I think at this point purging the default trust list for a few months to "see" how things would play out is not a bad idea.

Why was the trust system initially implemented? Its primary purpose was to enhance the safety of trading on the forum. Now, let's consider the percentage of forum members utilizing the platform for trading – around 5%?. In essence, we are subjecting the remaining 95% to potential harassment by some DT members merely to safeguard this small fraction of the forum population. Keep in mind that a significant portion of this 5% (myself included) may not trust the default trust list and often opt for escrow in their trades. When factoring in these considerations, the conclusion is apparent – we are safeguarding a very small group at the expense of many other innocent users, not to mention the forum database inundated with redundant feedback and numerous topics discussing a single feedback.

Theymos probably wanted everyone to participate in the trust system, but that obviously didn't happen and will never happen, we literally have some DT members who blackmail other users for the removal of certain feedback.

Common sense dictates that if you wish to engage in trading, you should put in effort in selecting members whose judgment aligns with your own. If trading isn't your focus, the entire trust system becomes irrelevant. Therefore, providing the community with the option to use or not use the trust system would be a good experiment IMO. This way, nobody would have the right to complain about any feedback since each individual's feedback would hold precisely the value assigned by that particular person.


That is indeed a fantastic idea, and it would certainly be effective if Theymos had a superhuman ability with a 100% success rate. Unfortunately, he does not possess such capabilities, so the idea won't work.


You don't understand what decentralization means. Imagine a scenario where your household spending is centralized—in other words, your father receives all the money and then distributes it among all the family members as they see fit (centralized). Now, contrast that with a decentralized system where the person who receives the most votes manages the family spending, and it so happens that your little brother wins (because he is good at persuading and managed to persuade your other siblings). Do you think he'd be fairer to you than your centralized father?

It's like people confusing democracy with fairness. Fairness would involve allowing your broke ass to run for president with the same chances and exposure as the current president. Democracy means your broke ass decides to vote for this powerful person or the next one. It's very easy to confuse reality with terms.

The DT system is indeed decentralized, but decentralization has nothing to do with fairness. What you want is a fair system, whether it's centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

I am offering the opportunity to rent my avatar and signature space.


As of the date of this post, I have contributed to the forum with 7880 posts, earned 6117 merits, and actively participated in well-known signature campaigns. My engagement spans various sections, including but limited to Mining, Development & Technical Discussion, and the local Arabic board.

Services I won't Advertise:

-Casinos / Gambling
-Ponzi / MLM

Terms:

-I prefer payment in BTC but will accept other payment methods (crypto only).
-I reserve the right to terminate the agreement if your service is involved in any fraudulent activities.
-I will maintain my posting behavior as is; no changes will be made.

If you are interested, please send me a PM or post here.

F2pool is the worst pool anyone could use, it practices censorship at its finest, currently, they are the only known pool to implement OFAC blacklist, something that nobody asked them to do, Chun just wants to lick the government's boots.

He clearly stated the following:


So ya, Chun can take his acceleration service and shove it up his censorship arse.

Phill, you could use poolflare.net for that miner, it's cheaper and has almost the same hashrate as this anti-bitcoin pool.

---

OP, there is no free lunch, why would anyone replace a good paying transaction for one that pays less? it makes no sense, if you want your transactions to be confirmed you have to pay enough for them, there is no workaround to battle a free market.

I think JollyGood is following Lauda's footsteps. I have been watching his feedback for a while, and he indeed does a great job in tagging scammers. However, he has become pretty heavy-handed, and his use of the trust system goes against what I believe should be. Thus, I had to sadly exclude him from my trust list.

I don't necessarily think he is not fit for DT; I just think I would rather let five scammers slip than be unfair to a single innocent person. I also disagree with how some DT members use the trust system to enforce the forum rules, or even worse, their own rules for posting criteria, political agenda, and I think many DT members agree with this but are just selfish. As long as it doesn't affect them, they remain in their DT seat and don't personally dislike the person; they would just let it be. Maybe some would say something politically nice like "I don't agree with the tag, but I understand why" and move on with their lives.

I hope JollyGood starts rethinking such feedback and focuses only on tagging users who are either proven scammers or very likely to be scammers with somewhat valid evidence at hand.

Not a lawyer either, but as long as you don't intentionally expose the private key then how would anyone know the content?  besides the law explicitly says according to what NFW posted above


The blockchain is no different than a VPS you rent from someone in this regard if I archive a copy of a video game I bought legally on a VPS "even without encrypting it" and then the actual VPS owner finds his way in (which they can easily), or even a hacker for that matter, how would I be held responsible? I don't know how countries that have copy-right laws go about enforcing these laws because they are as complicated as fudge.

I am certainly not advising anyone to post illegal content on the blockchain (or any content for that matter), but I can see how some of those folks who want to play games on the blockchain would go about encrypting their copies of the game as a measurement of protection.




And the size of inputs is 4x the size of outputs.

If you put it on the blockchain in plain text then it becomes accessible by everyone, which i suppose is illegal based on what you posted above.

Maybe you can encrypt the content using your private key, this way nobody else can retrieve the content of the file you inscribed.

And then, as a node operator, you would only worry about your country's law (assuming your node sits there too).


Well making attacks more costly is indeed better than doing nothing, but the kind of attack we talking about here does not require redundancy, an attacker would only need one transaction to "infect" the blockchain and then take you to court, so if it costs $10 or $1000 when done only once, it won't make any difference.

For other attacks that depend on frequency, this indeed would help reduce them, we just need to evaluate what could be broken along the way of doing it.

This isn't going to cut it if you want to protect BTC from illegal content, making something more expensive doesn't stop an attacker from doing it, especially if they need to do it only once.


What about using Zero Knowledge Proof to make pruning the UTXO set possible? I recall reading about something like that in the past. I mean, my node would keep only block headers and UTXO commitments, and your node would provide a valid ZKP that certain parts of the UTXO set that I am checking are valid. I think Zcash operates in a similar manner.


In another thread discussion about the "ban of Ordinals," I did mention that contrary to what many people believe, changing any part of the code is like playing with fire. Anyone with enough real-world application experience would always be hesitant when applying any fix to anything. There is a reason why many billion-dollar companies still use old code that could be optimized. Some people think it's a matter of adding a simple if statement that would automatically ban all BRC-20 transactions without damaging anything.

Lawmaking is difficult in the real world, and so is in BTC. You try to fix something, like making transactions cheaper for the good lads, and you end up making potential attacks like flooding the UTXO set easier and cheaper. There is a huge fundamental issue with BTC, and that is its security is directly related to its value. The higher the value, the more difficult it is to attack, whether that is in terms of 51% attacks, spamming, or UTXO set flooding.

It is like saying someone will trade the oxygen in their lungs for another chemical element that "might" be more efficient, it either works great or you die.

This might be a bad exaggeration but as someone who has spent almost everything I have on my mining business, I would not take the smallest risk for burning that down, reflect that on others who invested more than I did and probably have debt to pay, nobody in their right mind would risk damaging bitcoin in the way you describing, ya a little more profit for some thing "unethical" is always expected, aside from that, it won't happen.

The main major aspect of Bitcoin POW security is that miners will always try to protect BTC from such attacks that could deem bitcoin worthless.

How fast is too fast? Also, what miner types are we talking? whatsminers can change power limit by sending a simple command using their API, but then booting up takes a few mins.


But he needs to use a saved-profile for that, not just a random profile or freq/voltage settings which the miner doesn't know, no?

But is it even technically possible to prevent such an attack on Bitcoin? I am not talking about witness data or OP-RETURN, but speaking of the UTXO set where even pruning is not an option. This "exploit" has been there since the inception of BTC. It's impossible to stop people from putting ALL types of data that we don't want. Of course, it gets easier and cheaper with the current implementation, but what has changed in that regard?

From an attacker's standpoint, wouldn't it be cheaper to just insert illegal or copyright content into the UTXO set and spend all these millions that are otherwise going to the miners in suing wallets and exchanges, forcing them to shut down their nodes?

Also, to what extent is such an attack even feasible? Where I live, by law, I am only obliged not to sell illegal content. If my PC was searched by the authorities and they found some copyright violation, there is nothing they can do to me. It's perfectly legal as long as I am not making money out of it. I can put some cracked software on a pen drive and send it to anyone, and I would still be operating within the legal boundaries of the law. Many countries don't deal with copyrights the way the U.S. deals with it. Is it feasible for Nintendo to go after everyone who runs a full node? Do the attackers really think they stand a chance to kill BTC taking that route?

I personally don't think that is doable. I also don't think that Ordinals/BRC-20 are an attack "by design". It's possible that the attack is a probable byproduct, but the main purpose is profit. I think calling them scammers would fit more than calling them attackers (speaking of the devs behind all of this nonsense NFTs/Ordinals/BRC-20 on all platforms), and they feed off the greed that many people think they can sell the scam to someone else at a higher price sometime in the future.


Most members here are against Ordinals and BRC-20, not sure why you think they deserve what they get.


Well then, maybe "save us now" before it's too late? what do you 'as a former core dev' think the solution should be, what would the average Joe in this forum do to stop this?



I believe the reason why other algorithms have a better earning ratio in terms of both power and cost is the fact that a tight equilibrium is hard to reach on them. Simply put, not enough investors trust those coins. In contrast, with BTC, it's the exact opposite. If your $1,000 investment in a BTC ASIC miner makes you $100 a month in profit, you know it would take way too long for that $100 to turn into 0. On the other hand, if that same $1,000 investment makes you $200 a month on another algorithm, you know that it won't take too long to get to $0. It's basically the higher the risk, the greater the reward. I think of mining altcoins as bond class B and BTC as bond class AA. The former is likely to net you more profit but is also more likely to make you lose more.

For Nintendo games.

That is exactly what they are doing, I looked into their roadmap and they talk about things like saving the game status on the blockchain, next would likely be saving how many zombies you killed (or whatever the Ninja hero does in the game) on the blockchain, those transactions would be tiny in size, combined with other similiar transactions it would be pretty damn cheap, a single on-chain transaction would be enough for a dozen players data.

@stompy, lol, it may look like something that would never work, but given that probably over a hundrred billion dollars are spent on video games every year, i won't be too confident that we won't see many games make it to the blockchain.

You are going to get some fun comments there  , some folks treat Ordinals as an attack on BTC and they don't take kindly any discussion related to them.




The math still holds true. If it's 7 days, you just divide everything I mentioned above by 2, and so on. However, I understand the theory behind all this. We've discussed it here, probably since 2019 or so. It's a valid theory. I just don't think the math checks out for a single pool. It makes sense if 3-4 of the largest pools do it, as everything they do to the blockchain would be almost 100% beneficial to them. As it stands right now, the way I see it is that mining pools would be better off spamming the blockchain with high-fee transactions than turning off gears.

Yes, they've inscribed an entire Nintendo Entertainment System simulator on the blockchain, complete with the game code.


Currently, you only pay for creating a new "ninja," which is only 1 KB. However, they claim some other features are in the pipeline. For instance, saving the game status on-chain. Imagine finishing level 5, instead of saving that locally, you inscribe that worthless piece of info on the blockchain. So, the next time you open the game, it picks up where you left off. And yes, your friends can witness your game status too.

It's incredible how people find ways to create value out of seemingly trivial things, and even worse how many people buy into this. Love them or hate them, those devs are as sharp as a tack.

Well, yes, that's a valid point. However, my argument is, if the profit is high, I'd rather harvest it now. The percentage increase in net profit outweighs the block fee. I'm not saying my point makes more sense than yours, but you need to keep in mind that if Foundry turns off gears to achieve anything (be it higher transaction fees or lower difficulty), they would only benefit from 25% of the goal they set, whereas anything they lose is 100% theirs.

If the above is not clear, let's put it into actual figures. If Foundry underclocks all of its gears by 10%, the effect on difficulty would be a drop of 2.5%, and the transaction fees would only go up by 2.5% (since there would be 2.5% fewer blocks for roughly 2 weeks).

Out of this 2.5% increase, Foundry gets only 22.5%. So if the total fees are 2016 BTC per epoch, they now become 2,066.4. That's an extra 50.4 BTC, of which Foundry would get 11.34 BTC. But they have lost 10% of their cut out of those 14,616 BTC. So instead of making 3,654 (if they kept their 25% share), they would make 3,288. That's a loss of 365.4 BTC in a single epoch.

In the next epoch after that 2.5% difficulty drop, they would make 2.5% more profit. So instead of 3,654, they would make 3,745.35 BTC or 91.35 BTC.

So they are up 91.35 + 11.4 = 102.75 BTC, down 365.4 BTC, net = a loss of 262 BTC.

Obviously, operating at a 10% underclock means more efficiency, and thus their power bill would be lower than just 10%, so maybe we can reduce the loss by 10-20% or even 30%. They are still in a net loss.

Again, another reason I say it would make sense to do that in a bear market where gear efficiency matters most. When net profit is close to zero, gear efficiency matters the most. When net profit is high, you are better off overclocking than underclocking. It's just how I would act if I were them. It's how I conduct my mining business as a small-sized miner.

But foundry found 38 blocks in the last 24 hours, which corresponds to 27% of blocks found, not much lower from their 7-days average of 27.8%, I am not saying they are not doing what you are suggesting because we don't know if the last 7-day representation is even accurate, but don't you think that if they were going to do something like that -- it would be better while BTC price is down? right now BTC sits at roughly 47k which is a very interesting number to most miners and many of them would sell at this price to stack cash for the rainy days, what you suggest would be better down when the price falls, not while going up IMO.

Why did you assume that it's your router blocking Braiins OS? it doesn't make sense, if it does -- it would likely block the main pool you using as well, which also explains why the miner did not operate fine with the default firmware



This is bad news then, the miner could be infected with a nightswitcher or some other type of miner virus, otherwise, I see no connection between connecting to the pool and connecting to the miner locally, you also said you have another miner running which means we know neither your router nor ISP is blocking pool connections, so it's likely an issue with the mienr itself.

I would revert back to the original firmware, and use custom DNS like Max suggested, and then troubleshoot form there.. keep in mind if your miner is indeed infected it could inject the other miner you have running so make sure you isolate it for now.

That would certainly help cool the miner by a lot, unlike removing the hashboard altogether because that would mess with the airflow since air would pass easily through the no-resistance without removing enough heat.

The middle board is the best one to unplug especially given that it is the one that is subject to fail before the other two because of the stupid design on these miners where the front chips of the middle board are right behind the fan motor getting too little airflow.

I don't know many Polish members, but I sure know wwzsocki is a perfect fit for a moderator and a merit source, nice level-headed guy. Good luck.

اولاا اخي الحمد لله ان الله عوضك بشخص طيب ونيته خالصة لله وقاوم بتعويضك عن خسارتك, وان شاء الله هدا يكون درس لك ولنا جميعا في كيفية المحافظة على اموالنا.

بخصوص جهاز حاليا فأنه من الافضل التصرف بناء على ان هدا الفايروس يمكن ان يكون وصل الى BIOS وفي هده الحالة حتى عمل فورمات او تغير هاردسك جديد لن يكون كافي, بالرغم من ان هده مستبعد الحصول الا انه نظرا لاننا تأكدنا من وجود الفايروس فيجب التعامل معه على هدا الوضع.

امامك حلين الان, الاول هوا التخلص من هدا الحاسوب والحصول على واحد اخر جديد, الحل الاخير هوا عمل فلاش لل BIOS ومن ثم عمل فرومات للهاردك بالكامل والغاء التقسيمات به قبل تنزيل الوندوز, فقط بهده الطريقة تضمن ان الحاسوب عاد "جديد" اما بخلاف ذلك فيمكن ان ترجع الى نفس الخانة الاولة وتخس اموالك مجددا لاسمح الله.

---

اما بخصوص تأمين جهازك في المستقبل فهنا يجب ان نقول وبدون اي نقاش ان استخدام برامج الكراك يعتبر مفتاح مجاني للسارقين لكي يسرقو اموالك, وهنا رمبا علينا التوقف قليلا لفهم حماية المحفظة لنعرف كيف يتم احتراقها.

- جانب التشفير:

وهدا اهم جانب لحماية موالك فعدنا تقوم بانشاء محفظة يتم تشفير الملف الخاص بالمحفظة, والطريقة الوحيدة هي لفتحها هي عبر الباسورد, فهنا لو قام شخص باخد الملف وفتحه في جهازه لن يتمكن من الوصول الى اموالك

- الseed phrase او private keys:

بالرغم من انهم شئين مختلفين الا انه يمكن دمجمهم مع بعض لان الاول عبارة عن مجموعة كبيرة من التانية, ولكن الفكرة نفسها, فهده تحميك من تلف المحفظة او سرقة حاسبوك او شي من هدا القبيل.

ادا ماذا يحتاج شخص يريد ان يسرق اموالك؟

يحتاج احد هده الخيارات

- الحصول على ملف المحفظة بدون باسورد:

يكفي لفعل هدا اي فايروس بدائي يقوم بتحميل ملف المحفظة لموقع خاص به, ياخد ملف المحفظة ويضعها ع برنامج brute force فأن كانت الباسورد قصيرة وسهلة يتمكن من اياجدها في عدة ايام ويتمكن من فك التتشفير وسرقة اموالك, اذا لكي تحمي نفسك من هدا الشي عليك اولا التأكد من عدم وجود فايروسات على حاسبوك, وايضا الباسورد ليس قصيرا وسهل التخمين

- الحصول على ملف المحفظة مع الباسورد:

اعتقد هدا ماحصل لك اخي يحى, نظرا لان الاحتمال الاول يتعمد على وجود باسورد سهل التخمين من قبل برامج البرووت فورس,  فهدا سيفشل في حال الباسورد كان صعب, لذلك النوع التاني من الفايروسات عندما يدخل جهاز يقوم بارسال ملفات المحفظة ومن ثم ينظر منك ان تكتب الباسورد حتى ولو بعد شهر, وبمجرد كتابة الباسورد, هنا تفقد اموالك كلها, طبعا لحماية نفسك حاول استخدام password manager او virtual keyboard مثل التي تاتي مع برنامج كاسبرسكي او غيره, لان الفايروس على الاغلب عتمد على keylogging لضربات المفاتيح على الكيبورد.

- الحصول على المفتاح الخاص او السيد فريز:

لو قمت بكتابة او نسخ احداهم في اي وقت من الاوقات وكان جهاز ملغم, فهنا سوف يتم ارسالها الى السارق وهنا سوف يحصل على اموالك بدون باسورد ولا ملف محفظة ولا غيره.



اذا كيف نحمي انفسنا, الجواب بسيط, لا تحظر الفايورسات لكومبيوتر تضع فيه اموالك, نحن الان في 2023, وشراء حاسوب جديد بمواصفات ضعيفة لايكلف الكثير, بملغ 100$ او مايقارب (على حسب بلدك) يمكنك الحصول على جهاز جيد وكافي لانشاء محفظة, هدا الجهاز يجب ان تحمل فيه برامج سواء كانت كراك او حتى برامج رسمية ويجب ان يكون خاص فقط بالمحفظة, لا تفتحه الا عندما تريد تحويل الامول, احتفظ بعنوانك وراقب رصيده عبر البلوكتشين في حال قام احد بتحويل امولك لك, لاداعي لاستخدامه ابدا, لو فعلت هدا فسوف تكون محمي بنسبة 100%, اما بمجرد تحميل اي برنامج على الحاسوب حتى وان كان من مصادر موثوقة فسوف تعرض اموالك للسرقة, فما بالك برامجك كراك وغيرها.

اعرف ان الكثير منا يتساهل في هده الامور, ويعتقد ان برنامج حماية الفايروسات كافي لحمايته, ولكن هدا غير صحيح, الحل المثالي الوحيد هوا استخدام هارد وير والت او حاسوب خاص بالمحفظة, بخلاف ذلك اون لم يكن ممنك فانصحك بحدم حفظ اي اموال, وان قررت فعل هدا على اي حال, على الاقل قم بانشاء باسورد معقد نسبيا وعند ادخاله حاول ان استخدام كيبورد فيرتوال يكون من احد البرامج المعروفة, وهده الاحتياطات طبعا هي اضعف الايمان ولا ترقا لمستوى الحماية المطلوب من شخص يحتفظ بأمواله داخل الحاسوب.

نسئل الله ان تكون هده اخر خسائرك اخي يحى.