Fascinating what Michael Deletes [BTCguild 90% luck and dropping]

[RoadStress]

The reality is you can not conclusively say if the miner is or is not cheating in any of those three scenarios.

So are we back to square one?

It seems everyone is assuming there's a withholding attack going on?

M

Not really, but are we back assuming it's just bad luck? No other option? Have we ruled out everything?

[1715421773]

1715421773

[1715421773]

1715421773

[1715421773]

1715421773

[mdude77]

The reality is you can not conclusively say if the miner is or is not cheating in any of those three scenarios.

So are we back to square one?

It seems everyone is assuming there's a withholding attack going on?

M

Not really, but are we back assuming it's just bad luck? No other option? Have we ruled out everything?

I think the options are:

- withholding attack
- malicious op
- some other attack we don't know about
- ridiculous bad luck streak

Keep in mind Eligius is at 93% luck for 90 days as well.  But no one is complaining there.

M

[eleuthria]

I think the options are:

- withholding attack
- malicious op
- some other attack we don't know about
- ridiculous bad luck streak

Keep in mind Eligius is at 93% luck for 90 days as well.  But no one is complaining there.

M

At least a significant portion of the recent bad luck streak was already traced to a group of users that are developing their own ASICs, currently at ~1.8 PH/s.  They had previously mined on Eligius back in March and had solved blocks back then.  They moved to BTC Guild in early April, after difficulty crossed 4.2b.  They were not 1.8 PH/s at the start, they slowly grew over time.

We've since identified that their software was having problems at diff > uint32 maximum value (~4.2b).  They patched their software and went to Eligius to test the fix.  They solved a few blocks.  They had their accounts unfrozen on BTC Guild, and have since found a number of blocks in the last 24 hours for BTC Guild as well.

This being the Bitcoin community, most people are going to assume malice forever, even though these users got back to me immediately after their accounts were frozen when they could've easily proxied their miners and split them up more to make it impossible to trace.  They fixed the issue, and have since been reporting block solves as expected.

[ak49er]

Kinda sucky that they're using live pools as test beds, but I doubt there's much you can do about it.  Their error has cost us all.  C'est la vie.

[ak49er]

So what's the confidence level that this has been isolated and we're back to normal variance?  Are these miners going to be delivered to paying customers?  Or have they been already?  (i.e. is there a significant number of broken miners out in the wild.)  A 1.8 PH/s user is a lot easier to spot than 1.8PH/s sent out in 1TH/s units.

[-ck]

So what's the confidence level that this has been isolated and we're back to normal variance?  Are these miners going to be delivered to paying customers?  Or have they been already?  (i.e. is there a significant number of broken miners out in the wild.)  A 1.8 PH/s user is a lot easier to spot than 1.8PH/s sent out in 1TH/s units.

This is why customers should buy only miners where the software is free and they can audit and modify it. Already there are miners out there using binary forks of cgminer without distributing their code, and there are so many of them that I can't go chasing them (mostly out of China so far). But as per always, people do not buy on principle, just on cost, availability, potential profit etc. (which is understandable but a shame), and just look at how badly they even made those decisions (which still never ceases to amaze me).

[mdude77]

Kinda sucky that they're using live pools as test beds, but I doubt there's much you can do about it.  Their error has cost us all.  C'est la vie.

I fail to see how it cost us all?

If A == how many blocks would be solved without them
If B == how many blocks could have been solved with them

You ended up with a value > A, but less than A + B.  In other words, you did better with them, than without them.  But not as good as you could have if their software was working properly.

Right?

M

[ak49er]

Kinda sucky that they're using live pools as test beds, but I doubt there's much you can do about it.  Their error has cost us all.  C'est la vie.

I fail to see how it cost us all?

If A == how many blocks would be solved without them
If B == how many blocks could have been solved with them

You ended up with a value > A, but less than A + B.  In other words, you did better with them, than without them.  But not as good as you could have if their software was working properly.

Right?

M

Hmmmm.  Is this a trick question?  The way I look at it is that if they solo-mined with those miners they would have got nothing.  As it is they got value for their shares.

I think actually A=B in this case.  But A is now divided between the pool and them, so my share of A is less than it would have been.  At least that's my simplified view of things.  I'm happy to be shown how I might be wrong though.

Or put another way, they added nothing to the pool as it was impossible for them to solve a block, but they took payouts that would have been paid to other miners.

[ak49er]

But not as good as you could have if their software was working properly.

And coincidentally I think this is a very good way of saying that it cost us.  The difference between doing as well as we did and as well as we could have done is a direct cost.

[mdude77]

Kinda sucky that they're using live pools as test beds, but I doubt there's much you can do about it.  Their error has cost us all.  C'est la vie.

I fail to see how it cost us all?

If A == how many blocks would be solved without them
If B == how many blocks could have been solved with them

You ended up with a value > A, but less than A + B.  In other words, you did better with them, than without them.  But not as good as you could have if their software was working properly.

Right?

M

Hmmmm.  Is this a trick question?  The way I look at it is that if they solo-mined with those miners they would have got nothing.  As it is they got value for their shares.

I think actually A=B in this case.  But A is now divided between the pool and them, so my share of A is less than it would have been.  At least that's my simplified view of things.  I'm happy to be shown how I might be wrong though.

Or put another way, they added nothing to the pool as it was impossible for them to solve a block, but they took payouts that would have been paid to other miners.

I think I misunderstood.  If they weren't solving *any* blocks, then you are right, their shares made yours less valuable.

I read it as only certain types of blocks were failing.  I see now I read it wrong.  Nevermind!

M