[POOL] Coinotron

[FreeJack2k2]

nice attack on LTC.. really.
convince the big miners? you could just lock their accounts.

also you should make 2 pools for LTC and spread them.

locking any miner account won't help, even based on the given account total hasrate : miners could just split their hashrate over multiple accounts, recreate them when they wish to.
IP-based bans are useless too, anyone can get dozens of new ip addresses at will nowadays.

The whole 50+ % thing isn't coinotron's fault at all, but THE MINER'S !

miners should be aware of what they're doing, regarding the mined coin...

miners could for example :

* setup their miner to switch to other pools at regular intervals
* setup a damn p2pool node locally and start mining there, either full time or using your miner app capability to cycle between pools automatically

It's real simple. Lock accounts, delete workers and put a temporary hold on new members for several days. Problem solved.

It really is that simple, if the pool op cared about the health of the coin more than today's profits.

[coinotron]

Our hashrate dropped by almost 20% ( from 115 to 93 GH/s )

[Pencha]

nice attack on LTC.. really.
convince the big miners? you could just lock their accounts.

also you should make 2 pools for LTC and spread them.

locking any miner account won't help, even based on the given account total hasrate : miners could just split their hashrate over multiple accounts, recreate them when they wish to.
IP-based bans are useless too, anyone can get dozens of new ip addresses at will nowadays.

The whole 50+ % thing isn't coinotron's fault at all, but THE MINER'S !

miners should be aware of what they're doing, regarding the mined coin...

miners could for example :

* setup their miner to switch to other pools at regular intervals
* setup a damn p2pool node locally and start mining there, either full time or using your miner app capability to cycle between pools automatically

It's real simple. Lock accounts, delete workers and put a temporary hold on new members for several days. Problem solved.

It really is that simple, if the pool op cared about the health of the coin more than today's profits.

You should let the guy work and fix the problem, give him space to bread.

[dishwara]

After 17 painfull hours we've solved first LTC block !

It looks like I'm talking to myself.

Anyway, latest news:

1. We have solved 13 blocks.
2. On Monday or Tuesday pool will be moved to brand new dedicated server. Performance issues will be gone.
3. New autoworker is being implemented. It will allow to switch between CPU-friendly coins.

I'm fixing it right now. But it is not so easy as you think.

Yes, it is...you just don't like the idea that you have to give up all that fee income. You have total control over who mines on your pool.

Right now, you are RAKING IN the fee income and I understand that you are not highly motivated to solve the issue, as a result. But the bad PR you are earning for Coinotron by dragging your feet is going to come back to haunt you as these ASIC systems start to proliferate outside of China and people have the name "Coinotron" burned into their heads as the pool NOT to support. That goodwill that you feel you've built since 2011 is evaporating, fast.

You have not even engaged a TEMPORARY halt to new registrations. You haven't even been willing to go THAT far. That's ridiculous.

Sadly I cannot halt new registrations without harming other pools ( DOGE, VTC, DRK etc.)
I'm doing my best, trying to convince big LTC miners to diverse their hashrate.
My only fault is that I didn't believe Coinotron will get 50% of LTC network.
Now I'm working, not sleeping.

Give the guy some time to work.
I don't believe coinotron will do 51% attack to bring down litecoin.
BIG Miners move out.

[The Koolio]

just create a second pool for litecoin and split the hash rate.... stop being dicks

[coins101]

I mined Litecoin for some time last year. I stopped when the poll on changing the LTC PoW to avoid ASICs to stop centralisation was ignored.

I'm only here to ask a view.

Is this really down to ASICs coming onto the scene and jumping on to Coinotron?  What happens when the KnC Titans start being tested and issued, if they are first - really it doesn't make that much of a difference, the first big ASICs will causes problems.

Its not my problem any more, but I hope it gets sorted, there are a lot of good honest miners with a lot of money, equipment and time invested in LTC for it to put at risk in this way. The issue is not totally out of the blue.

I don't think Coinotron is to blame, more than likely the ASICs hitting the market.

Are ASICs to blame?

An increasing number of specialist scrypt ASICs have gone online in recent weeks, and their appearance has amplified the problem of centralisation on the network.

Most of these ASICs are operated by relatively large miners, the top five account for about 50 MH/s. This means the network is anything but decentralized, yet many of these big miners are not solo mining – they are in the Coinotron pool.

More ASIC miners are on the way, so it is also possible that a sudden influx of new ASICs distributed between alternative pools will help level the playing field.

http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-urged-leave-coinotron-51-threat/

[zccopwrx]

I mined Litecoin for some time last year. I stopped when the poll on changing the LTC PoW to avoid ASICs to stop centralisation was ignored.

I'm only here to ask a view.

Is this really down to ASICs coming onto the scene and jumping on to Coinotron?  What happens when the KnC Titans start being tested and issued, if they are first - really it .....

What makes you think this isn't ALL of the non-scam preorder ASIC manuf. like KNC?  I am pretty sure any ASIC company that claims shipping in the next 3 months, has been mining with their customers hardware for the PAST 2 months. Innosilicon/Gridseed did it, KNC has more capital, and probably has been doing it on a much larger scale for longer.

Coinotron is at fault for allowing the pool to grow too big..  This thing happens to ALL alt coins that end up being successful, and the pools (even the fly by night altcoin pools) have shown more responsibility than Coinotron has when their hashrate nearly 10x'd.  I run pools for over a year now, and on two occasions I had to stop registrations to avoid being over 40% of a (non ltc) coins network. It works, its simple, miners will go elsewhere.  Coinotron just didnt do it.

My 0.02 cents, not fact, just my thoughts:

If you think for a second these Chinese ASIC manuf. care about the health of a coins network, your sadly mistaken. They want money, by virtue of dumping coins, and taking real customer money for as long as they can.  

If you think that these miners chose coinotron, your also mistaken. Its very likely coinotron has a relationship with a person or persons of these companies and made accommodations (read: personal stratum servers, high diff stratum settings, etc) in order to support the increased hashrate, which also makes getting rid of them a personal issue (going back on his word, perhaps?).  

The bottom line is a responsible pool operator that cares about reputation and community of a coin like Litecoin, would have taken action when his pool hashrate doubled. When their hashrate trippled it should have been a BIG issue  (red flag).

What needs to happen is Coinotron needs to personally contact the miners in question, and even work with other pools and get them situated somewhere else in order to protect their reputation and the Litecoin network as a whole.


Someone a few posts back suggested opening two litecoin pools and spread the load: That doesnt help, that still leaves the control in that persons hands, the network distribution needs to be spread over individuals (pool operators), not just pools themselves.

[coins101]

I mined Litecoin for some time last year. I stopped when the poll on changing the LTC PoW to avoid ASICs to stop centralisation was ignored.

I'm only here to ask a view.

Is this really down to ASICs coming onto the scene and jumping on to Coinotron?  What happens when the KnC Titans start being tested and issued, if they are first - really it .....

What makes you think this isn't ALL of the non-scam preorder ASIC manuf. like KNC?  I am pretty sure any ASIC company that claims shipping in the next 3 months, has been mining with their customers hardware for the PAST 2 months. Innosilicon/Gridseed did it, KNC has more capital, and probably has been doing it on a much larger scale for longer.

Coinotron is at fault for allowing the pool to grow too big..  This thing happens to ALL alt coins that end up being successful, and the pools (even the fly by night altcoin pools) have shown more responsibility than Coinotron has when their hashrate nearly 10x'd.  I run pools for over a year now, and on two occasions I had to stop registrations to avoid being over 40% of a (non ltc) coins network. It works, its simple, miners will go elsewhere.  Coinotron just didnt do it.

My 0.02 cents, not fact, just my thoughts:

If you think for a second these Chinese ASIC manuf. care about the health of a coins network, your sadly mistaken. They want money, by virtue of dumping coins, and taking real customer money for as long as they can.  

If you think that these miners chose coinotron, your also mistaken. Its very likely coinotron has a relationship with a person or persons of these companies and made accommodations (read: personal stratum servers, high diff stratum settings, etc) in order to support the increased hashrate, which also makes getting rid of them a personal issue (going back on his word, perhaps?).  

The bottom line is a responsible pool operator that cares about reputation and community of a coin like Litecoin, would have taken action when his pool hashrate doubled. When their hashrate trippled it should have been a BIG issue  (red flag).

What needs to happen is Coinotron needs to personally contact the miners in question, and even work with other pools and get them situated somewhere else in order to protect their reputation and the Litecoin network as a whole.


Someone a few posts back suggested opening two litecoin pools and spread the load: That doesnt help, that still leaves the control in that persons hands, the network distribution needs to be spread over individuals (pool operators), not just pools themselves.

point taken. if you run pools, then few can argue with that.

[TheCoinFinder]

In response to the current coinotron situation, I have set up a "ASIC" friendly pool. at http://www.hashharder.com/scrypt/litecoin-asic

The share difficultiies are set to handle much higher amounts, so please do not mine here unless you have a high hashrate.

If I can get people to use this service, I will reduce the fees on the page.

Also, the site doesn't require registration - and it doesn't keep the coins. It pays out on block maturity direct to the miner's address.

Mining is as simple as pointing your miner at

Code:

stratum+tcp://www.hashharder.com:9910 -u <Litecoin Address> -p Anything

The stats and payouts are available on the website.

[WASPJoe]

I'm going just going to put it bluntly. It's not coinotron's fault for the near 51%
He's providing a service and is trying to do what he can. Being a jerk won't get things changed any more rapidly


I have seen coinotron support a number of alt coins, and while the whole 51% scenario seems scary, on smaller alts it happens all the time. While I'm not saying >50% of the network is a "good" thing, there are a lot worse pools for it to happen on. I have never seen coinotron intentionally try to hurt a network.

It is the responsibility of the miner to make sure that she/he is not on a pool nearing 50%, it's just common sense that is being thrown out the window. I truly think that ASIC's are to blame for this. ASIC mining hardware allows a smaller learning curve, higher hashpower, and for less money. This is causing a lot of newbies to start mining. Since most of these people who are mining now days have not been mining for a while, they do not understand the complexities of pool mining. Coinotron's enticing PPS and RBPPS systems are going to draw in a lot of people because there are very few PPS and RBPPS systems.

On smaller SHA alts, asic's have been an issue for a long time. A good block monitoring system can alert a miner when blocks are changing rapidly and alert when there are issues in the block chain.

With gpu mining profits going down, I bet a lot of people are trying to go back to litecoin as it is the most known "alt", and certainly the price of litecoin has stood the test of time.

Any way the dice roll, I still support you coinotron.

[zccopwrx]

I'm going just going to put it bluntly. It's not coinotron's fault for the near 51%
He's providing a service and is trying to do what he can. Being a jerk won't get things changed any more rapidly


I have seen coinotron support a number of alt coins, and while the whole 51% scenario seems scary, on smaller alts it happens all the time. While I'm not saying >50% of the network is a "good" thing, there are a lot worse pools for it to happen on. I have never seen coinotron intentionally try to hurt a network.

It is the responsibility of the miner to make sure that she/he is not on a pool nearing 50%, it's just common sense that is being thrown out the window. I truly think that ASIC's are to blame for this. ASIC mining hardware allows a smaller learning curve, higher hashpower, and for less money. This is causing a lot of newbies to start mining. Since most of these people who are mining now days have not been mining for a while, they do not understand the complexities of pool mining. Coinotron's enticing PPS and RBPPS systems are going to draw in a lot of people because there are very few PPS and RBPPS systems.

On smaller SHA alts, asic's have been an issue for a long time. A good block monitoring system can alert a miner when blocks are changing rapidly and alert when there are issues in the block chain.

With gpu mining profits going down, I bet a lot of people are trying to go back to litecoin as it is the most known "alt", and certainly the price of litecoin has stood the test of time.

Any way the dice roll, I still support you coinotron.

I never used Coinotron, and I think hes done well for himself and his miners, so I am not being a jerk (sorry if it came off that way), but anyone who thinks a pool operator couldn’t fix this before it became a problem is being ignorant.  Lets use the "Maximum Occupancy" sign you find in most establishments, as metaphor.  You walk into a place of business, it states 40 is the maximum occupancy on the wall. Its up to the owners of that establishment to enforce this otherwise deal with the repercussions, it is not up to the patroons (granted, they CAN help, but usually wont). A pool that supports a very important coin is no different, if the maximum safe occupancy is being breached, close the doors before something bad happens.

"Something bad happens".  This doesnt even have to mean Coinotrons owner is the one doing the harm.  Imagine a malicious hacker that wants to just destroy Litecoin, gains access to a large pools stratum servers and has their way with them. It has happened before to altcoins.  The pool could have zero bad intentions, and still aid in the destruction of Litecoin.

This again, isn't fact, but my 0.02 cents again.  Coinotron would be making "financial suicide" by not keeping his (minimally paying 1.5% fee) ASIC miners like this: http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/litecoin-mining-calculator/?h=1500000&p=1&pc=0.10&pf=0.00&d=7877.63390450&r=50.00000000&er=0.02168000&btcer=494.24000000&hc=0.00

So I understand the turmoil this causes a pool op, but at the same time, reputation is king.

[WASPJoe]

I'm going just going to put it bluntly. It's not coinotron's fault for the near 51%
He's providing a service and is trying to do what he can. Being a jerk won't get things changed any more rapidly


I have seen coinotron support a number of alt coins, and while the whole 51% scenario seems scary, on smaller alts it happens all the time. While I'm not saying >50% of the network is a "good" thing, there are a lot worse pools for it to happen on. I have never seen coinotron intentionally try to hurt a network.

It is the responsibility of the miner to make sure that she/he is not on a pool nearing 50%, it's just common sense that is being thrown out the window. I truly think that ASIC's are to blame for this. ASIC mining hardware allows a smaller learning curve, higher hashpower, and for less money. This is causing a lot of newbies to start mining. Since most of these people who are mining now days have not been mining for a while, they do not understand the complexities of pool mining. Coinotron's enticing PPS and RBPPS systems are going to draw in a lot of people because there are very few PPS and RBPPS systems.

On smaller SHA alts, asic's have been an issue for a long time. A good block monitoring system can alert a miner when blocks are changing rapidly and alert when there are issues in the block chain.

With gpu mining profits going down, I bet a lot of people are trying to go back to litecoin as it is the most known "alt", and certainly the price of litecoin has stood the test of time.

Any way the dice roll, I still support you coinotron.

I never used Coinotron, and I think hes done well for himself and his miners, so I am not being a jerk (sorry if it came off that way), but anyone who thinks a pool operator couldn’t fix this before it became a problem is being ignorant.  Lets use the "Maximum Occupancy" sign you find in most establishments, as metaphor.  You walk into a place of business, it states 40 is the maximum occupancy on the wall. Its up to the owners of that establishment to enforce this otherwise deal with the repercussions, it is not up to the patroons (granted, they CAN help, but usually wont). A pool that supports a very important coin is no different, if the maximum safe occupancy is being breached, close the doors before something bad happens.

"Something bad happens".  This doesnt even have to mean Coinotrons owner is the one doing the harm.  Imagine a malicious hacker that wants to just destroy Litecoin, gains access to a large pools stratum servers and has their way with them. It has happened before to altcoins.  The pool could have zero bad intentions, and still aid in the destruction of Litecoin.

This again, isn't fact, but my 0.02 cents again.  Coinotron would be making "financial suicide" by not keeping his (minimally paying 1.5% fee) ASIC miners like this: http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/litecoin-mining-calculator/?h=1500000&p=1&pc=0.10&pf=0.00&d=7877.63390450&r=50.00000000&er=0.02168000&btcer=494.24000000&hc=0.00

So I understand the turmoil this causes a pool op, but at the same time, reputation is king.

Okay glad i was mis-reading the post.

Anyway, yeah I do agree that a pool op can put a maximum number of allowed clents/hashrate. The issue there would be problems with random connects and disconnects. If a miner's disconnected after being connected, and another miner comes on. Then that first miner who was in the queued slot will not be able to connect. Service disruptions can do a lot of bad things for a pool as well.

I also think what you meant by very important is a coin with a large foot print, as there are other alts that some think are very important that are not. Correct? (Not accusingly, just wondering). Anyway, yes a pool running on a "major" coin should have somethings in place. I don't think that any other pool has a stop like that in it (at least none of the "big" pools I know of have a hard stop).

And agreed, a malicious attacker could get in to the system. But it can be gamed with much less power than 50% of the network. A malicious node only needs to find two blocks in a row for it to be possible to game the system. So any pool with a decent amount of hashing power could have that happen.  Anyway, I'm just playing devils advocate a bit here as I agree 100% with what you are saying now that I understand the POV you are coming from.

I guess the long short is that adding those types of systems in to place can cause issues. My pool had a filter on it for a long time that would block more than x% of the network, but sometimes on smaller alts you take what you can get.

As far as his profit is concerned, if his server bills are anything like mine are, he pays thousands a month of servers. If he takes 2% total fees from all blocks found, we are looking at a profit of approx $100-200 usd/day for running the pool. A bit of money, but maybe not as much as people think.

zccopwrx, it has been great being able to discuss this with you. If you'd like to continue, we should create a new thread (just posted a thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619539.new#new )

Anyway, to not derail this thread too much more: coinotron if you need help just let us know.

[coinotron]

Anyway, to not derail this thread too much more: coinotron if you need help just let us know.

Thanks, I will.

[zccopwrx]

Anyway, to not derail this thread too much more: coinotron if you need help just let us know.

Thanks, I will.

Shedded 20GH in a little over an hour Thanks for doing something Coinotron, wonder where this hashrate is going to show up now, still gotta keep it at bay if they select another single pool.


UPDATE Reverted and then some.

[ahmed_bodi]

For those of you who like cryptopools. We've opened one specially for this occasion

URL: ltc.cryptopools.com
Username: <Your LTC Address>
Password: anything

[Liquid71]

Why wouldn't these guys solo mine 

hey cointron, suck it

[TheMage]

Coinotron,


Thank you for mitigating the issue, I appreciate it.


Yse, same TheMage from LTC forums.

[coinotron]

Coinotron,


Thank you for mitigating the issue, I appreciate it.


Yse, same TheMage from LTC forums.

Hi

I never thought that I will have to negotiate with miners to transfer part of their hashrate to the other pools
Like I said it before. My goal is to be under 40% of LTC network.

[jimblasko]

Hey guys, there is a very simple solution to your issue, You need to break your pool up into three pools. Keep your users, just assign them to one of the three pools

[CryptsyJim]

Hey guys, there is a very simple solution to your issue, You need to break your pool up into three pools. Keep your users, just assign them to one of the three pools

Excellent Idea!