Latest posts of: lizthegrey

Quote from: theymos on May 30, 2011, 09:25:56 AM

It is possible to have a decentralized pool, but IMO building it would be a waste of time, since it will be too expensive to be a full Bitcoin node not too far in the future, and participants in a decentralized pool must be full nodes. A decentralized pool also requires a great deal of bandwidth itself, since all peers must understand the complete state of the pool (as far as I can tell).

If you trust one person to distribute payouts, and you use a DHT with small replication (say, 10) rather than full replication, it's not quite so bad.

Quote from: rebuilder on May 30, 2011, 08:50:44 AM

Is it possible to have a decentralized pool, or is a central authority required to ensure miners are honest?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#

Quote from: martok on May 30, 2011, 12:12:57 AM

Quote from: Anonymous on May 29, 2011, 11:54:22 PM

Seriously there is a theoretical attack scenario where the large pools who form a majority of the network can be ddosed and then the attacker has less surviving mining power to overcome. Perhaps someone is trying that.

How so? If you and I are mining and you stop, that doesn't improve my chances of finding a block. Not until your stopping lowers the difficulty. Until then, I am still attempting the same difficulty hashing and have the same probability of success per attempt.

Because the amount of effort required to fork the block chain depends upon the relative amount of honest and corrupted hashing power, so less honest hashing power and more corrupted hashing power, even at high difficulty, results in the possibility of a forking attack.

Quote from: padrino on May 30, 2011, 12:14:10 AM

Thanks for the quick response... I assume from earlier thread posts the pay out waits for verification however the recent poster indicated he already saw the credit in his account, please clarify what to expect since I'm still seeing 0 BTC

I have been paid for the first and second blocks found, but not the third. This is consistent with waiting 100-120 blocks for maturation.

minute_of_angle: how do your crackpot theories account for people that are not heterosexual? what about families with two breadwinners or a female breadwinner?

Very nice and relatively smooth bootstrap considering the difficulties.

I just saw the credit for the 2nd solve hit my account.

Quote from: LMGTFY on May 29, 2011, 07:05:55 PM

True, but artificially discouraging people, men or women, from using bitcoin - by belittling a group of people - hinders that, surely?

Look, if more people start using bitcoin we all benefit. If we discourage people - some people, many people, whatever - from using bitcoin we don't benefit. Presumably you don't sidle up to people at parties and say "don't use bitcoin, it's useless". But that's effectively what you - and other posters - are doing when you choose to sideline women. We have an opportunity here, an opportunity to see how we can make bitcoin and the community more attractive to women - we can take that opportunity, and benefit ourselves, or we can ignore it and lose that benefit. To me it's a no-brainer. It'd be like a website choosing not to be accessible to half their potential customers, except instead of one corporation suffering we all suffer.

Yes, this. Thank you!

Duplicate long poll notifications? I'm now seeing:

29/05/2011 11:59:26, long poll: new block 00001f0df0fbc9bf
29/05/2011 12:01:04, 3bab7ab0, accepted
29/05/2011 12:03:26, 020376a8, accepted
29/05/2011 12:03:27, long poll: new block 000001009d992c42
29/05/2011 12:04:28, long poll: new block 000001009d992c42
29/05/2011 12:05:46, d9905f47, accepted
29/05/2011 12:05:52, 4977c657, accepted
29/05/2011 12:05:57, bd83827e, accepted
29/05/2011 12:07:11, long poll: new block 000011af10b59dee
29/05/2011 12:07:11, 2f338d2d, accepted
29/05/2011 12:08:11, long poll: new block 000011af10b59dee
29/05/2011 12:09:57, long poll: new block 00001fa10e43c877
29/05/2011 12:10:30, 79b12eb6, accepted

The casual sexist jokes aren't exactly going to help the problem.

Website looks down, 503ing at the proxy Sad

Quote from: smooth on May 28, 2011, 11:20:52 PM

Now here's an idea: build a peer-to-peer pool using cryptography, so is no central pool host to attack.

Already sketched out and being worked on. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#

Quote from: Jine on May 29, 2011, 01:25:29 AM

Great success and thanks all, we solved our first block tonight.
http://blockexplorer.com/tx/b3c010a02e0869e02d0efb8e374791f8beceefb5288e0814dd2909cb6f28fd3f

As soon as the block reaches mature level (after 100 confirmations), it will automatically be credited to your accounts(!)!!
Thanks all for making this happen.

Quote

jine@bitcoins:~$ sudo bitcoind listtransactions
[
   {
   "account" : "",
   "category" : "immature",
   "amount" : 50.89428576,
   "confirmations" : 29,
   "txid" : "b3c010a02e0869e02d0efb8e374791f8beceefb5288e0814dd2909cb6f28fd3f",
   "time" : 1306621127
   },

http://www.bitcoins.lc/getinfo.json
http://www.bitcoins.lc/listtransactions.json

--
Many many regards,
Jim Nelin

W00t! For reference, the block is http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000001376c3290f359a9e9e22fd33fd8c413a4ea44de383ae1980c44b

Cool, IPv6 is awesome. Threw 55Mhash at you. P.S. are you accepting stale shares? I see:

27/05/2011 06:54:07, 72aebf59, accepted
27/05/2011 06:54:26, 801036f9, invalid or stale
27/05/2011 06:54:26, long poll: new block 00000652fec7eb65
27/05/2011 06:55:31, 3de79218, accepted
27/05/2011 06:56:17, long poll: new block 00002114a002d0de
27/05/2011 06:56:51, 42fee9a3, accepted
27/05/2011 06:58:11, cced8b39, accepted

but in admin interface I see Shares: 5 / 5

Quote from: 2_Thumbs_Up on May 26, 2011, 06:39:02 PM

Quote from: lizthegrey on May 26, 2011, 06:04:28 PM

Yes, there is an incentive. Given that miners will switch to other pools if one pool becomes flaky, it results in other pools getting more miners, and for pools that charge fees, it means more profits for the pool organizer since more blocks will be generated by that pool.

And that incentive is the same for every type of business. And while I'm sure that there probably exist some firms that partake in vandalizing their competitor's businesses, it isn't really that common.

Totally with you

- vandalizing competitors has a very large disincentive if caught which far outweighs the incentive. But the OP asked if an incentive existed, and the answer is yes, there is that "incentive".

Quote from: grndzero on May 24, 2011, 03:16:53 AM

And that's great if that's what you want. The proposal is to try to impose it on every pool operator rather just using a pool that does what they want.

Nowhere have I said that I have any desire to impose it upon every pool operator. I'm sorry if I was unclear and there was a misunderstanding.

I am saying that personally, I prefer to use pools with greater levels of transparency, and I'm creating software to increase transparency past the current limits of ultimately trusting a single operator. This does nothing to affect existing pools, but would provide a family of alternatives for those looking for a low-overhead method of starting their own distributed pools or joining someone's transparent distributed pool.

Quote from: grndzero on May 24, 2011, 02:54:57 AM

Quote from: BitterTea on May 24, 2011, 02:42:56 AM

Does it really matter? Every participant is pseudonymous anyway, there's no identifying information. Even if there was, is there anything private about the number of shares submitted? I mean, you can see every transaction made in the Bitcoin block chain, is that an issue?

Nobody would be forced to use this system if they didn't want to share their shares for whatever reason.

Yeah it does because the double standard is sickening. No one is forcing you to use a pool that doesn't show everyone's work either.

Correct, which is why Eligius is a good first step along this path, because you *can* verify that at least the number of shares present in the mysql db were generated for given round, even if you can't prove that no shares from clients were incorrectly rejected. But it's possible to do better than this *and* have increased reliability.

You could even anonymize the shares by not associating them with a specific worker, just dumping all the shares out so people could verify the share totals are correct.

Quote from: grndzero on May 24, 2011, 02:14:38 AM

Every pool I've seen keeps a history of your work. What you're asking for is access to everyone else's work/account.

Yes. This is necessary, because otherwise a dishonest pool could inflate the number of shares submitted in a round and nobody would be the wiser.

It sadly is going to be necessary to modify the bitcoin client to return enough of the block under construction - right now, there is no way for a pool to verify that the pool's payment address is being specified unless the necessary information from the block is provided rather than just midpoint hash, etc.

Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ciKH3M8WYS49ywz08beXtvpCm2wVGdzU7waKwcn_uaU/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CJTqyOMF#