and cross checking that all their nodes agree some other pool found the next block and they have to start all over again. Or by the time they do get all the data though and then they find a block they loose an orphan race because even though some other pool got the block *after* them by the time theirs made it out to the internet the block from the other pool had already been out and broadcast for a second or 2. They are a large pool with a large staff. They are going to be more concerned about the risk of a hack / breach/ attack then some smaller pool run by just a couple of people. The potential cost of loosing a block or two a year is a lot less then the cost of a network intrusion. -Dave |
|
|
|
No, that's not the way mining works. It's very simple to avoid mining empty blocks, you just have to take the risk of loosing a block to another miner. Figuring it's about 3 to 10 seconds to get in the old block, verify it, and send it to a bunch of divergent nodes around the world to agree upon it and then you start mining a block with transactions. During those few seconds you can either 1) mine an empty block 2) risk loosing a mined block because someone who did #1 found it before you. The above is a VERY basic way of describing it. There are a lot more details and nuances involved. See below for more. -Dave Taking it a bit past what was said above. IF they are doing it properly and that is a big IF a large pool is running several nodes all over the world, when a block comes in they all should start validating it. Once a certain percentage of them agree then and only then do they start building the new block for the pool. Loosing the fees even now is better then building a invalid block that gets rejected. AND not broadcasting an empty block as soon as possible risks loosing it too. It just comes down to routing. It takes about 1/2 a second to send 1 packet of data around the world without doing any kind of firewall / security inspection in an ideal setting. Allowing for the nodes to verify what is in the block, and sending it back out is another couple of seconds and then start building a new block. If all is ideal you should have a new block ready to go in 10 seconds or so. BUT, if you are waiting for minimum of 3 of 5 nodes to do their thing you might add a few seconds on top of that. Add in a bloated memory pool and some DPI From firewalls and you add a few seconds again. All of a sudden you are looking at more time to build a block. Even now there are 2 schools of thought with what happened with what happened with foundry the other day. Some people including Kano are saying that they tried to orphan a couple of blocks. Others are saying that they saw foundrys blocks 1st. It has always been the way it works. And part of the problem is that even if you understand BTC perfectly, unless you understand the true issues of internet routing and the true delays that proper DPI can put into network performance then it's never going to seem logical as to what happened. Dave's pool can put it's nodes out there in public. A corporation with all kinds of security requirements probably has 3 layers of security devices looking at all data coming in before it even hits the node to be processed. Dave's node has seen, and processed the block before it has even gotten through the security devices of some places. On the flip side, it's a lot harder to take out big corps node(s) by flooding them with bad data since it never even makes it into the network. -Dave * DPI = deep packet inspection. https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/dpi-deep-packet-inspection |
|
|
|
Good lord, this exchange was still alive after all this while?
I remember them during the ICO hype, but I never registered there. It seems like business was not going on well, so instead of staying around and struggling with law enforcement as well, the better decision would be to shut down.
Does not look like it was that busy
Besides they might lose in the competition to comply with regulations, I think such a small trading volume isn't commensurate with the operational costs and team salaries. After looking at their X account, I concluded they were a stingy exchange, making no effort to make users feel at home like a reward/loyalty programs. Yeah, it's where I dumped my BSV & BTCX back in the day. IIRC they were one of the 1st to have BSV trading. Look where it got them  The lack of communication to people with accounts there is awful. Nothing on their home page, nothing in the trade pages. Guess they are hoping to just pack it up Feb 1 and keep what is left. -Dave |
|
|
|
And now it's showing this for people in the US  If you are in the US and still using WoS get your coins out ASAP before 'Region Not Supported' changes to a can't connect or something similar. Only a matter of time. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
How many amps is the breaker?
2 separate breakers or are they both on the same circuit?
Keep in mind breakers are rated for 80% (give or take) constant load so a 20A breaker should not run 24/7 more then 16A IIRC these are 10A miners so if they are both on 1 circuit you are overloading it. Add in anything else you are going to be well over the limits.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
The user Symmetrick has been banned, so haters of this user can breathe a sigh of relief. So discussion of this issue has lost its relevance.
A bit OT but, has it ever been really discussed why the forum itself does not show banned users and why? I know I have brought it up in the past, that knowing why would probably not be a bad thing, but was there ever any internal discussions as why not to show it? -Dave |
|
|
|
...Also something most people don't realize is that OCEAN doesn't exactly ban inscriptions. In their latest block there was a single inscription that was included. It was included because there are certain requirements in the filters. Maximum data included must be under 42 bytes and the fee paid must be higher so as not to take advantage of the bug that gives full witness discounts to excessive data....
They also do not mine Whirlpool coinjoin transactions and BIP47 notification transactions and who knows what else that we have not seen yet that they will not mine. With the last few blocks as of this post being heavy on inscriptions with higher fees it would be worse if they found a block as @mikeywith pointed out. A lot of high fee TXs that they don't approve of without a decent number of those that they do and it's going to hurt. If it's like the block they found and are only giving up BTC.14 give or take then the 0 fee does make up for it. -Dave |
|
|
|
OCEAN has been steadily increasing its hashrate.
Now that a new block was mined more people might want to jump on the pool with their hashrate that they had sitting on other pools.
OCEAN's TIDES system is quite rewarding compared to FPPS/PPS and PPLNS pools, especially now. If s block is mined with exceeding luck miners on Ocean Pool get paid their full rewards, including luck, immediately.
Nope a single miner that is probably ocean themselves keeps adding hashrate: https://ocean.xyz/stats/3MkwkMZHBkpz8czCipgf4SwsNwpgbV38QzNo miner who is in it to make as much BTC as possible would be mining here. Giving up $6000 per block or more is just nonsensical just because you don't want to include certain transactions. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's *not* a lot of sales. I figured with their pricing and the fact that there is no credit card surcharge and you still get the 2% back if you use the Costco visa they would have sold more. Using round numbers $100,000,000 he said more then but I'll use that number since I will also use $2,000 per ounce and gold has been more then 5% above that at retail you only have 50,000 bars sold.
Yes 50k is a lot, but considering they were by far the cheapest retail place for them AND as I said no credit card surcharge AND if you use their Visa you get the 2% I would have figured a higher number.
The small gold & silver place near me does a couple of bars a day on average so that's once again round numbers 600+ bars a year or 150+ a quarter from a small private store.
For a company that has close to 600 stores and internet sales I would have thought they would have sold more with their pricing.
Quick thought: 90 days in a quarter 600 stores 90*600 is 54,000 so to get to the 100 million plus that's one bar a day per store not counting internet sales. So yeah, not a lot.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Ok, the other wallet I could suggest is Multibit HD, he might be generated the seed phrase from that wallet software but this wallet is long gone you can maybe try to use the BIP39 tool check the link below. - https://iancoleman.io/bip39/Paste the seed phrase he had and then go to the derivation path then client and put it to Multibit HD. Copy the xPub or extended public key and paste it to this link below repeat the process to other clients until you find used addresses on the xPub scanner below. - https://blockpath.com/wallets/local/101?action=appxpubOnce the tool found some used addresses focus on that client for the recovery process. For safety purposes, you can run the BIP39 tool offline if you don't want to expose the seed phrase online. You can still get the compiled binaries and source for mulibit here: https://github.com/Multibit-Legacy/multibit-hd/releasesAnd then see if you can import the seed and what addresses it gives you and work from there. The other possibility is that it was not BTC but some alt. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
I have one of these, along with just about every other GekkoScience product.
But I have to say that as with all these miners be in the 909 or 606 or futfurbit or whatever you are paying a premium for it and have to be aware that you will never get your investment in the unit back.
They are for tinkering, or lottery mining. Not a bad thing, just that we as a group who KNOW this have to make others aware of it.
But, a good review and another solid product from GS.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
In the end does it really matter?
Posts are gone / deleted / moved. Almost all active members know the facts of what happened, the why we will probably never know.
At this point opinions are probably not going to change so it's all just going to be us talking in circles. Not that doing that is a bad thing, just that the odds of anyone changing anyone else's view of Symmetrick / Ratimov and what happened are just about 0.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
