Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 01:01:51 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 256 »
  Print  
Author Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer  (Read 387430 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 08:24:39 PM
 #2281

Problem is that it's very difficult to find the hashing algorithm that would be really ASIC resistant, not to mention GPU. For instance, Primecoin which included large integer algorithms that should be difficult for GPUs was soon transferred to GPU mining. All scrypt algos are prone to GPU mining. I tried to find some hashing algorithms that would favor RISC processors, since they dominate modern smartphones, but I've failed to find any. If anybody has some info about such algos it would be very nice to share that info here.

I find it hard to believe that any form of PoW mining (regardless of algorithm) on a smartphone would ever be popular given battery life considerations.

I don't understand why people try to make coins ASIC resistant. Nothing is ASIC resistant.


You mean nothing is ASIC proof right? Things can be ASIC resistant.
1711630911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711630911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711630911
Reply with quote  #2

1711630911
Report to moderator
1711630911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711630911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711630911
Reply with quote  #2

1711630911
Report to moderator
1711630911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711630911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711630911
Reply with quote  #2

1711630911
Report to moderator
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711630911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711630911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711630911
Reply with quote  #2

1711630911
Report to moderator
elebit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 441
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 09:07:41 PM
 #2282

I don't understand why people try to make coins ASIC resistant. Nothing is ASIC resistant.

I don't understand why anyone would want something ASIC resistant as PoW. Heeello botnets... Specialized hardware for mining actually makes sense. It also levels the playing field against three letter agencies who might otherwise have access to equipment regular people doesn't have.
fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060


GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2014, 09:10:42 PM
 #2283

I don't understand why people try to make coins ASIC resistant. Nothing is ASIC resistant.

I don't understand why anyone would want something ASIC resistant as PoW. Heeello botnets... Specialized hardware for mining actually makes sense. It also levels the playing field against three letter agencies who might otherwise have access to equipment regular people doesn't have.

That's exactly what I alluded to earlier in this thread - here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg7986694#msg7986694

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:18:34 PM
 #2284

Problem is that it's very difficult to find the hashing algorithm that would be really ASIC resistant, not to mention GPU. For instance, Primecoin which included large integer algorithms that should be difficult for GPUs was soon transferred to GPU mining. All scrypt algos are prone to GPU mining. I tried to find some hashing algorithms that would favor RISC processors, since they dominate modern smartphones, but I've failed to find any. If anybody has some info about such algos it would be very nice to share that info here.

I find it hard to believe that any form of PoW mining (regardless of algorithm) on a smartphone would ever be popular given battery life considerations.

Why do you think so? My smartphone is on charger almost every night, regularly, and I would be very happy if it would do something useful instead of waiting for the alarm clock to fire up. It's trivial to set preference in any application to work only when the phone is on charger.

Just read the John Tromp's paper and I believe he is on the right track with memory-swapping constrained algorithms. Probably there's a need to examine some algorithms that prefer the RISC based instruction pipeline, and try to incorporate them somehow with Cuckoo Cycle hashing. Idea is to further bias the smartphones since they have less memory and slower processors than desktops, and are almost without exception RISC based. Such combination would be a winner.

John and I discussed the technical detail and it seems as the number of simple cores increases his algorithm would be favored, but still not surely ASICs resistant. But we agreed it needed to be tested on more cores. Someone needs to buy that guy a Tilera64 so he can do more testing.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:45:11 PM
Last edit: July 25, 2014, 12:14:37 AM by AnonyMint
 #2285

It also levels the playing field against three letter agencies who might otherwise have access to equipment regular people doesn't have.

Incorrect. Could have the opposite effect, unless the ASICs are ubiquitous, i.e. on every motherboard as I suggested might be the case for example if everyone is using AES encryption.

I don't understand why anyone would want something ASIC resistant as PoW. Heeello botnets.

Botnets are only a significant concern while the mining usage is small.

And that applies whether your Pow is designed to be ASIC resistant or not. However it perhaps does beg for making the GPU at roughly power efficiency parity to the CPU.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 12:04:17 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2014, 12:33:03 AM by AnonyMint
 #2286

I don't understand why people try to make coins ASIC resistant. Nothing is ASIC resistant.


You mean nothing is ASIC proof right? Things can be ASIC resistant.

Astute. I designed a highly ASIC-resistent proof-of-work that is conceptually similar to Monero's (designed late 2013 so perhaps before them), and my design is apparently 100 - 1000x faster than Monero's and doesn't suffer from what I believe to be cryptographic error in the way Monero employed the AES-NI instructions.

The slow speed of Monero's (all Cryptonote coins') Pow hash is a serious problem. Perhaps it is mitigated by other factors, but I still think it could end up being a significant hindrance at some point in some way.

I would be willing to open source the work I did, if someone offered to pay me for the work I did on it. There is pseudo-code and a whitepaper which explains in great detail the relationship of the algorithm to the original Scrypt. As well I wrote some test code in Javascript to test some its properties (not speed of course). Much of it, some people already have thought about. But there are probably a few insights or organization that clarifies matters.

Also, it employs a 4096-bit (512B) hash that is similar to the Salsa that Scrypt uses which employs AVX2 to be very fast (which I believe might also make it GPU resistant but I didn't test this), and this is what makes mine so much faster. I did write down the assembly language for this hash.

This AVX2 would defeat botnets almost entirely (near-term which is when it is important concern any way), because AVX2 doesn't work on pre-Haswell nor on earlier versions of operating systems.

I think open sourcing this would help Monero look at their options for improving their hash.

But do note that neither Monero nor my hash will be ASIC proof. Given enough monetary incentive it can be made more efficient on an ASIC.

And I've argued that a complex Pow algorithm that can eventually be made more efficient on an ASIC is actually an inferior strategy (long-term) than one that tries to get ASICs to be ubiquitous as early as possible. The reason being that less vendors may be able to produce this very complex ASIC and lockup the market. However, Monero could use such a complex algorithm for the medium-term if they were sure they could change as necessary.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 12:57:13 AM
 #2287

1. A programmable blockchain has 100s more applications than Bitcoin alone. This could be what is required to increase adoption by 10 or 100 fold.

If all goes well and the team will deliver, how long does it take before there are 100s of useful apps running on ethereum? And that there are people actually using those apps? Probably takes a while after the launch before there are anything useful, and the miners start mining and selling, and there are huge amounts of people with loads of presale ether. And, if bitcoin skyrockets to 5x-10x people are wanting to sell ether for fiat.

If I knew the answers to those questions, it would be easy to decide between buying from presale or markets after the release. Smiley

Also someone else might beat them to it and actually solve the problem with isolating viruses that they have apparently not yet solved.

I think waiting to buy when there is a market price is much wiser on a risk vs. reward calculation. Your money would be entirely illiquid interim, while the landscape may change.

I also don't have perfect vision on all the outcomes, but I also have a somewhat insider position in the sense that I am competing and analyzing all the technologies.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 01:26:44 AM
 #2288

Botnets are only a significant concern while the mining usage is small.

And that applies whether your Pow is designed to be ASIC resistant or not. However it perhaps does beg for making the GPU at roughly power efficiency parity to the CPU.

As you mention in your subsequent post, algorithms that make use of recent CPU and OS features are likely to hinder botnets to a significant degree. This is already the case with Cryptonight. Older botnet computers are less likely to have AES-NI, more likely to be 32 bit, and more likely to have older, slower CPUs with fewer cores and/or less cache. Together these reduce the effectiveness of a botnet computer relative to an efficient CPU or GPU miner by perhaps a factor of 10. Exotic botnets (routers, etc.) will fair much worse.

Currently the Monero network consists of the hash rate equivalent of very roughly 100K modern desktop computers (64-bit, AES-NI, 8 MB cache) or mid range mining rig GPUs (750 Ti, etc.). For a botnet to 51% attack that would require roughly 1M of these more-likely-to-be-botted computers. That is certainly possible, but it is a obstacle. How many botnets are 1M+?

Smaller botnets that decide to honestly mine instead of attack increase the hash rate and help secure the network against attacks. They are a problem for the computer owner, but they help secure the coin just like any other miner. The more of these there are, the harder it is to ever attack the coin, even with a botnet. How many smaller botnets are there compared to 1M+ bot ones?



AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 01:49:46 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2014, 02:11:17 AM by AnonyMint
 #2289

Botnets are only a significant concern while the mining usage is small.

And that applies whether your Pow is designed to be ASIC resistant or not. However it perhaps does beg for making the GPU at roughly power efficiency parity to the CPU.

As you mention in your subsequent post, algorithms that make use of recent CPU and OS features are likely to hinder botnets to a significant degree. This is already the case with Cryptonight. Older botnet computers are less likely to have AES-NI, more likely to be 32 bit, and more likely to have older, slower CPUs with fewer cores and/or less cache.

Together these reduce the effectiveness of a botnet computer relative to an efficient CPU or GPU miner by perhaps a factor of 10. Exotic botnets (routers, etc.) will fair much worse.

A footnote[3] from my L3crypt whitepaper provides data that might say you are incorrect on your appraisal of the average computer out there for botnets.

[3] http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/05/19/i-run-a-small-botnet-and-sell-stolen-information-ask-me-anything/

Quote
“Asian installs are very cheap, $15 per 1000 installs and have good GPUs,”

http://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1e03tn/iama_steam_market_bot_writer_who_recently_got/

Quote
I kept my bots running as fast as possible by locating it as close to Valve HQ to minimise ping

Valve is steampowered.

So rich boy asians who spend a lot on gaming machines might be significant source of botnets capable of attacking Monero in its current form, because AES-NI has been around several generations of CPUs (Intel and AMD) since 2010ish. Whereas, AVX2 is new in Haswell and also operating system support is new.

The doubling (Claymore said "1.5 - 2.0") of performance for 64-bit on Monero isn't enough by itself to mitigate botnets running at 32-bit.

Currently the Monero network consists of the hash rate equivalent of very roughly 100K modern desktop computers (64-bit, AES-NI, 8 MB cache) or mid range mining rig GPUs (750 Ti, etc.). For a botnet to 51% attack that would require roughly 1M of these more-likely-to-be-botted computers. That is certainly possible, but it is a obstacle. How many botnets are 1M+?

Agreed the 50+% attack becomes more improbable as mining usage increases. But don't forget Meni Rosenfeld's white paper, you don't actually need 50% to achieve an n confirmation attack with some smaller probability.

But more importantly, also the 50% doesn't apply to botnets that could get your coin at much lower than market prices, which concentrates ownership (or they sell driving prices down and also concentrates ownership into whales like rpietila who would be sitting on the bid if they want to acquire more). Which is especially a concern with a coin such as Monero which rapidly declines the rate of debasement so that early on most of the coins are mined (when the most vulnerability to botnets getting coins cheaply exists). As your mining network increases after years, then the botnets can't be such a significant percentage.

Sorry but I find some many flaws in Monero and I know you don't like me, but I speak frankly on the technical facts (no it isn't "philosophical", it is technology). It isn't personal, even you childish guys try to make it personal.

Smaller botnets that decide to honestly mine instead of attack increase the hash rate and help secure the network against attacks.

Agreed. But they also get coins cheaply, which is a problem as I explained above.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
akujin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 01:56:32 AM
 #2290

Killer app would be something which allows you to trade in the exchanges without losing all your coins if they get hacked. That'll bring confidence back to crypto  Grin Grin Grin
I actually wanted to suggest something like an escrow service for cryptos with low fees. But BC already have this BlackHalo so I just suggested that

Quote
I cannot see how focussing on allowing a small community to swap funds with each other indefinitely can do much to progress the outwards appearance or long term goals of the effort to bring digital money to everyday people.
Why not? Bitcoin's rapid price rise have attracted investors, speculators and traders. And this rise its value further which also attracted other businesses. And these businesses will bring bitcoin to ordinary people. It's like a chain reaction Cheesy

Quote
Almost every coin on every exchange has no need to be on an exchange,
LOL. Imagine only few people are trading and putting their coins on an exchange. The orderbook will be so thin and small buy/sell could fluctuate the market by 50%. You think a businesses would like that? Cheesy


BTC: 165rKPfGJ3ndrG1QziHR6ACnViP4EQHNK7
LTC: LMysGMFjmF9gR9RzStij74msXrDP1NqW8X
DOGE: DRZXGgcKN8kANwko3VycsBVVGqfy6XsSpM
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 01:58:54 AM
 #2291

The doubling (Claymore said "1.5 - 2.0") of performance for 64-bit on Monero isn't enough by itself to mitigate botnets running at 32-bit.

If botnets are predominantly 32 bit (I don't know, but this claim is often made) then they are primarily older computers as well, with smaller caches, often no AES-NI, and (on cheaper models at least) fewer cores. That is much more than 2x. Together it is closer to 10x.

The numbers I've seen are that roughly 50% or perhaps slightly more of Windows 7 installs are 64 bit and Window 8 installs predominantly are 64 bit. 32 bit computers are going to have a high concentration of Windows XP (i.e. old, mostly corporate) or Vista (still hard for me to believe anyone ever used that, but there is a percentage out there).

I don't doubt there are some botnets that target higher end gaming computers, but we don't have numbers. The article cited prices "per 1000" but we don't know how much that can scale. 10K computers for example, would only serve to further secure the network, not attack it.

Without further data I remain unconvinced that botnets are frequently high end systems with good GPUs. And of course if they are then the whole argument of GPU mining being GPU-resistant is completely wrong. Even then the size distribution matters a lot.

EDIT: There is another factor I forgot. Since the botnet has to evade detection it will run at a lower duty cycle, only mine when the computer is even turned on, and suspend or slow down mining while the computer is in use. This likely reduces efficiency over an intentional miner by at least a factor of 2, but perhaps 5 or more (if the computer is powered down a lot).

akujin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:15:38 AM
 #2292

Killer app would be something which allows you to trade in the exchanges without losing all your coins if they get hacked. That'll bring confidence back to crypto  Grin Grin Grin
Are you talking about MGW and uMGW of NXT?:
http://multigateway.com/
All the info:
https://nxtforum.org/nxtservices-releases/how-to-test-multigateway-with-nxtservices-a-test-user-guide/
I didn't know about that. I'll check it out   Cheesy

We talked a bit about it few pages ago :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg7985996#msg7985996
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg7986586#msg7986586


It's cool! Can't wait to have more alts and maybe a USD market  Grin
I can't believe features like MGW and Blackhalo isn't famous yet

BTC: 165rKPfGJ3ndrG1QziHR6ACnViP4EQHNK7
LTC: LMysGMFjmF9gR9RzStij74msXrDP1NqW8X
DOGE: DRZXGgcKN8kANwko3VycsBVVGqfy6XsSpM
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:22:47 AM
 #2293

The doubling (Claymore said "1.5 - 2.0") of performance for 64-bit on Monero isn't enough by itself to mitigate botnets running at 32-bit.

If botnets are predominantly 32 bit (I don't know, but this claim is often made) then they are primarily older computers as well,

No it can also mean they are running on a 32-bit operating system which is apparently still 50% of the universe.

I am in the Philippines and I go around to internet cafes and see a lot of newer computers running 32-bit Windows 7 and they are all loaded up with crapware and probably malware too. You do realize that 50 million people here are mostly accessing the internet via netcafes and not their own computers at home. Ditto Indonesia, etc..

And those Asian gaming machines might be running 64-bit and are newer hardware according to the steam survey I cited (and according to the sources I cited are available for 1000 computers for $15).

I don't doubt there are some botnets that target higher end gaming computers, but we don't have numbers. The article cited prices "per 1000" but we don't know how much that can scale. 10K computers for example, would only serve to further secure the network, not attack it.

You ignored my main point which is the 50% attack but rather disproportionate concentration of the ownership of the coin.



EDIT: There is another factor I forgot. Since the botnet has to evade detection it will run at a lower duty cycle, only mine when the computer is even turned on, and suspend or slow down mining while the computer is in use. This likely reduces efficiency over an intentional miner by at least a factor of 2, but perhaps 5 or more (if the computer is powered down a lot).

When you are buying them for $15 per 1000, even running on only 1 core and efficiency is not enough to cause them to not get coins too cheaply.


Without further data I remain unconvinced that botnets are frequently high end systems with good GPUs. And of course if they are then the whole argument of GPU mining being GPU-resistant is completely wrong. Even then the size distribution matters a lot.


I've noticed you are a person who ignores all threats until they are proven beyond any doubt. You don't like to entertain any possibilities that would cause you to make the conclusion that Monero is flawed.

How much effort have you done to investigate the botnets?

How much effort have you applied to investigating my points about your proof-of-work?

Or maybe...you are just making excuses.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:36:21 AM
 #2294

Currently the Monero network consists of the hash rate equivalent of very roughly 100K modern desktop computers (64-bit, AES-NI, 8 MB cache) or mid range mining rig GPUs (750 Ti, etc.). For a botnet to 51% attack...

Do you know how many of those 100K are already botnets?

I can't believe people are saying monero is flawed because some botnets are mining it, if anything it means monero is growing and is becoming more profitable.

Do you not agree that non-level playing field for distribution and concentrating coins more than would be normally is a flaw?

Especially when most of the coins that will ever be mined are occurring very early in the mining life, even more so than for Bitcoin. This is potential death to the future of the coin for transactions. We discussed this in depth already in the Monero thread.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:38:37 AM
 #2295

And those Asian gaming machines might be running 64-bit and are newer hardware according to the steam survey I cited (and according to the sources I cited are available for 1000 computers for $15).

Gaming machines are certainly going to be newer than many light-usage home machines (web + email generally). I don't know what cafe machines are like.

I also think gaming machines are likely to be running newer software better maintained, less frequently used for random crap on the Internet (no time since the gamers are spending 20 hours a day gaming). So in general less likely to become part of a botnet. This does not mean that no gaming machines are part of botnets, but the number is likely quite small, relatively speaking.

If the number is not small, then why are GPU-mined coins allegedly not overrun by botnets, and the why is the problem of botnets attached to CPU-mined coins?

Quote
You ignored my main point which is the 50% attack but rather disproportionate concentration of the ownership of the coin.

I don't agree with it. I expect the fairly frictionless marketplace to sort out to more or less the same ownership as would otherwise exist. People who value the coin more will buy it, and the botnet owner who already owns a valuable asset, the botnet will sell it for whatever he values most, giving him a return on his asset.

Quote
You don't like to entertain any possibilities that would cause you to make the conclusion that Monero is flawed.

I am pretty sure it is flawed. I don't care. Everything is flawed. If you mandate perfection, you spend years contemplating everything and delivering nothing.

I prefer to deliver something that might work, and then see if it does. The world is complex and chaotic enough that I don't believe this is knowable without real world experience.

Quote
How much effort have you done to investigate the botnets?

How much effort have you applied to investigating my points about your proof-of-work?

None. As a volunteer I work on things that interest me. Neither of those interest me particularly.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 5127


Whimsical Pants


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:44:08 AM
 #2296

Do you not agree that non-level playing field for distribution and concentrating coins more than would be normally is a flaw?

Unless you can design a system that adapts to emerging attack vectors you are always going to see better locks producing better lock picks. It is an arms race.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:57:17 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2014, 03:56:57 AM by AnonyMint
 #2297

And those Asian gaming machines might be running 64-bit and are newer hardware according to the steam survey I cited (and according to the sources I cited are available for 1000 computers for $15).

Gaming machines are certainly going to be newer than many light-usage home machines (web + email generally). I don't know what cafe machines are like.

Here what I typically see is maybe 50% of them are recent CPUs (because growth radically accelerated when the Fed did QE driving the bond investors to emerging markets to seek yield, with credit growing > 20% annually here) but only dual-core. Often only 2MBGB of memory. They are cheap machines but later generation, because they need the latest AGPU to play Dota, etc.

I also think gaming machines are likely to be running newer software better maintained, less frequently used for random crap on the Internet (no time since the gamers are spending 20 hours a day gaming). So in general less likely to become part of a botnet. This does not mean that no gaming machines are part of botnets, but the number is likely quite small, relatively speaking.

If the number is not small, then why are GPU-mined coins allegedly not overrun by botnets, and the why is the problem of botnets attached to CPU-mined coins?

Maybe small but maybe 50K or your 100K Smiley Really I don't know if yours is the most profitable to mine with a botnet, so I have no idea.

My point is it wouldn't take too many at this stage of your mining usage to gain significant coins cheaply.

You ignored my main point which is the 50% attack but rather disproportionate concentration of the ownership of the coin.

I don't agree with it. I expect the fairly frictionless marketplace to sort out to more or less the same ownership as would otherwise exist. People who value the coin more will buy it, and the botnet owner who already owns a valuable asset, the botnet will sell it for whatever he values most, giving him a return on his asset.

They key difference is the botnet owner will likely sell the mined coins, and the other miners at this stage will not.

So therefor the price is driven down and the miners are mining at a loss compared to those whales who sit on the bid to mop up the cheap coins.

This drastically retards the network effects growth of the coin. Sheesh! I already explained this to you in the Monero thread and you choose to forget it. Peter R already showed that Bitcoin price scales as the square of N where N is some proxy for users.

Yeah I know for you everything is theory and should be ignored, even though Peter R showed in fact it is occurring.

You don't like to entertain any possibilities that would cause you to make the conclusion that Monero is flawed.

I am pretty sure it is flawed. I don't care. Everything is flawed. If you mandate perfection, you spend years contemplating everything and delivering nothing.

I prefer to deliver something that might work, and then see if it does. The world is complex and chaotic enough that I don't believe this is knowable without real world experience.

Agreed delivery is crucial. There is a balance between delivery haphazardly and being too methodical and never delivering on time.

But this notion of "delivery and we can work it out over time, given we are open source and have a lot of good minds" actually doesn't work in practice. I quoted Linus Torvalds for you on that.

Agreed one of the first principles of open source is "ship early and ship often". But in terms of design, this is known to suck (ignore Eric Raymond's blog at your peril, for he is originator of the term "open source").

How much effort have you done to investigate the botnets?

How much effort have you applied to investigating my points about your proof-of-work?

None. As a volunteer I work on things that interest me. Neither of those interest me particularly.

Ok understood. As I said, this is why design sucks in this model. Eventually open source rectifies this, but it can take a loooonnng time, e.g. Mint finally makes a Linux that looks like Windows desktop. How many years did it take to come?

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 03:24:48 AM
 #2298

Here what I typically see is maybe 50% of them are recent CPUs (because growth radically accelerated when the Fed did QE driving the bond investors to emerging markets to seek yield, with credit growing > 20% annually here) but only dual-core. Often only 2MB of memory. They are cheap machines but later generation, because they need the latest AGPU to play Dota, etc.

2 GB of memory?

Dual core (Intel) i5 CPUs have only 3 MB of cache, so they will mine Cryptonight at less than half the speed of the higher end quad-core i7s with 8 MB (which are roughly comparable with mid-range GPUs). That is assumes they are turned on and that they aren't in use such that mining needs to suspend or background itself.

All that conspires to make one of these machines worth a lot less in a botnet compared to a dedicated miner. Obviously botnets can be large, but I don't know how large. With the equivalent of 100K miners already on the network, it takes several hundred thousand of these in a botnet, at least, to become problematic from a security point of view. Smaller botnets add to the security of the network, which is my primary concern, not economics.

I disagree with the economic argument about botnets being important "because they get cheap coins" for two reasons:
1. Botnets are a finite resource and if mining with them is so profitable because they get cheap coins more botnets will join the network until the coins are no longer cheap (a combination of botnets getting scarce and the difficulty going up), and 2. given opportunities to trade the coins will end up with whoever values them the most anyway. That may well be some whale who buys them from the botnet owner, or the botnet owner might himself be a whale. The rich get richer, (almost) always. It is fair that we agree to disagree on this point.

I will say one thing about what I think about Monero generally. I think it is a bloody mess, with lousy code we essentially found half-finished in some dead guys attic (to speak in metaphors). But what it does, it does better than any other delivered coin (by a wide margin), and I believe that many of the most serious problems can be addressed in short order (some already have).

In fact I would guess that the reason you pay so much attention to Monero is that you agree it is by far the best implementation of decent privacy on a blockchain that exists today, and therefore the closest to something you seem to think is important. It may not be what you think it should be, and it may not ever get to what you think should be done, but it almost certainly is the closest today and may very well be the closest in the future as well.






AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 04:05:32 AM
 #2299

Smaller botnets add to the security of the network, which is my primary concern, not economics.

I disagree with the economic argument about botnets being important "because they get cheap coins" for two reasons:
1. Botnets are a finite resource and if mining with them is so profitable because they get cheap coins more botnets will join the network until the coins are no longer cheap (a combination of botnets getting scarce and the difficulty going up), and

Afaik, I was the person who originally had that same insight several months ago. However, that doesn't necessarily apply while the supply of botnets is 10s - 100s of thousands (or even millions) and the totality of non-ASIC altcoin mining is 100s of thousands.

Smaller botnets add to the security of the
 2. given opportunities to trade the coins will end up with whoever values them the most anyway. That may well be some whale who buys them from the botnet owner, or the botnet owner might himself be a whale. The rich get richer, (almost) always. It is fair that we agree to disagree on this point.

You ignore the power of squaring laws.  Huh Not wise from my understanding of math.

I will say one thing about what I think about Monero generally. I think it is a bloody mess, with lousy code we essentially found half-finished in some dead guys attic (to speak in metaphors). But what it does, it does better than any other delivered coin (by a wide margin),

What is that? Mix coins? I already had someone report to me they tried and failed. That was only 1 report though.

and I believe that many of the most serious problems can be addressed in short order (some already have).

The block chain scaling can't be fixed. For me that is the killer. So I could understand why you might not care about economics scaling by the square law.


In fact I would guess that the reason you pay so much attention to Monero is that you agree it is by far the best implementation of decent privacy on a blockchain that exists today, and therefore the closest to something you seem to think is important.

I am so jealous.  Embarrassed

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 04:28:28 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2014, 04:43:06 AM by smooth
 #2300

Smaller botnets add to the security of the network, Botnets are a finite resource and if mining with them is so profitable because they get cheap coins more botnets will join the network until the coins are no longer cheap (a combination of botnets getting scarce and the difficulty going up), and

Afaik, I was the person who originally had that same insight several months ago.

This point was made years ago in the context of Bitcoin, but I'm sure it has been rediscovered many times.

Quote
However, that doesn't necessarily apply while the supply of botnets is 10s - 100s of thousands (or even millions) and the totality of non-ASIC altcoin mining is 100s of thousands.

I seriously doubt this latter number since approximately 100K is on Monero alone, and Monero is a modest if growing part of the altcoin universe.

EDIT: It could be in the high hundreds of thousands, it is low 100Ks that I doubt. Given the likely efficiency factors between dedicated miners and botnets this translates to botnets of millions. Or to put it another way, we are likely close to the point, if not there already, that botnets are not a major (security) threat. I leave open the question of economic theories.

Furthermore this entirely ignores all of the factors that separate one botnet machine from one dedicated miner. Duty cycle if nothing else should be at least some significant factor. You mentioned a countermeasure of "just mine on one core" but that obviously reduces capacity significantly.

Quote
What is that? Mix coins? I already had someone report to me they tried and failed. That was only 1 report though.

Mixing works just fine. I've used it dozens if not hundreds of times.

Quote
The block chain scaling can't be fixed.

"Can't" be fixed is a bold statement. Care to offer proof of that? Because there are ideas being developed for doing just that (that might not work).
Pages: « 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 256 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!