|
abracadabra
|
 |
January 26, 2012, 12:57:25 AM |
|
The fact that the operators of this pool have not responded to those comments is cause for concern, at least for me. Looking forward to getting some resolution soon. You can say that I am being paid for my hashes at the agreed upon rate, but I assumed (and shame on me I guess for assuming) that my hashes were used to find a block for this pool, not forwarded for use to other pools. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grue lurks in the darkest places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:04:14 AM |
|
Well as mentioned elsewhere (and many people should know anyway) if you use cgminer it will tell you when you found a block and also the first 12 bytes of the hash (I wrote that bit  ) That then makes it completely transparent about what the pool is doing - assuming it is doing it all the time. I guess the other mining programs do something similar? I don't know I've never used any others (for BTC). But people mining can simply post the block hashes they got and then it should be apparent what is going on. |
|
|
|
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:11:31 AM |
|
I too have a very uneasy feeling about them not answering. I will not be hashing on this pool anymore.
I would seriously recommend that unless MintCondition and Chlorine can give concrete proof that they are consistently finding blocks with their own bitcoind, then all miners should leave the pool immediately.
It making me sick to think that these guys have abused the trust of their miners to pool hop.
|
|
|
|
|
JWU42
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:43:23 AM |
|
I am certainly an "innocent until proven guilty" guy but agree this is worrying...
|
|
|
|
despoiler
Member
Offline
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:56:32 AM |
|
To be fair they could just be trying to deal with their pool issues. It's still not working correctly. Conversely whoever has the evidence should just post it. It will either stand or it won't. I haven't seen anything from anyone so this is nothing more than bitgossip atm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fred0
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:59:10 AM |
|
A PPS pool hopping another PPS pool doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unless the hop is part of some kind of DOS attack, sounds fishy all around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eveofwar
|
|
January 26, 2012, 01:59:53 AM |
|
A PPS pool hopping another PPS pool doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unless the hop is part of some kind of DOS attack, sounds fishy all around.
What if the PPS pool hopped to proportional pools ? All you see is a PPS rate. |
|
|
|
|
|
fred0
|
|
January 26, 2012, 02:02:13 AM |
|
A PPS pool hopping another PPS pool doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unless the hop is part of some kind of DOS attack, sounds fishy all around.
What if the PPS pool hopped to proportional pools ? All you see is a PPS rate. Well, the hop was implied by Goat, who is running a PPS pool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fred0
|
|
January 26, 2012, 02:21:07 AM |
|
Well, just because the pool ops don't post solved blocks doesn't mean they are hopping other pools. Just because Eligius pool users hashes were redirected, doesn't mean all pool ops would so the same. Remember when they had the bitcoin pilfering attack on the pool, MintCondition and Chlorine were up front about that. It just seems a little far-fetched to me, not impossible, just improbable. |
|
|
|
|
despoiler
Member
Offline
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
|
|
January 26, 2012, 03:41:23 AM |
|
Also if you ever want to see some massive fireworks redirect ABCs hashing power back to ABC, its fucking lulz! Infinite loop:)
I take it that is part of your proof? You were the "DDOS" from a few days ago? |
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
January 26, 2012, 03:43:59 AM |
|
Also if you ever want to see some massive fireworks redirect ABCs hashing power back to ABC, its fucking lulz! Infinite loop:)
I take it that is part of your proof? You were the "DDOS" from a few days ago? Well if he did cause it but didn't know that it was ABC pool that supplied the hashing power - the only possible blame would be ABC itself for that one ... |
|
|
|
despoiler
Member
Offline
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
|
|
January 26, 2012, 03:45:37 AM |
|
Also if you ever want to see some massive fireworks redirect ABCs hashing power back to ABC, its fucking lulz! Infinite loop:)
I take it that is part of your proof? You were the "DDOS" from a few days ago? Well if he did cause it but didn't know that it was ABC pool that supplied the hashing power - the only possible blame would be ABC itself for that one ... I agree. I don't care if he did do it or not. That is what backups are for. |
|
|
|
|
|
fred0
|
|
January 26, 2012, 04:13:43 AM |
|
Also if you ever want to see some massive fireworks redirect ABCs hashing power back to ABC, its fucking lulz! Infinite loop:)
I take it that is part of your proof? You were the "DDOS" from a few days ago? Well if he did cause it but didn't know that it was ABC pool that supplied the hashing power - the only possible blame would be ABC itself for that one ... So someone paid GPUMAX.com to mine at "Goat Pool", thus directing ABC hash power to "Goat Pool." Is that a realistic scenario? If that is the case, can ABC be solely responsible? |
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
January 26, 2012, 04:17:46 AM |
|
In that case, the issue THEN would be that ABC pool can have it's hashing directed anywhere out of their control ...
That would certainly make me consider looking for another PPS pool ...
|
|
|
|
|
fred0
|
|
January 26, 2012, 04:32:09 AM |
|
In that case, the issue THEN would be that ABC pool can have it's hashing directed anywhere out of their control ...
That would certainly make me consider looking for another PPS pool ...
But wouldn't any pool signed up with GPUMAX be subject to that same redirection? hmmm... |
|
|
|
|
pirateat40
Avast Ye!
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
"Yes I am a pirate, 200 years too late."
|
|
January 26, 2012, 05:05:50 AM |
|
I agree that it does seem shady for a pool to send it's power off somewhere else without telling it's miners. If gigavps can verify the information I would be interested in seeing it.
As Goat stated, GPUMAX had nothing to do with this deal and wouldn't condone such an operation.
|
|
|
|
MintCondition (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1147
Merit: 1007
|
|
January 26, 2012, 05:22:35 AM |
|
The fact that the operators of this pool have not responded to those comments is cause for concern, at least for me. Looking forward to getting some resolution soon. You can say that I am being paid for my hashes at the agreed upon rate, but I assumed (and shame on me I guess for assuming) that my hashes were used to find a block for this pool, not forwarded for use to other pools.
We have read your comments and will respond later today. For now rest assured that your shares will always be rewarded as agreed, just as they have been in the past. There's some other news: one of the stats tables became corrupted. We've since restored it from yesterday's backup. on your stats page you will not see any shares reported between 18:51 (yesterday) and 02:57 (today) UTC. The issue has only affected the statistics as displayed: All shares from that period have been credited to your balance at the normal PPS rate. |
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
January 26, 2012, 05:30:44 AM |
|
The fact that the operators of this pool have not responded to those comments is cause for concern, at least for me. Looking forward to getting some resolution soon. You can say that I am being paid for my hashes at the agreed upon rate, but I assumed (and shame on me I guess for assuming) that my hashes were used to find a block for this pool, not forwarded for use to other pools.
... For now rest assured that your shares will always be rewarded as agreed, just as they have been in the past. ... Heh that is funny - completely avoiding the issue with that part of your statement  |
|
|
|
|
Eveofwar
|
|
January 26, 2012, 06:50:35 AM |
|
The fact that the operators of this pool have not responded to those comments is cause for concern, at least for me. Looking forward to getting some resolution soon. You can say that I am being paid for my hashes at the agreed upon rate, but I assumed (and shame on me I guess for assuming) that my hashes were used to find a block for this pool, not forwarded for use to other pools.
... For now rest assured that your shares will always be rewarded as agreed, just as they have been in the past. ... Heh that is funny - completely avoiding the issue with that part of your statement Go through the last 2-3 pages, it's been ongoing. Question dodging galore. |
|
|
|
|
|
