Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:28:42 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Co-ordinated DDoS on multiple mining pools  (Read 4105 times)
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 09:25:56 AM
 #21

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

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).

One possible design:
- Each miner broadcasts all of the low-difficulty shares they win, which is used to calculate proper ratios for every participant.
- Each miner works on its own block. The coinbase transaction pays out according to ratios that it calculates. Each miner chooses which transactions to include according to its own rules.
- Miners broadcast their block headers, coinbase transactions, and Merkle branches for their coinbase transactions to the entire pool. The pool doesn't need to know which other transactions they include.
- When you receive a header+coinbase, you examine the payout ratios, and if you agree with them, you add the person who sent it to your own coinbase transactions for payout.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
1481214522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214522
Reply with quote  #2

1481214522
Report to moderator
1481214522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214522
Reply with quote  #2

1481214522
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481214522
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214522

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214522
Reply with quote  #2

1481214522
Report to moderator
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 10:18:22 AM
 #22

This way no evil person will know you're there and the variance is much lower.

Seriously? Evil vs good? You're really going to spin this?

Cut the bullshit please.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 10:22:43 AM
 #23

As for the DDoSing I'm split.

I already made a post about the danger of some pool getting too big and getting potentially dangerous so I like the fact that that's getting stopped. But as someone who believes in property rights and nonaggression principle I cannot condone using force to achieve it.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
airdata
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 12:24:13 PM
 #24

Is that what was going on last night when Slush and Deepbit both appeared to be down at the same time?

lizthegrey
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 02:32:24 PM
 #25

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#
lizthegrey
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 30, 2011, 02:34:34 PM
 #26

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.
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 30, 2011, 09:27:08 PM
 #27

As for the DDoSing I'm split.

I already made a post about the danger of some pool getting too big and getting potentially dangerous so I like the fact that that's getting stopped. But as someone who believes in property rights and nonaggression principle I cannot condone using force to achieve it.

I'm for the non-initiation principle and the cessation of hostilities ASAP principle.

DDoS does not damage property. It only interferes with business. The result at worst is a delay of service.

Intrusion however is a different story. But that too can be minimal.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!