delete

[iCEBREAKER]

P2pool is a work in progress

You didn't grasp the technical point I made at the linked post which can't be fixed. It is fundamental. I actually wanted to use P2Pool as a solution before until I realized it can't work ever.

why the sudden shift from the normal [1]economic sense to the obscure [2]philosophic definition?

Because the claimed economics definition was too narrow for what I wanted to say and I didn't think of a better word to describe what I wanted to say to you. I actually did check the definition before using it, then I decided it was perfect because it would trap you. Your EGO would surely try to ensnare me if I intentionally misused it according to the narrow definition.

Are you going to let me work now or continue filibustering me to satisfy your jealously?

P2pool is working fine, despite your alleged "technical point" bogyman.  And it's getting better all the time.  Just wait until the CKpool front-end is ready!

The normal definition of externality, which is concurrent with the context of the conversation, is the broad one.  The non sequitur abstruse definition is the narrow one.

I see you don't know what "filibuster" means either.     Stick with the math bro.  Economics and English are not your strong suits, to put it mildly.

No nutjob Martinfoil Armstrong cultist is going to defeat Bitcoin.  Satoshi war-gamed all your silly ideas and more, then designed it to withstand them.

But go ahead and try, because even if you did by some miracle manage to find a weakness, the response would only strengthen the system.   

[TheFascistMind]

P2pool is working fine, despite your alleged "technical point" bogyman.

Until someone decides to selfish mine it and pool hop.

Perhaps I need to ask BCX if he could help me out with a demonstration. Or I can eventually get around to that at the opportune time.

I see you don't know what "filibuster" means either.

It is often used in for the general application of its meaning not just for legislatures. I hope you understand that language is dynamic, and you need to keep up with how people use words. If you can think of a more efficient word to say the following please tell me? Otherwise filibuster is what is being adopted by popular use.

"the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action"

You are grasping at straws.

[TheFascistMind]

Maybe BCX would agree to demonstrate how P2Pool can be selfish mined and call off his XMR attack as a compromise?

I would accept this.

Seems to me that XMR devs here have shown a lot of willingness to investigate all the avenues of inquiry that were raised in this thread.

But iCEBREAKER needs to be taught a lesson.

[smooth]

Until someone decides to selfish mine it and pool hop.

I don't think p2pool can be hopped, can it?

You can definitely withhold blocks at relatively low cost.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it were already being selfish mined, but I really don't know.

[TheFascistMind]

Until someone decides to selfish mine it and pool hop.

I don't think p2pool can be hopped, can it?

You can definitely withhold blocks at relatively low cost.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it were already being selfish mined, but I really don't know.

I am trying to remember my analysis. You can withhold block solutions from the P2Pool. You still earn revenue when other miners in the P2Pool find a block solution. Note every Bitcoin pool is vulnerable to this, because Bitcoin doesn't implement oblivious shares. Even if Bitcoin implemented oblivious shares, P2Pool couldn't support it.

In the P2Pool case, I think you can also send your block solution directly to the network? I don't remember what I concluded on that point. I think that is correct, because there is no way for the P2Pool to obscure all the block information (because there is no central party to hold it) to prevent you from sending your shares to the network yourself? But I am not sure on that point.

[smooth]

I think the block you solve pays the pool participants so no gain by sending it to the network. In fact you are supposed to.

[TheFascistMind]

I think the block you solve pays the pool participants so no gain by sending it to the network. In fact you are supposed to.

Ah yes, that is what I had concluded.

Thus you need an incentive to want to destroy P2Pool, other than direct profit.

The key point is that even if Bitcoin implemented oblivious shares, P2Pool couldn't.

So if you are the government and you want to regulate pools, you can destroy P2Pool pretty easily. Also regular pools might have an incentive to destroy P2Pool.

Bitcoin really needs to implement oblivious shares so that the nefarious interests can't pressure regular pools by attacking them with share withholding.

So destroying P2Pool now would be an effective way of making that "forced evolution" for Bitcoin.

iCEBREAKER needs to be a little bit more careful with his abrasive mouth. He is not talking to a n00b.

[iCEBREAKER]

"the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action"

In the common use of the word filibuster (synonymous with monolog) the action being attempted to delay or or prevent is the other person speaking.

We are having a dialoge and there's no way for me to prevent your from speaking.  At worst, we're both guilty of dueling oratories, but I give us both credit for being responsive to the other's posts.

What lesson do I need to be taught, oh wise sage?  Not to make fun of your Martinfoil Armstrong fetish?  Not to mock your bluster and pomp?  Or to Respect Your Authority^TM?

BCX is not your attack dog to be sicced on whatever raises your loony ire, and as smooth said, any attack vectors for exploiting p2pool are already in use.

Here, let me add in some meaningless accusatory nonsense to end my post the way you do yours: you're wasting my time you're grasping at straws you're abrasive you're jealous... 

[TheFascistMind]

"the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action"

In the common use of the word filibuster (synonymous with monolog) the action being attempted to delay or or prevent is the other person speaking.

We are having a dialoge and there's no way for me to prevent your from speaking.  At worst, we're both guilty of dueling oratories, but I give us both credit for being responsive to the other's posts.

A filibuster is usually speaking that prevents a vote from proceeding on legislation.

I asked you to please not go on and on with your nonsense ad hominem attack on me, thus forcing me to refute it, thus impeding my more important work.

as smooth said, any attack vectors for exploiting p2pool are already in use.

You are too technically inept to understand what was said.

What was communicated is that there is no economic incentive to attack P2Pool because the share withholding attack can withhold income from the pool, but it doesn't gain the attacker that withheld income. Thus no one is likely doing it now. Smooth is incorrect to assume anyone has an incentive to do that now.

However, the attack doesn't cost much (because you leech off the mining of all the other miners who don't withhold mining shares) to drive the income from P2Pool for all the miners lower than they could get from a non-attacked pool. Thus in theory it is a very cost effective way to drive miners from P2Pool to regular centralized pools if you have an incentive to do that.

If Bitcoin implemented oblivious shares then it would not be possible to do the same share withholding attack on regular centralized pools, but the attack would continue to work on decentralized pools such as P2Pool.

So eventually when nefarious interests have an incentive to hold pools hostage (another externality you didn't factor into your Nash equilibrium model), they can utilize the share withholding attack. Then Bitcoin will be forced to finally implement Meni Rosenfeld's oblivious shares (which he suggested in 2011 or 2012). Then P2Pool is dead.

Much better to demonstrate it now so you can be taught a lesson about how inept you are.

[iCEBREAKER]

I asked you to please not go on and on with your nonsense, thus forcing me to refute it, thus impeding my more important work.

as smooth said, any attack vectors for exploiting p2pool are already in use.

You are too technically inept to understand what was said.

What was communicated is that there is no economic incentive to attack P2Pool because you can withhold income from the pool, but you don't gain that withheld income for yourself. Thus no one is doing it now.

However, the attack doesn't cost much to drive the income from P2Pool for all the miners lower than they could get from a non-attacked pool. Thus it is a very cost effective way to drive miners from P2Pool to regular centralized pools if you have an incentive to do that.

If Bitcoin implemented oblivious shares then it would not be possible to do the same share withholding attack on regular centralized pools, but the attack would continue to work on decentralized pools such as P2Pool.

How exactly am I "forcing" you to refute my nonsense?  We both know you enjoy faffing around here and getting into nerd fights just like the rest of us.   

The logic of antifragility holds regardless of an attack's cost or benefit.  You are too economically illiterate to understand that.

Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool.  I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds.  Too bad you can't.

[TheFascistMind]

you enjoy faffing around here and getting into nerd fights just like the rest of us

Yes with people at or above my technical abilities such as smooth et al, who I learn from, or at least n00bs who aren't Dunning-Kruger obnoxious like you, to whom I can impart knowledge and refine my knowledge in the process by forcing me to communicate it clearly.

Maybe I can learn from you too, if you get off your high horse.

You how fucking tired I am of hearing your shit about Armstrong, when he continues over and over again to be spot on his specific predictions.

[AdamWhite]

You are grasping at straws.

You should have seen him when he was pimping for hashfast. I wouldn't take much of what he says seriously

[TheFascistMind]

Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool.  I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds.  Too bad you can't.

I have no control over BCX.

You seem to be hard of hearing. P2Pool can't be fixed. The specific vulnerability is inherent in the fact that it is decentralized. There is no possible mitigation.

Since your feeble technical abilities are becoming too apparent, let me spell it out for you n00b.

Since P2Pool is decentralized, there is no central party to hide any information. Thus all the information for the pooling has to be public. Thus there is no way to hide the requirements of the block solution. Thus miners know when they've solved a block, and can choose to not share it.

The oblivious shares fix requires a change to the block chain, so that centralized pools can select a secret, then have miners solve a block solution that depends on that secret. Thus the miners never know if their mining share is a block solution or not. P2Pool can't do that, impossible.

Now please get a life and leave me alone.

[iCEBREAKER]

you enjoy faffing around here and getting into nerd fights just like the rest of us

Yes with people at or above my technical abilities such as smooth et al, who I learn from, or at least n00bs who aren't Dunning-Kruger obnoxious like you, to whom I can impart knowledge and refine my knowledge in the process by forcing me to communicate it clearly.

Maybe I can learn from you too, if you get off your high horse.

You how fucking tired I am of hearing your shit about Armstrong, when he continues over and over again to be spot on his specific predictions.

You claim that p2pool isn't fixable, but haven't proved it.  What you mean is that is no possible mitigation that you personally can think of.

smooth is a hell of a lot more fun to bicker with than you, by a mile.  He always keeps his cool, and doesn't get all whiny and play the victim.

Despite respecting the fact he's frequently on zerohedge, I give you a hard time for fetishizing Martinfoil Armstrong for two good reasons.  First, because your faith in his predictions egregiously embraces the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and second because his/your 'Pi times 100' based model for the end of the world is a classic hairball of numerology and eschatology.

I try to only punch up, and expect better from someone with your intellect than doomsday Repent-and-Subscribe-to-My-Newsletter The-End-Is-Nigh Bible code BS.  Ridding your mind of those parasitic mania-inducing memes would help you chill the fuck out and improve your quality of life. 

The transition at the end of this metasystem is deterministic, but not computable. 

[TheFascistMind]

You claim that p2pool isn't fixable, but haven't proved it.

If you weren't technically inept, you would realize I proved it already with my prior statements. Ask smooth.

Blah, blah, you are a prime example of Dunner-Kruger. Your inability to recognize when something has been proved means your jibberish about Armstrong is just that.

[TheUsualStuff]

Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool.  I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds.  Too bad you can't.

I have no control over BCX.

You seem to be hard of hearing. P2Pool can't be fixed. The specific vulnerability is inherent in the fact that it is decentralized. There is no possible mitigation.

Since your feeble technical abilities are becoming too apparent, let me spell it out for you n00b.

Since P2Pool is decentralized, there is no central party to hide any information. Thus all the information for the pooling has to be public. Thus there is no way to hide the requirements of the block solution. Thus miners know when they've solved a block, and can choose to not share it.

The oblivious shares fix requires a change to the block chain, so that centralized pools can select a secret, then have miners solve a block solution that depends on that secret. Thus the miners never know if their mining share is a block solution or not. P2Pool can't do that, impossible.

Now please get a life and leave me alone.

It sounds like you're trying to get off the forum for a minute or two, so I'm sorry to ask this right now .. but it sounds like what you're saying is that if someone wanted to accomplish what you're describing, then someone could just have to code a program that lets an individual miner know when they've found a solution on a p2pool node .. and then additionally submit it to the network outside of the pool and receive the entire reward themselves rather than get paid pennies from the pool? So they could forego one pool payment for a full block reward, and then carry on in the pool as if nothing happened .. effectively owning that hashrate from the p2pool network for one block relative to themselves? Would software like that in the hands of all the p2pool miners, if such software were to be open sourced and kept up to date, and made to work with standard mining software be possible?


Would that take a lot of work? Or, am I not paying attention again?


add: nvm, you would forego the pool payout and just delay the finding of a block for a period of time. got it. but, could a large centralized pool utilize their hashrate to manipulate p2pool in such a way that it would be economically feasible to do so?

if mining was 50% p2pool and 50%ghash.io, could ghash take 25% and set it on p2pool and withold the solutions they find allowing a window in which the other half of their pool to, in general, find >50% of  the blocks and then distribute to all miners of their pool?

[TheFascistMind]

Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool.  I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds.  Too bad you can't.

I have no control over BCX.

You seem to be hard of hearing. P2Pool can't be fixed. The specific vulnerability is inherent in the fact that it is decentralized. There is no possible mitigation.

Since your feeble technical abilities are becoming too apparent, let me spell it out for you n00b.

Since P2Pool is decentralized, there is no central party to hide any information. Thus all the information for the pooling has to be public. Thus there is no way to hide the requirements of the block solution. Thus miners know when they've solved a block, and can choose to not share it.

The oblivious shares fix requires a change to the block chain, so that centralized pools can select a secret, then have miners solve a block solution that depends on that secret. Thus the miners never know if their mining share is a block solution or not. P2Pool can't do that, impossible.

Now please get a life and leave me alone.

It sounds like you're trying to get off the forum for a minute or two, so I'm sorry to ask this right now .. but it sounds like what you're saying is that if someone wanted to accomplish what you're describing, then someone could just have to code a program that lets an individual miner know when they've found a solution on a p2pool node .. and then additionally submit it to the network outside of the pool and receive the entire reward themselves rather than get paid pennies from the pool? So they could forego one pool payment for a full block reward, and then carry on in the pool as if nothing happened .. effectively owning that hashrate from the p2pool network for one block relative to themselves? Would software like that in the hands of all the p2pool miners, if such software were to be open sourced and kept up to date, and made to work with standard mining software be possible?


Would that take a lot of work? Or, am I not paying attention again?

Incorrect.

Proof-of-work 101 class is now in session.

A block solution is found by varying the input number to a hash function, until that hash function produces an output that is less than a chosen threshold number (i.e. has a certain number of leading 0 bits). The smaller that threshold, the more attempts at computing the hash with different inputs. Thus that threshold is the difficulty.

So miners have to produce many computations of a hash function before they find a block solution.

With a pool, miners send all[1] their attempts to the pool to get credit for mining. These are called mining "shares". They don't send just those attempts which are the block solution, because then only one miner would get credit and thus no point of having a pool.

So therefor, miners normally know which shares are actually block solutions, and they could choose to withhold from (not send to) the pool those shares which are solutions, thus depriving the pool and the other miners of the income. They also deprive themselves of that income too, because that block solution only applies to the block computed for that specific pool, which has coinbase (block reward) transactions specific for the pool.

Thus withholding the share that is a block solution doesn't gain the miner any extra income and actually costs the miner a very slight amount of income. For example if a miner is producing 1/100 of the hashrate of a pool and withholds its shares which are block solutions, then it loses 1/100 of its income from the pool, but all the other miners also lose 1% of their income too (even though they are not withholding their block solutions). So it hurts all the other miners (e.g. 99 other miners lose 1% in this example too if they all have the same hashrate), so it is a very effective attack because miners will leave for a pool that can pay them 1% more.

The only motivation for the attack is to hurt a pool. So if you have some incentive (monetary or otherwise) to hurt a pool, the share withholding attack is very cost effective means to do it.

To mitigate against the share withholding attack, there is Meni Rosenfeld's oblivious shares proposal. It makes a change to protocol of the block chain so that when a block solution is submitted, it is not a single number, but two numbers. One of those numbers is held in secret by the pool until a block solution is found by the miners, then the two numbers are published by the pool. So the miner can not know if his mining share is a solution or not, because he can not know that secret number until it is published. Only the pool can know. But P2Pool can't avail of that fix, because a decentralized pool can't hide information from its miners, because there is no central party to hide it.

There are potentially mitigation methods other than oblivious shares, but they are heuristic and not absolute. For example, a centralized pool can monitor to see if a miner is never sending block solutions. However given the extremely long times between when a miner would normally find a block solution (up to days, weeks, or months), this becomes extremely problemmatic to implement because miners can hop to different pools within that time frame and expect to get paid for the shares they did submit.

Thus there is no hope for a mitigation for P2Pool. And the heuristic method wouldn't work for P2Pool any way, because IP addresses are plentiful, so the attacker can return under a different IP address if he was detected and blacklisted.



[1] strictly speaking they don't send all, they send those attempts that meet some easier difficulty level than the difficulty the block chain expect.

[Spoetnik]

Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool.  I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds.  Too bad you can't.

I have no control over BCX.

You seem to be hard of hearing. P2Pool can't be fixed. The specific vulnerability is inherent in the fact that it is decentralized. There is no possible mitigation.

Since your feeble technical abilities are becoming too apparent, let me spell it out for you n00b.

Since P2Pool is decentralized, there is no central party to hide any information. Thus all the information for the pooling has to be public. Thus there is no way to hide the requirements of the block solution. Thus miners know when they've solved a block, and can choose to not share it.

The oblivious shares fix requires a change to the block chain, so that centralized pools can select a secret, then have miners solve a block solution that depends on that secret. Thus the miners never know if their mining share is a block solution or not. P2Pool can't do that, impossible.

Now please get a life and leave me alone.

It sounds like you're trying to get off the forum for a minute or two, so I'm sorry to ask this right now .. but it sounds like what you're saying is that if someone wanted to accomplish what you're describing, then someone could just have to code a program that lets an individual miner know when they've found a solution on a p2pool node .. and then additionally submit it to the network outside of the pool and receive the entire reward themselves rather than get paid pennies from the pool? So they could forego one pool payment for a full block reward, and then carry on in the pool as if nothing happened .. effectively owning that hashrate from the p2pool network for one block relative to themselves? Would software like that in the hands of all the p2pool miners, if such software were to be open sourced and kept up to date, and made to work with standard mining software be possible?


Would that take a lot of work? Or, am I not paying attention again?


add: nvm, you would forego the pool payout and just delay the finding of a block for a period of time. got it. but, could a large centralized pool utilize their hashrate to manipulate p2pool in such a way that it would be economically feasible to do so?

if mining was 50% p2pool and 50%ghash.io, could ghash take 25% and set it on p2pool and withold the solutions they find allowing a window in which the other half of their pool to, in general, find >50% of  the blocks and then distribute to all miners of their pool?

i'm guessing no matter what you do one client would get received before the other which would invalidate the other instantly..

and wow good god you guys plow on endlessly with this shit.
i am STILL and have been all along fascinated to no end why a couple of you have decided to hijack this topic and pound it like no forum topic before.
if your no doing it on purpose then WTF ?

last time i brought this up i was told i was the one off-topic.. uhhhhhhhh what ?

rename this to MSN messenger ?

i don't think some of you grasp how forums work and clearly struggle with social situations.
i see a lot of mentally ill behavior going on here..
i normal person would not just plow on endlessly like the Spirit of Christmas past..
circle jerking..

but hey keep it up ..it means your taking a fat fucking shit all over Monero and i have to admit i like it

[Spoetnik]

@TheFascistMind
Why did you create a new account to comment on this and a couple other Monero topics ?
Do you support Monero ?

All i see is you treading a fine line avoiding making that clear.

And why are you commenting literally every few minutes here ON THIS TOPIC ONLY and why is it smooth is here right along with you doing it too ?

There is a collection of points and behavior that i find rather odd to say the least.
First and for most the obsessive and possibly compulsive desire to bump this topic endlessly every 3 minutes with just about anything.

This behavior i just pointed out started in the height of the Monero backlash.

@smooth
In other words you don't "get it" and that made my point man
i don't know if i should dish out history lessons or what LOL
Maybe ask around what older users think of Feathercoin
Think of why i brought it up in relation to Monero..

[TheFascistMind]

but hey keep it up ..it means your taking a fat fucking shit all over Monero and i have to admit i like it

I have two job offers for you.

http://i18.servimg.com/u/f18/13/18/36/81/12599610.jpghttp://i18.servimg.com/u/f18/13/18/36/81/12599611.jpg

good god you guys plow on endlessly with this shit.

Eloquisms

Posted by TheFascistMind on Mon 2 Nov 2009 - 13:17
Elegant or novel ways to say something.

Next time you do not understand something, try asking with inverted grammar to illustrate your point humorously...

"Yoda Master tells understands he you not, {something} can be
how, you clarify please asks he to."