GAW ZenCloud ZenPool Hashlet - does it really exist? ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :-)

[wdl1908]

Look, I know you're probably not a troll, and you're trying to make sense of this whitepaper. That being said, (and don't take this personally) you are pretty wrong on the decentralized aspect of hashcoin. Prime controllers are all owned and operated by GAW (just like regular hashlets). Sure, you might be able to purchase them on the cloud, but the miners are, in the end, physically in GAW's hands. Trusted nodes ("Prime Controllers") are then given the power to instantly confirm transactions (that's how they get around the trustless doublespend problem, by adding trust to the system). Who determines which nodes are trusted? GAW. This is an awful lot like Stellar (another altcoin), which has near-instant confirms at the expensive of decentralization, because the developers pick the trusted nodes. You can see that there at least is some centralization going on here, unlike bitcoin, which is completely trustless.

But wait, there's more!

In the whitepaper, we also have the "hybridflex" blockchain. The system the whitepaper describes is simple: GAW has the copy of the blockchain, and clients access the remotely hosted blockchain to determine user balance--this is a lot like the electrum or multibit bitcoin wallets. However, it will be built into the core client, IE GAW is the only entity with an actual copy of the blockchain. This forces users to trust GAWs copy of the blockchain (as running your own full node is no longer allowed). This is where things get sketchy...

That means that GAW can simply omit blocks it doesn't like because they control all the nodes. Note that this type of attack is impossible with bitcoin because the blockchain is distributed: if anyone tried to omit a block it would cause a "fork" the blockchain, and the side with the greatest hashpower would  determine which version is correct.

If you have any questions about this stuff, or if you disagree, shoot me a response. But please keep it civil!  

Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.

What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.

[1715140551]

1715140551

[1715140551]

1715140551

[1715140551]

1715140551

[jimmothy]

Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.

What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.

Assuming it's decentralized, how do you think GAW will be able to access/freeze anyone's coins without knowing the private keys?

[bones]

Not visited this thread in a while.  Interesting stuff.

If I understood correctly gaw will have its own blockchain, with its own miners ( primes etc ) hashing on it.

Being as gaw control those miners at the end of the day, couldnt they do whatever they want with that chain with regard to double spending / reversals / 51% attack etc.

[armedmilitia]

Look, I know you're probably not a troll, and you're trying to make sense of this whitepaper. That being said, (and don't take this personally) you are pretty wrong on the decentralized aspect of hashcoin. Prime controllers are all owned and operated by GAW (just like regular hashlets). Sure, you might be able to purchase them on the cloud, but the miners are, in the end, physically in GAW's hands. Trusted nodes ("Prime Controllers") are then given the power to instantly confirm transactions (that's how they get around the trustless doublespend problem, by adding trust to the system). Who determines which nodes are trusted? GAW. This is an awful lot like Stellar (another altcoin), which has near-instant confirms at the expensive of decentralization, because the developers pick the trusted nodes. You can see that there at least is some centralization going on here, unlike bitcoin, which is completely trustless.

But wait, there's more!

In the whitepaper, we also have the "hybridflex" blockchain. The system the whitepaper describes is simple: GAW has the copy of the blockchain, and clients access the remotely hosted blockchain to determine user balance--this is a lot like the electrum or multibit bitcoin wallets. However, it will be built into the core client, IE GAW is the only entity with an actual copy of the blockchain. This forces users to trust GAWs copy of the blockchain (as running your own full node is no longer allowed). This is where things get sketchy...

That means that GAW can simply omit blocks it doesn't like because they control all the nodes. Note that this type of attack is impossible with bitcoin because the blockchain is distributed: if anyone tried to omit a block it would cause a "fork" the blockchain, and the side with the greatest hashpower would  determine which version is correct.

If you have any questions about this stuff, or if you disagree, shoot me a response. But please keep it civil!  

Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.

What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.

Well, I don't know much about proof of resource (unless you're talking about proof of work?). I see where you're coming from, and it seems logical that prime controllers to be spread throughout the network--I'm assuming you're thinking "after all, they're just nodes, right? And bitcoin's nodes are spread all over the place!".

There's a big "but" here. If you spread out prime controllers, that means that anyone (including malicious actors) can get their hands on one. What happens when someone who operates one of those prime controllers (or hypothetically, a person holding this operator at gunpoint) decides to commit a double spend (they broadcast two different transactions with the same inputs to the network)? It would be impossible for the prime controllers to come to a consenseus on which transaction is legitimate--they would have to rely on proof-of-work to decide. The reasons why bitcoin has a confirmation time at all is exactly this--proof of work (and proof of stake, to a degree) is the only way to get consenseus without trust. In short, any person operating a prime controller would be able to double-spend before the first confirmation, and it would be impossible to trust zero-confirmation transactions. Because of this, GAW needs to trust prime controllers to not double spend... which means they can't distribute them to the public.

[bitcoinnoisseur]

You are all missing the biggest point of all. There is NO White Paper. There was a mere draft posted that is still being altered per suggestions and feedback from, get this, customers. I posted here about this before. There is even great speculation that the one formula they did release for hashcoin's distribution is written incorrectly. So how the fuck could Josh have any huge VC's investing hundreds of millions when there isn't anything concrete to invest in at all???

[suchmoon]

Or there might not be any need for blockchain at all. If it's all controlled by GAW, and presumably your wallet is there as well, what's the point of maintaining all that crypto-mumbo-jumbo?

https://hashtalk.org/topic/17245/questions-on-btc-adoption/96

GAW_CEO
Admins
Global Moderator
Industry Innovator

@gridseednorth said:

    @Lavant said:

        @Areia You are spot on with the Blockchain and its potential.

    Yeah but your going WAY BEYOND a beginners knowledge of BTC it hard enough to just explain BTC but to explain the advantages of the " blockchain" is so far over their heads, your wasting your breath

thats not the point. You do not have to get a single person to understand what the blockchain is.

Its NEVER about getting someone to understand the technology, its about making them want to us it, making it matter to them because of what it does for them.

[wdl1908]

Well, I don't know much about proof of resource (unless you're talking about proof of work?). I see where you're coming from, and it seems logical that prime controllers to be spread throughout the network--I'm assuming you're thinking "after all, they're just nodes, right? And bitcoin's nodes are spread all over the place!".

No not POW i distinctly remember reading something about Proof Of Resource.

There's a big "but" here. If you spread out prime controllers, that means that anyone (including malicious actors) can get their hands on one. What happens when someone who operates one of those prime controllers (or hypothetically, a person holding this operator at gunpoint) decides to commit a double spend (they broadcast two different transactions with the same inputs to the network)? It would be impossible for the prime controllers to come to a consenseus on which transaction is legitimate--they would have to rely on proof-of-work to decide. The reasons why bitcoin has a confirmation time at all is exactly this--proof of work (and proof of stake, to a degree) is the only way to get consenseus without trust. In short, any person operating a prime controller would be able to double-spend before the first confirmation, and it would be impossible to trust zero-confirmation transactions. Because of this, GAW needs to trust prime controllers to not double spend... which means they can't distribute them to the public.

Ok Sounds logical but what if it needs a number of Prime controllers to agree on the transaction.

My biggest problem with the idea of one centralized Prime controller is bandwidth and latency. I don't have numbers ready but i suspect the bitcoin network has a tremendous number of transactions per second that are broadcast . If all those transactions must be transmitted to one central node it would not be instantaneous because some of those networks have high latencies.

It would be impossible for the prime controllers to come to a consenseus on which transaction is legitimate--they would have to rely on proof-of-work to decide.

Now this could be the fallback position if a number of Prime controllers could not verify the transaction they fall back to POW to verify it.


So for my feeling the centralized prime controller could never work.

[MOB]

Look, I know you're probably not a troll, and you're trying to make sense of this whitepaper. That being said, (and don't take this personally) you are pretty wrong on the decentralized aspect of hashcoin. Prime controllers are all owned and operated by GAW (just like regular hashlets). Sure, you might be able to purchase them on the cloud, but the miners are, in the end, physically in GAW's hands. Trusted nodes ("Prime Controllers") are then given the power to instantly confirm transactions (that's how they get around the trustless doublespend problem, by adding trust to the system). Who determines which nodes are trusted? GAW. This is an awful lot like Stellar (another altcoin), which has near-instant confirms at the expensive of decentralization, because the developers pick the trusted nodes. You can see that there at least is some centralization going on here, unlike bitcoin, which is completely trustless.

But wait, there's more!

In the whitepaper, we also have the "hybridflex" blockchain. The system the whitepaper describes is simple: GAW has the copy of the blockchain, and clients access the remotely hosted blockchain to determine user balance--this is a lot like the electrum or multibit bitcoin wallets. However, it will be built into the core client, IE GAW is the only entity with an actual copy of the blockchain. This forces users to trust GAWs copy of the blockchain (as running your own full node is no longer allowed). This is where things get sketchy...

That means that GAW can simply omit blocks it doesn't like because they control all the nodes. Note that this type of attack is impossible with bitcoin because the blockchain is distributed: if anyone tried to omit a block it would cause a "fork" the blockchain, and the side with the greatest hashpower would  determine which version is correct.

If you have any questions about this stuff, or if you disagree, shoot me a response. But please keep it civil!  

Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.

What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.

wdl1980--it has to be the way that armedmilitia has explained it. There is no other way one could accomplish instant verification with a trustless blockchain. GAW has reinvented the credit card. Woohoo.


Take a look at GAW's cloud mining ventures so far and I think that it will be pretty clear that keeping all of the power entirely in their hands is per their character. Why? Because it allows them to change the rules at any time and to have zero accountability.

What happens when someone attacks a GAW vulnerability and runs off with some BTC? GAW issues clawbacks, suspends withdrawals, charges credit cards without authorization, sends threatening and spurious legal notices, and just generally does everything possible to make sure they get paid.

What happens when GAW makes a mistake and send someone too many hashlets? Or too many BTC? The same exact thing. GAW preserves the power to punish others for their own incompetence. GAW seizes the hashlets, or "reconciles" the BTC with zero transparency or proof that they did in fact overpay.

GAW has a history going back to day one of cloud mining of maintaining completely centralized control with zero transparency so that one can never know if GAW is fucking them over or not. Why are Zenpool payments at an all time low for the better part of a month at the exact moment that Josh wants you to start mining Hashcoin? Do you really think that is a coincidence? Sure works out in GAW's favor.


Do you really think going from a trustless crypto to one where trust flows entirely one way is better?

As for a centralized system "never working,"--again, what do you think your credit card is?

[armedmilitia]

Well, I don't know much about proof of resource (unless you're talking about proof of work?). I see where you're coming from, and it seems logical that prime controllers to be spread throughout the network--I'm assuming you're thinking "after all, they're just nodes, right? And bitcoin's nodes are spread all over the place!".

No not POW i distinctly remember reading something about Proof Of Resource.

There's a big "but" here. If you spread out prime controllers, that means that anyone (including malicious actors) can get their hands on one. What happens when someone who operates one of those prime controllers (or hypothetically, a person holding this operator at gunpoint) decides to commit a double spend (they broadcast two different transactions with the same inputs to the network)? It would be impossible for the prime controllers to come to a consenseus on which transaction is legitimate--they would have to rely on proof-of-work to decide. The reasons why bitcoin has a confirmation time at all is exactly this--proof of work (and proof of stake, to a degree) is the only way to get consenseus without trust. In short, any person operating a prime controller would be able to double-spend before the first confirmation, and it would be impossible to trust zero-confirmation transactions. Because of this, GAW needs to trust prime controllers to not double spend... which means they can't distribute them to the public.

Ok Sounds logical but what if it needs a number of Prime controllers to agree on the transaction.

My biggest problem with the idea of one centralized Prime controller is bandwidth and latency. I don't have numbers ready but i suspect the bitcoin network has a tremendous number of transactions per second that are broadcast . If all those transactions must be transmitted to one central node it would not be instantaneous because some of those networks have high latencies.

It would be impossible for the prime controllers to come to a consenseus on which transaction is legitimate--they would have to rely on proof-of-work to decide.

Now this could be the fallback position if a number of Prime controllers could not verify the transaction they fall back to POW to verify it.


So for my feeling the centralized prime controller could never work.

Sorry for the huge quotes beforehand, but I have to type quick to avoid posts from getting buried.

On your comment about proof of resource:
Ahhhh, proof  of resource! Just googled that, I vaguely remembered it now that I think back. It's very similar to proof of work, except instead of using CPU power to mine, you use your hard drive space. This doesn't actually make confirmation time faster though, there still will be a set blocktime. (The end result is the same as proof of work)

On your comment about the number of prime controllers to confirm the transaction:
Actually, using the total number of prime controllers is great thinking! Satoshi actually mentions this in the original bitcoin whitepaper how using "one node gets one vote" could be used as a solution for getting consenseus--but there's a key problem with it. If anyone can host a prime node, then people can host multiple prime nodes. In fact, people would be able to SPAM prime nodes! (They could host hundreds of nodes on VPS servers for example), or even just host hundreds of nodes on one computer. In short, an attacker would be able to attack the network by simply spamming nodes (or DDOSing existing nodes, or a combination of the two), in order to "swing" the vote in their direction.

GAW could instead only authorize specific IP addresses (or something like that in order to regulate the number of nodes), but then you get another problem--GAW will get exclusive control over which prime controllers are authorized or not--which then means that GAW can create new controllers  at will--which then means that GAW can spam nodes--which means that GAW has final control over the system.

On your comment about the proof of work fallback:
Yes, proof of work could be used as a fallback--but its sort of confusing, because it looks like GAW will have the only copy of the blockchain. If GAW servers go down, how do POW miners know which block to build on? And if proof of work is used as a fallback, then it sort of defeats the purpose of the system--one guy could just constantly attack the system, forcing the network to fall back on proof of work every block, which negates the "killer app" of hashcoin.

(This post has been edited, but only for spelling and formatting)

[KC6TTR]

You are all missing the biggest point of all. There is NO White Paper. There was a mere draft posted that is still being altered per suggestions and feedback from, get this, customers. I posted here about this before. There is even great speculation that the one formula they did release for hashcoin's distribution is written incorrectly. So how the fuck could Josh have any huge VC's investing hundreds of millions when there isn't anything concrete to invest in at all???

Exactly...

[Window2Wall]

Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.

What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.

Assuming it's decentralized, how do you think GAW will be able to access/freeze anyone's coins without knowing the private keys?

They cannot. They do have control of the funds (and mining power if it exists) of all of their customers

[Searing]

So if I have this straight you can only get HASHcoins from virtual miners? A home miner for example can't hash this coin?

(prob gonna get yelled at should go back and look thru the thread)

[suchmoon]

So if I have this straight you can only get HASHcoins from virtual miners? A home miner for example can't hash this coin?

(prob gonna get yelled at should go back and look thru the thread)

That's right, at least at the moment. It's been mentioned that in the future it might be possible to mine it with your own hardware, but hashlets will have some yet unspecified advantage.

[NuShrike]

Or there might not be any need for blockchain at all. If it's all controlled by GAW, and presumably your wallet is there as well, what's the point of maintaining all that crypto-mumbo-jumbo?

IMO, same thing as Ripple, but by GAW: less accepted and NOT multi-currency.

[Flep182]

The withdrawal hold has been mentioned to the tech team according to a response to my ticket, but no solution yet.

From what I'm reading on this whitepaper it sounds like a very nice fairytale but nothing constructive, at least nothing someone with multiple millions of dollars at their hands would blindly invest a dollar in.

[mutha]

Why would any business make that information public before they are ready to launch?

It is a gesture of good will/faith.

And where did you get that information? Who said anything about a centralized blockchain?

If you read up on the "White paper" (and also this thread a few pages ago) it states that the transactions on the blockchain for hashcoin will be controlled by gaw/prime controllers.



I dont know why anyone thinks this coin is a good idea? I'm pretty sure 99% of the people who got bullied into mining hashpoints because of the pitiful btc payouts is just waiting to get ROI from the promised 500% return rate.

1) Hashcoin isn't even its real name. Why was hashcoin.com registered? Why is it being promoted if this isnt the real name?

2) Bitcoin was released as an open-source NOT FOR PROFIT platform. This coin is clearly to profit gaw.

3) Bitcoin fundamental principle is that it has a decentralized block-chain which takes power away from government/banks and back to individuals. It is a monetary revolution. I don't see how hashcoin can even compare to this?

Anyone who is still invested with GAW is either blinded by greed or they are desperately trying to reach ROI. Sad state of events.  

Funny isnt it? How some people cannot see the bottom line of things, that part about people being "bullied" into mining hashpoints is one of the bottom lines. When you buy a BTC miner... you buy a BTC miner, not whatever GAWS decides is "best for you". This is one reason alot of customers where exiting, like their hair was on fire (Myself included).
You know what the sad part is? The "investors" and GAWS will probably eventually try that same thing with the new coin and block chain, after all the pattern has been established.

The other is... 99% of the people on this forum and in crypto currency is into it for the decentralization aspect of crypto. There are bigger companies and groups than GAWS trying to centralize BTC, ROBOCOIN (BTC ATM manufacturer) and they have had their ass kicked up between their eyeballs, for even suggesting "centralization". I expect GAWS to go down in flames within 30 days of their "centralized coin release" or until Josh waves his magic wand and disperses more brown stinky crypto matter on his customers.

[suchmoon]

Another maintenance/hold brewing:

https://hashtalk.org/topic/17467

Edit - tldr: Genesis Multipool payouts are about an order of magnitude too high today, at least to some customers.

Edit2: it looks like they took Scrypt numbers and applied to SHA256. Ouch. Multipool should be blamed and banished from ZenCloud.

https://hashtalk.org/topic/17460


Edited 2020-11-28 to fix a broken image


Edited 2020-11-28 to fix a broken image

[verloren]

Another maintenance/hold brewing:

https://hashtalk.org/topic/17467

Edit - tldr: Genesis Multipool payouts are about an order of magnitude too high today, at least to some customers.

Edit2: it looks like they took Scrypt numbers and applied to SHA256. Ouch. Multipool should be blamed and banished from ZenCloud.

https://hashtalk.org/topic/17460

Uh oh.

[rcocchiararo]

It seems me asking if Zencloud was not bound by contract to be the most profitable pool was a bad idea, i was shadowbaned around november 1st, noticed around the 6th.

Their support says that only the CEO handles shadowbans, and the CEO ignores me

[suchmoon]

It seems me asking if Zencloud was not bound by contract to be the most profitable pool was a bad idea, i was shadowbaned around november 1st, noticed around the 6th.

Their support says that only the CEO handles shadowbans, and the CEO ignores me

Tweet him. That's what all cool kids do these days.

https://twitter.com/gawceo