Offline mining?

[the joint]

Is it possible to have an offline miner submit saved proof of work?

In other words, is it possible to have a miner attempt to solve blocks for a given period of time (say, 24 hours), store the hashes, and then submit all of the work to the network in bulk after the 24 hours? 

[1714932889]

1714932889

[1714932889]

1714932889

[1714932889]

1714932889

[Hawkix]

Generally, NO.

However, if your "miner" can generate about 144 new blocks per day (about 8 TH/sec now), you have a chance to succeed.

[the joint]

Generally, NO.

However, if your "miner" can generate about 144 new blocks per day (about 8 TH/sec now), you have a chance to succeed.

Really...

Could you please elaborate on how one would go about doing this, assuming they had access to that much hashing power?

[Hawkix]

If you own more than 51% of the total hashing power, you can "overvote" the results of other miners. Still you will need to connect sooner than after a day. It was not meant as serious tip .

The reason you need to be connected to the Internet all the time is that there is new block found each approx. 10 minutes and once it is found, your current search must be dumped and you start again on new one. Also, in the rare chance you would find a block yourself, you need to broadcast it as soon as possible, otherwise someone other may take your victory and announce its own block instead of yours.

[the joint]

If you own more than 51% of the total hashing power, you can "overvote" the results of other miners. Still you will need to connect sooner than after a day. It was not meant as serious tip .

The reason you need to be connected to the Internet all the time is that there is new block found each approx. 10 minutes and once it is found, your current search must be dumped and you start again on new one. Also, in the rare chance you would find a block yourself, you need to broadcast it as soon as possible, otherwise someone other may take your victory and announce its own block instead of yours.

Well, let's (hypothetically, of course) say that you had access to around 2 t/hash.

Why do the results need to be dumped?  Why can't they be stored and submitted all at once such that you might get like 10 blocks back to back?

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

[Hawkix]

It can be dumped, but your chain must be longer than that already mined outside of your miners. With 2TH/sec the chances are very low you will prepare longer chain.

[P4man]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

[sadpandatech]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers the orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

[the joint]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

[grue]

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

forking is not exactly good for the network, because all the transactions in the past n blocks are now effectively reversed

[plastic.elastic]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

Noob, hows your basement operation going?

[the joint]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

Noob, hows your basement operation going?

Not bad.  How is it running around the evolutionary cul-de-sac?

And in response to SadPandaTech, minimizing net exposure, yes.

[plastic.elastic]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

Noob, hows your basement operation going?

Not bad.  How is it running around the evolutionary cul-de-sac?

And in response to SadPandaTech, minimizing net exposure, yes.

A true dumbass would never know why ppl call them a dumbass. You're a perfect example of that saying.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

If you can't connect the computing power to the internet (or some other method of updating the miners) it is useless for mining.  

Remember you need to be solving the next block.  Every 10 minutes "somebody' solves a block.   When that happens your data is stale and if you find a block it is useless as you are solving the wrong block.  A farm which could only connect to the internet once every minute would be horrible inefficient (stales) but would work.   On average you would lose 10% of your hashing power because the data has gone stale and you won't know it until the next update.  Still 2TH * 0.9 = 1.8TH effective.

Longer periods of time between updates will quickly make it impossible to work on the same blockchain as everyone else. Your only hope would be to build a longer chain in private and publish it all at once.  The problem is that for any extended period of time the odds you will have a longer chain is negligible.

As an example, say you have 25% of network capacity and decide to mine privately for x blocks and then publish them all at once if it is longer than the main chain.  

If x = 1 (connect to internet and publish block chain after finding one block) then you have a 25% chance of having longest chain.
If x = 2 (publish after finding two back to back blocks) then you have only a 0.25^2 = 6.25% chance.
If x = 3 0.25^3 = 1.56%
..
If x =6 0.25^6 = 0.02% (1 in 4096 chance).  Even 6 blocks is only on average 4 hours for a 2TH subnet.

So connecting to the network once every 6 blocks and checking to see if you are ahead would earn you (6 * 50 ) / 4096 = 0.08 BTC and it would take 4 hours.  Note you wouldn't earn 0.08 BTC each time.   You would earn 300 BTC 1/4096th of the time and 0 BTC 4095/4096th of the time.  On average despite having 2 TH you would only earn about 0.5 BTC per day (roughly the same as a 500 MH rig which is continually updated).

Now hypothetically if you have some constraint that you could RECEIVE data but only TRANSMIT every couple hours you could operate w/ full efficiency.  Variance would be astronomical (magnitudes higher than normal solo mining) but you could
1) send any block chain updates to the farm
2) if farm is more than 1 block behind it abandons the chain
4) if farm is ahead by 1 or more blocks and time greater than transmit threshold it transmits.

Since you are winning or losing multiple blocks per batch you are going to face very high variance but your expected return (EV) will be the same.

[jjiimm_64]

helluva nice explanation .  I think I may have understood that

[the joint]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

Noob, hows your basement operation going?

Not bad.  How is it running around the evolutionary cul-de-sac?

And in response to SadPandaTech, minimizing net exposure, yes.

A true dumbass would never know why ppl call them a dumbass. You're a perfect example of that saying.

Well, statistically, you have about a .5% chance of being more intelligent than I according to 'g.' 

Do you know what projection is?

[the joint]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

If you can't connect the computing power to the internet (or some other method of updating the miners) it is useless for mining.  

Remember you need to be solving the next block.  Every 10 minutes "somebody' solves a block.   When that happens your data is stale and if you find a block it is useless as you are solving the wrong block.  A farm which could only connect to the internet once every minute would be horrible inefficient (stales) but would work.   On average you would lose 10% of your hashing power because the data has gone stale and you won't know it until the next update.  Still 2TH * 0.9 = 1.8TH effective.

Longer periods of time between updates will quickly make it impossible to work on the same blockchain as everyone else. Your only hope would be to build a longer chain in private and publish it all at once.  The problem is that for any extended period of time the odds you will have a longer chain is negligible.

As an example, say you have 25% of network capacity and decide to mine privately for x blocks and then publish them all at once if it is longer than the main chain.  

If x = 1 (connect to internet and publish block chain after finding one block) then you have a 25% chance of having longest chain.
If x = 2 (publish after finding two back to back blocks) then you have only a 0.25^2 = 6.25% chance.
If x = 3 0.25^3 = 1.56%
..
If x =6 0.25^6 = 0.02% (1 in 4096 chance).  Even 6 blocks is only on average 4 hours for a 2TH subnet.

So connecting to the network once every 6 blocks and checking to see if you are ahead would earn you (6 * 50 ) / 4096 = 0.08 BTC and it would take 4 hours.  Note you wouldn't earn 0.08 BTC each time.   You would earn 300 BTC 1/4096th of the time and 0 BTC 4095/4096th of the time.  On average despite having 2 TH you would only earn about 0.5 BTC per day (roughly the same as a 500 MH rig which is continually updated).

Now hypothetically if you have some constraint that you could RECEIVE data but only TRANSMIT every couple hours you could operate w/ full efficiency.  Variance would be astronomical (magnitudes higher than normal solo mining) but you could
1) send any block chain updates to the farm
2) if farm is more than 1 block behind it abandons the chain
4) if farm is ahead by 1 or more blocks and time greater than transmit threshold it transmits.

Since you are winning or losing multiple blocks per batch you are going to face very high variance but your expected return (EV) will be the same.

Thank you for this!

[TeaL]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

[plastic.elastic]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

Do you really need to ask?

Look up the fucker's thread history, you will see his thread about "free" electricity

I'm not suprised, he got another "free" computational power some where....

[the joint]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

Do you really need to ask?

Look up the fucker's thread history, you will see his thread about "free" electricity

I'm not suprised, he got another "free" computational power some where....

Yeah.  Because, you know, I really want to attempt to squeeze out 2 T/hash using the free electricity I get from renting a room of a house that was built in the 1950's.

Got to 1 T/hash before my clothes started to melt into my skin.

[sadpandatech]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

Do you really need to ask?

Look up the fucker's thread history, you will see his thread about "free" electricity

I'm not suprised, he got another "free" computational power some where....

Yeah.  Because, you know, I really want to attempt to squeeze out 2 T/hash using the free electricity I get from renting a room of a house that was built in the 1950's.

Got to 1 T/hash before my clothes started to melt into my skin.

 

tl;dr solution; set in place 1 computer running a bitcoind daemon in VM. On same computer a server running pool server on a LAN IP that is capable of pointing to daemon on dif IP. The VM will have it's own net access via cell phone usb, etc. So isolated from the hashing network.  Simply point your hashers at the LAN pool. viola, they are isolated from the net and you are left with only a VM bitcoind communicating out.

[the joint]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

Do you really need to ask?

Look up the fucker's thread history, you will see his thread about "free" electricity

I'm not suprised, he got another "free" computational power some where....

Yeah.  Because, you know, I really want to attempt to squeeze out 2 T/hash using the free electricity I get from renting a room of a house that was built in the 1950's.

Got to 1 T/hash before my clothes started to melt into my skin.

 

tl;dr solution; set in place 1 computer running a bitcoind daemon in VM. On same computer a server running pool server on a LAN IP that is capable of pointing to daemon on dif IP. The VM will have it's own net access via cell phone usb, etc. So isolated from the hashing network.  Simply point your hashers at the LAN pool. viola, they are isolated from the net and you are left with only a VM bitcoind communicating out.

This is beautiful.   

I quite like the possibility of solving around 30 blocks per day.

[sadpandatech]

Make sure your custom server rig has 2 network adaptors in it. As you will need one to bind to the VM and one for the server. It may even be ideal to run 3 net adapters and 2 pools to try and split some of that hash up. Depending on resource usage and handling. I am not real sure just how resource intensive poolserverj, for example, can be with so much processing going on.  And you will surely stress the net adapters with all of the getworks.  Might even have to go, 2 bitcoind's, 2-4 pools , with appropriate number of network cards. atleast those are cheap. ;p
If I think of anything else I will add it. ;p

cheers

[DeathAndTaxes]

Make sure your custom server rig has 2 network adaptors in it. As you will need one to bind to the VM and one for the server. It may even be ideal to run 3 net adapters and 2 pools to try and split some of that hash up. Depending on resource usage and handling. I am not real sure just how resource intensive poolserverj, for example, can be with so much processing going on.  And you will surely stress the net adapters with all of the getworks.  Might even have to go, 2 bitcoind's, 2-4 pools , with appropriate number of network cards. atleast those are cheap. ;p
If I think of anything else I will add it. ;p

cheers

If you needed to you could run a custom version of pool server designed to reduce LAN communication.  You could send one getwork to each machine w/ a 10 minute n-time-rolling.  Each local miner would hash the same block header and simply increment the time locally.  The pool server would simply issue a LP on each block change.  Using a larger difficulty for shares (since you don't care about share variance) could reduce the number of shares submitted by 90% or more. 

All together intra-LAN communication could be cut by at least 90%.  More is possible but the higher variance would prevent shares from being useful for monitoring on pool server.

[sadpandatech]

Make sure your custom server rig has 2 network adaptors in it. As you will need one to bind to the VM and one for the server. It may even be ideal to run 3 net adapters and 2 pools to try and split some of that hash up. Depending on resource usage and handling. I am not real sure just how resource intensive poolserverj, for example, can be with so much processing going on.  And you will surely stress the net adapters with all of the getworks.  Might even have to go, 2 bitcoind's, 2-4 pools , with appropriate number of network cards. atleast those are cheap. ;p
If I think of anything else I will add it. ;p

cheers

If you needed to you could run a custom version of pool server designed to reduce LAN communication.  You could send one getwork to each machine w/ a 10 minute n-time-rolling.  Each local miner would hash the same block header and simply increment the time locally.  The pool server would simply issue a LP on each block change.  Using a larger difficulty for shares (since you don't care about share variance) could reduce the number of shares submitted by 90% or more. 

All together intra-LAN communication could be cut by at least 90%.  More is possible but the higher variance would prevent shares from being useful for monitoring on pool server.

excellent points as always from you! =)  I do recall seeing some talk of such a feature in the mining software section. Do you recall if such a feature was already implemented into one of the pool server softwares?  *goes off to try and hunt it down*

cheers

[the joint]

Thank you both DeathAndTexas and sadpandatech.  If you think of anything more, I really would appreciate it.  On the off chance that what I'm thinking of might actually come to fruition, both of you will be compensated heftily.

[DeathAndTaxes]

excellent points as always from you! =)  I do recall seeing some talk of such a feature in the mining software section. Do you recall if such a feature was already implemented into one of the pool server softwares?  *goes off to try and hunt it down*

IIRC PoolServerJ supports custom difficulty (difficulty >1 ) not sure if there is any upper limit.  PoolServerJ also support n-time-rolling but not sure if there is a max limit.  If anything the changes would be small.  To minimize LAN communication you would want to ensure PoolServerJ doesn't send updated work when new transactions are added and merkle tree changes. 

Essentially you would want
a) large difficulty (the difficulty reduces the amount of share traffic submitted).  2TH combined would find 456 shares per second.  A difficulty of 100 would make that ~5 shares found per second.

b) long n-time-rolling.  Not sure if there is a max limit or any bugs that would happen from  10 minut n-time-rolling period.  Likely just needs to be tested.

c) Ensure PoolServerJ only sends LP when block is detected on network.  Just need to check to make sure there are no "keep alive" code, updates for transaction pool changes, and "idle miner" detection code.

[plastic.elastic]

Was no-one else curious about how he would have access to 2 TH?

Do you really need to ask?

Look up the fucker's thread history, you will see his thread about "free" electricity

I'm not suprised, he got another "free" computational power some where....

Yeah.  Because, you know, I really want to attempt to squeeze out 2 T/hash using the free electricity I get from renting a room of a house that was built in the 1950's.

Got to 1 T/hash before my clothes started to melt into my skin.

Where did you see me saying you have access to 2TH in your basement? Did god forget to put a brain in your skull? or is it your parents?

Its the definition of "free" that you dont understand. Loser

[sadpandatech]

aye, Poolservj has work caching, etc. Without using it I am guessing. But it appears it can be set to only send new works on block changes. It also forms the getwork request localy, freeing up resource use on the bitcoind itself.

for C it does have idle detection but I believe it is capable of being on or off.

Best way to find out is get a box setup with VM and run bitcoind/PSJ and break out the ol ethereal on it. Slap as many mining instances as you can pointing at it. You can run multiple miners on one GPU for example to help simulate multiple connections. Get a few hours run and observe your packet counts and system loads and multiply it up.



*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

[the joint]

DeathandTexas and Sadpandatech - I admit I have some research and consulting with others to do to understand the importance of your advice.  I need to construct a working model in my head of exactly what this will entail.  Thanks for the help!

Plastic.Elastic - What do you do to relax?  Electricity is "free" as defined by my lease.  I don't need your definition.

[plastic.elastic]

DeathandTexas and Sadpandatech - I admit I have some research and consulting with others to do to understand the importance of your advice.  I need to construct a working model in my head of exactly what this will entail.  Thanks for the help!

Plastic.Elastic - What do you do to relax?  Electricity is "free" as defined by my lease.  I don't need your definition.

Is this 2TH/s computing also "free" in... -i dont know- your tuition fee?

Not only you're stupid, you're lack of morals .... a great combo of failure

[plastic.elastic]

aye, Poolservj has work caching, etc. Without using it I am guessing. But it appears it can be set to only send new works on block changes. It also forms the getwork request localy, freeing up resource use on the bitcoind itself.

for C it does have idle detection but I believe it is capable of being on or off.

Best way to find out is get a box setup with VM and run bitcoind/PSJ and break out the ol ethereal on it. Slap as many mining instances as you can pointing at it. You can run multiple miners on one GPU for example to help simulate multiple connections. Get a few hours run and observe your packet counts and system loads and multiply it up.



*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

[the joint]

aye, Poolservj has work caching, etc. Without using it I am guessing. But it appears it can be set to only send new works on block changes. It also forms the getwork request localy, freeing up resource use on the bitcoind itself.

for C it does have idle detection but I believe it is capable of being on or off.

Best way to find out is get a box setup with VM and run bitcoind/PSJ and break out the ol ethereal on it. Slap as many mining instances as you can pointing at it. You can run multiple miners on one GPU for example to help simulate multiple connections. Get a few hours run and observe your packet counts and system loads and multiply it up.



*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

Stop fabricating things when it's obvious that you have absolutely no clue as to what I'm planning.

You should watch your language and your accusations of me 'stealing.'   I don't steal anything. 

[sadpandatech]

*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

Although I have not devoted a whole lot of thought to 'how is this person accessing 2TH worth of computing power', it seems atleast somewhat 'legit'. I would sure hope he is not stealing anything. Some basic things that lead me to believe it are that he will need physical access for any of my suggestions. His concern of limiting the Internet exposure of the machines is more in line with needing to be able to ensure the security of them more so than to 'hide'. I mean, any network admin on the planet would notice the usage...

If he must ask, he may not be ready for such a project but 'being caught' implies doing something wrong to begin with. Otherwise such an ambitous project is good in excercise to learn from if nothing else.

Whether you are just being antagonistic with implying I am being helpful to show my intelligence, I do not know. But my IQ is really quite low as far as I can tell.

And if it is real, then in the grand scheme of things another ~2TH only goes to further strengthen the network as a whole. That being my main motivator beyond just being helpful, if only mildly helpful.

cheers

[the joint]

DeathandTexas and Sadpandatech - I admit I have some research and consulting with others to do to understand the importance of your advice.  I need to construct a working model in my head of exactly what this will entail.  Thanks for the help!

Plastic.Elastic - What do you do to relax?  Electricity is "free" as defined by my lease.  I don't need your definition.

Is this 2TH/s computing also "free" in... -i dont know- your tuition fee?

Not only you're stupid, you're lack of morals .... a great combo of failure

I never said the 2 TH/s is free.  But it's cheap enough that I could stand to make a few grand every day.  Me gaining access to these 2 TH/s would mean a priori approval by the entity[ies] controlling the 2 TH/s.

And, I believe the two fine gentlemen helping me may have identified some ways that will allow me to have my request approved.

It's called being sociable, forming good relationships, and establishing connections.  Try it sometime.  Like I said, if this eventually works, I will handsomely reward both of them for their help.  No guarantees it will, though.

[the joint]

*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

Although I have not devoted a whole lot of thought to 'how is this person accessing 2TH worth of computing power', it seems atleast somewhat 'legit'. I would sure hope he is not stealing anything. Some basic things that lead me to believe it are that he will need physical access for any of my suggestions. His concern of limiting the Internet exposure of the machines is more in line with needing to be able to ensure the security of them more so than to 'hide'. I mean, any network admin on the planet would notice the usage...

If he must ask, he may not be ready for such a project but 'being caught' implies doing something wrong to begin with. Otherwise such an ambitous project is good in excercise to learn from if nothing else.

Whether you are just being antagonistic with implying I am being helpful to show my intelligence, I do not know. But my IQ is really quite low as far as I can tell.

And if it is real, then in the grand scheme of things another ~2TH only goes to further strengthen the network as a whole. That being my main motivator beyond just being helpful, if only mildly helpful.

cheers

Your assumption about ensuring the security of the machines is correct.  You could say I'm trying to hide the machines from others who might wish to steal.

And yes, I hope to learn a lot from this whether I succeed or fail.

[kjj]

*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

Although I have not devoted a whole lot of thought to 'how is this person accessing 2TH worth of computing power', it seems atleast somewhat 'legit'. I would sure hope he is not stealing anything. Some basic things that lead me to believe it are that he will need physical access for any of my suggestions. His concern of limiting the Internet exposure of the machines is more in line with needing to be able to ensure the security of them more so than to 'hide'. I mean, any network admin on the planet would notice the usage...

If he must ask, he may not be ready for such a project but 'being caught' implies doing something wrong to begin with. Otherwise such an ambitous project is good in excercise to learn from if nothing else.

Whether you are just being antagonistic with implying I am being helpful to show my intelligence, I do not know. But my IQ is really quite low as far as I can tell.

And if it is real, then in the grand scheme of things another ~2TH only goes to further strengthen the network as a whole. That being my main motivator beyond just being helpful, if only mildly helpful.

cheers

Your assumption about ensuring the security of the machines is correct.  You could say I'm trying to hide the machines from others who might wish to steal.

And yes, I hope to learn a lot from this whether I succeed or fail.

Interesting.  Going to watch this thread.

By my estimation, 2 THash/sec is about 5000 moderately high end GPUs, or several times that number of GPUs if they are the sort that normally end up in supercomputers, and needs a large fraction of a megawatt of power (at least).  It is also larger than most pools.

[the joint]

*takes his rabbies shot and offers Plastic.Elastic a hug*

Helping him to steal isnt exactly how you should show your intelligence. If he must ask these questions he sure doesnt know jack and will be caught easily.

Although I have not devoted a whole lot of thought to 'how is this person accessing 2TH worth of computing power', it seems atleast somewhat 'legit'. I would sure hope he is not stealing anything. Some basic things that lead me to believe it are that he will need physical access for any of my suggestions. His concern of limiting the Internet exposure of the machines is more in line with needing to be able to ensure the security of them more so than to 'hide'. I mean, any network admin on the planet would notice the usage...

If he must ask, he may not be ready for such a project but 'being caught' implies doing something wrong to begin with. Otherwise such an ambitous project is good in excercise to learn from if nothing else.

Whether you are just being antagonistic with implying I am being helpful to show my intelligence, I do not know. But my IQ is really quite low as far as I can tell.

And if it is real, then in the grand scheme of things another ~2TH only goes to further strengthen the network as a whole. That being my main motivator beyond just being helpful, if only mildly helpful.

cheers

Your assumption about ensuring the security of the machines is correct.  You could say I'm trying to hide the machines from others who might wish to steal.

And yes, I hope to learn a lot from this whether I succeed or fail.

Interesting.  Going to watch this thread.

By my estimation, 2 THash/sec is about 5000 moderately high end GPUs, or several times that number of GPUs if they are the sort that normally end up in supercomputers, and needs a large fraction of a megawatt of power (at least).  It is also larger than most pools.

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

[P4man]

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig.

Okay slight exaggeration perhaps, but not much; the top 250 supercomputer uses 12K xeon cores, which would roughly produce 12GH/s. Thats still only as good as ~6 good mining rigs.

[the joint]

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.

[SgtSpike]

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.

Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.

[the joint]

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.

Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.

No prob.  I should be meeting with some colleagues to discuss everything this weekend.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.

Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.

Exactly.  Outside of Bitcoin nothing needs to perform trillions of hashes per second.

1 GH = 2 billion hashes per second (Bitcoin is a double hash).  

Say you have a login server w/ passwords hashed as SHA-256.  Now everyone on the planet needs to login and they might all login at the same exact second.  Assuming you had fast enough disks, network, memory, etc you would "only" need roughly 4 GH to allow global simultaneous login of every human living (including those without computers or electricity "just in case").

That's just 4 GH.  Terra hash would be 250 times that.

I won't do the math but the same terra-scale factors apply to VPN/IPsec, digital signatures, document analysis, data sorting, deduplication, and other applications for hashing functions.

[gat3way]

Exactly.  Outside of Bitcoin nothing needs to perform trillions of hashes per second.

Password recovery and SL3 unlocking for sure does. Actually I would not be surprised if overall more computing resources are thrown at SL3 rather than bitcoin. It's more profitable overall.

[rjk]

I can haz botnet? 

[shads]

bitcoin network
  \|/
my bitcoind w/ static ip x.x.x.x <-- addnode=y.y.y.y
   |
(the internet)
   |
firewall <-- allow x.x.x.x:8333-y.y.y.y:8333 (bitcoin binary protocol)
   |
bitcoind w/ static ip y.y.y.y <-- connect x.x.x.x:8333 (only one outbound connection)
   |
firewall <-- allow z.z.z.z:8332-y.y.y.y:8332 (bitcoin rpc protocol)
   |
(my internal network)
   |
poolserver w/ static ip z.z.z.z
 /|\
mystery hash monsters

[sadpandatech]

bitcoin network
  \|/
my bitcoind w/ static ip x.x.x.x <-- addnode=y.y.y.y
   |
(the internet)
   |
firewall <-- allow x.x.x.x:8333-y.y.y.y:8333 (bitcoin binary protocol)
   |
bitcoind w/ static ip y.y.y.y <-- connect x.x.x.x:8333 (only one outbound connection)
   |
firewall <-- allow z.z.z.z:8332-y.y.y.y:8332 (bitcoin rpc protocol)
   |
(my internal network)
   |
poolserver w/ static ip z.z.z.z
 /|\
mystery hash monsters

Thats exactly what I envision.  Am hoping he will update soon with having the server pc he is going to use for this so we can move on form there with tweaking it out.

[plastic.elastic]

What a load of crap
And its amazing some of you guys actually believe he has a legitimate access to such computational power.

Op, you really think you can feed me with BS? read your last fcking thread about stealing then tell me you're doing a right thing this time.

When a guy got no fcking clue of what hes doing, its easy to catch his lies/bs.

[sadpandatech]

What a load of crap
And its amazing some of you guys actually believe

Is there a need to believe anything when we're discussing a theoretical idea in the first place?

If nothing else, I desire to have a convo about this type of layout because I would also have interest in utilizing such a configuration for the security of my future mining ops.



P.S. Would you like a hug?

[rjk]

I think it is entirely possible that the government MAFIAA Iran rich folks of this world might have access to SHA256 cracking monsters, and that the market for such devices is only just starting to be realized. Such a device could be re-purposed (with a little work) to mine coins when it isn't being used for cracking passwords legit purposes.

[rjk]

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?

Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

I'd be interested in whatever came of this... MysteryMiner?