Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2016, 01:40:28 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3151 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3915

Pages: « 1 ... 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 [1082] 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3856394 times)
bittalc1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 158


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 12:07:50 AM
 #21621

That message is just full of shit. Yea right miner was makeing problems.
1475070028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475070028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475070028
Reply with quote  #2

1475070028
Report to moderator
1475070028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475070028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475070028
Reply with quote  #2

1475070028
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Prelude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 02:53:43 AM
 #21622

This reeks of bullshit.

██████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████           ▄█▄        ▄█▄           █████
█████          ████████████████          █████
█████           ▀████████████▀           █████
█████           ████▀    ▀████           █████
█████           ████▄    ▄████           █████
█████           ▄████████████▄           █████
█████          ████████████████          █████
█████           ▀█▀        ▀█▀           █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
██             ▄█▀███████████
██              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀
██                        ██
██                        ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
████████████████████████████
██                        ██
██                        ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                 ▄███▀  ██
██             ▄▄██▀▀  ▄█ ██
██     ▄    ▄███▀▀  ▄███  ██
██    ██▄▄██▀▀   ▄█████   ██
██   ████▀▀  ▄▄██▀▀ ▀█    ██
██  █▀▀   ▄▄██▀           ██
██    ▄▄███▀              ██
██▄▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██  ████▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ██
██     ▀█▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██    ██
██      ██         ██     ██
██       ███████████      ██
██        ▄▄     ▄▄       ██
██       ▀██▀   ▀██▀      ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                       ▄██
██                     █████
██         ▄         ███▀ ██
██       ▄███     ▄███▀   ██
██   ▄▄███▀▀███▄████▀     ██
██▄▄███▀     ▀███▀        ██
████▀                     ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄███████████▄  ██████████████
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
██████▀██████  ██████▀███████
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
biggbox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 03:16:34 AM
 #21623

he posted this

Dear miners,
we would like to inform you that we have detected and resolved an unintentional block withholding attack.

The issue has been discovered a week ago and we have immediately taken an action by contacting the particular miner. The cause turned out to be a bug in a custom mining firmware, which has been promptly fixed by the miner. We have no indication that there was any bad intention. The fixed firmware solved two blocks since then so we can consider this issue as resolved.

A recent time period of worse luck can be at least partly attributed to this incident.

Block withholding attack is a well-known weakness of the whole pool mining principle and no public pool is immune against it.

As a by-product of the bad luck investigation, we have implemented a new method how to mathematically prove that the pool does not cheat on miners. This feature will be released after the public interface has been tweaked. The release is planned towards the end of next week.


The correct thing to do is to simply inform the public:

(1) What is the make and model of the miner?
(2) What is the version of the custom firmware?
(3) How to detect such "rogue" miners?

Why did the pool operator not release such public service announcement?
bitsolutions
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 230



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 03:16:49 AM
 #21624

Since nobody's posted it yet this is the announcement page of the block-withholding.

https://mining.bitcoin.cz/news/recent-low-luck-information/
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 05:42:02 AM
 #21625

Well, the correct action would be to deduct the rewards paid to a miner who was withholding, and distribute them to the miners who were not paid what they should have been ...

It doesn't matter if it was accidental or not, the miner caused it and received payments that they should not have, and should have gone to the other miners.
The miners here should also be aware that for a pool to detect, with marginal certainly, that a miner is withholding, the miner would have had to mine more than the equivalent of 10 blocks and failed to find any blocks.

i.e. the miner would have been paid over 250BTC, while withholding, probably a lot more, that needs to be returned to the pool and distributed to the other miners.

I suggest you bring this up with the pool operator, since he was underpaying everyone by giving BTC to someone who was block withholding and he should be taking it back from them and returning it to the rest of the miners.

Also he should provide the bitcoin community with the details of what the miner was and the modifications made, to help stop it happening anywhere else ... unless he doesn't care?

--

I've sent support@bitcoin.cz an email saying they need to deal with this properly and a link to this post.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
d57heinz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 09:38:24 AM
 #21626

Well, the correct action would be to deduct the rewards paid to a miner who was withholding, and distribute them to the miners who were not paid what they should have been ...

It doesn't matter if it was accidental or not, the miner caused it and received payments that they should not have, and should have gone to the other miners.
The miners here should also be aware that for a pool to detect, with marginal certainly, that a miner is withholding, the miner would have had to mine more than the equivalent of 10 blocks and failed to find any blocks.

i.e. the miner would have been paid over 250BTC, while withholding, probably a lot more, that needs to be returned to the pool and distributed to the other miners.

I suggest you bring this up with the pool operator, since he was underpaying everyone by giving BTC to someone who was block withholding and he should be taking it back from them and returning it to the rest of the miners.

Also he should provide the bitcoin community with the details of what the miner was and the modifications made, to help stop it happening anywhere else ... unless he doesn't care?

--

I've sent support@bitcoin.cz an email saying they need to deal with this properly and a link to this post.

AS i have aswell.. on their facebook page since that is the only place they check for support related shit.. I know crazy right!?? anyway we will see whats up since we were on slush about this since back at least as far as november 2015 from what ive seen posted on fb.  Looking forward to see how this is handled!

Best Regards
d57heinz

As in nature, all is ebb and tide, all is wave motion, so it seems that in all branches of industry, alternating currents - electric wave motion - will have the sway. ~Nikola Tesla~
welshy82
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 01:19:01 PM
 #21627

Well, the correct action would be to deduct the rewards paid to a miner who was withholding, and distribute them to the miners who were not paid what they should have been ...

It doesn't matter if it was accidental or not, the miner caused it and received payments that they should not have, and should have gone to the other miners.
The miners here should also be aware that for a pool to detect, with marginal certainly, that a miner is withholding, the miner would have had to mine more than the equivalent of 10 blocks and failed to find any blocks.

i.e. the miner would have been paid over 250BTC, while withholding, probably a lot more, that needs to be returned to the pool and distributed to the other miners.

I suggest you bring this up with the pool operator, since he was underpaying everyone by giving BTC to someone who was block withholding and he should be taking it back from them and returning it to the rest of the miners.

Also he should provide the bitcoin community with the details of what the miner was and the modifications made, to help stop it happening anywhere else ... unless he doesn't care?

--

I've sent support@bitcoin.cz an email saying they need to deal with this properly and a link to this post.

lets hope he does pay us some sort of compo lol or hes gonna lose a lot oif unhappy miners
btiAndy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 01:35:15 PM
 #21628

Good to see Slush is trying to come clean, but of course the damage is done and I think it will take much for him to rebuild trust; agree there needs to be more disclosure on who this miner was and what/how the block withholding attack was accomplished.
ohmygod21
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 05:23:54 PM
 #21629

just wasted 4 Ph with incredible bad luck , 2 blocks > 23 h

3.80 btc loss =) hihaaaaa
hoosier_13
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 06:38:33 PM
 #21630

Slush is not coming clean.  Far from it.  This issue was known about for weeks and the answer was always bad luck.  They knew there was an issue and did not do the right thing and inform their loyal miners that they could be subject to lose a lot of revenue.

I lost many BTC from this debacle and they have refused any compensation.

Bitrated user: TICH13.
d57heinz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
February 08, 2016, 07:41:42 PM
 #21631

Slush is not coming clean.  Far from it.  This issue was known about for weeks and the answer was always bad luck.  They knew there was an issue and did not do the right thing and inform their loyal miners that they could be subject to lose a lot of revenue.                                                                                                             MONTHS

I lost many BTC from this debacle and they have refused any compensation.

Wink

Best Regards
d57heinz

As in nature, all is ebb and tide, all is wave motion, so it seems that in all branches of industry, alternating currents - electric wave motion - will have the sway. ~Nikola Tesla~
krisgt30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 08:01:16 PM
 #21632

I mean I have only been mining since the end of December, and right away I knew something was up. I thought to myself, how can 40ph find only one block a day when at the time you had 4ph pools average 1.2 blocks a day. After about 3 weeks on slush pool I noticed this and pulled out and haven't looked back. I am frankly amazed people are still mining on this pool.

www.bcmonster.com Bitcoin Mining Pool - [PPLNS / pays TX]  / Easy Live Dashboard / Help us get up to 1PH. Donate: 1QGZQBhXMo2jVc45wLEsp2bn5agF8SZSuY
btiAndy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 08:19:33 PM
 #21633

Yeah in hindsight now and thinking about this more clearly something really stinks about this explanation from Slush. He is really not coming clean at all here.

For months we have been watching this cycle and have made repeated attempts to communicate this pattern to him for explanation. Nothing. Now he is basically saying that this particular miner was "accidentally" withholding blocks and that the problem has been fixed...and in fact he knows it has been fixed as that same miner has since the repair cracked two blocks... just not right and not near enough.

Slush should have banned that miner immediately (there must be a way to do this) and made an attempt to recover lost funds to return to those of us who stuck with him for so long. I have been gone from Slush for a few weeks now (actually stopped mining all together as there is no suitable outlet for a small scale miner like me anymore), Slush has definitely soured me on BTC mining as a result though.

Really rotten.
notabeliever
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 509


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 08:48:48 PM
 #21634

not happy

Pool url: pool.burstcoin.de:8080
Reward Assignment address: BURST-GHTV-7ZP3-DY4B-FPBFA
jonnybravo0311
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 08:58:04 PM
 #21635

Yeah in hindsight now and thinking about this more clearly something really stinks about this explanation from Slush. He is really not coming clean at all here.

For months we have been watching this cycle and have made repeated attempts to communicate this pattern to him for explanation. Nothing. Now he is basically saying that this particular miner was "accidentally" withholding blocks and that the problem has been fixed...and in fact he knows it has been fixed as that same miner has since the repair cracked two blocks... just not right and not near enough.

Slush should have banned that miner immediately (there must be a way to do this) and made an attempt to recover lost funds to return to those of us who stuck with him for so long. I have been gone from Slush for a few weeks now (actually stopped mining all together as there is no suitable outlet for a small scale miner like me anymore), Slush has definitely soured me on BTC mining as a result though.

Really rotten.
As was explained earlier, you cannot simply ban somebody immediately.  You don't really know someone is performing a block withholding attack until a large number of hashes have been produced without a block solution.  Plenty of pools regularly suffer through long rounds - it is the nature of mining.  It goes to follow, then, that an individual miner also suffers the same.  Kano suggested 10 blocks earlier.  At that point, the chances of it being "luck" are exceptionally minimal.  Unfortunately, 250BTC have been lost to the miner.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
btiAndy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 10:02:06 PM
 #21636

Yeah in hindsight now and thinking about this more clearly something really stinks about this explanation from Slush. He is really not coming clean at all here.

For months we have been watching this cycle and have made repeated attempts to communicate this pattern to him for explanation. Nothing. Now he is basically saying that this particular miner was "accidentally" withholding blocks and that the problem has been fixed...and in fact he knows it has been fixed as that same miner has since the repair cracked two blocks... just not right and not near enough.

Slush should have banned that miner immediately (there must be a way to do this) and made an attempt to recover lost funds to return to those of us who stuck with him for so long. I have been gone from Slush for a few weeks now (actually stopped mining all together as there is no suitable outlet for a small scale miner like me anymore), Slush has definitely soured me on BTC mining as a result though.

Really rotten.
As was explained earlier, you cannot simply ban somebody immediately.  You don't really know someone is performing a block withholding attack until a large number of hashes have been produced without a block solution.  Plenty of pools regularly suffer through long rounds - it is the nature of mining.  It goes to follow, then, that an individual miner also suffers the same.  Kano suggested 10 blocks earlier.  At that point, the chances of it being "luck" are exceptionally minimal.  Unfortunately, 250BTC have been lost to the miner.

OK Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. I am not sure on the time frame though required for analysis with regard to Kano's explanation.I am sure I am sounding too simplistic and like a "Noob" but my question still stands, ..how long should it take to expose a withholding attack under these circumstances? At Slush this has been going on for at least 3 months in my practical opinion...we saw it repeatedly that when Slush dipped down to ca. 33 PH  the blocks started hitting, the minute we returned to 40PH+ all of a sudden performance went south. In simple terms, it seemed that when one big miner left the pool things would return to "normal", when he returned it went to hell.   just from a standpoint of analyzing a pattern of events should Slush not have been able to pick up on this pattern and figured out where the problem was?

Still curious...
btiAndy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
February 08, 2016, 10:19:59 PM
 #21637

And one last thing, I must say I really enjoy reading your posts Jonny and I have learned a lot over the past few months from your posts...I just want to clarify my statement in my previous post regarding banning the offending miner; I did not mean ban the miner in advance...I think the bad part here is that Slush has stated he contacted this miner after discovering the issue and the solution was simply to "fix" the "unintentional" problem and let this miner continue mining without penalty...no matter if the act was intentional or non-intentional I think those of us who were affected by this problem should have been respected a bit more.

Of course I am speaking from a "blue-sky" customer service standpoint and nothing more, I am sure that legally Slush owes his miners no real duty of service and is not obligated  in any way to compensate miners for wasted time and hash on his pool...it is gambling in the end and we should all know that. I am just saying that for the common good this offending miner who has been supposedly identified by Slush as the cause of the withholding attack should have been removed from the mining pool as consideration to the other miners still there.
jonnybravo0311
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2016, 03:21:17 PM
 #21638

To address the concerns in your first reply... it's a tough bit of analysis.  In an ideal world, if the pool at 40PH was experiencing the same luck as the pool at 33PH, then it would be apparent that 7PH was withholding blocks.  If all 7PH belonged to a single miner, you found your culprit.  Unfortunately, the problem remains: you must wait some period of time before you are relatively certain that the miner isn't just unlucky.  I'm not sure how many, if any, pool operators have written this kind of analytics into their code.  It's a pretty simple bit of analysis: count shares submitted by miner vs number of block solutions.  If number of shares is some percentage over expectations, flag as potential block withholding.

That doesn't solve it, but merely alerts the pool operator something might be amiss.  Now the pool operator has to take action.  What action the operator takes is really the basis of your second reply.  Personally, I don't agree with Slush's decision to allow the miner to continue on his pool without any kind of repercussions.  "Sorry, my bad!" just doesn't cut it.  Intentional or not, if a miner is going to write his own custom firmware, that miner should be testing it on a simulated environment, not forcing the public to assume the risks of untested code.  I'm glad for the miners on the pool that the problem was found and addressed; however, if I were a miner on the pool, I'd be seriously considering going elsewhere if neither the offending miner, nor the pool operator were held accountable in some fashion.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
bctmke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 03:54:14 PM
 #21639

I am just glad I left the pool a few months back before I realized how bad it was (I had happened to get lucky and come across Kano's pool and I liked the transparency far better so I switched over).
welshy82
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
February 09, 2016, 06:02:07 PM
 #21640

7 hours a block

Current Round Duration   05 hrs at 46.70 Ph/s

Current time   2016-02-09 18:01:05
Current Round Start:   2016-02-09 12:46:51
Current Round Duration   05:14:21
Current Shares CDF:   74.35%
Current Bitcoin block, difficulty:   397583, 144116447847
Pool Luck (1 day, 7 days, 30 days):   91%, 125%, 95%
Total Shares in the Round:   196092066752
Pool Effective Hash Rate (30 min average):   46.70 Ph/s

time to leave slushes and goto kanos pool
Pages: « 1 ... 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 [1082] 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 »
  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!