DDos sources is GHash.IO and associates

[asically]

Now you know.

[1715405208]

1715405208

[1715405208]

1715405208

[1715405208]

1715405208

[1715405208]

1715405208

[Trongersoll]

Now you know.

This is a libelist statement, show us the proof.

[Zeek_W]

I too am interested how you came across this

[xstr8guy]

Wasn't GHash.io a victim of this attack too?   

[BurtW]

They must have attacked themselves to cover their tracks.

[eleuthria]

Wasn't GHash.io a victim of this attack too?   

Were they?  They were solving a *ton* of blocks during the attacks.  My understanding is their website went down when all of Cloudflare had a major outage, but the website is just a frontend.

[xstr8guy]

Wasn't GHash.io a victim of this attack too?   

Were they?  They were solving a *ton* of blocks during the attacks.  My understanding is their website went down when all of Cloudflare had a major outage, but the website is just a frontend.

I read a few here-say posts that said they were being attacked.  But I don't know if it was fact.

So, is there possibly some truth to this rumor, Eleuthria?

[eleuthria]

Wasn't GHash.io a victim of this attack too?  

Were they?  They were solving a *ton* of blocks during the attacks.  My understanding is their website went down when all of Cloudflare had a major outage, but the website is just a frontend.

I read a few here-say posts that said they were being attacked.  But I don't know if it was fact.

So, is there possibly some truth to this rumor, Eleuthria?

There's a little motive, especially for large mining entities, but nothing that points to any culprit.  Innocent until proven guilty, and it's impossible to establish guilt from a DDoS when nobody is trying to take credit/gloating.  Knocking off the largest pool for 24 hours really has minimal impact on difficulty though due to failover pools, so the real motive would be someone that actually *gains* something out of it (another pool).  But in all likelihood, it was neither.

[HellDiverUK]

Now you know.

We know something for sure, and it isn't that GHash.io was the source of the DDoS. 

[klondike_bar]

Wasn't GHash.io a victim of this attack too?   

Were they?  They were solving a *ton* of blocks during the attacks.  My understanding is their website went down when all of Cloudflare had a major outage, but the website is just a frontend.

I read a few here-say posts that said they were being attacked.  But I don't know if it was fact.

So, is there possibly some truth to this rumor, Eleuthria?

the ghash.io hosted stuff went down for an hour or so, and my own equipment using the pool went down for about 2-3 hours. So yeah, seems kind of silly to go pointing fingers at the kid who [also] fell off the playground.

[fattypig]

  How do you know, maybe you are the real hacker

Proof it please !!!

[Chronikka]

How do you know, maybe you are the real hacker

Proof it please !!!

I'm sorry but does it matter? The attack is over. If it turns out ghash.io was behind the attack what would any of you do? nothing. To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

[os2sam]

To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate.

Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality.

[Chronikka]

To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate.

Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality.

Sorry maybe you should read my opinion again. clearly you missed it

[os2sam]

To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate.

Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality.

Sorry maybe you should read my opinion again. clearly you missed it

I don't think so.  You stated that DDoS'ing BTC Guild was a good thing because you are of the opinion it's hash rate was too high.  The reality is BTC Guild hash rate increased dramatically during the DDoS.

[Chronikka]

To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate.

Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality.

Sorry maybe you should read my opinion again. clearly you missed it

I don't think so.  You stated that DDoS'ing BTC Guild was a good thing because you are of the opinion it's hash rate was too high.  The reality is BTC Guild hash rate increased dramatically during the DDoS.

And the attack is now over. Hash rate is now down at btcguild in terms of its percentage on the network. Like I said...read it again.

[os2sam]

To be quite frank the attack was a plus for the network. BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

Good thing the attack has decreased BTC Guilds overall hashrate.

Too bad your *opinion* doesn't quite square with reality.

Sorry maybe you should read my opinion again. clearly you missed it

I don't think so.  You stated that DDoS'ing BTC Guild was a good thing because you are of the opinion it's hash rate was too high.  The reality is BTC Guild hash rate increased dramatically during the DDoS.

And the attack is now over. Hash rate is now down at btcguild in terms of its percentage on the network. Like I said...read it again.

OK, lets read it again.

BTCguild had far too much of the network hashing power in my opinion

So your saying now that BTC Guild's portion "of the network hashing power" is just peachy?

At any rate BTC Guild hash rate is accountable to it's miners so therefore much safer for the network.  These other hashing entities are unaccountable to anyone so they can do whatever they want and they are growing very fast.  So if BTC Guild is now a smaller percentage of the network I'm not so sure that's a good thing overall as reputable pools are not taking up that slack.

[Chronikka]

Reputable? Who cares if its reputable? All it takes is one disgruntled employee or a dedicated hacker to take control of the pool and do whatever they want with that power. Sorry but no pool should have 40% of the network hash power which btcguild has had in recent months. That is more dangerous than a few small pools being "not reputable"

[Trongersoll]

Reputable? Who cares if its reputable? All it takes is one disgruntled employee or a dedicated hacker to take control of the pool and do whatever they want with that power. Sorry but no pool should have 40% of the network hash power which btcguild has had in recent months. That is more dangerous than a few small pools being "not reputable"

Get real, most of the pools are one man operations. No employees to get disgruntled. Also, no matter what a hacker or anyone else did, it would be countered rather quickly. Everyone would just stop mining for that pool. Instant shutdown. If BTCguild's hashrate is down now as compared to others, it is because the others grew. I doubt that the attack had anything to do with the current size of the pool relative to other mining concerns.

[eleuthria]

Reputable? Who cares if its reputable? All it takes is one disgruntled employee or a dedicated hacker to take control of the pool and do whatever they want with that power. Sorry but no pool should have 40% of the network hash power which btcguild has had in recent months. That is more dangerous than a few small pools being "not reputable"

Except BTC Guild hasn't been 40% for roughly 6 months.  Maybe you should learn more about the actual network hashrate distribution instead of quoting shit from reddit/forums from blockchain.info's 24-hour charts.  BTC Guild was only ONCE above 40%, and that was entirely due to ASICMINER not being setup for solo mining when they first started up.