If you were using tools a lot of offices use to monitor employees, bitcoin monitoring would stick out like a sore thumb.  It's all HTTP based requests, on a non-standard port.  Most miners are sending more than one request per minute, so if you were to sort a list of all the HTTP requests made by your office by number of requests, odds are it would be at the very top.

For fairness since I've been attacking Realcoin.  Yes, LQC is a "scam" just like every other altcoin.  The difference is LQC isn't making claims of being anything more than it is [Speculation Based], and doesn't have a premine (other than the advantage Nicksasa had of being able to start it before anybody had a chance to read the thread).

I'm fine with altcoins that are just here for people to play around with.  I'm not fine with altcoins which claim to be doing a bunch of development into usability/security without actually changing the protocol, since its a drain on development time which could be used to improve Bitcoin.

LPs aren't that much more frequent these days with merged mining now that NMC difficulty has essentially lined up with BTC difficulty.  Scantime is definitely the culprit though.  Slower cards will ask for work way earlier than they need to just to keep up to date with the pool.

I think the change I posted above should solve the performance issues in an automated fashion without causing it to false positive legitimate users except in very rare circumstances [which I'm willing to whitelist].

I did read the OP.  And your replies.  And absolutely nothing about that indicates this is going to be anything more than a new coat of paint on top of Bitcoin.

I would retract every statement I made if you could just identify one feature that makes this a legitimately superior platform that could not exist as PART of Bitcoin.

VPS providers would rather not get their entire server shut down and/or taken from the datacenter due to a user's need to steal movies.

Your best bet is looking for a VPS in countries which are less strict about copyright laws.  Netherlands tends to be where most Seedboxes run.

No, it is competing.  If you think otherwise you're even dumber than the premise of your altcoin.  If you seriously think trying to convince businesses into accepting your rebranded bitcoins doesn't hurt Bitcoin you must have taken some blows to the head as a child.

You're here to try to scam a bunch of money.  Plain and simple.  If you truly believed your claims, you wouldn't have needed such a large premine.

Sadly that wouldn't stop it .  I tried that in the past.  The problem with it is a VPS is much more likely to get blacklisted and suspended if targetted by an attack.  So the result of the DDoS would be a suspension of your services very quickly.  They wouldn't have to hold all your servers down at once, they'd just have to hold them down long enough for the VPS provider to turn it off, then move to the next one.

Not to mention a gigabit VPS where you're allowed to use the whole gigabit without overage charges is not that cheap ;p

However, that isn't saying that VPSes are bad.  They're quite useful in quickly scaling up/down for legit users.

Your reply to my question answers everything.  This is another get rich quick scam with no real purpose.

Your entire argument is you want to make things easier.  There is NOTHING stopping you from adding that functionality onto Bitcoin.  Your entire fork is basically aimed about putting a pretty interface on top of bitcoind, something you can do with or without the blessing of the main bitcoin developers.

If you made a truly functional interface that was an improvement in every way, I can guarantee it would end up being in the master fork very quickly.  If you couldn't, nothing is stopping you from making a frontend to bitcoind and releasing it separately.


Quit wasting development time on competing with bitcoin when you're doing nothing but putting a new wrapper on the same old product.  Help the project, make it grow, and you'll profit on the growth of the bitcoin economy.


If you want to release more scamcoins, at the very least be honest about it like LiquidCoin.  Don't pretend you have a grand scheme and something unique when you're just duplicating bitcoin and making aesthetic changes.

I'm going to keep an eye on this, maybe even offer some of BTC Guild's large-scale miners an option to help test it out.  PoolServerJ has worked great for me, but that memory footprint is huge.

That would only work if you're at an ISP that will allow you to add a whitelist at their perimeter.  If the DDoSer has enough zombies, they will still take you offline because they can flood the switches in front of your server before a whitelist takes effect.

The largest attacks back in July were over 10 gigabits of traffic.  There are very few datacenters that can absorb that when its all headed towards a single internal IP, and even fewer datacenters that will actually allow that kind of traffic to come in without just blackholing you temporarily.

I wish I could afford a Tesla.  Sadly I'm stuck in a 2003 Honda Element.

I'm not saying pool operators are all running on ramen, but at least in the case of PPS pools, taking the fee and applying calculations on neutral luck is ignoring the significant added risk that the pool operator is assuming, and may be completely different from what is actually happening.  To expect a pool to have DDoS mitigation that can stop the botnet that hit BTC Guild, Deepbit, and Slush in the past, is insane.  There is no way a bitcoin pool can afford that level of service.

I don't know if its the same one hitting ABCPool, or if its a smaller fraction, but if its the same one, no host on the planet is going to be able to keep a bitcoin pool online during it.  Bitcoin mining itself is VERY DDOS-like.  You'd end up catching the majority of legit traffic as false positives.  At best you might keep the website portion online to let people know that the pool is down.

In light of the reports about how poorly inefficient cgminer is, I'll be tweaking some settings in the new pool software when it launches.  Inefficiency will only be one piece of the puzzle, the other will be related to IP addresses.

A normal user would only use one IP to access one worker [there is no reason to use the same worker when connecting from two different locations].  Since some people have dynamic IPs, this will be extended to 3 IPs [1 current IP, 1 "expired" IP, and 1 spare in case you have network issues and change IPs twice in a short time frame].

This restriction should not affect any normal user.  If anybody has a special case, I may whitelist them upon request.  This change will make it significantly harder for botnets to operate on the pool without using proxies to mask the different IPs.  I will still ban inefficient workers, but it will be based not only on efficiency, but also the rate of getwork requests.  An inefficient worker asking for a 5 getworks per minute isn't a problem.  A botnet would be asking for 100+ per minute.

No pool can offer DDoS protection, not even Deepbit.  The best they can do is throw up spare servers and hope the DDoS doesn't follow them.  On top of that, a 4% fee on PPS doesn't mean a damn thing.  BTC Guild is a 5% fee, and I have made less in the last 3 months than I did off less than 1% donations in Proportional due to a severe bad luck streak in recent weeks.  In the long run?  Sure it SHOULD average out.  But that doesn't mean a pool is banking nonstop profits, especially when they haven't been around long.

Repeating this again.  Just answer it instead of skipping over it.  If you answer this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, it will likely shut up any opposition to this altcoin:

I just want to know one thing about RLC(?) that makes it inherently different from BTC (and changing the mining algo/client interface does NOT count).

I don't care about project focus.  I don't care about premine.  Give me one good reason your ideas warrant the addition of yet another altcoin instead of focusing your efforts and building on top of bitcoin.  The growing hatred of altcoins is NOT because so far every single one has either been a joke or a get rich quick scheme.  It stems from the fact that so far not a single one has managed to do anything different from Bitcoin, and thus has been nothing but a waste of time and energy.

If your ideas are so good, work on building them on top of bitcoin.  If your ideas CANT be built on top of Bitcoin, tell us what those ideas are SPECIFICALLY, and address why it cannot be built upon the already existing technology.  Unless you can do those two things, then you've done absolutely nothing worthy of wasting space on this forum.


--
At this point every altcoin should be completely ignored and/or attacked unless their existence can be justified by offering something unique and different from what Bitcoin can provide.  If you can't do that, you're just another scammer hoping to make a quick buck at others expense.  An altcoin has no purpose in being made if its functionality could be achieved by an interface redesign to Bitcoin.

Slush is completely absent from the chart.  That's the majority of the Unknown [Slush + Solo Miners].

I just want to know one thing about RLC(?) that makes it inherently different from BTC (and changing the mining algo/client interface does NOT count).

I don't care about project focus.  I don't care about premine.  Give me one good reason your ideas warrant the addition of yet another altcoin instead of focusing your efforts and building on top of bitcoin.  The growing hatred of altcoins is NOT because so far every single one has either been a joke or a get rich quick scheme.  It stems from the fact that so far not a single one has managed to do anything different from Bitcoin, and thus has been nothing but a waste of time and energy.

If your ideas are so good, work on building them on top of bitcoin.  If your ideas CANT be built on top of Bitcoin, tell us what those ideas are SPECIFICALLY, and address why it cannot be built upon the already existing technology.  Unless you can do those two things, then you've done absolutely nothing worthy of wasting space on this forum.

Dutchbrat and ancow:  How many pools do you have setup as backups in cgminer?  Of those, how many have merged mining, and how many have merged mining for multiple coins [ix/i0/dvc]?  I'm not positive, but it could be that cgminer's reported efficiency is related to hording work from backup pools.  In that circumstance, your BTC Guild efficiency may be significantly higher.

These numbers are very surprising.  When running my cgminer on a partially loaded 6970 (going at ~300 MH/s) my efficiency stays over 90% for hours on end.  My ban on inefficient miners was going to be much lower (15% range).  It's quite hard to believe that cgminer is that horribly inefficient for some users.

Is that a recent number (lots of issues today due to backend)?  I don't see how your efficiency could possible be -that- low unless you're under 10 MH/s.

Impossible to tell really, they funnel in through a handful of workers.  Given the overall speeds, not a high percentage, maybe none (they may just use a CPU miner to ensure compatibility).