Old simplecoin thread

[thundertoe]

*facepalm* i see it now.. talking a friend into sending a few more hundred mhash this way.

[1713865160]

1713865160

[1713865160]

1713865160

[1713865160]

1713865160

[1713865160]

1713865160

[LightRider]

I haven't gotten any payouts yet. Have we solved any blocks?

Edit: Sorry, I was replying to the statement that someone was getting higher than usual payouts. I didn't realize that he was speaking about projected payouts.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Nope!

We really need a wailing baby smiley in this forum!

[kiwiasian]

So my estimated earnings just decreased by 0.2 BTC...?

[RyNinDaCleM]

So my estimated earnings just decreased by 0.2 BTC...?

.
Because you split your miners up! Everyone else's shares are "eroding" your estimated away. Mine has been doing it all day

[anisoptera]

Yes, it's proportional (for now). After we get some more hashing power I'll likely implement a PPS option as well. Stats are time-delayed to help combat pool hopping.

Additionally, I'll be adding an auto-payout threshold once I have the time to set it up.

Proportional, not score-based? Sigh, guess I'm stuck on Slush where people can't steal from me.

I should write a pool hopper and join the ranks of the thieves.

[simplecoin]

Yes, it's proportional (for now). After we get some more hashing power I'll likely implement a PPS option as well. Stats are time-delayed to help combat pool hopping.

Additionally, I'll be adding an auto-payout threshold once I have the time to set it up.

Proportional, not score-based? Sigh, guess I'm stuck on Slush where people can't steal from me.

I should write a pool hopper and join the ranks of the thieves.

Yes, proportional. You solve x of y shares of solved block. You recieve x/y shares of the bonus 50coin.

[eazolan]

Proportional, not score-based? Sigh, guess I'm stuck on Slush where people can't steal from me.

I should write a pool hopper and join the ranks of the thieves.

I don't understand. How would switching pools work in your favor?

[anisoptera]

Proportional, not score-based? Sigh, guess I'm stuck on Slush where people can't steal from me.

I should write a pool hopper and join the ranks of the thieves.

I don't understand. How would switching pools work in your favor?

Here is the original discussion of the problem and the solution of score-based distribution.

Here is a thread discussing whether the problem actually exists, including - spoiler - someone who posts anonymously confirming that the problem exists and he exploits it for large gain.

I can make an extra 30% off any pool that doesn't use score-based. Bitcoinpool.com refused to believe that the problem exists at all, but then implemented an anti-pool-hopping system that doesn't actually solve the pool hopping problem and punishes legitimate users instead, because they noticed that their hashrate went from 25Ghash at the beginning of a round to 9 at the end.

That 30% comes from somewhere. Hint: it's your wallet.

Friends don't let friends do proportional payout.

I am on the verge of writing my own pool hop exploit. Maybe I'll even opensource it so everyone can do it.

[LegitBit]

I understand you are trying to help improve security by showing us all the weaknesses in the system.. but writing an app to exploit that vulnerably is a bit overboard.

[anisoptera]

I understand you are trying to help improve security by showing us all the weaknesses in the system.. but writing an app to exploit that vulnerably is a bit overboard.

I don't have to. Someone else - many someone elses - already have, and are currently using them. They just haven't released them publicly (why would they? If everyone did it, there would be no benefit).

I am considering developing one because I see at least three new pools that all have owners that deny the existence of the exploit. Clearly I am not taking full advantage of every opportunity available to me, if even in the face of such proof of the vulnerability, pool operators deny its existence.

Basically, since apparently the vulnerability is desirable to people that hash for such pools, I see no ethical reason not to take advantage. If you know that the problem exists and continue to contribute shares to a proportional distribution pool, you are implicitly agreeing to allow your payout to be stolen in this fashion.

I spend time trying to explain the existence of the problem, and even if I do implement the exploit, I won't use it on a pool that I haven't made an effort to explain the issue to. I doubt any of the people already using this exploit are so kind.

[simplecoin]

As for pool hopping exploits, I'll be working to find a way to quash those

I'm thinking the cheat proof method that was recently devised...... although I'd have to do some changes as it can cause operator BTC loss (and for a 0% fee pool, that's no so great).

[anisoptera]

As for pool hopping exploits, I'll be working to find a way to quash those

I'm thinking the cheat proof method that was recently devised...... although I'd have to do some changes as it can cause operator BTC loss (and for a 0% fee pool, that's no so great).

I'm not sure if you're talking about the score based distro outlined in either of the threads I linked, or something else, but to be clear, please just use one of the score based methods. I showed bitcoinpool's attempt at shoehorning proportional distro into pool hop protection as an example of how not to do it I'm reasonably sure that the potential operator loss can be covered by transaction fees from solved blocks, if any.

The commonly cited issue of miners disconnecting legitimately halfway through a round and getting no credit is a red herring. Over time, a legitimately disconnecting miner will disconnect at an even distribution of points throughout the round, and will not lose or gain anything from doing so.

The only disadvantage of score-based from a miner standpoint, besides the fact that people have tons of misconceptions about it, is that it increases variance slightly for smaller miners. This increase in variance will tend to even out in about 7 days (more or less depending on hashrate).

Glad to hear that you're planning on closing the hole. Doubly so because your pool is open source, so future pools will have a good working implementation of the system from the start

[simplecoin]

Glad to hear that you're planning on closing the hole. Doubly so because your pool is open source, so future pools will have a good working implementation of the system from the start

Yes, the opensource version should include various prop, score, pps options once it's ready.

[kiwiasian]

Did I just see someone contribute 7GH/s to the pool.

[simplecoin]

Looks like it

Many thanks to our newest user 

[simplecoin]

At this rate we should statistically solve every other day

And yes, I do refresh the stats page in hopes of seeing: Last block found: x!

[mouser98]

wow, 17Gs.  we should be solving some blocks.  time to rub the horseshoe.

[LegitBit]

I understand you are trying to help improve security by showing us all the weaknesses in the system.. but writing an app to exploit that vulnerably is a bit overboard.

If you know that the problem exists and continue to contribute shares to a proportional distribution pool, you are implicitly agreeing to allow your payout to be stolen in this fashion.

But what about those who have no idea the problem exists?

That argument is about the same as the one brought up with Firesheep. http://codebutler.com/firesheep

I do agree that the exploit needs to be exposed, and sometimes that requires a rude awakening, but if there is already proof then why enable further? Those that ignore the proof are already going to be hurt. Making it easier to exploit only hurts the ignorants who haven't heard.

I full heartily agree with you on the purpose, just not on the method.

[anisoptera]

But what about those who have no idea the problem exists?

That argument is about the same as the one brought up with Firesheep. http://codebutler.com/firesheep

I do agree that the exploit needs to be exposed, and sometimes that requires a rude awakening, but if there is already proof then why enable further? Those that ignore the proof are already going to be hurt. Making it easier to exploit only hurts the ignorants who haven't heard.

I full heartily agree with you on the purpose, just not on the method.

Well, on a purely selfish level, if I implemented the exploit for myself, I'd be able to use all the pools with operators/userbases who are willfully sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting that there isn't a problem.

Right now, the number of pools with score-based distribution is 2, and one of those charges a fee and doesn't have LP, while the other has an interface that I don't find agreeable.

If I had an implementation of the exploit I'd be able to use all of the pools that I currently avoid because of this problem



Honestly, I'm not trying to be a bitch about this. It just kind of seems like the only way anyone will actually pay attention to the problem is if every proportional pool loses more than half its hashrate halfway through the round. Like I said, I'll publicize the exploit far and wide, but if I get a lot of pushback from a pool, either from its operator or from the users, then I consider it fair game. If you don't think it's a problem, then why should I refrain from doing it? I did my due diligence and spent my time trying to explain the problem. Now it's on you.