[ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record

[gatra]

7 nodes in the network..
price goes down day by day...
Still lot of orphans everyday and nobody can solomine cause the riepool fork.

There are 2 solutions. Stop mining riepool or Simone (Simba84) stops forking the chain.

If not, this coin is going to disappear.

Gatra let's find a way to exclude rouge nodes in the network, or blacklist them. Simba84 has always been hostile against this coin.

25-50% of all mined blocks are orphans - riecoin network is on the brink of complete collapse.

How to prevent that: maybe to add much more confirmations ~ 100 for block to be valid and/or to change difficulty adjustments to every 1 hour(24 blocks) to prevent massive jumping in to network after 12h high difficulty period is off.

Second measure - change how network operates - to make nodes auto-rejects of orphan blocks solutions,so every block will be mined until we get a valid block solution on network.

Sounds good to me ... Gatra, what do you think?

Adding confirmations is a good safety measure but doesn't prevent forks. Neither do changes in the difficulty adjustments.

I was thinking about forbidding reorganizations... so a large alternate chain would be rejected even if it had more work and the network would keep stable, but this solution has the risk of splitting the network.

The other option I considered was checkpointing as in PoS coins, but it's a centralized solution and the checkpointing server could be DDoS'd.

There's no perfect solution. If there are problems again I'm considering investing heavily in mining on an independent well-behaving pool so the chain with most of the miners always wins.

[1714856240]

1714856240

[Simba84]

...I'm considering investing heavily in mining on an independent well-behaving pool so the chain with most of the miners always wins.

Let me get this straight... Are not you the one who always told us not to let a pool either more than 50% of the mining power?

And now you tell me that would like to invest in computational power for a pool that SHOULD have most of the mining power?

It's not a contradiction ??

Then... who guarantees that you can actually get more than half of the miners for a third pool?

Maybe you're the one who solo mine and do 40-45% of the blocks?

Also I remind xptMiner2.........

I conclude by saying that RiePool is perfectly stable and it seems that the attacks are ending.

Thanks for support

[one4many]

...I'm considering investing heavily in mining on an independent well-behaving pool so the chain with most of the miners always wins.

Let me get this straight... Are not you the one who always told us not to let a pool either more than 50% of the mining power?

And now you tell me that would like to invest in computational power for a pool that SHOULD have most of the mining power?

It's not a contradiction ??

Then... who guarantees that you can actually get more than half of the miners for a third pool?

Maybe you're the one who solo mine and do 40-45% of the blocks?

Also I remind xptMiner2.........

I conclude by saying that RiePool is perfectly stable and it seems that the attacks are ending.

Thanks for support

It is you who destabilizes the network by disconnecting your nodes ... nobody else does that ... therefore it is you who is attacking the network with lots of hash power (from inconsiderate miners).

[Simba84]

...I'm considering investing heavily in mining on an independent well-behaving pool so the chain with most of the miners always wins.

Let me get this straight... Are not you the one who always told us not to let a pool either more than 50% of the mining power?

And now you tell me that would like to invest in computational power for a pool that SHOULD have most of the mining power?

It's not a contradiction ??

Then... who guarantees that you can actually get more than half of the miners for a third pool?

Maybe you're the one who solo mine and do 40-45% of the blocks?

Also I remind xptMiner2.........

I conclude by saying that RiePool is perfectly stable and it seems that the attacks are ending.

Thanks for support

It is you who destabilizes the network by disconnecting your nodes ... nobody else does that ... therefore it is you who is attacking the network with lots of hash power (from inconsiderate miners).

You have evidence that shows that? You know what's the REAL problem of this coin? The person making the 40-50% of the blocks in solo (probably the same people who developed the coin and that opened xpoolx).

So the diff gets harder and the few "poor" miners with little power still get less coins!

If there are pools, the miners should use these!

I would like to know from you "distinguished" as ever when for a year and a half there was only one pool (ypool) no one has ever had anything to say.

Finally.... but what are you speaking that no mining Riecoin for many months (or maybe not.....)? Go cry somewhere else!

[RockAndPool]

What the F**k are u talking about?

You were destroying the coin with your stupid fork. You have almost all the hashrate in your scaming pool.

Solomining is the problem? JA! please dont make us laugh, kind of noob. So i'll call to the people with awesome SHA hashrate to stop soloming riecoin cause my poor dual core cant make some btc.

Of course, when you have the forked chain "all is beatifull and only people is defaming me"

Now you have unforked the chain cause maybe you have some kind of shame and the problem is a guy with lot of hash power that maybe is a botnet or maybe is a supercomputer or maybe is whatever it be.

Stop saying bullshit. You are CANCER

[Simba84]

What the F**k are u talking about?

You were destroying the coin with your stupid fork. You have almost all the hashrate in your scaming pool.

Solomining is the problem? JA! please dont make us laugh, kind of noob. So i'll call to the people with awesome SHA hashrate to stop soloming riecoin cause my poor dual core cant make some btc.

Of course, when you have the forked chain "all is beatifull and only people is defaming me"

Now you have unforked the chain cause maybe you have some kind of shame and the problem is a guy with lot of hash power that maybe is a botnet or maybe is a supercomputer or maybe is whatever it be.

Stop saying bullshit. You are CANCER

I ask it to you.... But what the hell of evidence have to admit this?

RiePool has all the hashrate But in what world you live!

Envy makes bad jokes....

Bye bye asshole!

[pzktupel]

Just friendly words here !  

Record holder speaks 

[Simba84]

For xpoolx: can you explain why you're getting 5% of the coins on the blocks resolved in solo by one user (now about 50% of the blocks)?

Why did you decide to move months ago your great mining capacity from xpoolx to solo mining?

If not you, then you made an agreement with someone?


For gatra & company: if RiePool resolve 50% or more of the blocks..... oh my god will not do, we must do something.........

Instead, an user in SOLO mining can do it? Just all goes well ??

What kind of system is this?

[gatra]

...I'm considering investing heavily in mining on an independent well-behaving pool so the chain with most of the miners always wins.

Let me get this straight... Are not you the one who always told us not to let a pool either more than 50% of the mining power?

And now you tell me that would like to invest in computational power for a pool that SHOULD have most of the mining power?

It's not a contradiction ??

Then... who guarantees that you can actually get more than half of the miners for a third pool?

Maybe you're the one who solo mine and do 40-45% of the blocks?

Also I remind xptMiner2.........

I conclude by saying that RiePool is perfectly stable and it seems that the attacks are ending.

Thanks for support

No, I don't want 50%.
If two pools (or one pool and one solo-miner) are fighting for 50% then I want to make a new one and the three would get 33% each.

For gatra & company: if RiePool resolve 50% or more of the blocks..... oh my god will not do, we must do something.........

Instead, an user in SOLO mining can do it? Just all goes well ??

What kind of system is this?

It's not all well. If it's solo I don't like it either.
Now some miner seems to have 47% and I don't know who it is but I don't like it.

[Simba84]

No, I don't want 50%.
If two pools (or one pool and one solo-miner) are fighting for 50% then I want to make a new one and the three would get 33% each.

Two pools are pretty, they should only use them instead of solving half or more of the blocks in solo....

[xpoolx]

The problem is not you get more of the 50% of the blocks, read previous messages, the problem was,  you (in purpose or not) forked the chain. Riepool was blocks after the main chain and connect to the main chain two or three times to spend transactions.

There's no problem if there is an user who have 50% of hashrate or a pool or whatever, the problem is when the user uses the hashrate to fork the chain and destroys the normal functioning of the coin.

The user, or the pool, with 50% of the hashrate is not doing malicius activities to the chain and now all works normally.

[cryptapus]

...

It's not all well. If it's solo I don't like it either.
Now some miner seems to have 47% and I don't know who it is but I don't like it.

gatra, just to add a crazy idea...

Would it be possible to add a couple of other AUX-POW algorithms (like say sha and scrypt) with very low rewards and use a multi-algo (Myriad) approach? Wouldn't this keep these kinds of shenanigans from causing so many issues?

[Simba84]

The problem is not you get more of the 50% of the blocks, read previous messages, the problem was,  you (in purpose or not) forked the chain. Riepool was blocks after the main chain and connect to the main chain two or three times to spend transactions.

There's no problem if there is an user who have 50% of hashrate or a pool or whatever, the problem is when the user uses the hashrate to fork the chain and destroys the normal functioning of the coin.

The user, or the pool, with 50% of the hashrate is not doing malicius activities to the chain and now all works normally.

I repeat for the last time if the network had problems is not up to me!

However we still waiting for your answer:

For xpoolx: can you explain why you're getting 5% of the coins on the blocks resolved in solo by one user (now about 50% of the blocks)?

Why did you decide to move months ago your great mining capacity from xpoolx to solo mining?

If not you, then you made an agreement with someone?

[xpoolx]

The problem is not you get more of the 50% of the blocks, read previous messages, the problem was,  you (in purpose or not) forked the chain. Riepool was blocks after the main chain and connect to the main chain two or three times to spend transactions.

There's no problem if there is an user who have 50% of hashrate or a pool or whatever, the problem is when the user uses the hashrate to fork the chain and destroys the normal functioning of the coin.

The user, or the pool, with 50% of the hashrate is not doing malicius activities to the chain and now all works normally.

I repeat for the last time if the network had problems is not up to me!

However we still waiting for your answer:

For xpoolx: can you explain why you're getting 5% of the coins on the blocks resolved in solo by one user (now about 50% of the blocks)?

Why did you decide to move months ago your great mining capacity from xpoolx to solo mining?

If not you, then you made an agreement with someone?

Oh sorry, i'll answer you now.

No, i can not explain, maybe aliens

[Simba84]

The problem is not you get more of the 50% of the blocks, read previous messages, the problem was,  you (in purpose or not) forked the chain. Riepool was blocks after the main chain and connect to the main chain two or three times to spend transactions.

There's no problem if there is an user who have 50% of hashrate or a pool or whatever, the problem is when the user uses the hashrate to fork the chain and destroys the normal functioning of the coin.

The user, or the pool, with 50% of the hashrate is not doing malicius activities to the chain and now all works normally.

I repeat for the last time if the network had problems is not up to me!

However we still waiting for your answer:

For xpoolx: can you explain why you're getting 5% of the coins on the blocks resolved in solo by one user (now about 50% of the blocks)?

Why did you decide to move months ago your great mining capacity from xpoolx to solo mining?

If not you, then you made an agreement with someone?

Oh sorry, i'll answer you now.

No, i can not explain, maybe aliens

I got it right.......

[dga]

Hi people,

It is clear that the large reorganisations are caused by riepool having more than 50% "hashrate", but I don't think Simba84 is doing it on purpose.
If his pool node gets isolated from the network but the pool keeps running then when he connects back, his blocks will most likely cause all the blocks from the other miners to get orphaned. If he was "unlucky" and did not generate more work than the rest of the network then HIS blocks will get orphaned that's why he complains that sometimes he has many orphans in a row too.
Simba84, please make sure that ALL your nodes are always connected to the rest of the network, and that your pool is not mining with one or two nodes that are connected between them but isolated to the rest of the network. This should avoid all the orphans seen in the network.
If your nodes are being attacked maybe you can whitelist a couple of good nodes and only let your node connect to those. If it's a problem with the nodes being DDoS'ed then I could generate a new version based on 0.13.1, that's supposed to be more robust.

We have more than 30 nodes, I don't think that just adding more nodes would fix the problems.

I ask all miners to please spread the hashes, change pools or go solo, but don't let any pool (riepool or xpoolx or anyone) have more than 50% of the mining power.


It's unfortunate that we are being attacked by DDoS, but we have to deal with the fact that a CPU coin attracts botnets and botnets are many times used for DDoS attacks. Sometimes I wish we had a GPU miner and the attacks would go away.

Thank you all and best regards,
Gatra

Just spotted this - I'd been trying to figure out why my office was being DDoS'd, and taking down parts of the CMU network along with it.  I'd kept a riecoin node going for the last two years despite not really being in crypto any more, but I can't let this prevent everyone in my building from working.

The DoS wasn't a matter of a new version - in my case, they were sending 5Gbps of NTP reflector traffic at my IP address.  Carnegie Mellon was not amused.  It was a pretty serious attack.

Sorry to hear about the problems.  Hope they get resolved!

[gatra]

gatra, just to add a crazy idea...

Would it be possible to add a couple of other AUX-POW algorithms (like say sha and scrypt) with very low rewards and use a multi-algo (Myriad) approach? Wouldn't this keep these kinds of shenanigans from causing so many issues?

Nice crazy idea might work!
Yes, it would help. I'll think about it because it has its dangers too: if it's low reward then it will not be mined a lot and will have low diff... in general a new algo means a new attack vector. Maybe we could do it with merged mining.

[gatra]

Just spotted this - I'd been trying to figure out why my office was being DDoS'd, and taking down parts of the CMU network along with it.  I'd kept a riecoin node going for the last two years despite not really being in crypto any more, but I can't let this prevent everyone in my building from working.

The DoS wasn't a matter of a new version - in my case, they were sending 5Gbps of NTP reflector traffic at my IP address.  Carnegie Mellon was not amused.  It was a pretty serious attack.

Sorry to hear about the problems.  Hope they get resolved!

Thanks for the info and I'm sorry you had problems at work.

[cryptapus]

gatra, just to add a crazy idea...

Would it be possible to add a couple of other AUX-POW algorithms (like say sha and scrypt) with very low rewards and use a multi-algo (Myriad) approach? Wouldn't this keep these kinds of shenanigans from causing so many issues?

Nice crazy idea might work!
Yes, it would help. I'll think about it because it has its dangers too: if it's low reward then it will not be mined a lot and will have low diff... in general a new algo means a new attack vector. Maybe we could do it with merged mining.

Sorry, yes, AUX-POW means merged mining... doesn't cost the miner any additional hashrate, so diffs tend to be generally higher.

[Supercomputing]

Just spotted this - I'd been trying to figure out why my office was being DDoS'd, and taking down parts of the CMU network along with it.  I'd kept a riecoin node going for the last two years despite not really being in crypto any more, but I can't let this prevent everyone in my building from working.

The DoS wasn't a matter of a new version - in my case, they were sending 5Gbps of NTP reflector traffic at my IP address.  Carnegie Mellon was not amused.  It was a pretty serious attack.

Sorry to hear about the problems.  Hope they get resolved!

Thanks for the info and I'm sorry you had problems at work.

Same here, this was a bandwidth exhaustion attack targeting Riecoin nodes.

@gatra
Here’s a suggestion to make Riecoin botnet resistant while keeping the classic proof-of-work.
Add double SHA-256 (SHA256d) as an additional constraint to the proof-of-work.
SHA256d’s difficulty should be 150s seconds of computation time for an i7 4790k, approximately  4.2 billion hashes.

1). SHA256d(target || nonce) -> offload to GPU
2). Add digest to target
3). Solve proof-of-work puzzle.
4). Submit(256-bit offset,  64-bit nonce).

The idea is simply to add 150 seconds of preprocessing time on a CPU, but only 3-5 seconds on a single GPU.