[POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com

[utahjohn]

Lets hope it gets better ...

Mar 25, 2014 (partial)    7.75184915    13.42 GH/s    0.00434423

[1714268521]

1714268521

[1714268521]

1714268521

[1714268521]

1714268521

[1714268521]

1714268521

[1714268521]

1714268521

[grendel25]

Miners slowly returning to waffle
Hashrate: 17.13 GH/s     Miners: 3389

CM's hashrate about doubled during the WP DDOS and currently still shows about 22.4 GH/s

GHash.IO/LTC went from 8 to 30 back to 8 GH/s.

So that's 22 Gh/s delta boost at GH and about 12 Gh/s delta for CM totalling 34 MH/s but WP's last avg was about 28 gh/s which is a delta of 6 GH/s.  Well, all that is according to their websites so who knows how accurate/current the numbers are.  It will be interesting to see how the DDOS affects ongoing averages or how other DDOS affect other pool's avg's.  This is like watching Nerd Good Fellas.

Stats from WP:

Last 7 days BTC/day per 1MH/s: 0.00523863
Date                     BTC Earned   Avg Hashrate BTC / 1MH
Mar 25, 2014 (partial)   7.75184905   13.46 GH/s   0.00427687
Mar 24, 2014   21.96179998   5.82 GH/s   0.00377191
Mar 23, 2014   135.88052280   27.55 GH/s   0.00493133
Mar 22, 2014   149.33063241   29.82 GH/s   0.00500758
Mar 21, 2014   179.09718956   37.18 GH/s   0.00481754
Mar 20, 2014   132.83524329   23.43 GH/s   0.00566932
Mar 19, 2014   85.18245430   11.48 GH/s   0.00742039

[dogechode]

If you could track to to a bitcoin address, it ought to be possible for the crytpocurrency community to "blacklist" an address used by thieves.  Since the transactions have a complete history in the blockchain, an exchange could reject transactions that are traceable back to an address involved in theft, fraud, etc.

This is so wrong on so many levels...  

Without getting into technical details on how exactly would you do that, think about this: who decides that "an address involved in theft, fraud, etc."? What happens to a legitimate merchant who sells a product or a service to one of the addresses "involved"?

It's seems you would like to bring over the clusterfuck that is credit card chargebacks/disputes over to crypto currencies. Thank you, but no (and thank Satoshi this is not really possible).

You say it's not possible, but if you have the complete list of transactions, it is possible to deny exchange to other currencies.  You can't prevent exchange of coins within the currency, but there's no reason anyone has to willingly accept a bitcoin that was originally stolen from a miner in exchange for a traditional currency.  In reality, the value of bitcoins today is only as good as what you are able to exchange them for in terms of real goods and services, or in traditional currencies.  While a thief may steal a bitcoin and pawn it off on someone else, here's no rule that says an exchange has to accept that bitcoin address for exchange with a dollar, or other currency.

I'm sure you would love to be arrested in a bank because the greenbacks you gave to the cashier were touched by your friendly neighborhood drug dealer a couple of "hops" ago, based on an anonymous tip . What could possibly go wrong with that.

OMG OMG THAT MONEY HAS COKE RESIDUE ON IT, ARREST HIMMM!!!!

[mazuma]

its safe to assume almost all the hash on this pool is from gridseeds, cuz clearly 0.004 is fucking laughable, or else many would have flocked elsewhere

[utahjohn]

its safe to assume almost all the hash on this pool is from gridseeds, cuz clearly 0.004 is fucking laughable, or else many would have flocked elsewhere

read from about 20 or so pages back, many multipools are having the same issues of falling market, DDOS and other exploits such as client.reconnect to rouge pool.  Have faith that things will improve if these problems can be remedied.  Our "whale" has not yet returned so we are finding fewer blocks. 

[gtraah]

thanks for the quota explanation,

So Fail-over is not good enough? I always thought it was. In what circumstances would fail-over not be so good but Quota be better?



one other thing

I am starting to think, abot this Ddos thing thats happened, are multipools really killing the alt coins, and why do quite a few people beleive this?

[suchmoon]

its safe to assume almost all the hash on this pool is from gridseeds, cuz clearly 0.004 is fucking laughable, or else many would have flocked elsewhere

Where? Is that a smell of fresh green paint on the other side of the fence?

[utahjohn]

I am not only mining for profit alone.  I am holding coins that I think will do better in the future when block rewards halves and halves again on them.  Some coins like DMD which is is a Stake coin will only rise in value as you hold them.  MOON is on the rise slowly and I have been trading my DOGE for them while they are at such a low.  MOON has not even halved yet so hang on to some coinage ...

Look at what happened to DOGE when it halfed. I saw value double shortly thereafter

Sure I dump some of the coins I mine on multipool.us but I trade them on the markets when spread is good and profitable I hold the coins that will rise.  Some I dump for BTC to USD to finance my project and get my ROI.

At a point a month or so ago I sold MOON for 0.130 DOGE now buying back at 0.0042 ... where's the profit in that LOL MOON will rise again

[tachyon_john]

If you could track to to a bitcoin address, it ought to be possible for the crytpocurrency community to "blacklist" an address used by thieves.  Since the transactions have a complete history in the blockchain, an exchange could reject transactions that are traceable back to an address involved in theft, fraud, etc.

This is so wrong on so many levels...  

Without getting into technical details on how exactly would you do that, think about this: who decides that "an address involved in theft, fraud, etc."? What happens to a legitimate merchant who sells a product or a service to one of the addresses "involved"?

It's seems you would like to bring over the clusterfuck that is credit card chargebacks/disputes over to crypto currencies. Thank you, but no (and thank Satoshi this is not really possible).

You say it's not possible, but if you have the complete list of transactions, it is possible to deny exchange to other currencies.  You can't prevent exchange of coins within the currency, but there's no reason anyone has to willingly accept a bitcoin that was originally stolen from a miner in exchange for a traditional currency.  In reality, the value of bitcoins today is only as good as what you are able to exchange them for in terms of real goods and services, or in traditional currencies.  While a thief may steal a bitcoin and pawn it off on someone else, here's no rule that says an exchange has to accept that bitcoin address for exchange with a dollar, or other currency.

I'm sure you would love to be arrested in a bank because the greenbacks you gave to the cashier were touched by your friendly neighborhood drug dealer a couple of "hops" ago, based on an anonymous tip . What could possibly go wrong with that.

While an amusing scenario to envision, there's no resemblance to the situation here.  In this specific case, we are talking about people that have the actual logs of coins mined, transferred, and coin addresses involved, so there's really no anonymity at all.  We are talking only about the specific case where the theft is directly traceable, as confirmed by the combination of protocol traffic and the resulting blockchain records.  You can't get "arrested" in any case, but nobody has to honor your payment.  If an exchange's terms of service state that it will not exchange currency that can be traced to an address involved with theft traceable to logs and the blockchain there's not much you could complain about.  They can always simply send your BTC back to you and refuse to exchange it.  The currency has no value unless it can be used to purchase goods or services, or to be exchanged for other currency.  There's no need to "arrest" anyone.  This is not particularly different from spam filtering or blocking DDOS atacks when they are detected.  It isn't worth the trouble to deal with small scale theft, but on the scale of spoofing an entire mining pool, or several pools as we have experienced this week?  Yes, I think there's an interest.  The status quo is an undeveloped wild west, and it would be foolish to think that large scale spoofing and theft will go unpunished in the long run.

[suchmoon]

While an amusing scenario to envision, there's no resemblance to the situation here.  In this specific case, we are talking about people that have the actual logs of coins mined, transferred, and coin addresses involved, so there's really no anonymity at all.  We are talking only about the specific case where the theft is directly traceable, as confirmed by the combination of protocol traffic and the resulting blockchain records.  You can't get "arrested" in any case, but nobody has to honor your payment.  If an exchange's terms of service state that it will not exchange currency that can be traced to an address involved with theft traceable to logs and the blockchain there's not much you could complain about.  They can always simply send your BTC back to you and refuse to exchange it.  The currency has no value unless it can be used to purchase goods or services, or to be exchanged for other currency.  There's no need to "arrest" anyone.  This is not particularly different from spam filtering or blocking DDOS atacks when they are detected.  It isn't worth the trouble to deal with small scale theft, but on the scale of spoofing an entire mining pool, or several pools as we have experienced this week?  Yes, I think there's an interest.  The status quo is an undeveloped wild west, and it would be foolish to think that large scale spoofing and theft will go unpunished in the long run.

Not sure why I'm still arguing with you even though I should be working but anyway... you are making a few incorrect assumptions: 1) it is somehow possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the origin of the coin is fraudulent, even after gazillions of complex transactions; 2) there is always going to be an exchange involved in these transactions (or some other "cooperating" entity); and 3) the entity attempting to exchange the coins is somehow related to the fraud and should be punished. As I mentioned above: Who decides that "an address involved in theft, fraud, etc."? What happens to a legitimate merchant who sells a product or a service to one of the addresses "involved"?

[tachyon_john]

While an amusing scenario to envision, there's no resemblance to the situation here.  In this specific case, we are talking about people that have the actual logs of coins mined, transferred, and coin addresses involved, so there's really no anonymity at all.  We are talking only about the specific case where the theft is directly traceable, as confirmed by the combination of protocol traffic and the resulting blockchain records.  You can't get "arrested" in any case, but nobody has to honor your payment.  If an exchange's terms of service state that it will not exchange currency that can be traced to an address involved with theft traceable to logs and the blockchain there's not much you could complain about.  They can always simply send your BTC back to you and refuse to exchange it.  The currency has no value unless it can be used to purchase goods or services, or to be exchanged for other currency.  There's no need to "arrest" anyone.  This is not particularly different from spam filtering or blocking DDOS atacks when they are detected.  It isn't worth the trouble to deal with small scale theft, but on the scale of spoofing an entire mining pool, or several pools as we have experienced this week?  Yes, I think there's an interest.  The status quo is an undeveloped wild west, and it would be foolish to think that large scale spoofing and theft will go unpunished in the long run.

Not sure why I'm still arguing with you even though I should be working but anyway... you are making a few incorrect assumptions: 1) it is somehow possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the origin of the coin is fraudulent, even after gazillions of complex transactions; 2) there is always going to be an exchange involved in these transactions (or some other "cooperating" entity); and 3) the entity attempting to exchange the coins is somehow related to the fraud and should be punished. As I mentioned above: Who decides that "an address involved in theft, fraud, etc."? What happens to a legitimate merchant who sells a product or a service to one of the addresses "involved"?

What happens to a buyer who pays in bitcoin and never receives his product?  A vendor that has one or two bad transactions might get away with this, but on a large scale, they will not.  How is this any different from other assumptions of fair play with this or any currency?  If large scale theft goes completely unchecked, then the currency loses value.  Taken to the limit, it has no value.  The "1 to 2 hops" I originally mentioned certainly aren't "gazillions" of transactions.  I've read your responses to "comeonalready" in other threads, don't waste you're time trying to troll me, just stick to reality. 

[utahjohn]

thanks for the quota explanation,

So Fail-over is not good enough? I always thought it was. In what circumstances would fail-over not be so good but Quota be better?



one other thing

I am starting to think, abot this Ddos thing thats happened, are multipools really killing the alt coins, and why do quite a few people beleive this?

For me it is sometimes more profitable to mine several different pools and hold coins and trade when prices go up ... holding coins is better than dumping at current market value.  And there is an option to change pool quota level while cgminer is running ... look in the pools menu ...

watch the difficulty level on your favorites and adjust mining quota to suit ...

[utahjohn]

@poolwaffle

I assume you are watching multiple sources for difficulty and market prices for coin switch as this too could be DDOS and affect coin switcher ... don't want it to get stuck on one coin LOL.

If such was to take place maybe do a round-robin switch or use historical values to tune switcher?

dogepay.com has a nice page with multiple exchanges on it which I watch too.

[utahjohn]

@poolwaffle

I assume you are watching multiple sources for difficulty and market prices for coin switch as this too could be DDOS and affect coin switcher ... don't want it to get stuck on one coin LOL.

If such was to take place maybe do a round-robin switch or use historical values to tune switcher?

dogepay.com has a nice page with multiple exchanges on it which I watch too.

ROFL get it stuck on WDC and hammer the value down to zip hahahahaha
or abandon it and let confirm times rise to unbearability like what happened with MOON before the switch to KGW.

My vote: abandon it! never seen much profit from it in my opinion.

[suchmoon]

What happens to a buyer who pays in bitcoin and never receives his product?  A vendor that has one or two bad transactions might get away with this, but on a large scale, they will not.  How is this any different from other assumptions of fair play with this or any currency?  If large scale theft goes completely unchecked, then the currency loses value.  Taken to the limit, it has no value.  The "1 to 2 hops" I originally mentioned certainly aren't "gazillions" of transactions.  I've read your responses to "comeonalready" in other threads, don't waste you're time trying to troll me, just stick to reality. 

You probably know something I don't as I still can't see what would prevent the perpetrator to do more than 1 or 2 transactions to launder the loot. Anyway, since it's getting personal, I give up, certainly don't want another Galileo teaching me reality. Take it easy.

[comeonalready]

While an amusing scenario to envision, there's no resemblance to the situation here.  In this specific case, we are talking about people that have the actual logs of coins mined, transferred, and coin addresses involved, so there's really no anonymity at all.  We are talking only about the specific case where the theft is directly traceable, as confirmed by the combination of protocol traffic and the resulting blockchain records.  You can't get "arrested" in any case, but nobody has to honor your payment.  If an exchange's terms of service state that it will not exchange currency that can be traced to an address involved with theft traceable to logs and the blockchain there's not much you could complain about.  They can always simply send your BTC back to you and refuse to exchange it.  The currency has no value unless it can be used to purchase goods or services, or to be exchanged for other currency.  There's no need to "arrest" anyone.  This is not particularly different from spam filtering or blocking DDOS atacks when they are detected.  It isn't worth the trouble to deal with small scale theft, but on the scale of spoofing an entire mining pool, or several pools as we have experienced this week?  Yes, I think there's an interest.  The status quo is an undeveloped wild west, and it would be foolish to think that large scale spoofing and theft will go unpunished in the long run.

Not sure why I'm still arguing with you even though I should be working but anyway... you are making a few incorrect assumptions: 1) it is somehow possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the origin of the coin is fraudulent, even after gazillions of complex transactions; 2) there is always going to be an exchange involved in these transactions (or some other "cooperating" entity); and 3) the entity attempting to exchange the coins is somehow related to the fraud and should be punished. As I mentioned above: Who decides that "an address involved in theft, fraud, etc."? What happens to a legitimate merchant who sells a product or a service to one of the addresses "involved"?

What happens to a buyer who pays in bitcoin and never receives his product?  A vendor that has one or two bad transactions might get away with this, but on a large scale, they will not.  How is this any different from other assumptions of fair play with this or any currency?  If large scale theft goes completely unchecked, then the currency loses value.  Taken to the limit, it has no value.  The "1 to 2 hops" I originally mentioned certainly aren't "gazillions" of transactions.  I've read your responses to "comeonalready" in other threads, don't waste you're time trying to troll me, just stick to reality.  

Actually, I just logged in to catch up on this thread, and I'm leaning toward suchmoon's point of view on the topic, but probably only as it tends to reflect my own personally held opinions.  (And also because I usually tend to side with whomever is invoking the fewest analogies in an argument, as they often oversimplify the situation at hand.)

Unlike everything I usually argue in favor for (yeah, sure), there are probably no easy answers to the questions being posed and that each of you are arguing for what you believe in, rather that what is enforceable, as there is currently no oversight authority of cryptocoin by anyone who can enforce any rules, even minimal standards of ethical behavior.

There are a few things I would like to point out...  If someone is found to be in possession of illegitimately obtained cryptocoins, and it can be proven that they were directly obtained in an illegitimate fashion, whether by stealing hashpower to generate them or by stealing the coins right out of someone else's wallet, they should be prosecuted and their illegally obtained gains confiscated (and returned if possible) -- but there are already laws on the books in many countries for theft of possessions or utilities, computer crimes, trespass to chattel, etc. with which to pursue them.  Others having knowingly accepted stolen cryptocoins should be penalized in some form too, but as knowledge and intention are difficult to prove, confiscating cryptocoins from others down the chain at any level is not likely a possibility in the near future.  The only reason that charge backs are possible with credit cards is because merchants sign legally enforceable contracts with transaction processors requiring them to agree to such provisions in order to accept any payments at all.  There is no such requirement with cryptocoin yet, nor may there ever be.

This more regulation / less regulation argument has been well underway within well established markets for centuries, and it is still going on to date.  Unless rules or measures are baked into some new cryptocoin algorithm from the very beginning, it will continue to be a point of contention for the foreseeable future.  Cryptocoin is a big ugly mess, but so is the real world, and it probably needs our attention first.

Update: Now that I've read the Galileo remark, I take it all back!

[deltree]

Is someone experiencing slowdowns? Hashrate goes to nearly half of the actual values somewhere during the whole process and stays there, same for WU. Experiencing this on two different machines located geographically apart on different ISP's.

[utahjohn]

Is someone experiencing slowdowns? Hashrate goes to nearly half of the actual values somewhere during the whole process and stays there, same for WU. Experiencing this on two different machines located geographically apart on different ISP's.

waffle uswest at my average hashrate currently

[deltree]

SG on one and EU on another same story since 2-3 days now minus the time period of DDOS :s

[dmenace4]

@poolwaffle,

Hello apologies if this has already been asked. Is there any reason why flappy coin remains unconverted even though it is confirmed?

Thanks in advance for your respone