[ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay]

[Jeremy450]

I have made 2 xmg in 4 days.  How much did you make.  

All orphans are created by me, as I said before, forget about orphans.
What is your hashrate? And pool?
And how much XMG did you lose, you think?

Hashrate is 200 KH/s   Was on Suprnova until he shut the pool down.  Been using different pools.

i'm sure you could figure out how much since your attack started.

Now my question,  how much have you made?

 

You've been helped by the attacks. Before attacks started I was getting 1-2 coins/day with 1Mh. Vitalik is not taking coins from anybody's wallet, he is just grabbing lots of coins for himself, and we are all getting a lot more coins as well. Over the last 4 weeks, Iv'e averaged 23.5 coins/day Thank you very much, Vitalik_Pedik!

Yes, blocking out everyone's miners by creating orphaned blocks while he solo mines at just over 40xmg a block isn't stealing. (/sarcasm)

While you are correct about him not stealing money from people's wallets, you're wrong because he's taking money from people who would've been able to legitimately mine those coins. Sure, after the orphaned blocks, whales who mine at over 1,000 KH/S make more XMG, but for people like myself who mine at anywhere between 35-75 KH/s, there is not a significant increase in profit. It's not a great exploit for everyone if only 5% of the community benefit from it. The fact of the matter is that he's making 40.21785 XMG a block while orphaning blocks. If you're only looking at it from a "I can make more money off of this terrible thing this person is doing, fuck the viability of the coin itself!" standpoint, then you're just as bad as the person doing said terrible thing.

even with a high hash rate of 1000 i havent seen any major increase. sometimes i been find i been getting less. not like it was in December where got 30 - 60 a day a few times a week. but now lucky to get 3 - 5. its been the ones at 2000 or more that have been cashing it in. i really havent seen much of a improvement i been seeing less corns honestly. i can get up to 30xmg unconfirmed and it will just vanish.   the most confirmed in one day since all of this has been 10xmg and that was a few weeks ago. now yeah its getting worse and worse.

[1715645002]

1715645002

[1715645002]

1715645002

[1715645002]

1715645002

[DatsunPatrol]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

[The Doktor]

Sure, after the orphaned blocks, whales who mine at over 1,000 KH/S make more XMG, but for people like myself who mine at anywhere between 35-75 KH/s, there is not a significant increase in profit. It's not a great exploit for everyone if only 5% of the community benefit from it.

This is what everybody who thinks this is beneficial needs to understand. If you can dump a bunch of hash at it then you are probably coming out ahead. If you have only a modest hashrate then you aren't.

I am interested in having a technical conversation about how the block reward calculation is supposed to work when the network is healthy. The way that this coin can grow and succeed is if modest hashrate devices are incentivized and large hashrate devices are disincentivized.

So is the block reward set based on the global hashrate or is it set based on the individual hashrate of the device that solves the previous block? I think the ideal way that the coin SHOULD work is like this: a low hashrate device such as a raspberry pi solves a block --> the block reward goes up. a high hashrate device solves a block --> the block reward goes down.

Can someone with more technical knowledge of the coin let me know if that is true? Is the reward adjustment for the current block or does it change for the following block?

No, it's not just whales that win. If your'e mining in a pool, you get a percentage of the block rewards based on the percentage of hashing you have contributed. If a guy with 15Mh gets 10X the "normal" a guy with 15Kh also gets 10X. Granted, it's a tiny amount compared to the whale, but it's still a lot more than he would have got.

While we're on the subject of whales and pools, let me cover another area of stupidity I keep seeing. A whale entering your low hashrate pool does not destroy the rewards for the little guys, nor does he improve them. Block rewards are based on NETWORK hashrate, not POOL hashrate. A few "big guys" will mean the pool solves a lot more blocks, so rewards will be more regular. There will be many more coins coming into the pool, but you will get a smaller percentage, averaging out to about the same amount. IOW, instead of getting  10% of 100, you will get 1% of 1000. There will be more rewards per day, you'll get a smaller piece of each.

[The Doktor]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines.

[DatsunPatrol]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines.

The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else?  What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint.

Where is that coin being developed?  Because I want to join that community.

[The Doktor]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines.

The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else?  What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint.

Where is that coin being developed?  Because I want to join that community.

That coin is being developed nowhere, because it can't work. You could just run multiple miners in VMs, each with a different public IP to get around any limitations while still reaping  huge rewards. I actually like the concept, but it's hopeless.

[nathan_J]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines.

The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else?  What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint.

Where is that coin being developed?  Because I want to join that community.

This is what I also thought at first. however, it's more challenging than it seems.
The problem comes down to the problem that it is impossible (in this case) to link a computer to a specific person, and that doing so goes against the nature of cryptocurrencies. All you can do is look at the machine. However, computers are inherently completely configurable. Even to the point where a large computer can appear to the outside as 2, 3, 4, or how ever many smaller computers it wants to. In other words, the large miners would just create multiple accounts that each appear to be a smaller miner.

[DatsunPatrol]

To state it a little more clearly, I want to know if it works like this.

Person A has 100 devices mining that have a total hashrate of 1000kh/s
Person B has 1 device mining that has a total hashrate of 1000kh/s

Do person A and person B have the same affect on block rewards or does person A result in low rewards and person B results in high rewards?  In order for this coin to make any sense then I think it has to work like this. This type of reward structure disincentives certain types of miners from even bothering the network at all since their rewards won't be worthwhile if they solve blocks.

1000Kh is 1000Kh, regardless of number of machines.

The block reward is set by global hashrate and nothing else?  What is the point of this coin? Any single person can tank the block reward for the whole network. A next gen eco-friendly coin would work like my scenario and reward low hash devices higher than large hashrate devices, thus emphasizing a smaller mining footprint.

Where is that coin being developed?  Because I want to join that community.

This is what I also thought at first. however, it's more challenging than it seems.
The problem comes down to the problem that it is impossible (in this case) to link a computer to a specific person, and that doing so goes against the nature of cryptocurrencies. All you can do is look at the machine. However, computers are inherently completely configurable. Even to the point where a large computer can appear to the outside as 2, 3, 4, or how ever many smaller computers it wants to. In other words, the large miners would just create multiple accounts that each appear to be a smaller miner.

Damn, this is a really good take on that. Its a shame that is the case because something like I am envidioning would be naturally ASIC resistant as well.

But I never thoight that such a coin would be easy to develop. But with so many coins in development it does seem like something that deserves a serious thought. But maybe it has been and its thoroughly debunked as a concept.

I am actually a developer myself but not in the crypto space. It would take me a long time to get familiar enough with everything to the point that I could assess the actual viablity of something loke this.

What is the closest thing to this? Is it magician?

[Cooper54]

I have made 2 xmg in 4 days.  How much did you make.  

All orphans are created by me, as I said before, forget about orphans.
What is your hashrate? And pool?
And how much XMG did you lose, you think?

Hashrate is 200 KH/s   Was on Suprnova until he shut the pool down.  Been using different pools.

i'm sure you could figure out how much since your attack started.

Now my question,  how much have you made?

 

You should not care about my income. It is not your deal.
And how much XMG did you lose, you think? You made 2 xmg in 4 days, how much should it be?

So my question to you is if you are helping ALL of us then how come I have not had a transaction into my wallet in 3 days. I am mining with 4 pcs, 3 cell phones and a RPI. Staying with the 250h/s limit. I was getting 1 deposit from both pools every day, now nothing. I think you have amped up your attack more in the last few days, or shared your findings with others for selfish gain. The rest of us here are all looking for a little money of our own and instead we are just supporting what is becoming your  blockchain. I have also not received any staking rewards in over a week. My reward is always saying from a few hours to a day at the most, but no change in my XMG balance.

Remind me again how we are ALL benefiting from your attack. By ALL I mean not just you(incase somehow that get confused in translation)

[Cooper54]

Sure, after the orphaned blocks, whales who mine at over 1,000 KH/S make more XMG, but for people like myself who mine at anywhere between 35-75 KH/s, there is not a significant increase in profit. It's not a great exploit for everyone if only 5% of the community benefit from it.

This is what everybody who thinks this is beneficial needs to understand. If you can dump a bunch of hash at it then you are probably coming out ahead. If you have only a modest hashrate then you aren't.

I am interested in having a technical conversation about how the block reward calculation is supposed to work when the network is healthy. The way that this coin can grow and succeed is if modest hashrate devices are incentivized and large hashrate devices are disincentivized.

So is the block reward set based on the global hashrate or is it set based on the individual hashrate of the device that solves the previous block? I think the ideal way that the coin SHOULD work is like this: a low hashrate device such as a raspberry pi solves a block --> the block reward goes up. a high hashrate device solves a block --> the block reward goes down.

Can someone with more technical knowledge of the coin let me know if that is true? Is the reward adjustment for the current block or does it change for the following block?

No, it's not just whales that win. If your'e mining in a pool, you get a percentage of the block rewards based on the percentage of hashing you have contributed. If a guy with 15Mh gets 10X the "normal" a guy with 15Kh also gets 10X. Granted, it's a tiny amount compared to the whale, but it's still a lot more than he would have got.

While we're on the subject of whales and pools, let me cover another area of stupidity I keep seeing. A whale entering your low hashrate pool does not destroy the rewards for the little guys, nor does he improve them. Block rewards are based on NETWORK hashrate, not POOL hashrate. A few "big guys" will mean the pool solves a lot more blocks, so rewards will be more regular. There will be many more coins coming into the pool, but you will get a smaller percentage, averaging out to about the same amount. IOW, instead of getting  10% of 100, you will get 1% of 1000. There will be more rewards per day, you'll get a smaller piece of each.

But when its all said and done, your 1% of 1000% does not equal what I was getting before, in fact its much less, 0 to be exact...

[Jeremy450]

One of the major problem are  pools for example minerclaim arent helping. Many pools are setting limits.  unless all pools are setting limits its not helping the community. and as for these large whales. by setting a hash limit they would have to create multiple accounts. but then the pools can look down further by not allowing the same wallet be used more then once. so in turn it would be harder the mange everything the higher the hashrate the whalers want to do. the currently person who is doing 10,363 on minerclaim. they would need to create 42 accounts and need 42 wallets. the higher the rate the higher the accounts and wallets needed. and to even add more security lock it down by ip address and even mac address

Could even take it further where by you must have the wallet open at all times. and if you have multiple addresses the wallet can report this back to pools and if the you have miners using more then 1 address from that wallet. the pools will know and stop the miners on 1 of those addresses. so it turn it makes it even harder to manage, etc.

Basicly the devs need to think in a logical way but also in a way where what software developers do licensees for software. For example my software if you tried to use the license more then once. it finds out if its already been used and if it has it says sorry its already in use. and the sotware wont work without the active license.

[Cooper54]

One of the major problem are  pools for example minerclaim arent helping. Many pools are setting limits.  unless all pools are setting limits its not helping the community. and as for these large whales. by setting a hash limit they would have to create multiple accounts. but then the pools can look down further by not allowing the same wallet be used more then once. so in turn it would be harder the mange everything the higher the hashrate the whalers want to do. the currently person who is doing 10,363 on minerclaim. they would need to create 42 accounts and need 42 wallets. the higher the rate the higher the accounts and wallets needed. and to even add more security lock it down by ip address and even mac address

Could even take it further where by you must have the wallet open at all times. and if you have multiple addresses the wallet can report this back to pools and if the you have miners using more then 1 address from that wallet. the pools will know and stop the miners on 1 of those addresses. so it turn it makes it even harder to manage, etc.

Basicly the devs need to think in a logical way but also in a way where what software developers do licensees for software. For example my software if you tried to use the license more then once. it finds out if its already been used and if it has it says sorry its already in use. and the sotware wont work without the active license.

As for the license code, then we would have to charge for the license. The coin would lose itself. But I agree that there has to be some way to stop mining with high hashrates. I have changed nothing in my mining since I started and my payouts are down to nothing. I sadly am making more by mining BTC with an old ASIC Antminer U1 @ nearly 2 G/Hs.........

[greyday]

One of the major problem are  pools for example minerclaim arent helping. Many pools are setting limits.  unless all pools are setting limits its not helping the community. and as for these large whales. by setting a hash limit they would have to create multiple accounts. but then the pools can look down further by not allowing the same wallet be used more then once. so in turn it would be harder the mange everything the higher the hashrate the whalers want to do. the currently person who is doing 10,363 on minerclaim. they would need to create 42 accounts and need 42 wallets. the higher the rate the higher the accounts and wallets needed. and to even add more security lock it down by ip address and even mac address

Could even take it further where by you must have the wallet open at all times. and if you have multiple addresses the wallet can report this back to pools and if the you have miners using more then 1 address from that wallet. the pools will know and stop the miners on 1 of those addresses. so it turn it makes it even harder to manage, etc.

Basicly the devs need to think in a logical way but also in a way where what software developers do licensees for software. For example my software if you tried to use the license more then once. it finds out if its already been used and if it has it says sorry its already in use. and the sotware wont work without the active license.

Not a bad thought, but there are ways around all of those things, and they're not that complicated. Someone who knows enough to run attacks on coins knows enough to be able to circumvent all of those, so I'd say it's mostly a waste of time implementing (though the pool limits and per wallets part is cool, if for no other reason than it would piss them off)...

[Jeremy450]

One of the major problem are  pools for example minerclaim arent helping. Many pools are setting limits.  unless all pools are setting limits its not helping the community. and as for these large whales. by setting a hash limit they would have to create multiple accounts. but then the pools can look down further by not allowing the same wallet be used more then once. so in turn it would be harder the mange everything the higher the hashrate the whalers want to do. the currently person who is doing 10,363 on minerclaim. they would need to create 42 accounts and need 42 wallets. the higher the rate the higher the accounts and wallets needed. and to even add more security lock it down by ip address and even mac address

Could even take it further where by you must have the wallet open at all times. and if you have multiple addresses the wallet can report this back to pools and if the you have miners using more then 1 address from that wallet. the pools will know and stop the miners on 1 of those addresses. so it turn it makes it even harder to manage, etc.

Basicly the devs need to think in a logical way but also in a way where what software developers do licensees for software. For example my software if you tried to use the license more then once. it finds out if its already been used and if it has it says sorry its already in use. and the sotware wont work without the active license.

Not a bad thought, but there are ways around all of those things, and they're not that complicated. Someone who knows enough to run attacks on coins knows enough to be able to circumvent all of those, so I'd say it's mostly a waste of time implementing (though the pool limits and per wallets part is cool, if for no other reason than it would piss them off)...

True. i was only use the license code as an example of a way of thinking. But one thing needs to be done is the nodes need to be protected better and an trust relationship put in place so anything thats not done by the nodes will not be accepted. theres alot of things that can be put in place and still keeps the coins decentralized feature in place.

but having the pools help the community with limits and then using the wallets ability to report back to them ppl who have more then once address and then find miners who are using more then 1 address to feed money back to them is a good way. and will limit the whalers to react quickly on their feet. the point is to make it harder for them get money and move money. If you have 10000khs you need 42 accounts, 42 addresses and 42 individual wallets with 1 address in each opened just to mine as a whale.

It just doesnt help that we are really not hearing anything from the devs Especially from Joe.

[joelao95]

Your name is oddly similar to a user on a pool who does about 5000 - 8000khs

im beyond mining since ages
POS and masternodes and harvesting
thats the way i make money this days on multiple coins

XMG is no earner in no way but i like joe and magic and i know they are honest guys
just they didnt made the jump to fulltime crypto and the whole project suffers by that

POW is so dead even if u think u see it still walking
its walking dead

i hope joe realize and cut the head of this zombie technology

[img]https://i.imgur.com/NQ9ec20.png[/img_]

Well Put

I'm keen to traditions.

[nathan_J]

Your name is oddly similar to a user on a pool who does about 5000 - 8000khs

im beyond mining since ages
POS and masternodes and harvesting
thats the way i make money this days on multiple coins

XMG is no earner in no way but i like joe and magic and i know they are honest guys
just they didnt made the jump to fulltime crypto and the whole project suffers by that

POW is so dead even if u think u see it still walking
its walking dead

i hope joe realize and cut the head of this zombie technology

[img]https://i.imgur.com/NQ9ec20.png[/img_]

Well Put

I'm keen to traditions.

Hey Joe,
I was wondering if you guys need any help on fixing the vulnerability that has been exploited by the russian. I have experience working with C/C++, and would be glad to help get this fixed as soon as possible. (I tried to PM, but it didn't go through. I'm still too new on this forum)
-Nathan

[jonathin.r]

I'm keen to traditions.

What does that even mean? What traditions? Does this mean you'll be actively trying to patch this vulnerability?

[Ginzink]

I'm keen to traditions.

What does that even mean? What traditions? Does this mean you'll be actively trying to patch this vulnerability?

For me it looked like he is traditional in the sense of wanting to keep it PoW?

[jonathin.r]

Happy 34th Birthday to our resident thief. Hope you can buy a sense of morals with my 0.0001 XMG.

Edit: lol, I see what you did. The good old bait and switch. You sure got me good. (/s)

[Vitalik_Pedik]

Happy 34th Birthday to our resident thief. Hope you can buy a sense of morals with my 0.0001 XMG.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3iiwqPF9noqdy/giphy.gif