Is there any mechanism for pools to not be vulnerable to the following cheat:
- A miner runs intermediate code on the local machine/network which connects to multiple pools, getting work from one/all of them.
- This intermediate code then acts as its own pool for whichever gpu/cpu mining code is running.
- The gpu/cpu miners run as usual, returning possible solutions, as they would if connected directly to the pool.
- The intermediate code collects these possible solutions/shares and sends them to all of the pools it is currently connected to.
- Each of the pools running may accept/reject the share as usual.
- The miner running this intermediate code effectively gets multiple shares on each of the pools he/she is connected to, thus multiplying possible profits.
Is this possible?
I am guessing each pool would have a different current header to hash (eg, different timestep, merkle root, etc), so the possible solution would be rejected from all but the pool the work was originally from.
How many bits of info for the header is the pool responsible for and how much does the mining software generate?
Anyway, couldn't see anyone asking a similar question and I'm curious if this my be a cause for some pools seeing more invalid shares than they would expect.
Sorry if I've completely misunderstood how the pools dish out work