Bitcoin Forum
June 30, 2015, 08:21:37 AM *
News: Change your password!
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9  (Read 45901 times)
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 08:59:06 PM
 #341

That is much less likely.  Not unless large organizations are equipping fleets of machines with high end ATI video cards.  

Render farms? cyber cafe chain stores targeting gamers? what if someone developed a toolbar and paid affiliates for hashing? not including transactions to blocks is not against the law and may be not worth it for a big enough network, being fees typically as low as they are.

We have a couple distinct problems here:

1 - we don't know for sure what's going on. For my money it's as likely that 200k gamers don't realise that their computers are blasting their fans way too much, as it's that someone just discovered a massive breakthrough in software/hardware hashing and/or decided to invest massively in it.

2 - not including transactions properly is, in itself, not against the law. If the system is not evolutionarily stable towards including transactions, then that was that. I'm afraid that a 0.3% premium for including transactions doesn't seem to cut it.  "On the bright side", block reward will halven relatively soon and hopefully a bigger bitcoin economy will make this premium much bigger too.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
247EXCHANGE.COM: INSTANT WAY TO BUY, SELL, EXCHANGE BITCOIN AND ALTCOINS
Buy bitcoins with Credit/Debit card! $$$ Buy/sell bitcoins with cash @ 400,000 locations! $$$ Withdraw coins to Any Card!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1435652497
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1435652497

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1435652497
Reply with quote  #2

1435652497
Report to moderator
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 09:16:04 PM
 #342

If it's a botnet, perhaps it could be using an unknown SETI@Home/BOINC exploit or trojan?

or it is seti/boinc/folding itself... making a quick buck for marketing and driving people away from bitcoin back to scientific calcs.

(i don't really believe that  Tongue)


namecoin.org - freedom of information
blockchained.com ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
pieppiep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402



View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 09:20:16 PM
 #343

... as it's that someone just discovered a massive breakthrough in software/hardware hashing and/or decided to invest massively in it.
I would like that a lot!
Very interesting idea to dream about, 1 GH/s on a normal CPU.
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:04:10 PM
 #344

If it's a botnet, perhaps it could be using an unknown SETI@Home/BOINC exploit or trojan?

or it is seti/boinc/folding itself... making a quick buck for marketing and driving people away from bitcoin back to scientific calcs.

(i don't really believe that  Tongue)



hard to believe given those projects do floating point operations in their software and use Nvidia GPUs

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
 #345

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?
DeepBit
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:25:26 PM
 #346

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.
Honest nodes can mine 1tx blocks too and it's normal in some cases.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net ~ 3600 GH/s, Both payment schemes, instant payout, no invalid blocks !
Coming soon: ICBIT Trading platform
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:25:47 PM
 #347

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?
What happens when no one sends a transaction, and there are none to include? Why couldn't the miner include 1 or 2 txns of his own in each block to pad it out to the required minimum? TL;DR, NO. Won't work.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:39:37 PM
 #348

... as it's that someone just discovered a massive breakthrough in software/hardware hashing and/or decided to invest massively in it.
I would like that a lot!
Very interesting idea to dream about, 1 GH/s on a normal CPU.

That dream only works if you're the only one, which apparently you are not. Doesn't matter how many PetaHashes we churn out on a CPU, the difficulty just eats the zeros.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
 #349

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?
What happens when no one sends a transaction, and there are none to include? Why couldn't the miner include 1 or 2 txns of his own in each block to pad it out to the required minimum? TL;DR, NO. Won't work.

If you're going this route, as a node, you could look at the number of transactions (maybe add up their fees) you have collected yourself from the network and require a certain percentage of that to be included in order for a given block to be accepted by you, say 20% for example. So if you have accumulated 20 transactions, a block would have to include at least 4 of these in order for you to accept it. This would guarantee the block to contain at least some fresh transactions.

I'm pretty sure this would have all kinds of implications and probably something prohibitive. It would certainly increase danger of chain-split.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:54:28 PM
 #350



If you're going this route, as a node, you could look at the number of transactions (maybe add up their fees) you have collected yourself from the network and require a certain percentage of that to be included in order for a given block to be accepted by you, say 20% for example. So if you have accumulated 20 transactions, a block would have to include at least 4 of these in order for you to accept it. This would guarantee the block to contain at least some fresh transactions.

I'm pretty sure this would have all kinds of implications and probably something prohibitive. It would certainly increase danger of chain-split.

I thought of this and posted it earlier in the thread with 10% minimum.  Unfortunately this can lead to splits if transactions are not properly relayed.  It probably wont happen often but it will happen.  Rules could be made to overcome this, but all of this adds complexity and the possibility of unknown results.   Having a minimum will just cause MM to include a repeating transaction or two of his own, not from the waiting list. 

Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 20, 2012, 10:57:24 PM
 #351

The one trans blocks are now appearing to come from Eligius

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 12:10:24 AM
 #352

here's a patch to bitcoind (git) that logs the ip-addresses from which 1-tx-blocks are received: http://pastebin.com/EgJAGnSj

so in case someone sees his own IP in this thread, you could go ahead and identify the origin Wink


PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
 #353

So the price drops, and this thread become hot.


PulsedMedia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 02:01:26 AM
 #354

all the talks about pushing against this MM is just plain stupid. Stoppind 1tx blocks? Oh come on.
You guys are asking exactly what bitcoin is the opposite of: Central authority.

There is no proof of botnet, there is no proof of any ill doing what so ever. Every miner is free to choose to include TXs or not to. TX fees will adjust for that *EVENTUALLY*.
This could just be some HONEST miner who made a huge investment. This could be BFL testing all their singles, rigs etc. ie. for 800Ghash it takes "only" 1000 BFL Singles, or 40 mini rigs! *40*, not 40000, not 4000, but 40. The full blown rigs you would only need 16 of!
16*30k$ = 480k $. Hardly a sizeable investment in grand scale of things.

Even if this MM has 4Thash, and does not include TXs, he is increasing the strength of BTC, as long as he doesn't exceed 50% and does something stupid. Even without including transactions.

But no, you guys are asking for Central Friggin' Authority. You want that? Well go use Paypal, and don't whine when they freeze your account for receiving too much in a week!
Being under the whims of a central authority is a no go for you? Then don't demand that for bitcoin.

People demanding all kinds of actions against this MM are actually doing much more damage to BTC than the MM is. Infact, as i see, MM is increasing the overall strength of BTC. Only downside he is causing right now is slightly slower transactions.
Sure, YOUR mining revenues for now are lower, but in the long term you will gain more. BTC price will eventually follow.

Every single Ghash added to the network makes just that much unlikely anyone could take over 50% of the network. When we reach a point where 1billion USD investment is not sufficient to take 50% of the network BTC starts being really strong. Currently at newegg list prices that purchases roughly as 4x7970 rigs 754Thash. You only need roughly 10mil $ right now to take 65-70% of the network.

Like it or not, but we do need the hashing strength of MM. He was capable of doing what, 1.4Thash? That's just 10%! And doesn't he keep the operation off most of the time?

Are we even sure this is just 1 party? No.

http://PulsedMedia.com - Semidedicated rTorrent seedboxes
cablepair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


http://www.BTCFPGA.com


View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 02:04:25 AM
 #355

Quote
Central Friggin' Authority. You want that?

you should have t-shirts made that say that!

Got Milk?

Xscrypt Premier Cloud Mining - https://xscrypt.com/?id=5370
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 02:17:52 AM
 #356

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?

He creates a single 1 satoshi transaction from one account he owns to another.  Tada 2 tx block. 
dizzy1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 134


View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 02:29:04 AM
 #357

all the talks about pushing against this MM is just plain stupid. Stoppind 1tx blocks? Oh come on.
You guys are asking exactly what bitcoin is the opposite of: Central authority.

There is no proof of botnet, there is no proof of any ill doing what so ever. Every miner is free to choose to include TXs or not to. TX fees will adjust for that *EVENTUALLY*.
This could just be some HONEST miner who made a huge investment. This could be BFL testing all their singles, rigs etc. ie. for 800Ghash it takes "only" 1000 BFL Singles, or 40 mini rigs! *40*, not 40000, not 4000, but 40. The full blown rigs you would only need 16 of!
16*30k$ = 480k $. Hardly a sizeable investment in grand scale of things.

Even if this MM has 4Thash, and does not include TXs, he is increasing the strength of BTC, as long as he doesn't exceed 50% and does something stupid. Even without including transactions.

But no, you guys are asking for Central Friggin' Authority. You want that? Well go use Paypal, and don't whine when they freeze your account for receiving too much in a week!
Being under the whims of a central authority is a no go for you? Then don't demand that for bitcoin.

People demanding all kinds of actions against this MM are actually doing much more damage to BTC than the MM is. Infact, as i see, MM is increasing the overall strength of BTC. Only downside he is causing right now is slightly slower transactions.
Sure, YOUR mining revenues for now are lower, but in the long term you will gain more. BTC price will eventually follow.

Every single Ghash added to the network makes just that much unlikely anyone could take over 50% of the network. When we reach a point where 1billion USD investment is not sufficient to take 50% of the network BTC starts being really strong. Currently at newegg list prices that purchases roughly as 4x7970 rigs 754Thash. You only need roughly 10mil $ right now to take 65-70% of the network.

Like it or not, but we do need the hashing strength of MM. He was capable of doing what, 1.4Thash? That's just 10%! And doesn't he keep the operation off most of the time?

Are we even sure this is just 1 party? No.

Do we have solid proof? No. We are basing our assumptions on a paste of an irc conversation. And by not including transactions, he can bring the network to a standstill as long as no other party makes a block. Please read your next post to make sure people can actually understand what you are saying.
dab
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 06:30:42 AM
 #358

All I know is that my normal daily mining earnings have crippled. I don't like it. I feel like I should whine. Really though, people here are right. Mining is a business, we should upgrade if we don't like what we're earning, etc. We can view this as a great motivation to find cheaper ways to pump out hashes. Sort of like an renewable energy crisis. "Somebody is using up 10% of the oil we're used to getting. We either stop him from getting the oil that could be ours, or we find a new way to power our stuff". Not greatest analogy, but meh.

That's why I got another card. Bring on the hashes.

I agree that a botnet mining network isn't fair. it isn't right. But it isn't our jobs to control that. BitCoin network will work it out itself (through our own hash pushes making the botnet worthless in ratio retrospect. There are more of us than there are of them.)

Just my 2 Satoshis. 
DeepBit
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 08:01:37 AM
 #359

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?
What happens when no one sends a transaction, and there are none to include? Why couldn't the miner include 1 or 2 txns of his own in each block to pad it out to the required minimum? TL;DR, NO. Won't work.
If you're going this route, as a node, you could look at the number of transactions (maybe add up their fees) you have collected yourself from the network and require a certain percentage of that to be included in order for a given block to be accepted by you, say 20% for example. So if you have accumulated 20 transactions, a block would have to include at least 4 of these in order for you to accept it. This would guarantee the block to contain at least some fresh transactions.
Someone can connect to your node from different IPs, fill your memory pool with TXes and then you'll orphan yourself.
Of course it's not that easy, but I don't like this way. Also sometimes bitcoin just have to create 1tx blocks even when there are lots of TXes.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net ~ 3600 GH/s, Both payment schemes, instant payout, no invalid blocks !
Coming soon: ICBIT Trading platform
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile

Ignore
March 21, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
 #360

Can't we easily solve this problem by convincing all honest nodes to reject 1tx blocks?

If this happens, the MM has to include at least one other tx to make any BTC at all. This will force him to engineer some sort of solution to verifying transactions (supposedly he isn't verifying now due to the cost of managing the blockchain). Either he will give up or he'll start including transactions.

thoughts?
What happens when no one sends a transaction, and there are none to include? Why couldn't the miner include 1 or 2 txns of his own in each block to pad it out to the required minimum? TL;DR, NO. Won't work.
If you're going this route, as a node, you could look at the number of transactions (maybe add up their fees) you have collected yourself from the network and require a certain percentage of that to be included in order for a given block to be accepted by you, say 20% for example. So if you have accumulated 20 transactions, a block would have to include at least 4 of these in order for you to accept it. This would guarantee the block to contain at least some fresh transactions.
Someone can connect to your node from different IPs, fill your memory pool with TXes and then you'll orphan yourself.
Of course it's not that easy, but I don't like this way. Also sometimes bitcoin just have to create 1tx blocks even when there are lots of TXes.

I don't like it either and I'm not suggesting to do this, I was merely improving a bit on the initial "idea".

I understand the "orphan attack on a node", but please explain why "sometimes bitcoin just have to create 1tx blocks even when there are lots of TXes" ? Right after startup?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!