Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 10:44:51 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Multipool and Middlecoin - big profit, even bigger troubles...  (Read 14067 times)
MaGNeT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
 #1

I understand why people mine at Multipool or Middlecoin. I did a bit of "poolhopping" myself when it was hot, I liked the profit too, nothing wrong with that.
The pools fixed it by adding PPLNS and pool hopping was history.

Now we have "profit switching" pools.

Tonight CAPS got forked when (probably) one of the large "switching pools" dropped >600Mhs/s at it.
This will happen to more coins, no doubt. The pool with the largest hashrate can always cause a fork.

I'm not asking you to stop mining at these pools.

I'm asking to think of techniques / strategies to make it less lucrative to mine at these pools.

Some of you may get angry at me for doing this, understand that I only want to protect the supporting miners and the coins they support.
The real coin supporters only get to mine at high difficulty, at low difficulty blocks get eaten up by the coinhoppers, pushing the coin back to a high diff again fast.

This is not a CAPS vs UNOCS vs MEC vd DGC thing.
This can and will hit every coin, sooner or later.
We need to unite!


How do you think we can prevent this from happening again?

ps. Please be nice to each other Smiley

Unofficial Waves topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2142722   |   My Waves address alias = magnet
1513464291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513464291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513464291
Reply with quote  #2

1513464291
Report to moderator
1513464291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513464291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513464291
Reply with quote  #2

1513464291
Report to moderator
1513464291
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513464291

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513464291
Reply with quote  #2

1513464291
Report to moderator
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
mercSuey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 12:22:36 PM
 #2

Multipool should have more than one port, each port corresponding to physically separate servers, partitioning their hashing power so that  each port can be allowed a maximum of 40% of the minimum network hashrate of the coins on the multipool port.

-Merc

EDIT:  this increases their costs, but they need to be more responsible because overall this is hurting altcoin infrastructure and integrity, especially with so many young coins.
captainfuture
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 12:52:42 PM
 #3

this problem also have small pools too

botpool.net krugercoin
Network Hashrate: 110.821 MH/s    
Pool Hashrate: 101.517 MH/s

shields
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 164


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 01:59:29 PM
 #4

What if coins changed diff after each block, enough that a giant incoming multipool would be discouraged almost immediately?

If you liked this post -> 1KRYhandiYsjecZw7mtdLnoeuKUYoGRkH4
mercSuey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:03:10 PM
 #5

What if coins changed diff after each block, enough that a giant incoming multipool would be discouraged almost immediately?

CAP does retarget diff at each block (or two). 
shields
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 164


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:04:25 PM
 #6

What if coins changed diff after each block, enough that a giant incoming multipool would be discouraged almost immediately?

CAP does retarget diff at each block (or two). 

Does it work? as regards preventing multipool screwing with it?

If you liked this post -> 1KRYhandiYsjecZw7mtdLnoeuKUYoGRkH4
Hydroponica
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


fml


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:06:47 PM
 #7

What if coins changed diff after each block, enough that a giant incoming multipool would be discouraged almost immediately?

CAP does retarget diff at each block (or two). 

Does it work? as regards preventing multipool screwing with it?

Considering CAPS was just forked, I'm going to say no....Did you even read the OP?

captainfuture
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:07:16 PM
 #8

i am pissed off if  if the wrong cap chain goes on. will loose much money.

Hydroponica
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


fml


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
 #9

i am pissed off if  if the wrong cap chain goes on. will loose much money.

Could also wake up one morning, and find BTC to be worth $1.00 each. Crypto is a risky business, get over it

DannyDisco
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:15:42 PM
 #10

Couldn't the coins block a certain IP/port from mining? Thus simply blocking the connection from the monster pool?

Or simply adding code to prevent anything with 40%+ of the hash to connect.

I've never coded a coin or ran a pool, so I'm just wondering. Also, I'm not sure how ethical that would be.

But if you block the pool from connecting... the problem would be solved IMO.

just a thought

Eli0t
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 02:26:19 PM
 #11

profit seeking pools that slam small networks with vastly massive hashrate are clearly irresponsible
the only way to stop this is to dump the price at low difficulty so coins stay out of the top5 for profit

good(and bad) coins will continue to be killed until one manages to gain enough stable hash to survive such an attack

LTC:  LKpJf3uk7KsHU73kxq8iFJrP1AAKN7Yni7  DGC:  DKXGvEbj3Rwgrm2QQbRyNPDDZDYoq4Y44d  XPM:  AWV5AKfLFyoBaMjg9C77rGUBhuFxz5DGGL
maco
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 03:44:39 PM
 #12

Interesting
skyhigh2004
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
 #13

If a coin can't handle the rapid swings in hashrate maybe they don't deserve to be alive.  Survival of the fittest at its finest  Smiley

Does everyone here forget a few months ago when LTC was going from diff 70ish to 900+ in a matter on a few weeks?  It wasn't just a simple up and stay there thing.  People were bitching about how only big time miners can mine it now and that the hashrate got to big to fast.  This is a dangerous market, if you think you can just buy a few gpus and just collect money and never lose out on a high risk investment (which all crypto is) maybe you should rethink your situation and do something else with your money.  This isn't the kind of thing anyone should do to make a living.  Get a job and then worry about high risk investments and if they are worth it. 


EDIT:  I also have asked this in the CAP thread but seeing as the OP here "knows" that multiswitching pools are the cause of the fork, please enlighten me.  I would love to hear the actual technical reason for the fork being miners' fault.  So CAP never had any plans on growing into a large network?

BTC:157BZV5z5dEdEoE5KSr5D7CQGXamLpsZ7n  LTC:LYCf5PnQpXCCmpR4ka3mR8DFDe5hKhTdfc
MEC:MAgTT8QdhVCkgHTkUoKvs4w1TQvv3NU99v  DGC:D8Ubh9oYTpSe1HEBptY8wf6ZrPpj7bhkV5
FTC:6hb1VsGzkej4kSsssGA4FMnkCoVp7PLi8D  PXC:PqQwQKJoYxGSVrKtVfDa5aaJVL9Yevhb2b
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
 #14

i am pissed off if  if the wrong cap chain goes on. will loose much money.

How do you determine which is the right chain?

Couldn't the coins block a certain IP/port from mining? Thus simply blocking the connection from the monster pool?

Or simply adding code to prevent anything with 40%+ of the hash to connect.

I've never coded a coin or ran a pool, so I'm just wondering. Also, I'm not sure how ethical that would be.

But if you block the pool from connecting... the problem would be solved IMO.

just a thought

No

Multipool should have more than one port, each port corresponding to physically separate servers, partitioning their hashing power so that  each port can be allowed a maximum of 40% of the minimum network hashrate of the coins on the multipool port.

-Merc

EDIT:  this increases their costs, but they need to be more responsible because overall this is hurting altcoin infrastructure and integrity, especially with so many young coins.

Is this a clever joke or serious?  If serious what do you think that accomplishes?




░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░░░▄███████████▄
░░░░▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░▀██▄
░░░██▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▀██
░░██▀░░▄██▀▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
██▀░░██▀░░▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
██▀░░██░░▄██▀▀▀█▄
██░░██░░██▀
██░░▀▀░░██
██░░▄▄░░██
██░░██░░██▄
██▄░░██░░▀██▄▄▄█▀
██▄░░██▄░░▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
░░██▄░░▀██▄▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
░░░██▄░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░▄██
░░░░▀██▄▄░░░░░░░░▄██▀
░░░░░░▀███████████▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀


░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░░░▄███████████▄
░░░░▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░▀██▄
░░░██▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▀██
░░██▀░░▄██▀▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
██▀░░██▀░░▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
██▀░░██░░▄██▀▀▀█▄
██░░██░░██▀
██░░▀▀░░██
██░░▄▄░░██
██░░██░░██▄
██▄░░██░░▀██▄▄▄█▀
██▄░░██▄░░▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
░░██▄░░▀██▄▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
░░░██▄░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░▄██
░░░░▀██▄▄░░░░░░░░▄██▀
░░░░░░▀███████████▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀

▀  Twitter
▀  Telegram
▀  Facebook
▀  ANN Thread
▀  Whitepaper
▀  Website
MaGNeT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2013, 04:20:23 PM
 #15

If a coin can't handle the rapid swings in hashrate maybe they don't deserve to be alive.  Survival of the fittest at its finest  Smiley

Does everyone here forget a few months ago when LTC was going from diff 70ish to 900+ in a matter on a few weeks?  It wasn't just a simple up and stay there thing.  People were bitching about how only big time miners can mine it now and that the hashrate got to big to fast.  This is a dangerous market, if you think you can just buy a few gpus and just collect money and never lose out on a high risk investment (which all crypto is) maybe you should rethink your situation and do something else with your money.  This isn't the kind of thing anyone should do to make a living.  Get a job and then worry about high risk investments and if they are worth it.  


That's one way to look at it.

I not stating people have to stop using Multipool or Middlecoin, it would be plain useless.

I'm asking how we can protect our coins against high hashrate profit hopping pools.
Not only to prevent forks, also for the miners who support their coin but only mine against high hashrate and diff.

Unofficial Waves topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2142722   |   My Waves address alias = magnet
flound1129
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


www.multipool.us


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
 #16

When CAP forked, sounds like only cryptsy and bigvern's pool were on the small side of the fork, then they mined 100+ more blocks due to the low difficulty.
 
Now they get to keep those blocks and the rest of of the network will have their blocks orphaned.

The truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork and pointing fingers at switching pools is easier than figuring it out.

Multipool - Always mine the most profitable coin - Scrypt, X11 or SHA-256!
DrGoose
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 93



View Profile
July 28, 2013, 04:26:16 PM
 #17

Here are a few thought about how to make a coin relatively less lucrative to mine by these pools:

(1) Make a coin POS more profitable than its POW. In other word, make ownership more rewarding than mining/dumping.

(2) *Newly* minted coin could take, say, 72 hours to be confirmed... this will cause a high risk of price slippage. Furthermore, long delay will throw a wrench into multicoin pool daily payout. That will make mining heavily this coin a tough choice compare to the other coins. The long term investor/miner won't mind though.

(3) *Newly* minted coin could have a very high transaction fee, which would be offset by doing POS on it for a little while.

(4) Difficulty fine tuning that consider market price(s) relative to other coins. This is likely a tough one to implement and get people agree with... just mentioning it. Some neutrality might be possible if that system is somewhat decentralized by many coin developers, exchange and volunteer servers.

These are just a few seed for brainstorming, I did not do much work into checking for feasibility.

MaGNeT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2013, 04:26:48 PM
 #18

When CAP forked, sounds like only cryptsy and bigvern's pool were on the small side of the fork, then they mined 100+ more blocks due to the low difficulty.
 
Now they get to keep those blocks and the rest of of the network will have their blocks orphaned.

The truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork and pointing fingers at switching pools is easier than figuring it out.

It's not only the fact that CAP got forked, it's also about the miners who support their coin, securing the chain and making the transactions possible.

They only see high difficulty. When difficulty drops, the profit switchpools take the low diff blocks, pushing the diff up again.



Unofficial Waves topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2142722   |   My Waves address alias = magnet
MaGNeT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2013, 04:30:09 PM
 #19

Here are a few thought about how to make a coin relatively less lucrative to mine by these pools:

(1) Make a coin POS more profitable than its POW. In other word, make ownership more rewarding than mining/dumping.

(2) *Newly* minted coin could take, say, 72 hours to be confirmed... this will cause a high risk of price slippage. Furthermore, long delay will throw a wrench into multicoin pool daily payout. That will make mining heavily this coin a tough choice compare to the other coins. The long term investor/miner won't mind though.

(3) *Newly* minted coin could have a very high transaction fee, which would be offset by doing POS on it for a little while.

(4) Difficulty fine tuning that consider market price(s) relative to other coins. This is likely a tough one to implement and get people agree with... just mentioning it. Some neutrality might be possible if that system is somewhat decentralized by many coin developers, exchange and volunteer servers.

These are just a few seed for brainstorming, I did not do much work into checking for feasibility.


A very constructive approach, thanks for your contribution!

I think point 1, 2 and 3 would help solve the problem.

2 is the easiest to implement, I guess.

4 would create some resistance, but it seems you think the same about that Smiley

Unofficial Waves topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2142722   |   My Waves address alias = magnet
kobaya74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 130


View Profile
July 28, 2013, 04:30:44 PM
 #20

Can we defend some little coin if attacker has 3+GHs of power to attack it? Can we defend FTC? No we cant, someone is mining a hell out of it every time he wants to. Only acceptance of coin by many independent miners like LTC has can defend scrypt coin. So when and only when scrypt coin has over than 10GHs it can be resistant. Sorry for CAP being forked, but us small miners wont defend it by not mining on autopilot pools, when someone has the power to fork any time he wants to.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  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!