==== Eligius, please pay my 200+ BTC ====

[Brucexie]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after May 3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.
FYI, I mined 5 blocks after 0503, but get no paid, please look for it on your own block list.

Update 1:

For anyone who trust eligius's annonce to believe that I mine 0 block and want to raise his calculater to caclulate how rare this could be happened, I'd like to remind them, do not forget, eligius can efface my block from his own block list and annonced that I mine nothing.

Then you say "I trust eligius since it is the 2nd oldest pool in the world"? Oh, We used to be as you until this incident.

Update 2:

According to the Eligius block list, 1Gu8xxxx mined 2 blocks after 05-03, it should be 50 BTC, and the account now has 103.3 BTC unpaid, it means that I got about 50% lucky, yes, it is not high, but it is reasonable, I think.
17jkxxx got 3 block mined after 05-03, which got an 122.2 BTC left, which have a 61.4% lucky, still reasonable.
Comparaed with people with several THash on eligius and never mined any block, we are much more lucky.

[1714776802]

1714776802

[1714776802]

1714776802

[1714776802]

1714776802

[VinceSamios]

Greetings Eligius miners,

So, after some investigation over the past month or so, it turns out a couple of clients/addresses were involved in a “block withholding attack” against Eligius which has cost us an estimated 300 BTC, and likely miners of other pools as well. A block withholding attack is where a miner submits low difficulty shares but does not submit block solutions— so they appear to be working for the pool and continue to get paid while not actually doing useful work for the pool.

It is unknown how many other pools they’ve executed this attack against. While withholding attacks are detectable, they are not possible to prevent: the risk of block withholding is inherent in how Bitcoin pooling works. Since the attacker does not gain any direct benefit by performing the attack it is usually assumed to not be a serious risk. A withholding attacker can’t profit, except through indirect effects like making a pool look less “lucky” and driving miners to other pools.

My guess is that they never expected to get caught and suffer income loss as a result of their attack.  But, once they were caught, I put a filter in place to block them from the payout queue (similar to the block on known MtGox addresses). Eligius’s offline wallet now has roughly 200 BTC work credits held from the payout queue under the attacker's addresses, that we have stopped them from stealing.

When they noticed, weeks later, they contacted us complaining.  We asked them to sign messages to verify they were in fact in control of the addresses in question including asking them to include a real name and location in the signed message, refusing to discuss it until they had done so.  They eventually responded around the Memorial Day US holiday weekend.  Before we were able to respond (everyone has been extra busy as you all know), they threatened putting a 200 BTC bounty on hacking Eligius. More recently, their behaviours have extended to additional ultimatums, arbitrary deadlines, demanding 1164%-APY interest on the payout, etc.

Suffice it to say, communications with the attacker have been less than productive.

My original plan was to return the coins we have held in offline storage to the rightful owners— the miners who were submitting real work and were affected by the withholding attack— by paying towards shelved shares accrued during that time period (doing this is non-trivial due to security measures in place). This is still my intention, as I have no real inclination to yield to the demands and threats made by this attacker who has cost all of us quite a bit. It has unofficially been decided that if it came down to it, Eligius would shut down before being forced to pay any attacker of any kind any amount whatsoever.

In any case, I wanted to make sure I posted the details of this before the attacker attempts to take the public FUD route, and possibly get some constructive opinions on how to actually proceed with this.  

I will be posting all details we have about this soon.  For now, the two addresses I have filtered from the payout queue are 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Rest assured that there is no need to be concerned about their threats.  Eligius is the second oldest mining pool and is also one of the few remaining pools which has never had any loss of bitcoin from any type of hack.  The reason there have been no successful hacks is because we take security very seriously.  There really are no possible methods for such an attack with Eligius.  While I won't reveal any of the specific security measures in place, even if an attacker were to somehow compromise any or even every single Eligius server, keep in mind that there are no funds stored on any online machine for them to steal anyway.  Other data is protected and verified by remote machines as well.  The pool will simply be cut off from the world pending my personal review if anything important were actually manipulated. As previously noted, the offline wallet requires coordination between both myself and Luke-Jr, and also very shortly, after completing some testing, a confidential third party.

I am taking this very seriously, and I'll be monitoring the pool as closely as possible.  Measures are also being taken to further harden our already very good existing security as well. If  My assumption is that the attacker is not going to take kindly to being publicly outed.

Thanks,

-wk

P.S. - This is unrelated to any of the stats issues that have occurred. (Server migration for the new web server is still under way…)

Please return the 429.19371155 BTC you received whilst contributing nothing.

The mathematical probability of you not finding a block with the amount of work required to find 24 blocks is:

One in 81,000,000

ie. pretty fucking unlikely.

[greenlion]

How about you first explain what the purpose of withholding blocks was?

[YipYip]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

[fryarminer]

Hi, I'd really be interested in knowing who you are!

[S4VV4S]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

[onemorebtc]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

no

[bitgold]

what happened?  curious.

[S4VV4S]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

no

Can I ask why not?

[capa]

If you are innocent, let a trusted 3rd party audit your code and systems.  

[greenlion]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

no

Can I ask why not?

The hash that was valid versus the target would have been of a block header that reflects paying the pool's coinbase tx. Changing the coinbase would hash to something completely random and different.

[S4VV4S]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u


You haven't make any payment to me after 5/3.
And your customer ticket service said that I'm scamming. Please explain something with evidence.

Did you with withhold blocks either by purpose or mistaken bad code is the simple answer that we want to know ??

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

no

Can I ask why not?

The hash that was valid versus the target would have been of a block header that reflects paying the pool's coinbase tx. Changing the coinbase would hash to something completely random and different.

Cool, got it.
Thanks

[jamesg]

According to: http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/blocks.php

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u

found two blocks and is owed 103 BTC.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc

found five blocks and is owed 122 BTC.

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

[murdof]

So I don't have the technical knowledge to say if you tried to cheat or not.

I just have the following questions:

You say you got no payout after 5/3 (Is that 3-May or 5-March).

If it is 3-May it means that you have more than 100TH/s to produce 200 BTC. If I was running a farm with 100 TH/s I wouldn't trust Eligius, BTC Guild or any other 100% trustworthy pools. I would just run my own pool or would even pay somebody 5 BTC to set it up privately for me so that I will not have any risk. 4 BTC per day, no payout and you don't jump to another pool?

If it is 5-March then it means that that you have less TH/s. But again why mine for 3 more months at a pool that doesn't give payouts? I would open ticket and jump to another one.

[BTC_Toronto]

According to: http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/blocks.php

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u

found two blocks and is owed 103 BTC.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc

found five blocks and is owed 122 BTC.

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

5 of the 7 blocks you mentioned were discovered after the potential scam or custom mining software mistake was discovered and the miner notified (May 3rd). It might have been that he fixed or change the mining software or that he stop the scam once he was discovered. The problem is with all the time he spent mining before that time without submitting any shares that were found.

BTC TO

[Brucexie]

Greetings Eligius miners,

So, after some investigation over the past month or so, it turns out a couple of clients/addresses were involved in a “block withholding attack” against Eligius which has cost us an estimated 300 BTC, and likely miners of other pools as well. A block withholding attack is where a miner submits low difficulty shares but does not submit block solutions— so they appear to be working for the pool and continue to get paid while not actually doing useful work for the pool.

It is unknown how many other pools they’ve executed this attack against. While withholding attacks are detectable, they are not possible to prevent: the risk of block withholding is inherent in how Bitcoin pooling works. Since the attacker does not gain any direct benefit by performing the attack it is usually assumed to not be a serious risk. A withholding attacker can’t profit, except through indirect effects like making a pool look less “lucky” and driving miners to other pools.

My guess is that they never expected to get caught and suffer income loss as a result of their attack.  But, once they were caught, I put a filter in place to block them from the payout queue (similar to the block on known MtGox addresses). Eligius’s offline wallet now has roughly 200 BTC work credits held from the payout queue under the attacker's addresses, that we have stopped them from stealing.

When they noticed, weeks later, they contacted us complaining.  We asked them to sign messages to verify they were in fact in control of the addresses in question including asking them to include a real name and location in the signed message, refusing to discuss it until they had done so.  They eventually responded around the Memorial Day US holiday weekend.  Before we were able to respond (everyone has been extra busy as you all know), they threatened putting a 200 BTC bounty on hacking Eligius. More recently, their behaviours have extended to additional ultimatums, arbitrary deadlines, demanding 1164%-APY interest on the payout, etc.

Suffice it to say, communications with the attacker have been less than productive.

My original plan was to return the coins we have held in offline storage to the rightful owners— the miners who were submitting real work and were affected by the withholding attack— by paying towards shelved shares accrued during that time period (doing this is non-trivial due to security measures in place). This is still my intention, as I have no real inclination to yield to the demands and threats made by this attacker who has cost all of us quite a bit. It has unofficially been decided that if it came down to it, Eligius would shut down before being forced to pay any attacker of any kind any amount whatsoever.

In any case, I wanted to make sure I posted the details of this before the attacker attempts to take the public FUD route, and possibly get some constructive opinions on how to actually proceed with this.  

I will be posting all details we have about this soon.  For now, the two addresses I have filtered from the payout queue are 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Rest assured that there is no need to be concerned about their threats.  Eligius is the second oldest mining pool and is also one of the few remaining pools which has never had any loss of bitcoin from any type of hack.  The reason there have been no successful hacks is because we take security very seriously.  There really are no possible methods for such an attack with Eligius.  While I won't reveal any of the specific security measures in place, even if an attacker were to somehow compromise any or even every single Eligius server, keep in mind that there are no funds stored on any online machine for them to steal anyway.  Other data is protected and verified by remote machines as well.  The pool will simply be cut off from the world pending my personal review if anything important were actually manipulated. As previously noted, the offline wallet requires coordination between both myself and Luke-Jr, and also very shortly, after completing some testing, a confidential third party.

I am taking this very seriously, and I'll be monitoring the pool as closely as possible.  Measures are also being taken to further harden our already very good existing security as well. If  My assumption is that the attacker is not going to take kindly to being publicly outed.

Thanks,

-wk

P.S. - This is unrelated to any of the stats issues that have occurred. (Server migration for the new web server is still under way…)

Please return the 429.19371155 BTC you received whilst contributing nothing.

The mathematical probability of you not finding a block with the amount of work required to find 24 blocks is:

One in 81,000,000

ie. pretty fucking unlikely.

Is there any possible that eligius efface my block record at the block list?

[Brucexie]

Can anyone prove that I submit the same source code as the one I use in 5/2?
If not, the result will become useless, whatever it will be.

If you are innocent, let a trusted 3rd party audit your code and systems.  

[Brucexie]

Am I a fool?

How about you first explain what the purpose of withholding blocks was?

[Brucexie]

Hi, I'd really be interested in knowing who you are!

In bitcoin world, "who" is not important, the public key and signed messages are all needed for all purpose, aren't they?

[Brucexie]

So I don't have the technical knowledge to say if you tried to cheat or not.

I just have the following questions:

You say you got no payout after 5/3 (Is that 3-May or 5-March).

If it is 3-May it means that you have more than 100TH/s to produce 200 BTC. If I was running a farm with 100 TH/s I wouldn't trust Eligius, BTC Guild or any other 100% trustworthy pools. I would just run my own pool or would even pay somebody 5 BTC to set it up privately for me so that I will not have any risk. 4 BTC per day, no payout and you don't jump to another pool?

If it is 5-March then it means that that you have less TH/s. But again why mine for 3 more months at a pool that doesn't give payouts? I would open ticket and jump to another one.

sorry, it is May the third.
And we believed this 2nd oldest pool before that day.

[jl2012]

Is there any possible that eligius efface my block record at the block list?

If they want to do this, they could simply delete all your record, as if you have never mined.

[Legov]

Is it possible that he/she could have programmed their miners to submit the valid blocks for their self while continuing to get shares from Eligius?

no

But he/she could withhold the block, take all his/her hashing power to the pool to earn shares/scores and release the block.
There are about 10 minutes time to make this.
Is this the less known "lie in wait attack"?

[Brucexie]

Is there any possible that eligius efface my block record at the block list?

If they want to do this, they could simply delete all your record, as if you have never mined.

I use 3rd party online archive service to archive the account page everyday. Or Google's page snapshot will do for me automatically.
Deleting my account will instantly be caught.

[NewLiberty]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

[S4VV4S]

Is there any possible that eligius efface my block record at the block list?

If they want to do this, they could simply delete all your record, as if you have never mined.

I use 3rd party online archive service to archive the account page everyday. Or Google's page snapshot will do for me automatically.
Deleting my account will instantly be caught.

So you can post some screenshots of the blocks you found then?
This will prove if they had deleted any of your found blocks.

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

[Brucexie]

Is there any possible that eligius efface my block record at the block list?

If they want to do this, they could simply delete all your record, as if you have never mined.

I use 3rd party online archive service to archive the account page everyday. Or Google's page snapshot will do for me automatically.
Deleting my account will instantly be caught.

So you can post some screenshots of the blocks you found then?
This will prove if they had deleted any of your found blocks.

I could select some block from chain which is mined by my friend in his private pool and annonce that is mined by me in eligius.
So, your propose might not be a working one, sorry.

[kano]

I'm just a little curious about the 'bad' luck and the fact that Eligius has in credit over 1800BTC
If they've been losing blocks (>400BTC) that would make them over 2200BTC in credit if they got those 'missing' blocks.

+1800BTC doesn't sound like bad luck ... though I could be wrong

https://blockchain.info/address/18d3HV2bm94UyY4a9DrPfoZ17sXuiDQq2B >477.12965068
https://blockchain.info/address/1ChANGeATMH8dFnj39wGTjfjudUtLspzXr >237.98484501
https://blockchain.info/address/14qgRxmyWwRweGY4mfjB5FRxr3Ak8Weu1w 1000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/1BRoZJLeLaR9T4PP2m1FJ5isqgQmhzMKBn 99.999 BTC

... I wonder what other addresses Eligius has ...

[HypnoticGuy]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

[RealMalatesta]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

[Hektur]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

There is no such thing as the "bitcoin way".  You got caught and are only attempting to use the court of public opinion" to sway things in your favor and it's not working.  By your statement of "I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country" shows that you are not in America, so this does not apply to you.  

[Majixagi]

Brucexie, you must be new here. In bitcointalk you are guilty until proven innocent.

The charges have already been levied along with a good bit of evidence. You have no defense, and have no claim on any more of this community's BTC.

[Brucexie]

Brucexie, you must be new here. In bitcointalk you are guilty until proven innocent.

The charges have already been levied along with a good bit of evidence. You have no defense, and have no claim on any more of this community's BTC.

Yes you may right.
But I think any one will consider one more time before moving to eligius, after seeing this post.
That's enough.

[HypnoticGuy]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

[Hektur]

I'm keeping my miners on Eligius.  Maybe you should move your miners to 50btc.com.  

[grnbrg]

Brucexie, you must be new here. In bitcointalk you are guilty until proven innocent.

The charges have already been levied along with a good bit of evidence. You have no defense, and have no claim on any more of this community's BTC.

You can't ever please the trolls, but quite a few of us are quite happy to consider evidence.  But we haven't seen anything other than "You can't prove I did something wrong!".  Not a lot to go on against the word of pool operator and community member with a long history of reliability.

Yes you may right.
But I think any one will consider one more time before moving to eligius, after seeing this post.
That's enough.

On the other hand, some will see this as a reason to support Eligius....


grnbrg.

[RealMalatesta]

Again, since you seem to have overread the question:


Would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

[dmcdad]

But I think any one will consider one more time before moving to eligius, after seeing this post.

And what pool would you suggest instead? GHash.IO perhaps?

I think you greatly overestimate your power to damage Eligius's reputation.

You haven't provided any response as to what occurred, except to say you won't say anything because nothing can be proved one way or the other. Lots of questions to be answered here that you have ignored.

Why, given your hash power, were there so few solved blocks submitted? Or are claiming that you did submit solved blocks but Eligius decided for some reason you were a good target to steal/withhold payment from? Sorry, but that seems highly unlikely...

[HypnoticGuy]

Brucexie,


Do you own your mining operation, or are you running it for someone else?


If you own your mining operation then why are you so worried about 200BTC?  It is a very small amount of the total you have mined, and are able to mine.


If you are managing a mining operation for someone else, are they really pisssed off at you for getting caught?

Edited to add:

Something else just crossed my mind, and I just thought I'd put this out there.


The "You can't prove that I did it" defense seems to me like the exact thing someone would come up with while planning such a scheme. 


#1 - I'm not going to get caught.


#2 - If I am caught they can't prove anything.


#3 - If they can't prove that I did it, then I will not get in trouble.


This is why he is sticking to the "you can't prove anything" defense.  This was his logic from the beginning. and he has no other option but to stick with his plan, no matter how weak his defense is.

[ratty]

Brucexie, please give some kind of explanation of the evidence, are you claiming you did nothing strange with your mining and you were just unlucky?

[aosmith]

I'm keeping my miners on Eligius.  Maybe you should move your miners to 50btc.com.  

Or maybe GHash?  A block witholding attack would help even things out 

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

[Brucexie]

But I think any one will consider one more time before moving to eligius, after seeing this post.

And what pool would you suggest instead? GHash.IO perhaps?

I think you greatly overestimate your power to damage Eligius's reputation.

You haven't provided any response as to what occurred, except to say you won't say anything because nothing can be proved one way or the other. Lots of questions to be answered here that you have ignored.

Why, given your hash power, were there so few solved blocks submitted? Or are claiming that you did submit solved blocks but Eligius decided for some reason you were a good target to steal/withhold payment from? Sorry, but that seems highly unlikely...

According to the block list, 1Gu8xxxx mined 2 block after 05-03, it should be 50 BTC, and the account now has 103.3 BTC unpaid, it means that I got about 50% lucky, yes, it is not high, but it is reasonable, I think.
17jkxxx got 3 block mined after 05-03, which got an 122.2 BTC left, which have a 61.4% lucky, still reasonable.
Comparaed with people with several THash on eligius and never mined any block, we are much more lucky.

[Brucexie]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

[S4VV4S]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

[aosmith]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

So you're either scamming or your gear isn't working right.  Either way you shouldn't expect to get paid.

[Brucexie]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

[Brucexie]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

So you're either scamming or your gear isn't working right.  Either way you shouldn't expect to get paid.

My gears is working wrong on BTCguild, after fixing we move to eligius for test, and see all things correct in its own block list.
Especially For 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u, it is a brand new account and begining it's mining just after the fix and block was found by it, so why eligius ban it?

[RealMalatesta]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

So you're either scamming or your gear isn't working right.  Either way you shouldn't expect to get paid.

My gears is working wrong on BTCguild, after fixing we move to eligius for test, and see all things correct in its own block list.
Especially For 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u, it is a brand new account and begining it's mining just after the fix and block was found by it, so why eligius ban it?

Could it be that you were mining before with your faulty equipment, getting paid for your hashing power without finding any blocks? Well, if I were WK, I would keep the first found blocks, too, and - as he announced - distribute them amongst the miners who got defrauded by you.

[aosmith]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

So you're either scamming or your gear isn't working right.  Either way you shouldn't expect to get paid.

My gears is working wrong on BTCguild, after fixing we move to eligius for test, and see all things correct in its own block list.
Especially For 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u, it is a brand new account and begining it's mining just after the fix and block was found by it, so why eligius ban it?

From the stats your gear still isn't working right.  You screwed up (perhaps, accidentally, although I doubt that) and screwed a bunch of us in the process.  You won't find any sympathy here.

[HellDiverUK]

we use modified cgminer.

There's your problem.  I'm guessing you patched/botched cgminer to the point where it's producing junk. 

You could have asked kano/ck or Luke-Jr to write drivers for cgminer or bfgminer respectively for your hardware, and therefore not wasting hashes pointlessly for months.  But, hey, that's just me.

[HypnoticGuy]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

[S4VV4S]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

So the one that is really behind this is a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, that "test's" their hardware before they start selling it, just to make sure they work.
I am right?

[Hektur]

A poor translation but yes:

Mining machine: new Smart mine machine mining machine for sale in the form of coins, each miner currency convertible 1G force, each coin sale price for the mine is 0.06BTC.

Trading scheme: Smart mines each approximately 200G work force, equivalent to 200 ore coin, but actual shipping may be adjusted according to actual situation, extra ore coins can be sold through the market, or the coin to us.

Restrictions: the Smart feeder's first batch of a total of 1000 units, cheap pre-sale for brand promotion, so that each customer is limited to 5 units, namely 1000 ore coin.

Risk warning: Smart mines are still in the production stage, delivery extension can occur and even taped the risk of failure, and when it happens, we will be 0.06BTC at the sale price to buy back all the ore machine coin.

Apparently their machines aren't that smart.

[Raize]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

[Brucexie]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

So the one that is really behind this is a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, that "test's" their hardware before they start selling it, just to make sure they work.
I am right?

We don't sell them.
It is still working under my name when I typing these word.

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

[S4VV4S]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

So the one that is really behind this is a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, that "test's" their hardware before they start selling it, just to make sure they work.
I am right?

We don't sell them.
It is still working under my name when I typing these word.

OK, you got me confused here.
You said that the addresses are yours, then you said they belong to someone else, now you say they work for you.

So what is it?

[Brucexie]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

Yes, but just after you tell me why it is necessary.
The basic crypt knowledge tells me do not sign until it is necessary, i don't know why but I obey.

[Brucexie]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

So the one that is really behind this is a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, that "test's" their hardware before they start selling it, just to make sure they work.
I am right?

We don't sell them.
It is still working under my name when I typing these word.

OK, you got me confused here.
You said that the addresses are yours, then you said they belong to someone else, now you say they work for you.

So what is it?

Where I said it belongs to someone else?

[HypnoticGuy]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

And how often do people in your country go to jail just because the get attention from the police, or the government authorities due to some negative incident, even though technically there is no proof they did anything wrong?

[jl2012]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

And how often do people in your country go to jail just because the get attention from the police, or the government authorities due to some negative incident, even though technically there is no proof they did anything wrong?

I don't know. But I do know their government REALLY hates bitcoin 

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

And how often do people in your country go to jail just because the get attention from the police, or the government authorities due to some negative incident, even though technically they did nothing wrong?

Rare.
if "they did nothing wrong", it is not a criminal felony, and they cannot be jailed.

[Brucexie]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

And how often do people in your country go to jail just because the get attention from the police, or the government authorities due to some negative incident, even though technically there is no proof they did anything wrong?

I don't know. But I do know their government REALLY hates bitcoin 

Yours welcome bitcoin?

[HypnoticGuy]

bruCEXie

Thank you for adding more interesting information.

my pleasure.

Brucexie, you spend a lot of time stating that what you are accused of cannot be proven, so clearly you know, and understand a lot about the issue.  

However, not one time that I have seen have you stated that you are innocent.

When accused of a crime most people would start by saying they didn't do it.  It is the guilty who will start by claiming it can't be proven that they did it.

If there is evidence of your actions, and your government is notified, I wonder what actions, if any, they will take against you.  Are you innocent until proven guilty in your country?  How are the conditions at the jails in your country?  

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

In our country, bitcoin or hash power was treated as stuff with no value.

You still have not answered my one question. How are the conditions in the jails in your country?

Not good.

And how often do people in your country go to jail just because the get attention from the police, or the government authorities due to some negative incident, even though technically there is no proof they did anything wrong?

I don't know. But I do know their government REALLY hates bitcoin 

Yeah.  I was just kind of wondering how much trouble it could cause if hundreds of people internationally started contacting his government demanding action to investigate his bitcoin involvement and possible unethical activities.

[Brucexie]

Yeah.  I was just kind of wondering how much trouble it could cause if hundreds of people internationally started contacting his government demanding action to investigate his bitcoin involvement and possible unethical activities.

In that case you will be put in jail instantly.
Smart lawyer works everytime.

[S4VV4S]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

Can I ask what miners do you use?
By which manufacturer(s) and at what hashing power?
 - specifically for each miner you have from each manufacturer if more than one.

we use modified cgminer.
hashing power is manufacturer by ourselves, including chips.
Now our hash power is distributed among several public pool expect of eligius, and the miner's lucky value matches pool's.

 

So the one that is really behind this is a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, that "test's" their hardware before they start selling it, just to make sure they work.
I am right?

We don't sell them.
It is still working under my name when I typing these word.

OK, you got me confused here.
You said that the addresses are yours, then you said they belong to someone else, now you say they work for you.

So what is it?

Where I said it belongs to someone else?

Here:

I am the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc , 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide us with cryptographic proof of ownership?

No need, because whatever the end of this story is like, The speaking user "Brucexie" on bitcointalk cannot directly get even a cent from it.

17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u will take all.

You can treat me as a volunteer if you don't believe.

[grnbrg]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

Yes, but just after you tell me why it is necessary.
The basic crypt knowledge tells me do not sign until it is necessary, i don't know why but I obey.

Because your refusal to answer most questions weakens your argument.  And producing a message signed by one or both of the addresses in question costs you nothing, and reveals nothing.  It would simply prove that you do in fact have standing to speak as (or on behalf of) the owner of those addresses.

For all we know, you could be just be a troll with no relation at all to this issue, other than you saw an opportunity to mess with us.  (And if so....  :slow clap:  Well played. :slow clap:)



grnbrg.

[capa]

According to: http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/blocks.php

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u

found two blocks and is owed 103 BTC.

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc

found five blocks and is owed 122 BTC.

These stats do not seem out of the ordinary.

Maybe wizkid can enlighten us as to how he has deduced that these addresses below to the block withholder.

To be clear, I'm not on anyone's side here and have suffered a 50 BTC loss from eligius' bad luck. I'd just like to know all of the facts and how wizkid came to his conclusions.

5 of the 7 blocks you mentioned were discovered after the potential scam or custom mining software mistake was discovered and the miner notified (May 3rd). It might have been that he fixed or change the mining software or that he stop the scam once he was discovered. The problem is with all the time he spent mining before that time without submitting any shares that were found.

BTC TO

Every eligius block is tagged with "Eligius" ..

[Brucexie]

Here:

I am the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc , 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide us with cryptographic proof of ownership?

No need, because whatever the end of this story is like, The speaking user "Brucexie" on bitcointalk cannot directly get even a cent from it.

17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u will take all.

You can treat me as a volunteer if you don't believe.

I explained why I don't want to make such proof in this post.
If you want's to buy something from me, and wants to pay to these address, I can help sign a message.

[HypnoticGuy]

Yeah.  I was just kind of wondering how much trouble it could cause if hundreds of people internationally started contacting his government demanding action to investigate his bitcoin involvement and possible unethical activities.

In that case you will be put in jail instantly.
Smart lawyer works everytime.

My hunch is your government is just looking for reasons to shut down larger bitcoin mining operations.  I could be wrong though.

[Brucexie]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

Yes, but just after you tell me why it is necessary.
The basic crypt knowledge tells me do not sign until it is necessary, i don't know why but I obey.

Because your refusal to answer most questions weakens your argument.  And producing a message signed by one or both of the addresses in question costs you nothing, and reveals nothing.  It would simply prove that you do in fact have standing to speak as (or on behalf of) the owner of those addresses.

For all we know, you could be just be a troll with no relation at all to this issue, other than you saw an opportunity to mess with us.  (And if so....  :slow clap:  Well played. :slow clap:)



grnbrg.

Anyone, who claim that he has enough authority to investigate into this thing, and think that refusal to give this signature is a block issue of such investigation, can PM/reply to me, and I give signature to him instantly.

[Brucexie]

Yeah.  I was just kind of wondering how much trouble it could cause if hundreds of people internationally started contacting his government demanding action to investigate his bitcoin involvement and possible unethical activities.

In that case you will be put in jail instantly.
Smart lawyer works everytime.

My hunch is your government is just looking for reasons to shut down larger bitcoin mining operations.  I could be wrong though.

My government loves people who buy its electricity very much, especially who product no pollution.
bitcoin mining industry is one of them.

[Raize]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

Yes, but just after you tell me why it is necessary.

Because other than the obvious evidence you've spent the last hour or so claiming to be the owner and refreshing BTCTalk constantly to reply to various comments about what you should or should not do or should or should not have done, we have absolutely no reason to believe you are the true and rightful owner of the mined coins, or representing the owner of the mined coins.

Even ignoring the Eligius and BTCGuild accusations, for all we know, you are some random person wanting to troll us into thinking you have a claim on the lost coins. We have no reason to believe you have a right to speak for the owner of those two addresses. And frankly, without cryptographic proof, I don't believe you own either address. Nor should anyone else. This seems to be obvious to everyone but yourself at the moment, so I'm recommending you provide proof to add to the veracity of your claims.

If you need help and you want to make sure you're not doing anything risky, it is recommended you address names and locations and even dates when signing, so that others cannot just copy the message and paste it elsewhere attempting to prove to be you at a later date or time. Aside from that, for the purposes of verification, almost any signed message is sufficient as long as includes the claim in question (that you own both addresses). For example here's something you would NOT want to sign:

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

If you only signed that, then anyone who receives a copy can copy/paste it to any of their friends and attempt to claim to be you. So instead you should include details that link your BTCTalk account to the addresses. You can also specify date so that if someone tries to copy it, it'll look weird.

The following message should be safe to sign and post publicly for anyone to see (you can sign it with either address):

Per Raize's request on the BTCTalk forums dated 6/13/2014, I, owner of the Brucexie account on BTCTalk forums, am also the rightful owner of the wallet storing the Bitcoin addresses 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

[Brucexie]

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

Can you provide cryptographic proof of this, please?

Yes, but just after you tell me why it is necessary.

Because other than the obvious evidence you've spent the last hour or so claiming to be the owner and refreshing BTCTalk constantly to reply to various comments about what you should or should not do or should or should not have done, we have absolutely no reason to believe you are the true and rightful owner of the mined coins, or representing the owner of the mined coins.

Even ignoring the Eligius and BTCGuild accusations, for all we know, you are some random person wanting to troll us into thinking you have a claim on the lost coins. We have no reason to believe you have a right to speak for the owner of those two addresses. And frankly, without cryptographic proof, I don't believe you own either address. Nor should anyone else. This seems to be obvious to everyone but yourself at the moment, so I'm recommending you provide proof to add to the veracity of your claims.

If you need help and you want to make sure you're not doing anything risky, it is recommended you address names and locations and even dates when signing, so that others cannot just copy the message and paste it elsewhere attempting to prove to be you at a later date or time. Aside from that, for the purposes of verification, almost any signed message is sufficient as long as includes the claim in question (that you own both addresses). For example here's something you would NOT want to sign:

I'm the owner of 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

If you only signed that, then anyone who receives a copy can copy/paste it to any of their friends and attempt to claim to be you. So instead you should include details that link your BTCTalk account to the addresses. You can also specify date so that if someone tries to copy it, it'll look weird.

The following message should be safe to sign and post publicly for anyone to see (you can sign it with either address):

Per Raize's request on the BTCTalk forums dated 6/13/2014, I, owner of the Brucexie account on BTCTalk forums, am also the rightful owner of the wallet storing the Bitcoin addresses 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u.

It makes sense.
I'll paste a signature after the approve of my mining group, they're sleeping so this may be out in one day.
Do you think this is working?

I, owner of the Brucexie account on bitcointalk.org forums, am also the rightful owner of the wallet storing the Bitcoin addresses 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u. This signature only works before 6/30/2014 and only used for the talking about unpaid issue of eligius of the following 2 address.

[Entropy-uc]

Brucexie,

Please pay me the 100 BTC I was cheated out of while mining at BTCGuild due to your 'defective' equipment.
1NGEBWTYndRkxTLVBuMcvJg2hJ3oURhdy8

After payment is received, I will be happy to support your claims against Eligius.

[aosmith]

Yeah.  I was just kind of wondering how much trouble it could cause if hundreds of people internationally started contacting his government demanding action to investigate his bitcoin involvement and possible unethical activities.

In that case you will be put in jail instantly.
Smart lawyer works everytime.

I wonder if the Eligius guys have your BruceXIE's somewhere... Maybe they should just turn it over to the authorities?  Seems like fraud, deceptive practices etc.

[Raize]

It makes sense.
I'll paste a signature after the approve of my mining group, they're sleeping so this may be out in one day.
Do you think this is working?

I, owner of the Brucexie account on bitcointalk.org forums, am also the rightful owner of the wallet storing the Bitcoin addresses 17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc and 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u. This signature only works before 6/30/2014 and only used for the talking about unpaid issue of eligius of the following 2 address.

Yeah I imagine that or something very like it would be sufficient. Putting an expiration on the signature like that isn't a bad idea, either.

[crashoveride54902]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

[Luke-Jr]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

There is sufficient proof to easily hold up in a criminal court case, IMO.

[sconklin321]

The funny thing is that he keeps asking for this 225 BTC for the few days he mined at Eligius after fixing whatever issue there may have been, but does say he'll return the the 429 BTC, as evidenced here http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc, that he was paid during between mid-March and May 3 while only finding two blocks.  And for anyone interested, more information in this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441465.msg7301154#msg7301154.

[Soros Shorts]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

That's like saying that if someone wins the lottery 5 times in a row there is no real proof that they are cheating.

[HypnoticGuy]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

[DaveF]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

[crashoveride54902]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

[HypnoticGuy]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

Unless we are at the drive-in.  Then it's B.Y.O.B, of course.

[crashoveride54902]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

Unless we are at the drive-in.  Then it's B.Y.O.B, of course.

oh yeah even better

[S4VV4S]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

Unless we are at the drive-in.  Then it's B.Y.O.B, of course.

oh yeah even better

B.Y.O.B what?
what does it mean?

[HypnoticGuy]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

Unless we are at the drive-in.  Then it's B.Y.O.B, of course.

oh yeah even better

B.Y.O.B what?
what does it mean?

B.Y.O.B. = Bring your own booze.

[S4VV4S]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Go for the Snow Caps next!

Blasphemy...1st popcorn, then gummy bears, finally snow caps.

Wait....were we dealing with something important in this thread?

Oh, yeah that was it....Coke or Pepsi?

-Dave

  neither MD all the way!!

Unless we are at the drive-in.  Then it's B.Y.O.B, of course.

oh yeah even better

B.Y.O.B what?
what does it mean?

B.Y.O.B. = Bring your own booze.

Got it.
Thanks!

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

That's like saying that if someone wins the lottery 5 times in a row there is no real proof that they are cheating.

Well I have not seen any logs from eligius that would backup the fact that blocks were withheld nor have I looked into the cheater's address's nor eligius stats to see if payments are where they "should" be.

Most importantly I have not seen any proof that this person really is the person who was mining on eligius. 

[JoelKatz]

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

We have "real proof" of very, very few things in life. Nevertheless, we have no difficulty making decisions based on the preponderance of available evidence. This isn't a metaphysical "how do you know you exist" kind of thing, nor is it a criminal case. This is just an ordinary "make the best decision you can with the evidence available to you" thing.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

There is sufficient proof to easily hold up in a criminal court case, IMO.

I respect eligius a lot and would say that the reputation of eligius would be sufficient to believe you if you say that there is proof. However I would be very interested to see proof.

In regards to the proof holding up in a criminal case it is important to understand how complex Bitcoin is. You need to be smart to understand even much of the basics as to how Bitcoin works. I would be surprised if you could explain to a jury (made of up "average" people, most of which likely would not have any technical background) how a pool works or how miners work in enough detail that would allow you to explain the evidence.

In regards to should he be paid if he is withholding blocks, if it appears that he withheld three blocks (for example) then 76 BTC (I would be aggressive with TX fees) should be withheld from his payment, at the very least. This is regardless if he was doing this intentionally or not and is especially true for such a large mining farm.

If it is apparent that he was doing this on purpose (if this person is who he says he is then he was doing it on purpose) then there is no reason to provide payment at all IMO. Intentionally withholding blocks from pools will degrade confidence in pools, which would lead to a decreased number of people mining in the first place (they would only solo mine and only if they could do it when they have enough hahspower that luck will not be a big issue), which would lead to centralization of mining.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

We have "real proof" of very, very few things in life. Nevertheless, we have no difficulty making decisions based on the preponderance of available evidence. This isn't a metaphysical "how do you know you exist" kind of thing, nor is it a criminal case. This is just an ordinary "make the best decision you can with the evidence available to you" thing.

I would consider "real" proof something that a reasonable person that has a reasonable understanding of the facts and situation would believe.

What was being presented was really noting more then accusations.

[Luke-Jr]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

There is sufficient proof to easily hold up in a criminal court case, IMO.

I respect eligius a lot and would say that the reputation of eligius would be sufficient to believe you if you say that there is proof. However I would be very interested to see proof.

That is something up to wizkid057 to try to organise and present.
If it were me, I'd consider the effort to try to put it in a form understandable by anyone to be more trouble than it's worth.

In regards to the proof holding up in a criminal case it is important to understand how complex Bitcoin is. You need to be smart to understand even much of the basics as to how Bitcoin works. I would be surprised if you could explain to a jury (made of up "average" people, most of which likely would not have any technical background) how a pool works or how miners work in enough detail that would allow you to explain the evidence.

I don't think courts usually require a full explanation of the technical details, just expert witness testimony that such and such is fact.

In regards to should he be paid if he is withholding blocks, if it appears that he withheld three blocks (for example) then 76 BTC (I would be aggressive with TX fees) should be withheld from his payment, at the very least. This is regardless if he was doing this intentionally or not and is especially true for such a large mining farm.

Unfortunately, even after withholding the ~200 BTC, he still owes us like ~400 BTC.

If it is apparent that he was doing this on purpose (if this person is who he says he is then he was doing it on purpose) then there is no reason to provide payment at all IMO. Intentionally withholding blocks from pools will degrade confidence in pools, which would lead to a decreased number of people mining in the first place (they would only solo mine and only if they could do it when they have enough hahspower that luck will not be a big issue), which would lead to centralization of mining.

The more he talks, the more I get convinced it was intentional.
But we may never know for sure.

[taipo]

He tried something, he got caught,now he owes 400 BTC and is trying to refocus the discussion away from that fact.

[JoelKatz]

What was being presented was really noting more then accusations.

This is simply not so. For example:

"The mathematical probability of you not finding a block with the amount of work required to find 24 blocks is:
One in 81,000,000"

Also, we have his own words, such as his response to murdof.

[DPoS2]

I'm innocent until proven guilty in your country.
Luckily, I have no need to prove that I'm innocent both under my government and bitcoin way, since it is a by-default. If someone wants to announce that I'm guilty, Hi must prove.
I just want someone to get my money back according to his public visible account page.
I don't like to announce something which I cannot prove, this is not a bitcoin way.

So would you mind to explain what happend at BTCGuild?

We have some issue with our mining infrastructure, which caused BTCGuild froze our account on the beginning of May.
After a fast fix and a test on various pool include Eligius, we saw block solved (totally 5) on Eligius block page and think that the issue was resolved, then we switch back to BTCguild under its administrator's checking on the log of our share we mine after this incident.
But we found that Eligius refused to pay for shares of our test.
In a internal review of this issue, we think that eligius may know this issue and build a plot aimed to this issue.
Then, the left is all known by all here.

So you're either scamming or your gear isn't working right.  Either way you shouldn't expect to get paid.

My gears is working wrong on BTCguild, after fixing we move to eligius for test, and see all things correct in its own block list.
Especially For 1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u, it is a brand new account and begining it's mining just after the fix and block was found by it, so why eligius ban it?

who the fuck would trust your scammy ass..  ban you and your shit miners into the grave

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

whew...I'm stuffed on popcorn...this is getting good 

Yea this is ridiculous.

Not only that but noone has any real proof of any of this.

There is sufficient proof to easily hold up in a criminal court case, IMO.

I respect eligius a lot and would say that the reputation of eligius would be sufficient to believe you if you say that there is proof. However I would be very interested to see proof.

I respect eligius a lot and would say that the reputation of eligius would be sufficient to believe you if you say that there is proof. However I would be very interested to see proof.

That is something up to wizkid057 to try to organise and present.
If it were me, I'd consider the effort to try to put it in a form understandable by anyone to be more trouble than it's worth.

In regards to the proof holding up in a criminal case it is important to understand how complex Bitcoin is. You need to be smart to understand even much of the basics as to how Bitcoin works. I would be surprised if you could explain to a jury (made of up "average" people, most of which likely would not have any technical background) how a pool works or how miners work in enough detail that would allow you to explain the evidence.

I don't think courts usually require a full explanation of the technical details, just expert witness testimony that such and such is fact.

If you were to testify, the defense attorney would ask what you think he did. Your response would be something along the lines of he withheld blocks that he founds while mining on our pool (you would explain what mining, pools are and what with holding blocks mean). The next thing he would ask is "how do you know" you would respond by saying something along the lines of "I looked at our pool records and saw x y and z" The defense attorney would ask to see the records and for you to explain what they mean. Having the records in a presettable format may be the difference between guilty and not guilty or 400 BTC or 0 BTC

In regards to should he be paid if he is withholding blocks, if it appears that he withheld three blocks (for example) then 76 BTC (I would be aggressive with TX fees) should be withheld from his payment, at the very least. This is regardless if he was doing this intentionally or not and is especially true for such a large mining farm.

Unfortunately, even after withholding the ~200 BTC, he still owes us like ~400 BTC.

If you could find out his identity with relative certainty you could pursue civil charges against him. Assuming he was not mining via tor finding his identity shouldn't be more difficult then filing a lawsuit against the alias, then sending a subpoena to the ISP, data center until you can connect the dots to his identity.

Have you considered "flagging" accounts/addresses/ipaddresses that have more then x hashpower or less then y luck to be manually reviewed for this type of attack prior to them entering the payment que? IP addresses would probably be best.

If it is apparent that he was doing this on purpose (if this person is who he says he is then he was doing it on purpose) then there is no reason to provide payment at all IMO. Intentionally withholding blocks from pools will degrade confidence in pools, which would lead to a decreased number of people mining in the first place (they would only solo mine and only if they could do it when they have enough hahspower that luck will not be a big issue), which would lead to centralization of mining.

The more he talks, the more I get convinced it was intentional.
But we may never know for sure.

I read something somewhere that said BTC Guild banned a bunch of accounts that were having very bad luck. I don't think it was on these forums (it may have been one of those agitators that pull from the forums - it was defiantly not from the news page on BTC Guild -  here, I found it - http://www.bcoinnews.com/btcguild-bans-accounts/ but I am not sure where their quote is from) that said it appeared that those accounts were behind their very bad luck. It mentioned that they were contacted by the owner of one of the accounts and were going over the configuration to check for problems. The quote said they were having 90% and 80% luck, but I think their PPLNS page was showing even worse luck then that. Regardless if this is the same person then I would find it very doubtful it was anything but intentional. 
   

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

One additional thing-

I checked both the addresses from the OP on blockchain.info
https://blockchain.info/address/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc?offset=50&filter=0
https://blockchain.info/address/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u?offset=50&filter=0

And it looks like that both are receiving payouts from BTC Guild.

If they are selfish mining there BTC Guild would likely be appreciative of the heads up, if they are not selfish mining then it may be a possible source of a way to make somewhat of a recovery.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

One additional thing-

I checked both the addresses from the OP on blockchain.info
https://blockchain.info/address/17JkL94B2ngJg4QQZuiozDQjnxXB6B7yTc?offset=50&filter=0
https://blockchain.info/address/1Gu8zxRi8cyENV8CQe52D7QEsiZ7ruT73u?offset=50&filter=0

And it looks like that both are receiving payouts from BTC Guild.

If they are selfish mining there BTC Guild would likely be appreciative of the heads up, if they are not selfish mining then it may be a possible source of a way to make somewhat of a recovery.

EDIT: I would say that they are almost certainly selfish mining at BTC Guild: Here is the "luck" as per the BTC PPLNS stats page:

Approximate Pool Luck* (24H / 3D / 1W / 2W / 1M / 3M / All Time): 79.021% / 67.264% / 83.068% / 88.530% / 93.371% / 89.219% / 97.849%
*Luck is how much each share was paid compared to 0% fee PPS (ideal earnings). All-Time calculations started in Sept 2013.

[Luke-Jr]

In regards to the proof holding up in a criminal case it is important to understand how complex Bitcoin is. You need to be smart to understand even much of the basics as to how Bitcoin works. I would be surprised if you could explain to a jury (made of up "average" people, most of which likely would not have any technical background) how a pool works or how miners work in enough detail that would allow you to explain the evidence.

I don't think courts usually require a full explanation of the technical details, just expert witness testimony that such and such is fact.

If you were to testify, the defense attorney would ask what you think he did. Your response would be something along the lines of he withheld blocks that he founds while mining on our pool (you would explain what mining, pools are and what with holding blocks mean). The next thing he would ask is "how do you know" you would respond by saying something along the lines of "I looked at our pool records and saw x y and z" The defense attorney would ask to see the records and for you to explain what they mean. Having the records in a presettable format may be the difference between guilty and not guilty or 400 BTC or 0 BTC

Perhaps. But should criminal charges be filed, the prosecutors probably have a budget for discovery, which I presume would include doing this kind of organisation of data.

In regards to should he be paid if he is withholding blocks, if it appears that he withheld three blocks (for example) then 76 BTC (I would be aggressive with TX fees) should be withheld from his payment, at the very least. This is regardless if he was doing this intentionally or not and is especially true for such a large mining farm.

Unfortunately, even after withholding the ~200 BTC, he still owes us like ~400 BTC.

If you could find out his identity with relative certainty you could pursue civil charges against him. Assuming he was not mining via tor finding his identity shouldn't be more difficult then filing a lawsuit against the alias, then sending a subpoena to the ISP, data center until you can connect the dots to his identity.

Yes, but arguably it should be some high-loss miner who would file these charges.
I think wizkid057 is prepared to provide IP addresses to assist in any such lawsuit.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

In regards to the proof holding up in a criminal case it is important to understand how complex Bitcoin is. You need to be smart to understand even much of the basics as to how Bitcoin works. I would be surprised if you could explain to a jury (made of up "average" people, most of which likely would not have any technical background) how a pool works or how miners work in enough detail that would allow you to explain the evidence.

I don't think courts usually require a full explanation of the technical details, just expert witness testimony that such and such is fact.

If you were to testify, the defense attorney would ask what you think he did. Your response would be something along the lines of he withheld blocks that he founds while mining on our pool (you would explain what mining, pools are and what with holding blocks mean). The next thing he would ask is "how do you know" you would respond by saying something along the lines of "I looked at our pool records and saw x y and z" The defense attorney would ask to see the records and for you to explain what they mean. Having the records in a presettable format may be the difference between guilty and not guilty or 400 BTC or 0 BTC

Perhaps. But should criminal charges be filed, the prosecutors probably have a budget for discovery, which I presume would include doing this kind of organisation of data.

In regards to should he be paid if he is withholding blocks, if it appears that he withheld three blocks (for example) then 76 BTC (I would be aggressive with TX fees) should be withheld from his payment, at the very least. This is regardless if he was doing this intentionally or not and is especially true for such a large mining farm.

Unfortunately, even after withholding the ~200 BTC, he still owes us like ~400 BTC.

If you could find out his identity with relative certainty you could pursue civil charges against him. Assuming he was not mining via tor finding his identity shouldn't be more difficult then filing a lawsuit against the alias, then sending a subpoena to the ISP, data center until you can connect the dots to his identity.

Yes, but arguably it should be some high-loss miner who would file these charges.
I think wizkid057 is prepared to provide IP addresses to assist in any such lawsuit.

I think there are two issues with this:

1 - Per the top contributors page on the eligius website, the address with the most hashpower only contributes ~6.5% (6.4736%) of the hashpower of the pool over the last three hours. CPPSRB is really not something that people would generally leave and/or start mining with over the short term. Other major pool operators use PPLnS (discus fish uses PPS) and they are the same way. This isn't a discussion about what method is best, I am trying to say that miners have no real reason to go from pool to pool based on payment method (at least among the major pools). Therefore it would be fair to say that the 3 hour average would be roughly the same as a 1 week average or the average when the selfish miner was on eligius.

You previously said that eligius lost ~400 BTC, based on $571 for 1 BTC that comes out to ~$228,400 that was stolen. Your largest mining address lost ~$14,850 from the selfish miner. If you look at your number 5 mining address they only lost ~$3,300 from the selfish miner. The point is that the amounts of individual miners are relatively small and probably would not be worth hiring an attorney over, also attorneys would probably want to be paid by the hour for a case with that much is dispute. If you were to hire an attorney to bring a case trying to recover the entire $228,400 (400 BTC) then there would be a better chance that an attorney would work on a contingent basis (agree to only get paid if they win and the payment would be taken out of the settlement/judgment).

2 - Individual miners may not have standing to sue the selfish miner. In a civil case (involving money/damages) you must prove that damages be caused, but also that he damages were against you. There is clearly a relationship between the miners and the pool (the miners provide work for the pool and in exchange for each unit of work the pool provides a maximum amount of payment, if payment is less then the maximum then when the pool can afford to pay more then the maximum the units that got paid less get paid more). The relationship between miners at the pool are not as clear. I am not an attorney, but I think a likely ruling would be if a miner tried to sue another miner at the same pool, the judge would say that their "beef" is with the pool operator, not the selfish miner. On the other hand if the pool operator were to sue a miner the damages are more clear, as the miner did not provide the work, the miner said they provided the work, and the pool operator paid for the work that was not done. There is clearly a fraud here.

My analysis may or may not be correct. I do think that a pool operator sueing a scammer miner would send a strong message to scammers in the Bitcoin world. That they can no longer scam/steal and get away with it. To my knowledge none of the thefts/scams that have taken place that have been bitcoin related have been prosecuted (I think a few people have been doxed, but no prosecutions to my knowledge).

Just my two cents......

[Luke-Jr]

You previously said that eligius lost ~400 BTC, based on $571 for 1 BTC that comes out to ~$228,400 that was stolen. Your largest mining address lost ~$14,850 from the selfish miner. If you look at your number 5 mining address they only lost ~$3,300 from the selfish miner. The point is that the amounts of individual miners are relatively small and probably would not be worth hiring an attorney over, also attorneys would probably want to be paid by the hour for a case with that much is dispute. If you were to hire an attorney to bring a case trying to recover the entire $228,400 (400 BTC) then there would be a better chance that an attorney would work on a contingent basis (agree to only get paid if they win and the payment would be taken out of the settlement/judgment).

Probably right. Which would mean it'd have to be a class-action case (if there even is such a thing in China).
As far as I know, nobody ever wins in class-action lawsuits...

2 - Individual miners may not have standing to sue the selfish miner. In a civil case (involving money/damages) you must prove that damages be caused, but also that he damages were against you. There is clearly a relationship between the miners and the pool (the miners provide work for the pool and in exchange for each unit of work the pool provides a maximum amount of payment, if payment is less then the maximum then when the pool can afford to pay more then the maximum the units that got paid less get paid more). The relationship between miners at the pool are not as clear. I am not an attorney, but I think a likely ruling would be if a miner tried to sue another miner at the same pool, the judge would say that their "beef" is with the pool operator, not the selfish miner. On the other hand if the pool operator were to sue a miner the damages are more clear, as the miner did not provide the work, the miner said they provided the work, and the pool operator paid for the work that was not done. There is clearly a fraud here.

Pools don't pay miners for work, merely coordinate cooperation between miners who pay each other.
This is especially clear-cut on Eligius, where most of the funds never pass through the pool operator's hands.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

You previously said that eligius lost ~400 BTC, based on $571 for 1 BTC that comes out to ~$228,400 that was stolen. Your largest mining address lost ~$14,850 from the selfish miner. If you look at your number 5 mining address they only lost ~$3,300 from the selfish miner. The point is that the amounts of individual miners are relatively small and probably would not be worth hiring an attorney over, also attorneys would probably want to be paid by the hour for a case with that much is dispute. If you were to hire an attorney to bring a case trying to recover the entire $228,400 (400 BTC) then there would be a better chance that an attorney would work on a contingent basis (agree to only get paid if they win and the payment would be taken out of the settlement/judgment).

Probably right. Which would mean it'd have to be a class-action case (if there even is such a thing in China).
As far as I know, nobody ever wins in class-action lawsuits...

The attorneys usually win in class actions cases.

Are you located in China? Is the selfish miner located in China?

I am not sure where the appropriate venue for such a lawsuit would be. If you are located in the US and the selfish miner is located in China then federal court would be appropriate as there is a dispute over international commerce. You would need to prove that the "damages" were done in the US. If the pool is in the US and the pool was the entity that was damaged then this should be clear.

If it is determined that the individual miners were damaged then this is much less clear. If a class action lawsuit were to be filed then "class members" located in the US could be included and the suit would be filed in federal court. The definition of located complicates things significantly, does it mean the equipment is located there, does it mean the "owners" of the BTC addresses live there, does it mean they are US citizens/residents? I honestly do not know the answer to the question.

One thing I noticed lacking on your website is something that says what laws would be followed in the event of a dispute or what court cases would be held in (what state/district). If there is zero relationship between the pool and the miners this may be a non-issue. 

2 - Individual miners may not have standing to sue the selfish miner. In a civil case (involving money/damages) you must prove that damages be caused, but also that he damages were against you. There is clearly a relationship between the miners and the pool (the miners provide work for the pool and in exchange for each unit of work the pool provides a maximum amount of payment, if payment is less then the maximum then when the pool can afford to pay more then the maximum the units that got paid less get paid more). The relationship between miners at the pool are not as clear. I am not an attorney, but I think a likely ruling would be if a miner tried to sue another miner at the same pool, the judge would say that their "beef" is with the pool operator, not the selfish miner. On the other hand if the pool operator were to sue a miner the damages are more clear, as the miner did not provide the work, the miner said they provided the work, and the pool operator paid for the work that was not done. There is clearly a fraud here.

Pools don't pay miners for work, merely coordinate cooperation between miners who pay each other.
This is especially clear-cut on Eligius, where most of the funds never pass through the pool operator's hands.

That may be how it is on a logistics standpoint, but is that how it is in the eyes of the law? If you were BTC Guild or ghash I would say defiantly no, as both of those pools have block rewards (and tx fees) paid to the "pool" wallet, and the BTC is then eventually transferred to miners' wallets via automatic payouts. Eligius is very different in that it pays the block rewards (and tx fees) directly to miners via a TX in the found block. Someone could argue what you are saying but they could also argue that since the pool determines who gets paid how much via the payout cue (this being embedded into the header of work provided by the pool - I think this is how it works) that the pool does really control the found blocks. Even a attorney could likely not answer this question with certainty, as I don't think this kind of dispute has been litigated before. The only person who can answer would be the judge that hears the case (and any appellate panel of judges that hear any appeals).

I do question what this person's motive would be. In theory he paid good money for this equipment. As far as I can tell he has done this to multiple pools. Do you think it would be possible to modify mining software so that only the stratum shares are sent back to the pool with the correct header, but the other shares could use a different header (one that pay out to another address)? Do you have a way to determine when he withheld a block from the pool? If so can you compare that to other blocks found around that time, is there any consistency as to who found the blocks? I know that it has previously been determined that you cannot modify block headers to make a found block payout to your own address as the hash would be invalid, but someone who has the resources to have millions of dollars worth of mining equipment might have the resources to make this happen.

[Luke-Jr]

Are you located in China? Is the selfish miner located in China?

He claims to be named LiYi, and located in GuangZhou, China.

2 - Individual miners may not have standing to sue the selfish miner. In a civil case (involving money/damages) you must prove that damages be caused, but also that he damages were against you. There is clearly a relationship between the miners and the pool (the miners provide work for the pool and in exchange for each unit of work the pool provides a maximum amount of payment, if payment is less then the maximum then when the pool can afford to pay more then the maximum the units that got paid less get paid more). The relationship between miners at the pool are not as clear. I am not an attorney, but I think a likely ruling would be if a miner tried to sue another miner at the same pool, the judge would say that their "beef" is with the pool operator, not the selfish miner. On the other hand if the pool operator were to sue a miner the damages are more clear, as the miner did not provide the work, the miner said they provided the work, and the pool operator paid for the work that was not done. There is clearly a fraud here.

Pools don't pay miners for work, merely coordinate cooperation between miners who pay each other.
This is especially clear-cut on Eligius, where most of the funds never pass through the pool operator's hands.

That may be how it is on a logistics standpoint, but is that how it is in the eyes of the law? If you were BTC Guild or ghash I would say defiantly no, as both of those pools have block rewards (and tx fees) paid to the "pool" wallet, and the BTC is then eventually transferred to miners' wallets via automatic payouts. Eligius is very different in that it pays the block rewards (and tx fees) directly to miners via a TX in the found block. Someone could argue what you are saying but they could also argue that since the pool determines who gets paid how much via the payout cue (this being embedded into the header of work provided by the pool - I think this is how it works) that the pool does really control the found blocks. Even a attorney could likely not answer this question with certainty, as I don't think this kind of dispute has been litigated before. The only person who can answer would be the judge that hears the case (and any appellate panel of judges that hear any appeals).

I know for tax purposes, other pools are using this same interpretation.

In theory he paid good money for this equipment.

Supposedly he made it all himself.
That means his primary cost is electricity (actual chips and PCBs do not cost very much to produce).

As far as I can tell he has done this to multiple pools. Do you think it would be possible to modify mining software so that only the stratum shares are sent back to the pool with the correct header, but the other shares could use a different header (one that pay out to another address)? Do you have a way to determine when he withheld a block from the pool? If so can you compare that to other blocks found around that time, is there any consistency as to who found the blocks? I know that it has previously been determined that you cannot modify block headers to make a found block payout to your own address as the hash would be invalid, but someone who has the resources to have millions of dollars worth of mining equipment might have the resources to make this happen.

It's not possible. I don't understand this part of your post entirely.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Are you located in China? Is the selfish miner located in China?

He claims to be named LiYi, and located in GuangZhou, China.

US counts should have jurisdiction in this matter. If the damages were done in the US and one party is located internationally then Federal courts have jurisdiction.

2 - Individual miners may not have standing to sue the selfish miner. In a civil case (involving money/damages) you must prove that damages be caused, but also that he damages were against you. There is clearly a relationship between the miners and the pool (the miners provide work for the pool and in exchange for each unit of work the pool provides a maximum amount of payment, if payment is less then the maximum then when the pool can afford to pay more then the maximum the units that got paid less get paid more). The relationship between miners at the pool are not as clear. I am not an attorney, but I think a likely ruling would be if a miner tried to sue another miner at the same pool, the judge would say that their "beef" is with the pool operator, not the selfish miner. On the other hand if the pool operator were to sue a miner the damages are more clear, as the miner did not provide the work, the miner said they provided the work, and the pool operator paid for the work that was not done. There is clearly a fraud here.

Pools don't pay miners for work, merely coordinate cooperation between miners who pay each other.
This is especially clear-cut on Eligius, where most of the funds never pass through the pool operator's hands.

That may be how it is on a logistics standpoint, but is that how it is in the eyes of the law? If you were BTC Guild or ghash I would say defiantly no, as both of those pools have block rewards (and tx fees) paid to the "pool" wallet, and the BTC is then eventually transferred to miners' wallets via automatic payouts. Eligius is very different in that it pays the block rewards (and tx fees) directly to miners via a TX in the found block. Someone could argue what you are saying but they could also argue that since the pool determines who gets paid how much via the payout cue (this being embedded into the header of work provided by the pool - I think this is how it works) that the pool does really control the found blocks. Even a attorney could likely not answer this question with certainty, as I don't think this kind of dispute has been litigated before. The only person who can answer would be the judge that hears the case (and any appellate panel of judges that hear any appeals).

I know for tax purposes, other pools are using this same interpretation.

For tax purposes. But that interoperation is the same as if pools considered the block rewards as income (revenue) and the earning paid to miners (independent contractors for tax purposes) as expenses. It would be a wash. This is N/A for eligius but the pool fees would be income/revenue and the expenses (costs to rent servers, bandwidth, salaries if applicable) would be deducted from revenue to get the net profit to find what you owe in taxes.

Another argument is that the IRS has ruled bitcoin to be an "asset" but DPR aka Ross Ulbright has been charged with money laundering when dealing only in bitcoin. Just because something is considered one way for tax purposes does not mean that it is that way in "fact" and could be worked another way for "non-tax" purposes.

In theory he paid good money for this equipment.

Supposedly he made it all himself.
That means his primary cost is electricity (actual chips and PCBs do not cost very much to produce).

Electricity can add up. Probably not in the millions  but still not free. I would be interested to know how to build minors in a similar fashion but that is another conversation.

As far as I can tell he has done this to multiple pools. Do you think it would be possible to modify mining software so that only the stratum shares are sent back to the pool with the correct header, but the other shares could use a different header (one that pay out to another address)? Do you have a way to determine when he withheld a block from the pool? If so can you compare that to other blocks found around that time, is there any consistency as to who found the blocks? I know that it has previously been determined that you cannot modify block headers to make a found block payout to your own address as the hash would be invalid, but someone who has the resources to have millions of dollars worth of mining equipment might have the resources to make this happen.

It's not possible. I don't understand this part of your post entirely.

What is should happen when pool mining is the pool sends a block header (the header contains among other things where to send the block reward to) to the miner, the miner tries a random hash to check if the hash finds a valid block, and if so send the valid block to the pool, and if not then tell the pool they found one invalid (this may not be the correct terminology, but "invalid" meaning the miner did not find a block) hash. This is repeated until a valid block is found by the network. With GBT this is done with every single hash.

With stratum the same thing happens, only that only x% of "invalid" (see above explanation for "invalid" - did not find a block) hashes and every hash that does find a block. With every hash that the miner checks, it will use the same block header provided by the pool.

What my question was could someone, in theory, modify something so that only the x% of shares/hashes (the exact hashes that are sent to the pool) contain the header provided by the pool? For example, the software knows that hash1, hash 45, and hash 93 will be sent to the pool, only those three hashses will contain the header provided by the pool. The other hashes would contain some other header.

My question seems to have been answered by the fact that he spent much less on his equipment then his hashrate would indicate.

I am still interested to know what his motive would be in selfish mining. Even if he was not caught he would have a lower payout as the pool would find less blocks. This leads me to believe that he somehow reported that he had a higher hashrate then he really had.

[taipo]

I would say leave the courts out of this. As this issue affects all pools, all pool operators need to work together on this one to shut this mining operation out of pools or keep taxing them their mined BTC until they stump up what they stole.

Im surprised that they are not mining on Discus Fish. What happened there, did they try this already with them and got booted ( speculating here )?

[Harley997]

I would say leave the courts out of this. As this issue affects all pools, all pool operators need to work together on this one to shut this mining operation out of pools or keep taxing them their mined BTC until they stump up what they stole.

Im surprised that they are not mining on Discus Fish. What happened there, did they try this already with them and got booted ( speculating here )?

Without the involvement of the courts these miners would be stealing from the miners and receiving some level of profit.

[taipo]

I know y'all might think you have an all powerful all seeing eye Government, but the US Government does not have an extradition treaty with China - China being one of those countries that is opposed to the extradition of any of its citizens.

So unless you had the Government in China push for their prosecution, all you will end up with is a toothless conviction in absentia.

[Harley997]

I know y'all might think you have an all powerful all seeing eye Government, but the US Government does not have an extradition treaty with China - China being one of those countries that is opposed to the extradition of any of its citizens.

So unless you had the Government in China push for their prosecution, all you will end up with is a toothless conviction in absentia.

Even if that was the case then this person would have the risk that the Chinese reverse their policy. This person would also not be able to travel throughout the world nor would they be able to have assets outside of China.

[Angela8488]

Interestingly, I will continue to focus on this topic.

[taipo]

Even if that was the case then this person would have the risk that the Chinese reverse their policy.

China has never reversed its laws on extraditions of its citizens to any country, even countries it considered to be its own allies. Chances of them doing so in this situation is NIL. They would be more likely to mount their own prosecution against these people, which again, chances are about NIL.

There is a higher chance these people would be persecuted along with all BTC users in China, than that Government taking up the cause of miners in another country to get their 400 BTC back.

This person would also not be able to travel throughout the world nor would they be able to have assets outside of China.

Sure you could restrict their movement by having international arrest warrants issued for them in participating countries, keep in mind though there are about 70 or so countries that do not have extradition treaties with the USA, so while its true their movements would be limited, they would not be THAT limited.

But how does that get everyone's BTC back. It doesn't, even if you catch and lock this chap up while on an overseas jaunt, still no BTC unless you catch him or her with the private keys. But by then, you've spent 1000 BTC on legal fees, Jack Bauer and crew would charge you that amount again...and still not one single BTC returned to those they rightfully belong to.

This is the thing with BTC, when its gone. Its gone.....

You either have to get solidarity amongst all major pool operators to shut these cats out and for all of them to start doing what Eligius did, until they come to table to talk,

or move on with your lives.

[crashoveride54902]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

[philipma1957]

I would say leave the courts out of this. As this issue affects all pools, all pool operators need to work together on this one to shut this mining operation out of pools or keep taxing them their mined BTC until they stump up what they stole.

Im surprised that they are not mining on Discus Fish. What happened there, did they try this already with them and got booted ( speculating here )?

Well if all the bigger reliable pools offered miners a second fork for solo mining it would have stopped this guy.

And they need to offer that option….  As it gives them an out :

  if you are afraid of shit gear hurting your pools luck go to our solo fork.


Yet to hear of any major  1ph or bigger pool giving us a solo fork choice.  

below from btcguild's support page


Miner Connection Details
Stratum Servers

Host (USA)   stratum.btcguild.com:3333
Host (EU)   eu-stratum.btcguild.com:3333

Solo       = missing not available >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   just give a connection address to us miners   you don't.  And basically  the asshole  that fucked you and us   could do it again for hire …  yeah for hire   cex.io could hire the guy to attack your pools and crash the luck  give us a fucking solo fork !!!  He can not hurt a solo fork..  Solo forks are fucking safe from this attack !!!!!!  fix this now!!


Username     philipma1957
Password    (anything)



Just a simple shut out  to real pool ops do this before it is too late.    We will get slapped again and again.  It is clear this can be done on purpose.  even if what the op that did  this was completely innocent of any wrong doing 0 intent just an accident.  

He now knows what he can do with his gear  he can fuckup someones pool on purpose.  His hash power is a weapon of bad luck.  Only a solo pool stops this type attack perfectly.      and no big pool offers the option yet.

 Hey pool op  guys read the thread  tell me I am wrong .

 I am not wrong no solo pool will be hurt  by the attacker.

 So then tell me a solo pool is costly well then charge enough 1.5 coins out of a block of 25 coins is 6%.

 run btc and nmc take 6%  if very few use the option still run it as it clears you in case this guy  does it again. 

You can simply say we offered a solo pool  option to safegaurd you from a "bad luck" attack  you did not use the option .

[Harley997]

There is a higher chance these people would be persecuted along with all BTC users in China, than that Government taking up the cause of miners in another country to get their 400 BTC back.

I doubt they would spend $240k on legal fees

[Luke-Jr]

I am not wrong no solo pool will be hurt  by the attacker.

Um, so you get the worst of both worlds?
Just solo mine for real.

[S4VV4S]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

true, there is no chance of getting the other 400BTC back.

However, I believe that using the 200BTC to place a bounty for whoever comes up with a valid solution, either as new software or a tweak in the current software would be a great idea.

[wizkid057]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

true, there is no chance of getting the other 400BTC back.

However, I believe that using the 200BTC to place a bounty for whoever comes up with a valid solution, either as new software or a tweak in the current software would be a great idea.

The ~200 BTC belongs to the miners who were underpaid due to the withholding attack.

[S4VV4S]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

true, there is no chance of getting the other 400BTC back.

However, I believe that using the 200BTC to place a bounty for whoever comes up with a valid solution, either as new software or a tweak in the current software would be a great idea.

The ~200 BTC belongs to the miners who were underpaid due to the withholding attack.

I understand that but if they all come to an agreement to do so in order to protect themselves in the future, the mining pools will be safer from these kinds of attacks.

Just a thought.

[wizkid057]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

true, there is no chance of getting the other 400BTC back.

However, I believe that using the 200BTC to place a bounty for whoever comes up with a valid solution, either as new software or a tweak in the current software would be a great idea.

The ~200 BTC belongs to the miners who were underpaid due to the withholding attack.

I understand that but if they all come to an agreement to do so in order to protect themselves in the future, the mining pools will be safer from these kinds of attacks.

Just a thought.

I would consider that virtually impossible.  There are thousands of addresses affected, and Eligius has no contact information for them whatsoever.  Getting the word out to these thousands of miners would be impossible in itself, let alone getting them *all* to agree to forfeit funds... best to just pay them.

[S4VV4S]

well this escalated quickly *grabs some more popcorn*

but still sad...hardly any scammer is ever brought to real justice...or its very few n far between...the 200btc we got to hold from him is pretty much all we'll get

true, there is no chance of getting the other 400BTC back.

However, I believe that using the 200BTC to place a bounty for whoever comes up with a valid solution, either as new software or a tweak in the current software would be a great idea.

The ~200 BTC belongs to the miners who were underpaid due to the withholding attack.

I understand that but if they all come to an agreement to do so in order to protect themselves in the future, the mining pools will be safer from these kinds of attacks.

Just a thought.

I would consider that virtually impossible.  There are thousands of addresses affected, and Eligius has no contact information for them whatsoever.  Getting the word out to these thousands of miners would be impossible in itself, let alone getting them *all* to agree to forfeit funds... best to just pay them.

OK, I understand.

Well, none the less I hope you guys can find a good solution to this

[RealMalatesta]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

[S4VV4S]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

True.
That's because it's a serious matter.

BTW: WK I don't know how your pool software works but can't you have a script like a "watchdog" checking about these things?

E.G. when shares are submitted by a client you could do:

if((sharesSubmitted > xxxxxxx) && (blocksFound < x)){

  // notify pool mods to start monitoring this account

}

Just a thought

[philipma1957]

I am not wrong no solo pool will be hurt  by the attacker.

Um, so you get the worst of both worlds?
Just solo mine for real.

Hey I can solo mine on my own and dedicate a server to run the bit coin -qt  to do it.      this is not about me this is about the major pools refusing to offer this option.     I point this out simply to help>

Two pools admitted they had this happen to them  BTCGuild And Eligius.

Look at this from the viewpoint of lawyers.  They may tell clients not enough to sue for only 200 or only 400 coins.  

 A clear case of neglect on the part of pools to guard against this happening is hard to prove. <<<<  This may have been true from 2009 up until now.

Now every pool not offering protection of some type against a " bad luck attack "  would be liable as being willfully neglectful of preventing that type of

attack.

  One method of defense to offer against a  ' bad luck attack ' is a solo fork on your pool.

So once again I ask all large pool ops to consider this.  

1) Remember the attacks  occurred = FACT

2) The guy that did the attacks by an accident or on purpose can do them again. = FACT

3) So far no large pool has told us what they will do to stop this attack.

4) The attacker can sell his tech to the 400 pound gorilla cex.io

5) solo forks on your pool prevent this attack at least on your solo fork they will stop the attack

6) this is a real threat to BTC   and/or all coins   as large pools can use the tech against small pools

 So I ask again since a solo fork option  stops the attack why do all big pools refuse to offer the fork???

[HypnoticGuy]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

[Hektur]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools.

[NewLiberty]

 So I ask again since a solo fork option  stops the attack why do all big pools refuse to offer the fork???

Even the "big pools" are operated like start-ups.
They do not accommodate litigation risk into the profit/survival model.

Your suggestion is a very good one and ought be a consideration for those pools that want to still be in business in a year or two.
It is easy to implement and shifts the risk to the miner from the pool operator.

Another option for the individual would be to use a service like APICoin.io which will run your bitcoin node in the cloud and solo mine using that.
It is much less expensive than running a high availability server node on your own, and offers many other advantages.

[S4VV4S]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools.

They cannot be banned.
They can change IP and BTC address.

He probably disappeared because he realized he ain't getting nothing.

[philipma1957]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools.

His gear represents a true threat to all pool mining.

 So far no one has offered a method to prevent bad luck attacks to their pool...
  A solo fork for a pool works but and a big but  not very attractive to the smaller miners.
Pretty sure the bigger pools see and understand the threat of a bad luck attack.    I can see this to be a real issue from now on.

To any pool op out there   besides a solo fork what other solutions are there for us?


At New liberty   thanks for seeing and mentioning my ideas value.

for me I make money mining and selling and setting small guys up to run a small mining op.  Bad luck attacks would kill off many new people coming into the game.

Most people on this site and other talk about btc going to 2k 3k 4k to the moon.

Growth is the only way to make that happen.  I have said selling a small miner like a R-box on ebay would be very nice to attract newcomers if you point them to a pool with a solo fork.       Cost is low and every block you have a small chance to win.

People do not understand a gambler's mind on this website .... Gamblers want action..   Many play 3 digit numbers legally and illegally   and get paid off at 500 to 1 odds when the real odds are 1000 to one.

Playing an r-box at solo mining is not easy to win  more then  a 600 to 1 chance at current diff to grab 1 block in a month.    but the payoff is very high.

15000 bucks..   many gamblers would buy into that.   I have been pushing at the pool ops to start solo forks for a few weeks...

  So far all I get is a big FORK YOU   pun intended.  I would go into a rant against brilliant computer techs/it guys/code writers which I am not

in that club  , but I won't   as maybe they will see the values of my idea instead of resisting it.

[NewLiberty]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools.

His gear represents a true threat to all pool mining.

 So far no one has offered a method to prevent bad luck attacks to their pool...
  A solo fork for a pool works but and a big but  not very attractive to the smaller miners.
Pretty sure the bigger pools see and understand the threat of a bad luck attack.    I can see this to be a real issue from now on.

To any pool op out there   besides a solo fork what other solutions are there for us?


At New liberty   thanks for seeing and mentioning my ideas value.

for me I make money mining and selling and setting small guys up to run a small mining op.

I offered this:
When a block is found, send the winning nonce to other large miners and see if one doesn't return it.

[philipma1957]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

That or his so called "mining partners" told him to shut the hell up before he got them banned from all the major pools.

His gear represents a true threat to all pool mining.

 So far no one has offered a method to prevent bad luck attacks to their pool...
  A solo fork for a pool works but and a big but  not very attractive to the smaller miners.
Pretty sure the bigger pools see and understand the threat of a bad luck attack.    I can see this to be a real issue from now on.

To any pool op out there   besides a solo fork what other solutions are there for us?


At New liberty   thanks for seeing and mentioning my ideas value.

for me I make money mining and selling and setting small guys up to run a small mining op.

I offered this:
When a block is found, send the winning nonce to other large miners and see if one doesn't return it.

That could work as long as the 'bad luck attacker' is big enough .  His work around would be   100x  2th accounts   and that may slow him down a lot to set up.

use your idea and my idea.  I think quite a few people would divert hash power to a solo fork if given the option.  your idea slows the attacker down since he needs to have enough small accounts to do it.   my idea make the choice on the miner.

 end the risk of a bad luck attack by solo mining our solo fork   or accept the risk and release us of  liability if we fail to stop a bad luck attack.


That is a pretty decent way of dealing with the problem.   One thing for sure doing nothing is really not a good choice by pool ops.  So I hope they do something worth while.

[grnbrg]

I offered this:
When a block is found, send the winning nonce to other large miners and see if one doesn't return it.

* Apparently this can be difficult to do with Stratum.
* If you wait before broadcasting the winning block, another pool may publish first.
* If you publish the block and verify the suspected miner at the same time, the suspected miner may well see the published block and be able to falsely pass your test.


grnbrg.

[RealMalatesta]

Maybe a totally naive question, but... As far as I understand, the guy(s) behind the attack used a "homebrew" version of cgminer. So there are working versions and non-functional versions of cgminer.

Now it would be easy to test some versions and produce a hash of the working ones. It would be easy to produce a hash of the cgminer on the miners and send it out to the pools. If the hash is contained in a list of the hashes of working cgminer-versions, the miner is accepted, otherwise not.

As I said: Just a naive question for discussion...

[philipma1957]

Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.

But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.

 While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that  3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.

 they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.

I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.

I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of  3th each   we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter  or eligus    it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit

a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.

This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.

I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th  for btc and 25mh for ltc.   if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%.  And I hope for the best.

This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.

[taipo]

They cannot be banned.
They can change IP and BTC address.

Yeah IP banning is an uphill battle. The problem is not the IPs, but identifying a unique signature that is this mining rig regardless of its IP addresses and BTC public keys, as an interim method of blocking them across the major pools, while finding a common fix that all pools can employ that doesn't involve forking anything.

[crashoveride54902]

Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.

But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.

 While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that  3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.

 they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.

I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.

I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of  3th each   we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter  or eligus    it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit

a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.

This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.

I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th  for btc and 25mh for ltc.   if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%.  And I hope for the best.

This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.

boy you really want solo fork don't ya? isn't that like solo mining..but on a pool but your still solo mining..which is kinda pointless?

[organofcorti]

How does creating a fork *on purpose* benefit the network?

[bgibso01]

Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.

But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.

 While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that  3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.

 they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.

I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.

I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of  3th each   we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter  or eligus    it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit

a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.

This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.

I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th  for btc and 25mh for ltc.   if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%.  And I hope for the best.

This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.

So I get you wanting a solo fork for pooled mining.  I just can't see the benefit.  Is it so the small miners don't need to keep the block chain on their system?  I also understand your gambler's analogy.  The craps table is my weakness   I've set up eloipool on one of my computers to run and mine some to it for that long-shot payoff.  Can you elaborate more as to why solo pools vs. private pool/bitcoind?

Also, having now caught up on the 6 or 7 pages of reading, is the 'simpleton version' of this that the person was submitting shares that were not real and therefore everyone was getting proportionally lower payouts?  And if that's the case, isn't that a flaw in our pool software design? If he was withholding block solved notification, would that matter? Isn't there the risk someone else would solve the block while he waited?  For myself that does not seem to have an in depth understanding of all this, there appears to be a lot of finger pointing (and probably rightfully so), but another piece of the puzzle is missing for it to click in place.

[jonnybravo0311]

Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.

But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.

 While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that  3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.

 they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.

I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.

I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of  3th each   we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter  or eligus    it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit

a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.

This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.

I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th  for btc and 25mh for ltc.   if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%.  And I hope for the best.

This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.

So I get you wanting a solo fork for pooled mining.  I just can't see the benefit.  Is it so the small miners don't need to keep the block chain on their system?  I also understand your gambler's analogy.  The craps table is my weakness   I've set up eloipool on one of my computers to run and mine some to it for that long-shot payoff.  Can you elaborate more as to why solo pools vs. private pool/bitcoind?

Also, having now caught up on the 6 or 7 pages of reading, is the 'simpleton version' of this that the person was submitting shares that were not real and therefore everyone was getting proportionally lower payouts?  And if that's the case, isn't that a flaw in our pool software design? If he was withholding block solved notification, would that matter? Isn't there the risk someone else would solve the block while he waited?  For myself that does not seem to have an in depth understanding of all this, there appears to be a lot of finger pointing (and probably rightfully so), but another piece of the puzzle is missing for it to click in place.

Simple explanation: miner was submitting real shares; however, shares that would have potentially solved the block were withheld, either due to an innocent coding error in the custom version of cgminer, or a malicious one.  In any case, the result is that by withholding block solutions, the miner gets rewarded for the shares they submit, but everyone gets penalized because block solutions are not also submitted.  Personally, I don't understand the motivation for such an attack since it affects everyone, including the miner.  What benefits does it offer other than to affect the pool's luck statistics?

[S4VV4S]

Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.

But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.

 While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that  3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.

 they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.

I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.

I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of  3th each   we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter  or eligus    it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit

a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.

This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.

I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th  for btc and 25mh for ltc.   if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%.  And I hope for the best.

This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.

So I get you wanting a solo fork for pooled mining.  I just can't see the benefit.  Is it so the small miners don't need to keep the block chain on their system?  I also understand your gambler's analogy.  The craps table is my weakness   I've set up eloipool on one of my computers to run and mine some to it for that long-shot payoff.  Can you elaborate more as to why solo pools vs. private pool/bitcoind?

Also, having now caught up on the 6 or 7 pages of reading, is the 'simpleton version' of this that the person was submitting shares that were not real and therefore everyone was getting proportionally lower payouts?  And if that's the case, isn't that a flaw in our pool software design? If he was withholding block solved notification, would that matter? Isn't there the risk someone else would solve the block while he waited?  For myself that does not seem to have an in depth understanding of all this, there appears to be a lot of finger pointing (and probably rightfully so), but another piece of the puzzle is missing for it to click in place.

Simple explanation: miner was submitting real shares; however, shares that would have potentially solved the block were withheld, either due to an innocent coding error in the custom version of cgminer, or a malicious one.  In any case, the result is that by withholding block solutions, the miner gets rewarded for the shares they submit, but everyone gets penalized because block solutions are not also submitted.  Personally, I don't understand the motivation for such an attack since it affects everyone, including the miner.  What benefits does it offer other than to affect the pool's luck statistics?

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

[bgibso01]

I guess that's where I misunderstood the use of a pool.  I didn't realize the miner knows when it solved a block.  I thought the pool distributed the work and determined if a block was solved.  The use of shares was just there as a measurement of how many times a miner submits solutions based on certain difficulties.  If a share was submitted that solved a block, the pool would then make the announcement.  Guess I've just been in lala land about this.

[jonnybravo0311]

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

That's just it, though.  You're not crashing the pool, you're only affecting the pool's luck stats and impacting everyone's payouts including your own.  I don't understand why.  Let's say that you are successful in your attack, then what?  Are you hoping that miners get disgruntled and leave that pool?  OK, so now you have to hope that the miners that left all join your own pool?  Seems like a long shot, and a pretty lousy choice of methods to get miners onto your pool, especially since by its very definition you're losing revenue you would have made just mining properly.

Let's say that I have 1PH/s of mining equipment and that I have hacked my miner software to not submit block solutions.  I would have to launch my own pool, and then spend all of my mining efforts trying to disrupt the other pools, all while advertising and trying to draw miners into my pool.  I'm losing revenue the entire time because I'm withholding block solutions.  I'm playing the odds that by causing enough disruption in the other pools, a ton of miners will leave those pools and join mine, at which point I'd fix my software and hash away properly.  Are those odds really that good?  I wouldn't think so.  I would think the revenue lost during my "exploratory" mission would outweigh the gains I *might* make later on.

[Jason]

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

That's just it, though.  You're not crashing the pool, you're only affecting the pool's luck stats and impacting everyone's payouts including your own.  I don't understand why.  Let's say that you are successful in your attack, then what?  Are you hoping that miners get disgruntled and leave that pool?  OK, so now you have to hope that the miners that left all join your own pool?  Seems like a long shot, and a pretty lousy choice of methods to get miners onto your pool, especially since by its very definition you're losing revenue you would have made just mining properly.

Let's say that I have 1PH/s of mining equipment and that I have hacked my miner software to not submit block solutions.  I would have to launch my own pool, and then spend all of my mining efforts trying to disrupt the other pools, all while advertising and trying to draw miners into my pool.  I'm losing revenue the entire time because I'm withholding block solutions.  I'm playing the odds that by causing enough disruption in the other pools, a ton of miners will leave those pools and join mine, at which point I'd fix my software and hash away properly.  Are those odds really that good?  I wouldn't think so.  I would think the revenue lost during my "exploratory" mission would outweigh the gains I *might* make later on.

There are some legitimate and worthwhile reasons for performing a block withholding attack.  Let's say that you have a substantial percentage of your net worth in bitcoins and a pool operator is approaching 50% of the net mining rate, threatening the value of your bitcoins.  Might it not make sense for you (and others in a similar situation) to mine at the offending pool operator's site with your miners configured to do a block withholding attack?  Until the pool's luck is adversely affected, you would still receive nearly the same payout you would otherwise receive, but at the same time you would be negatively impacting the luck of the offending pool which would lead other miner's to switch to a different pool once they noticed their earnings began to decline.

[jonnybravo0311]

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

That's just it, though.  You're not crashing the pool, you're only affecting the pool's luck stats and impacting everyone's payouts including your own.  I don't understand why.  Let's say that you are successful in your attack, then what?  Are you hoping that miners get disgruntled and leave that pool?  OK, so now you have to hope that the miners that left all join your own pool?  Seems like a long shot, and a pretty lousy choice of methods to get miners onto your pool, especially since by its very definition you're losing revenue you would have made just mining properly.

Let's say that I have 1PH/s of mining equipment and that I have hacked my miner software to not submit block solutions.  I would have to launch my own pool, and then spend all of my mining efforts trying to disrupt the other pools, all while advertising and trying to draw miners into my pool.  I'm losing revenue the entire time because I'm withholding block solutions.  I'm playing the odds that by causing enough disruption in the other pools, a ton of miners will leave those pools and join mine, at which point I'd fix my software and hash away properly.  Are those odds really that good?  I wouldn't think so.  I would think the revenue lost during my "exploratory" mission would outweigh the gains I *might* make later on.

There are some legitimate and worthwhile reasons for performing a block withholding attack.  Let's say that you have a substantial percentage of your net worth in bitcoins and a pool operator is approaching 50% of the net mining rate, threatening the value of your bitcoins.  Might it not make sense for you (and others in a similar situation) to mine at the offending pool operator's site with your miners configured to do a block withholding attack?  Until the pool's luck is adversely affected, you would still receive nearly the same payout you would otherwise receive, but at the same time you would be negatively impacting the luck of the offending pool which would lead other miner's to switch to a different pool once they noticed their earnings began to decline.

You would need to have a relatively significant hash rate compared to the pool overall to impact the luck on the pool.  Also, as you stated, it would take a while for that impact to be noticed.  It just seems to me that taking such action would prove to be more detrimental to you than it would to the pool.  As a mechanism to prevent a pool from gaining 51%?  I absolutely cannot see adding a significant amount of hashing power to a pool that is already flirting with the 51% mark.  Again, unless you have a significant portion of the hash rate of that pool, your attack would not be viable.  And if you did have a significant portion of the hash rate already on that pool, you could simply move your miners somewhere else.

[Jason]

You would need to have a relatively significant hash rate compared to the pool overall to impact the luck on the pool.  Also, as you stated, it would take a while for that impact to be noticed.  It just seems to me that taking such action would prove to be more detrimental to you than it would to the pool.  As a mechanism to prevent a pool from gaining 51%?  I absolutely cannot see adding a significant amount of hashing power to a pool that is already flirting with the 51% mark.  Again, unless you have a significant portion of the hash rate of that pool, your attack would not be viable.  And if you did have a significant portion of the hash rate already on that pool, you could simply move your miners somewhere else.

Assuming that the ~15% drop in recent bitcoin valuation was due to GHash exceeding 50% of the total hash rate (and who knows how much further it may have dropped if that abuse were not terminated), then you would need to lose 15% of your payouts in order for it to hurt you more than performing the attack.  A drop in mining revenue well below that number would already cause a huge number of miners to switch pools, which would accomplish the objective of reducing the hash rate at the offending pool.

I did not mean to suggest that the individual miner could pull of a successful attack single-handed (with a couple of notable exceptions).  But rather that community action of this nature would have a large enough effect in aggregate to get the job done.  If the community reaction to this abuse by GHash is anything to go by, it seems plausible that a large number of miners might participate in such an attack if it were easy to do.

[jonnybravo0311]

You would need to have a relatively significant hash rate compared to the pool overall to impact the luck on the pool.  Also, as you stated, it would take a while for that impact to be noticed.  It just seems to me that taking such action would prove to be more detrimental to you than it would to the pool.  As a mechanism to prevent a pool from gaining 51%?  I absolutely cannot see adding a significant amount of hashing power to a pool that is already flirting with the 51% mark.  Again, unless you have a significant portion of the hash rate of that pool, your attack would not be viable.  And if you did have a significant portion of the hash rate already on that pool, you could simply move your miners somewhere else.

Assuming that the ~15% drop in recent bitcoin valuation was due to GHash exceeding 50% of the total hash rate (and who knows how much further it may have dropped if that abuse were not terminated), then you would need to lose 15% of your payouts in order for it to hurt you more than performing the attack.  A drop in mining revenue well below that number would already cause a huge number of miners to switch pools, which would accomplish the objective of reducing the hash rate at the offending pool.

I did not mean to suggest that the individual miner could pull of a successful attack single-handed (with a couple of notable exceptions).  But rather that community action of this nature would have a large enough effect in aggregate to get the job done.  If the community reaction to this abuse by GHash is anything to go by, it seems plausible that a large number of miners might participate in such an attack if it were easy to do.

Well, it's speculation that GHash was the cause of the price drop in BTC, albeit a very plausible explanation.  Still, why the attack?  Either your miners are already on the pool in question, in which case you'd simply pull them off the pool, or you'd have to add a bunch of hashing power to the pool that is already at or above the 51% hoping that you make a significant enough impact that a large portion of the miners on the pool beyond your own see the reduction in payout and leave.

[KNK]

Why join the pool to attack it, while it is better to leave the pool and join another one to balance the power.
I don't think

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

is the reason for performing such attack, because it will never outweight the gain from your's and the attacker may not even have pool, but ...
If you have enough power and you solomine - the next difficulty jump will compensate the power you have added and your return will drop, but if you join a pool and never submit solutions - you keep the difficulty lower than it should be, while still being paid. For a longer (enough) period you will get more even if you are mining at a loss, because you are not adding to the pool your solutions.

Lets say you have 1% of the network and join a pool which is 10% of the network.
Together you have 11%, but get only 10% of the blocks - 14-15 per day instead of 15-16 = you loose 1 block per day, but your share in the pool is 10%, so you only loose 2.5 BTC per day (36.25 instead of 38.75 BTC), but after the next difficulty change (lets assume no other power is added):
 If you submit solutions now the pool has 9.9% and gets 356.4 BTC per day from which you only get 10% or 35.64
 If you do not submit your solutions - you still get 36.25, so start getting 0.61 BTC for each difficulty change and after 4 you start getting more and more than you could have otherwise.

[NewLiberty]

Why join the pool to attack it, while it is better to leave the pool and join another one to balance the power.
I don't think

Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe?

is the reason for performing such attack, because it will never outweight the gain from your's and the attacker may not even have pool, but ...
If you have enough power and you solomine - the next difficulty jump will compensate the power you have added and your return will drop, but if you join a pool and never submit solutions - you keep the difficulty lower than it should be, while still being paid. For a longer (enough) period you will get more even if you are mining at a loss, because you are not adding to the pool your solutions.

Lets say you have 1% of the network and join a pool which is 10% of the network.
Together you have 11%, but get only 10% of the blocks - 14-15 per day instead of 15-16 = you loose 1 block per day, but your share in the pool is 10%, so you only loose 2.5 BTC per day (36.25 instead of 38.75 BTC), but after the next difficulty change (lets assume no other power is added):
 If you submit solutions now the pool has 9.9% and gets 356.4 BTC per day from which you only get 10% or 35.64
 If you do not submit your solutions - you still get 36.25, so start getting 0.61 BTC for each difficulty change and after 4 you start getting more and more than you could have otherwise.

If we must consider reasons, and desire to include economics and math, the more important calculation might be the p-value of spend on anger-management therapy.

[jtoomim]

The mathematical probability of you not finding a block with the amount of work required to find 24 blocks is:

One in 81,000,000

ie. pretty fucking unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction

Eligius has several thousand active users. Let's say 1k users of medium to large size. The probability of one of those users having such extremely bad luck would then be 1000 times higher than 1/81,000,000, or 1/81,000. Still unlikely.

Excuse me if I'm being pedantic, I don't like seeing statistics misapplied in important situations. Yes, I'm often an unhappy person.

[organofcorti]

The mathematical probability of you not finding a block with the amount of work required to find 24 blocks is:

One in 81,000,000

ie. pretty fucking unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction

Eligius has several thousand active users. Let's say 1k users of medium to large size. The probability of one of those users having such extremely bad luck would then be 1000 times higher than 1/81,000,000, or 1/81,000. Still unlikely.

Excuse me if I'm being pedantic, I don't like seeing statistics misapplied in important situations. Yes, I'm often an unhappy person.

I could be wrong, but I think you have to be careful of misapplying that correction here, don't you? There are lots of miners, and their hash-rates vary from 1 Ghps to (at the time) 2 Phps, and you can't apply a luck correction since they won't have attempted to solve the same amount of blocks in a similar period. Apples and oranges. Of course if the hashrate was split into a thousand smaller workers you could be correct, but only for the ~ 1Thps miner group.

tl;dr I don't think you should compare groups where the worst and best luck cases cannot be the same (because the amount of submitted work is different). If I'm wrong here, please let me know.


In the time period in question (unless I've missed part of the conversation), there was only one miner with 2Phs, and therefore no other miners against which a comparison could be made. Therefore, the probability of [ submitted work ]/[ expected work ] <= 24 is just

Pr(X <= x) = 1 - exp(-24)

and the upper tail probability:

Pr(X > x) = exp(-24) = 3.775135e-11, or 1 in 26 489 122 130.

Edit: While we're on the subject, the "luck" rv, E[[ submitted work ]/[ expected work ]] for n solved blocks is Erlang distributed, where the shape parameter = rate parameter = n.

[Raize]

Btw: Funny how the discussion rolls on, while the guy who opened this thread seems to have disappeared....

He vanished right around the time everyone realized that not only were we owed the 200+ BTC that were held back, but also the 400+ BTC or more that he was paid for mining when he was not contributing.

He probably disappeared because he realized he ain't getting nothing.

He vanished because he wouldn't or couldn't prove he owned either address so there was nothing more to discuss. The consequences of having signed either address would be an admission of fraud on his part, which is a crime by every nation's government on this planet, Bitcoin-related or not.

[Hektur]

In either this thread or the Eligius one, Wizkid did acknowledge that he was provided a valid signed message with those addresses listed.

[thejewelrytech]

Whiz was provided a signature by someone but it wasn't BRUCIE  he did not own the addresses! He was just a paid shill sent to broker the scam and convince people of no wrong doing....... He stated himself TREAT ME AS  A VOLUNTEER to speak for the real owners to speak on their behalf ?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441465.2480 
  Bottom line he was just someone most likely a PAID PR  paid to speak on  behalf of the supposed miner group he was a SHILL.As he can say he never did anything wrong ?and would be telling the truth while being able too cover THE LIE !As He never owned the addresses to begin with....... so everything he had to say was irrelevant he didn't own the addresses so he really had no right to say anything about the situation all his credibility was out the window at that point! Even if he was giving power to speak? Why couldn't the real owners speak for themselves? because they would be clearly lying and would get caught up in their own lies like LIARS ALWAYS DO....So better to find someone else to speak for you so they aren't lying and maybe believe what they were told so in theory they won't be lying? get someone else and CLAIM THEY ARE IT someone who believes THE LIE because only then they can present it as TRUTH since they believe  the lie to begin with! He only claimed he was giving Power to Speak with absolute no Proof of it also?But seemed to know enough to convince people of the situation...... All he knew is what he was told at best too say so I would take anything he ever said with a grain of Salt
No TICKY...... NO LAUNDRY..............

[kano]

I offered this:
When a block is found, send the winning nonce to other large miners and see if one doesn't return it.

* Apparently this can be difficult to do with Stratum.
* If you wait before broadcasting the winning block, another pool may publish first.
* If you publish the block and verify the suspected miner at the same time, the suspected miner may well see the published block and be able to falsely pass your test.


grnbrg.

The merkleroot hashed in a block header, is the root of a tree of transaction hashes.
One of those transaction hashes, is always the coinbase transaction's hash.
Any changes to the coinbase transaction will change the value of the merkleroot.

Thus ... this is used in stratum, where the coinbase transaction is modified to generate work items from a single work sent by the pool.
Thus, it is quite possible that a miner, given exactly the same work from the pool, will not find the same block since:
1) it may not generate the same work items
2) it may not generate and hash as many work items to catch up to finding the block ... especially if it is slower than the block finder.
3) getting a miner to do more than a small amount of extra work (e.g. only 5.5 seconds longer than necessary on the old block to test them) will mean that miner will find more than 1% less blocks.

Just to expand on that: a stratum 32bit nonce2 work from a pool allows for enough work for over 300,000TH/s for 30s - or 4billion possible work items.
Both miners would have to mine the same work item in those 4billion possible work items.
This is possible of course, but not guaranteed.
You could possibly force it, but that's not the only issue ...

Next problem is the fact that not all mining devices mine the same nonce range.
A full nonce range is from 0x0 to 0xffffffff per work item.
Some devices don't do the full range.
Some fail to do parts of the range due to hardware flaws.
Some fail to do parts of the range due to (bad) firmware design.
This of course doesn't make any difference to the chances of finding a block, but it does affect which devices would find the same block.

..........

And then while thinking about this ... I reread my point 3) above ... that would reduce the pool block find rate, by making big hashers find less blocks ...
You'd wanna hope no pool is doing that and causing their own bad luck ...

[NewLiberty]

And then while thinking about this ... I reread my point 3) above ... that would reduce the pool block find rate, by making big hashers find less blocks ...
You'd wanna hope no pool is doing that and causing their own bad luck ...

Thank you for your careful thinking on it.  We started with Linux at the same year.

The check need not be on every found block.
Spot checking could be sufficient.
Also could skip check unless luck is down.
If nonce is in a known range unsupported by some hardware, it may be a false positive detection, which would require a second check for that condition.

Weigh it against the risk that there is malevolent action decreasing your luck.
Maybe it is hard, so was the byzantine general.
Maybe not worth discovering, or maybe Bitcoin is worth it or will be some day.
Maybe there are unintended consequences that must also be handled.
Experimentation will also be needed.  Making the detection nonce block indistinguishable from other work is also a challenge, or counterdetection measures may develop.

Maybe more thought toward this goal of monitoring for bad actors which is not adequate today, will be even more fruitful.  Thank you for your contribution today and for not ignoring what may be an important problem to solve...

[S4VV4S]

Guys, I will ask again since I didn't get an answer before:

Can't you guys build a "watchdog" like program that will check for this things every 30-60 mins let's say.

You can have it connect to your db, load records,

then

if((sharesSubmitted > xxxxxxx) && (blocksFound < x)){

// notify pool ops to monitor that account

}


just a thought, I don't know if this will work or not but I don't see the reason why not, to at least notify you in such case.

[NewLiberty]

Guys, I will ask again since I didn't get an answer before:

Can't you guys build a "watchdog" like program that will check for this things every 30-60 mins let's say.

You can have it connect to your db, load records,

then

if((sharesSubmitted > xxxxxxx) && (blocksFound < x)){

// notify pool ops to monitor that account

}


just a thought, I don't know if this will work or not but I don't see the reason why not, to at least notify you in such case.

This is another good way to reduce the number of more intrusive checks.
Only checking those significantly below the difficultly average.

[Jutarul]

if((sharesSubmitted > xxxxxxx) && (blocksFound < x)){
// notify pool ops to monitor that account
}
just a thought, I don't know if this will work or not but I don't see the reason why not, to at least notify you in such case.

The problem with an accounting method like that is that it can be subverted by a variation of what is called the Sybil attack. You just create new accounts every time you contributed xxxxxxx-1 shares. Because variation has to be reduced significantly to reduce the false positive rate for the "watchdog", xxxxxxx needs to be sufficiently large. An intelligent hacker will use a RNG to make it impossible to distinguish himself from small scale miners. The block withholding attack is not something which can be realistically defeated by statistical analysis.

The long term trajectory is that pools will eventually have to go the KYC route to limit their exposure to WBAs. The WBA is really an attack on the economics of decentralization, but not in the way you think it is.

[NewLiberty]

The long term trajectory is that pools will eventually have to go the KYC route to limit their exposure to WBAs. The WBA is really an attack on the economics of decentralization, but not in the way you think it is.

I think it is an attack on the economics of decentralization.  Are there more than one way this is true?
Decreasing the "luck" of the pool to get more to join a "luckier" pool increases centralization (and also the effectiveness of this attack).

It is a kin to dumping a product to market under cost to get market share.
The WBA gets nothing for a lost resource to increase the market share of the luckier competitors.

if only there is a way to send a known winning nonce to each suspicious miner to verify they are WBA, you would have incontrovertible proof in the monotoring.

[RoadStress]

Does block withdraw method work against p2pool?

[Luke-Jr]

Does block withdraw method work against p2pool?

You mean block withholding.
Yes, it does.
It's actually worse there because nobody can stop it.

[Legov]

But in p2pool the attacker automatically does not get any payout.
Right?

[Luke-Jr]

But in p2pool the attacker automatically does not get any payout.
Right?

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

[Legov]

It's my mistake.
If an attacker withholds blocks but transmits shares he gets payouts for the shares. Just in p2pool.

[jonnybravo0311]

It's my mistake.
If an attacker withholds blocks but transmits shares he gets payouts for the shares. Just in p2pool.

In every pool.  Not just p2pool.  That's the whole concept behind a block withholding attack: the attacker submits shares that are counted towards payouts, but if a share would satisfy the BTC block, that share is not submitted, and therefore, the block is not solved and no 25BTC reward.

[RealMalatesta]

Maybe a dumb question: If a share is not valid at pool "A", would it also be invalid at pool "B"?

[RoadStress]

Does block withdraw method work against p2pool?

You mean block withholding.
Yes, it does.
It's actually worse there because nobody can stop it.

Withholding yes. Thank you.

[psahx]

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

[eleuthria]

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

p2pool is like a miniature Bitcoin blockchain.  If you had 51% of the p2pool hash rate, you could (more often than not) force your own shares into the sharechain instead of someone elses by forking it until your chain was longer.  I'm not sure what, if any, precautions are present in p2pool to prevent somebody from purposely forking the sharechain in their favor.

An "obvious" one would be making it so nodes ignore a forked chain more than 'X' shares deep, if it all pays out to the same address (indicating somebody forked from the chain to build a longer one that only pays themselves), though all that you'd have to do to combat that is cycle through addresses when making your fork.

In other words, p2pool users would be mining a block which pays almost the entire reward to the attacker, even though they've only done 51% of the actual work.

[psahx]

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

p2pool is like a miniature Bitcoin blockchain.  If you had 51% of the p2pool hash rate, you could (more often than not) force your own shares into the sharechain instead of someone elses by forking it until your chain was longer.  I'm not sure what, if any, precautions are present in p2pool to prevent somebody from purposely forking the sharechain in their favor.

An "obvious" one would be making it so nodes ignore a forked chain more than 'X' shares deep, if it all pays out to the same address (indicating somebody forked from the chain to build a longer one that only pays themselves), though all that you'd have to do to combat that is cycle through addresses when making your fork.

In other words, p2pool users would be mining a block which pays almost the entire reward to the attacker, even though they've only done 51% of the actual work.

Hmm, that makes sense to me. So, there is no way of fighting against mining centralization? I thought p2pool is a decent solution...

Thanks eleuthria

[crashoveride54902]

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

p2pool is like a miniature Bitcoin blockchain.  If you had 51% of the p2pool hash rate, you could (more often than not) force your own shares into the sharechain instead of someone elses by forking it until your chain was longer.  I'm not sure what, if any, precautions are present in p2pool to prevent somebody from purposely forking the sharechain in their favor.

An "obvious" one would be making it so nodes ignore a forked chain more than 'X' shares deep, if it all pays out to the same address (indicating somebody forked from the chain to build a longer one that only pays themselves), though all that you'd have to do to combat that is cycle through addresses when making your fork.

In other words, p2pool users would be mining a block which pays almost the entire reward to the attacker, even though they've only done 51% of the actual work.

Hmm, that makes sense to me. So, there is no way of fighting against mining centralization? I thought p2pool is a decent solution...

Thanks eleuthria

not really...in the end, big money will centralize it whether we want it to happen or not...unless the btc coders force them to decentralize idk

[eleuthria]

Hmm, that makes sense to me. So, there is no way of fighting against mining centralization? I thought p2pool is a decent solution...

Thanks eleuthria

I'm unable to think of a way to fix this problem, it's essentially the same problem as Bitcoin itself has when it comes to a 51% attack.  If p2pool did something like limit the size of a sharechain re-org to only so many shares deep, it would work most of the time, but it would fail if there was ever any major communication issues between countries, essentially forking p2pool into multiple p2pools because they would refuse to come back to a consensus.

[DumDumz]

He tried something, he got caught,now he owes 400 BTC and is trying to refocus the discussion away from that fact.

[Hunterbunter]

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

An "obvious" one would be making it so nodes ignore a forked chain more than 'X' shares deep, if it all pays out to the same address (indicating somebody forked from the chain to build a longer one that only pays themselves), though all that you'd have to do to combat that is cycle through addresses when making your fork.

In other words, p2pool users would be mining a block which pays almost the entire reward to the attacker, even though they've only done 51% of the actual work.

The difference is a 51% attack on the p2pool chain would be immediately obvious to all miners monitoring it - p2pool finds a block, but no payment is made since the attacker has substituted their own btc addresses into the sharechain, instead of the legitimate miners.

In this event, I imagine miners would just jump ship, if a better solution isn't implemented by then. Until then, though, it still has its advantages.

[Luke-Jr]

Hmm, that makes sense to me. So, there is no way of fighting against mining centralization? I thought p2pool is a decent solution...

Sure, there's getblocktemplate, a decentralised client-server mining protocol.
Basically all the positives of p2pool without the negatives.
Just needs more time to finish implementing it...

The difference is a 51% attack on the p2pool chain would be immediately obvious to all miners monitoring it - p2pool finds a block, but no payment is made since the attacker has substituted their own btc addresses into the sharechain, instead of the legitimate miners.

In this event, I imagine miners would just jump ship, if a better solution isn't implemented by then. Until then, though, it still has its advantages.

Just like all the miners jumped ship from Arsbitcoin when it forked off the blockchain? Or when it shutdown?
Or like when they jumped ship when 0.8-based pools forked off the main bitcoin blockchain?
Or like when they jumped ship from Deepbit when it stopped mining valid blocks?

Sadly, most miners don't pay attention.

[Hunterbunter]

Hmm, that makes sense to me. So, there is no way of fighting against mining centralization? I thought p2pool is a decent solution...

Sure, there's getblocktemplate, a decentralised client-server mining protocol.
Basically all the positives of p2pool without the negatives.
Just needs more time to finish implementing it...

The difference is a 51% attack on the p2pool chain would be immediately obvious to all miners monitoring it - p2pool finds a block, but no payment is made since the attacker has substituted their own btc addresses into the sharechain, instead of the legitimate miners.

In this event, I imagine miners would just jump ship, if a better solution isn't implemented by then. Until then, though, it still has its advantages.

Just like all the miners jumped ship from Arsbitcoin when it forked off the blockchain? Or when it shutdown?
Or like when they jumped ship when 0.8-based pools forked off the main bitcoin blockchain?
Or like when they jumped ship from Deepbit when it stopped mining valid blocks?

Sadly, most miners don't pay attention.

Maybe a marginal number don't pay attention, but enough do. In this event, the block chain is still uncompromised and only P2Pool is naffed.

[DumDumz]

He tried something, he got caught,now he owes 400 BTC and is trying to refocus the discussion away from that fact.

[NewLiberty]

He tried something, he got caught,now he owes 400 BTC and is trying to refocus the discussion away from that fact.

QFT

Sure he does. He could even 51% attack p2pool to get up to ~200% PPS (at the expense of everyone else).

Could you please explain a 51% p2pool attack in more detail? I mean, lot of people believe, that p2pool is the most decentralized mining option available, and you state, that a 51% attack could be done to p2pool?

An "obvious" one would be making it so nodes ignore a forked chain more than 'X' shares deep, if it all pays out to the same address (indicating somebody forked from the chain to build a longer one that only pays themselves), though all that you'd have to do to combat that is cycle through addresses when making your fork.

In other words, p2pool users would be mining a block which pays almost the entire reward to the attacker, even though they've only done 51% of the actual work.

The difference is a 51% attack on the p2pool chain would be immediately obvious to all miners monitoring it - p2pool finds a block, but no payment is made since the attacker has substituted their own btc addresses into the sharechain, instead of the legitimate miners.

In this event, I imagine miners would just jump ship, if a better solution isn't implemented by then. Until then, though, it still has its advantages.

The "obvious" defense is too easily countered by new addresses for each block.  Addresses are zero cost.

[railzand]

Did Eligius ever hand out the 200btc to its miners?

[crashoveride54902]

Did Eligius ever hand out the 200btc to its miners?

not to this scammer fuck and it was just 1 miner

[Luke-Jr]

Did Eligius ever hand out the 200btc to its miners?

not to this scammer fuck and it was just 1 miner

crashoveride54902 means the 200 BTC we recovered.

Answer is not yet, since it will take quite a bit of code to do still

[crashoveride54902]

Did Eligius ever hand out the 200btc to its miners?

not to this scammer fuck and it was just 1 miner

crashoveride54902 means the 200 BTC we recovered.

Answer is not yet, since it will take quite a bit of code to do still

oh ya duh my bad...been a long week

[Gleb Gamow]

I'm just a little curious about the 'bad' luck and the fact that Eligius has in credit over 1800BTC
If they've been losing blocks (>400BTC) that would make them over 2200BTC in credit if they got those 'missing' blocks.

+1800BTC doesn't sound like bad luck ... though I could be wrong

https://blockchain.info/address/18d3HV2bm94UyY4a9DrPfoZ17sXuiDQq2B >477.12965068
https://blockchain.info/address/1ChANGeATMH8dFnj39wGTjfjudUtLspzXr >237.98484501
https://blockchain.info/address/14qgRxmyWwRweGY4mfjB5FRxr3Ak8Weu1w 1000 BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/1BRoZJLeLaR9T4PP2m1FJ5isqgQmhzMKBn 99.999 BTC

... I wonder what other addresses Eligius has ...

Add this one to the list: https://blockchain.info/address/1TrHirgxnRsWJ9aTgh9XZJfsD1W9bFvop