Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2014, 07:37:50 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
   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 37799 times)
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


XBT.pt - BTC/DOGE


View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 02, 2012, 05:36:23 PM
 #621

Banks using a blockchain makes about as much sense as dictatorship holding annual elections with only 1 candidate on the ballot.

But, that's what they do(or did)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_%28Portugal%29
Quote
Executive authority was nominally vested in a president, elected by popular vote for a five-year term. The legislature was a unicameral National Assembly, elected every four years. An advisory body, the Corporative Chamber, nominally represented economic, social and cultural organizations. In practice, however, the system was completely dominated by Salazar. While opposition candidates theoretically could stand for office, in practice the system was so heavily rigged in favour of the official party, the National Union, that they had no realistic chance of winning.

And that went on for almost 50 years. Figure that out...

1398411470
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398411470

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398411470
Reply with quote  #2

1398411470
Report to moderator
    mBitCASINOWIN BITCOINS IN OUR
24/7 LIVE DEALER CASINO

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1398411470
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398411470

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398411470
Reply with quote  #2

1398411470
Report to moderator
1398411470
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398411470

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398411470
Reply with quote  #2

1398411470
Report to moderator
1398411470
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398411470

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398411470
Reply with quote  #2

1398411470
Report to moderator
1398411470
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398411470

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398411470
Reply with quote  #2

1398411470
Report to moderator
guruvan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile

Ignore
April 02, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
 #622

Banks don't need a blockchain.  The purpose of a blockchain is to provide consensus in an anonymous decentralized environment without any central authority.

Banks using a blockchain makes about as much sense as dictatorship holding annual elections with only 1 candidate on the ballot.

Which dictators do all the time.

I would think banks would want irreversible interbank transactions/records. Why wouldn't they?

I could even see them wanting anonymous interbank transfers (they're usually the primary money launderers - why not find a new route now that the US/UN has shut that down so much?)

I don't see why a bank wouldn't want consensus on "what is the agreed upon value of the total money supply" , and where did it come from and go to - the $15,000,000,000 that Lord James discovered to be back by some 750,000 TONS of gold (which can't possibly exist!) just appeared - you don't think the banks would want consensus that you can't introduce ludicrous amounts of "money" into the global supply? I do.

"banks don't want bitcoin" is not a valid argument for anything in my book. They may not like their customers using it, but they sure don't all trust each other. I don't see why it isn't perfect for them to use between themselves. (maybe I should be enlightened?)

I do see some being old, stuck in old ways, and not adopting new technologies, but they'll die off soon enough. Like newspapers.

I block forum PMs. Please contact me  on my  OTC registered GPG (A54E87F2) Key's main email address and encrypt all correspondence.
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile

Ignore
April 02, 2012, 07:59:56 PM
 #623

Banks don't need a blockchain.  The purpose of a blockchain is to provide consensus in an anonymous decentralized environment without any central authority.

Banks using a blockchain makes about as much sense as dictatorship holding annual elections with only 1 candidate on the ballot.

Which dictators do all the time.

I would think banks would want irreversible interbank transactions/records. Why wouldn't they?

I could even see them wanting anonymous interbank transfers (they're usually the primary money launderers - why not find a new route now that the US/UN has shut that down so much?)

I don't see why a bank wouldn't want consensus on "what is the agreed upon value of the total money supply" , and where did it come from and go to - the $15,000,000,000 that Lord James discovered to be back by some 750,000 TONS of gold (which can't possibly exist!) just appeared - you don't think the banks would want consensus that you can't introduce ludicrous amounts of "money" into the global supply? I do.

"banks don't want bitcoin" is not a valid argument for anything in my book. They may not like their customers using it, but they sure don't all trust each other. I don't see why it isn't perfect for them to use between themselves. (maybe I should be enlightened?)

I do see some being old, stuck in old ways, and not adopting new technologies, but they'll die off soon enough. Like newspapers.

If they only wanted to use it for inter-bank transfers, they would pre-mine a bunch of coins and then disable the block reward completely. Then use the mining to do confirmations, and assign an arbitrary value to each coin. But this doesn't really seem to be necessary, unless they were trying to combat insider theft on a grand scale.

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

Activity: 546


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 12:02:14 AM
 #624

Has anyone tried tracing the coinbase of the MM blocks to see where those coins are ending up? I know it might be hard to find out exactly where they are going but it would be interesting if this could be a way to track down the bot net owner.
jjiimm_64
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 02:21:00 AM
 #625

Has anyone tried tracing the coinbase of the MM blocks to see where those coins are ending up? I know it might be hard to find out exactly where they are going but it would be interesting if this could be a way to track down the bot net owner.

we are not sure if it is a bot.....

1jimbitm6hAKTjKX4qurCNQubbnk2YsFw
kunibopl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 11:37:15 AM
 #626

maybe it's helpful to speculate about MMs motifs.
I guess it would be noticed if he starts selling his coins.
is it a fair assumption, that he didn't sell the biggest part of his coins up till now?
so is he doing it for the money or preparing to kill bitcoin?
he surely can manipulate the BTC value to some degree.
if he's out for money he's of course not bound to offer the coins on MtGox, he could also buy loads of cocaine and sell this.
he then wouldn't want to disrupt bitcoin. it was pointed out, that his ideal hashing power would be somewhere around 20%.

another question: someone suggested to talk to the ISP of his current IP. who could possibly be that in a decentralized network?
anybody? ok, wouldn't help much, probably. MM surely is reading here :-).

NXT: 5231236538923913892
molecular
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
 #627

it's tom's hardware testing GPUs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-benchmarks-charts-review,3154-8.html

paraipan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 02:06:21 PM
 #628


yep, and the results are interesting

sorry for off-topic, watching the thread...

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

Activity: 518


Ad astra.


View Profile

Ignore
April 03, 2012, 03:30:54 PM
 #629


yep, and the results are interesting

sorry for off-topic, watching the thread...

Heh. I get more with a 5870 than they do with a 7970. They should really have someone knowledgeable do their benchmarks.

-- BinaryMage -- | OTC | PGP
runeks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 12:02:21 AM
 #630

It's an interesting phenomenon we are seeing here. At the end of the day, designing a system that "just works" without employing it is very hard. So it would be no surprise if we found out that Bitcoin, in its current form, needs adjustments. We have seen with BIP 16 that this is possible, as long as the miners have faith in whomever proposes the solution. Of course the required change in this case might be different, as a core protocol change could be required. It will, in any case, be interesting to see where this leads.

The most important thing is to not rush into finding a solution. This is how bureaucracy is created, and one of the worst things that could happen to Bitcoin. One imperfect solution on top of the next. The "no empty blocks"-rule is an example of this, in my opinion. Generally, when we observe misbehavior like this, we shouldn't really be asking ourselves how to prevent it. We should be asking ourselves: why does it occur in the first place? There are numerous ways we can prevent this from happening, but if we don't solve the fundamental structure of incentivizing cooperation, we have solved nothing.

It seems to me that the simplicity of the situation is that for this particular miner, the reward for including transactions in a block is not worth the effort required to do so. This is not really surprising, given that fees comprise less than 0.15% of total block reward (using the newest post as of this writing: 174195). It seems obvious that this is not due to - as some speculate - the cost of processing power, ie. doing the signature check. This is obviously a tiny effort both in time and power costs. The real cost is maintaining a block chain. This requires first downloading over 1 GB of data and subsequently updating this block chain with every newly incoming transaction (which in itself requires connections to - preferably - multiple nodes). This is quite a task for a decentralized botnet.
There's a simple way to mitigate this though: start paying more fees Smiley.

My address: 1runeksijzfVxyrpiyCY2LCBvYsSiFsCm
ASICMiner solo hashrate: http://runeks.me/bitcoin/
BinaryMage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


Ad astra.


View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 01:14:09 AM
 #631

It's an interesting phenomenon we are seeing here. At the end of the day, designing a system that "just works" without employing it is very hard. So it would be no surprise if we found out that Bitcoin, in its current form, needs adjustments. We have seen with BIP 16 that this is possible, as long as the miners have faith in whomever proposes the solution. Of course the required change in this case might be different, as a core protocol change could be required. It will, in any case, be interesting to see where this leads.

The most important thing is to not rush into finding a solution. This is how bureaucracy is created, and one of the worst things that could happen to Bitcoin. One imperfect solution on top of the next. The "no empty blocks"-rule is an example of this, in my opinion. Generally, when we observe misbehavior like this, we shouldn't really be asking ourselves how to prevent it. We should be asking ourselves: why does it occur in the first place? There are numerous ways we can prevent this from happening, but if we don't solve the fundamental structure of incentivizing cooperation, we have solved nothing.

It seems to me that the simplicity of the situation is that for this particular miner, the reward for including transactions in a block is not worth the effort required to do so. This is not really surprising, given that fees comprise less than 0.15% of total block reward (using the newest post as of this writing: 174195). It seems obvious that this is not due to - as some speculate - the cost of processing power, ie. doing the signature check. This is obviously a tiny effort both in time and power costs. The real cost is maintaining a block chain. This requires first downloading over 1 GB of data and subsequently updating this block chain with every newly incoming transaction (which in itself requires connections to - preferably - multiple nodes). This is quite a task for a decentralized botnet.
There's a simple way to mitigate this though: start paying more fees Smiley.

An excellent point. But as to the solution you suggest, that kind of societal shift works when everybody cares about the currency - but not when most of the people here simply want to make money. We can certainly change the software to require more fees, but I don't think enough people will put up their bitcoins out of care for the currency to solve the problem.

-- BinaryMage -- | OTC | PGP
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 343


View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
 #632

I see no mystery blocks since the 1st April switch...
http://blockchain.info/ip-address/71.123.170.150

Guess they are having to recode their software?
Clipse
SCAMMER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 08:45:05 PM
 #633

I see no mystery blocks since the 1st April switch...
http://blockchain.info/ip-address/71.123.170.150

Guess they are having to recode their software?

Im pretty sure he caught on to the forum posts and just started to accept TX's, hashrate for unknown remained(in fact grew slightly) since 1 April.

Also, the Myster Miner is running across multiple relays, that single IP means nothing.

...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 08:48:13 PM
 #634

Clipse nailed it.

Lack of 0 tx blocks could be
a) mystery is getting orphaned out due to incompatible blocks
b) he started including txs


While "a" is certainly possible we should have seen a 15% increase in avg block time which hasn't happened over the last 4 days.

Gerald Davis  CEO, Tangible Cryptography Inc.
BitSimple. A simpler way to buy and sell bitcoins
P4man
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 08:58:36 PM
 #635

While "a" is certainly possible we should have seen a 15% increase in avg block time which hasn't happened over the last 4 days.

There definitely has been a drop:



And lots of orphans. Though other pools made the same mistake, I do suspect MM dropped the ball.

I aint signing anything.
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 09:00:33 PM
 #636

Orphans are primarily due to the enabling of BIP16, I suspect.

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

Activity: 532


We have cookies


View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 09:04:00 PM
 #637

Lack of 0 tx blocks could be
a) mystery is getting orphaned out due to incompatible blocks
b) he started including txs
a+b is possible too.

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
edd
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 10:19:41 PM
 #638

Lack of 0 tx blocks could be
a) mystery is getting orphaned out due to incompatible blocks
b) he started including txs
a+b is possible too.

I thought MM got caught in a sinkhole.

BitBrew - Buy Coffee for BTC, The Bitcoin List - Online Directory of BTC Sites, Operation Fabulous - BTC Based Advertising Platform, Bitcoin General Store - Buy All Kinds of Physical Goods for BTC
P4man
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 10:32:30 PM
 #639

Orphans are primarily due to the enabling of BIP16, I suspect.

Yeah, but the question is if those include MMs. Is there a chart or table somewhere with orphans?

I aint signing anything.
piuk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile WWW

Ignore
April 04, 2012, 10:39:38 PM
 #640

Orphans are primarily due to the enabling of BIP16, I suspect.

I thought this as well but there has hardly been any P2SH transactions.

510b5a44935109e249a704c2900aa9d8303166062e81d2ac852c965b6266dcee      
d0636198ea55fadee5b4ccc07c85012db7d07c2d25790b3aec770c86617801c0      
9ab59e2d4be16c470160eb9b9a9d9799eaf29af0461aea131e748659d806fa1a
658fc92061f1c4125d5cd1034eb8a1f09bfebd32a988d855eb7ee63689759a21
b0539a45de13b3e0403909b8bd1a555b8cbe45fd4e3f3fda76f3a5f52835c29d
9c08a4d78931342b37fd5f72900fb9983087e6f46c4a097d8a1f52c74e28eaf6

are the only ones ever.

Is there a chart or table somewhere with orphans?

http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

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!