|
Andrew Vorobyov
|
 |
February 07, 2012, 10:50:29 AM |
|
Can you comment why P2Pool disappeared from pool chart?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gnar1ta$
Donator
Hero Member
 Offline
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
|
|
February 07, 2012, 04:34:23 PM |
|
I don't know if this will help but according to this post in the p2pool thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg722338#msg722338 ...you can expect the 1Kz5QaUPDtKrj5SqW5tFkn7WZh8LmQaQi4 address to be present in the "To" side of all coins generated by p2pool.
|
Losing hundreds of Bitcoins with the best scammers in the business - BFL, Avalon, KNC, HashFast.
|
|
|
Inaba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 07, 2012, 05:30:10 PM |
|
Some of EMCs found blocks are being attributed to Bitclockers. Is there a particular reason for that?
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Inaba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 08, 2012, 09:20:39 PM |
|
Ah good plan. I will make that happen.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 09, 2012, 09:37:33 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 09, 2012, 05:21:07 PM |
|
Theres been a ton a double spends showing recently http://blockchain.info/double-spends. Are there any merchants accepting 0 confirmations transactions who might be being exploited? |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 10, 2012, 12:03:55 AM |
|
Don't all the P2Pool blocks say "Unable to decode input address" on your website? Aren't they the only blocks that say this? Is there any way you could use this to identify them?
Sorry if this is way off base, I'm kind of out of my league here. But I really want to see accurate reporting of P2Pool blocks!
Yes you are right. Any block from an unknown ip with the first txOut in its coinbase being strange will now be marked as P2Pool. http://blockchain.info/blocks/P2Poolor as json: http://blockchain.info/blocks/P2Pool?format=json |
|
|
|
Maged
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
|
|
February 10, 2012, 02:15:03 AM |
|
Theres been a ton a double spends showing recently http://blockchain.info/double-spends. Are there any merchants accepting 0 confirmations transactions who might be being exploited? Dear God, this is awesome! It looks like a very strong majority of the transactions that hit you a second after the first one were ultimately rejected by the network. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 10, 2012, 10:22:13 AM |
|
Dear God, this is awesome! It looks like a very strong majority of the transactions that hit you a second after the first one were ultimately rejected by the network.
Perhaps the tactic is to send out a large volume of double spends then every so often you'll get lucky and have both confirmed in a natural chain split (They have been occurring about once a day recently). This way you can get a one confirmation reversal without needing any hashing power. So which merchants accept payments after one confirmation? 166062, 165904, and 165552 (not P2Pool blocks) found their way into the list. Looks like there is a bug.
These were blocks relayed by an ip who was detected as part of P2Pool. Perhaps they left the network and decided to solo mine, or perhaps they are withholding their own winning blocks from the P2Pool network. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 10, 2012, 10:52:20 AM |
|
Never-the-less, they are reported incorrectly. I was under the impression you were using the strange first txOut to identify P2Pool blocks. Perhaps if you only used that as an identifier for P2Pool blocks, it would be accurate?
I'm using both now, I'm not going to fully abandon the "First relayed" method just incase the something changes in how the blocks are formatted. Are you suggesting a solo miner is putting some of his hash rate toward P2Pool and not submitting blocks, while continuing to submit his own valid non-P2Pool blocks?
Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward. |
|
|
|
|
terrytibbs
|
|
February 10, 2012, 11:51:26 AM |
|
Are you suggesting a solo miner is putting some of his hash rate toward P2Pool and not submitting blocks, while continuing to submit his own valid non-P2Pool blocks?
Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward. That can't be done. They can withhold a block (as they can with any pool), but they can not submit it and receive the entire reward themselves. This is correct. I believe there's even a small reward for submitting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
finway
|
|
February 10, 2012, 01:17:07 PM |
|
Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward.
If this can happen, then this is a serious bug. |
|
|
|
Inaba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 10, 2012, 01:25:57 PM |
|
I've added the string EclipseMC to the coinbase for blocks mined by EMC.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 10, 2012, 03:00:48 PM |
|
I've added the string EclipseMC to the coinbase for blocks mined by EMC.
Great, I've added it. |
|
|
|
|
teste
|
|
February 11, 2012, 06:14:53 PM |
|
Piuk,
On escrow transactions i would like to know if you could implement
something like:
1- I create a key
2- I create a group folder with 100 pre definied keys
3- I just can spend the btc of 1 if 60% of 2 agree with it.
Obs: could exist configs like:
1- people have 5 days to vote
2- the percentage of vote include or not the ones that didn't vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 11, 2012, 07:00:16 PM
Last edit: February 11, 2012, 11:22:50 PM by piuk |
|
Piuk,
On escrow transactions i would like to know if you could implement
something like:
1- I create a key
2- I create a group folder with 100 pre definied keys
3- I just can spend the btc of 1 if 60% of 2 agree with it.
Obs: could exist configs like:
1- people have 5 days to vote
2- the percentage of vote include or not the ones that didn't vote.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. A voting system with 100 different keys? Unfortunately it isn't feasible to do multi sig with more than 3 keys at the moment. You could spilt a key using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing but I don't know what you would do about the time limit. ------ Added Dendrogram links on transaction pages. Useful for visualising how bitcoins moved to different addresses after being spent, more specifically for tracking stolen coins. Alliinvain theft: http://blockchain.info/tree/3433298BTCServ hack: http://blockchain.info/tree/15066392 (Unspent) Spread of payouts from P2Pool Block #165896 http://blockchain.info/tree/15296863Click a node to load its children. Blue nodes mean the output is unspent and size of the circle represents the amount. It does not show yet when new coins entered the mix. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
February 11, 2012, 11:30:22 PM |
|
I've just noticed something a little odd about that BTCServ transaction  The majority of "hacked" coins (419 BTC) got sent to 1E3PdhC1ARtxkDmq8LmYQeXqXNp2pSfQu3 which hasn't been spent. However the small amount sent to 1CrDpobPFbLvNtB2hnBtThu9qHJ2hpbwPz has been spent. The odd thing is both transactions got relayed by the ip 81.169.165.107 - which is BTCServe's ip. |
|
|
|
|
