brace yourself... difficulty is about to increase, a lot

[BinaryMage]

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[1714179830]

1714179830

[1714179830]

1714179830

[1714179830]

1714179830

[dropt]

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

[payb.tc]

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

you mean someone with Extra Special Linguistics?

[seriouscoin]

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

[seriouscoin]

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

you mean someone with Extra Special Linguistics?

dont let me DDOS you man.
I'm deep in street, i DDOS for fun yo!

[BinaryMage]

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

We're not disputing the meaning of the term, the last time I checked. And FUD is not a singular noun, you don't add an s.

[seriouscoin]

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

We're not disputing the meaning of the term, the last time I checked. And FUD is not a singular noun, you don't add an s.

So whats your disputing?
Being a grammar police doesnt help jack.

so let me ask, do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

[BinaryMage]

So whats your disputing?
Being a grammar police doesnt help jack.

so let me ask, do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

What am I disputing, not what's I disputing, and "police" is plural, not singular. Correcting your grammar may not endear me to you, but it will help your English grade.

I am disputing the claim you made in the post I quoted:

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Doing a "forensic search", since it seems to be something you're quite the expert on, is not a trivial task, nor is it without risk. Even assuming someone wished to conduct such a search, the existence of a botnet is not necessarily easy to prove. I do not agree with many of the threads you term FUD in these forums, but some of them are based off information indicating a likely botnet. If a botnet got to the point where one could consider it's existence "proved" without a reasonable doubt, chances are we would be inable to do anything about it. Proactive concern is not always productive, but it's far better than the alternative.

[seriouscoin]

What am I disputing, not what's I disputing, and "police" is plural, not singular. Correcting your grammar may not endear me to you, but it will help your English grade.

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

Doing a "forensic search", since it seems to be something you're quite the expert on, is not a trivial task, nor is it without risk. Even assuming someone wished to conduct such a search, the existence of a botnet is not necessarily easy to prove. I do not agree with many of the threads you term FUD in these forums, but some of them are based off information indicating a likely botnet. If a botnet got to the point where one could consider it's existence "proved" without a reasonable doubt, chances are we would be inable to do anything about it. Proactive concern is not always productive, but it's far better than the alternative.

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad life.

[BinaryMage]

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

I'm not trying to be mean, nor am I insulting your language. Call me whatever you want, I'm trying to help you here. I understand I come off as a total jerk, making grammar suggestions in long, complicated, extremely polite sentences just takes too long. Apologies for any offense caused.

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad live.

That was rude and unnecessary, I apologize.

I'm glad you appreciate my meager attempt to be polite. Obviously I needed to up the ante a bit.

I'm not sure how the discussion turned to my brain, but I agree, I certainly wish I had an eidetic memory, which alas I do not. And I don't see where I stated anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets. By all means please argue with me, but I'd prefer you don't misquote me.

My brain, then my life. You switch topics rather quickly. I find my life rather enjoyable, but you can consider it whatever you want to. That's not really relevant, though.






[/quote]

[seriouscoin]

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

I'm not trying to be mean, nor am I insulting your language. Call me whatever you want, I'm trying to help you here. I understand I come off as a total jerk, making grammar suggestions in long, complicated, extremely polite sentences just takes too long. Apologies for any offense caused.

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad live.

That was rude and unnecessary, I apologize.

I'm glad you appreciate my meager attempt to be polite. Obviously I needed to up the ante a bit.

I'm not sure how the discussion turned to my brain, but I agree, I certainly wish I had an eidetic memory, which alas I do not. And I don't see where I stated anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets. By all means please argue with me, but I'd prefer you don't misquote me.

My brain, then my life. You switch topics rather quickly. I find my life rather enjoyable, but you can consider it whatever you want to. That's not really relevant, though.

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing"..

 

[BinaryMage]

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing"..

I was not insulting your English, I was trying to help you. Of course it is irrelevant, it wasn't intended to be relevant.

As for misquoting me, I invite you to find where I said anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets, or where you stated that there were not "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets and I disagreed with you.

But this is beside the point. I disagreed with your claim and I'm glad to debate it. I don't wish to spend my time arguing over what I did and didn't say. You can insult me, accuse me, and compare me with politicians all you want. If you consider me an idiot and interpret all of what I say according to that, nothing I could do or say will change that, ergo continuing this discussion is pointless for both of us.

[seriouscoin]

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing"..

I was not insulting your English, I was trying to help you. Of course it is irrelevant, it wasn't intended to be relevant.

As for misquoting me, I invite you to find where I said anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets, or where you stated that there were not "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets and I disagreed with you.

But this is beside the point. I disagreed with your claim and I'm glad to debate it. I don't wish to spend my time arguing over what I did and didn't say. You can insult me, accuse me, and compare me with politicians all you want. If you consider me an idiot and interpret all of what I say according to that, nothing I could do or say will change that, ergo continuing this discussion is pointless for both of us.

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

 

[BinaryMage]

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

Assuming at least a GH per botnet, a "hundred thousand botnets" would equate to 100 TH, about 7 times the current speed of the entire network.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It might mean I simply did the math.

[seriouscoin]

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

Assuming at least a GH per botnet, a "hundred thousand botnets" would equate to 100 TH, about 7 times the current speed of the entire network.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It might mean I simply did the math.

You sure did your math,.................. as well as how you did your reading

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Yes 1 GH/s per botnet is a rational way to debate this.

I'm done. I cant argue with you there. You can sleep now,

[AzN1337c0d3r]

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet. 

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

[norulezapply]

STFU AND STOP BITCHING.

Jeez man..

[BinaryMage]

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet. 

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

A hundred thousand PCs is perfectly reasonable. A hundred thousand botnets, not so much. Thanks for clarifying though, I suspect that might be what he meant, though I'm not entirely sure.

[seriouscoin]

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.  

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Nah uh,,....

Someone with superior intelligence thinks 1GHs / botnet is more reasonable.

Why do i always see retards making a solid case for himself.


To clarify, each botnet is a payload on individual machine. Thats how i understand a botnet. In distributed computing, you can say its a node but its not technically correct to say a distributed network a botnet.

Making a botnet is trivial, inserting such payload on a machine is not. Therefore, its not reasonable to think there are hundred thousands of botnets.

My theory is simple, there are more investors in mining business. Big miners will just get bigger. They can estimate well the cashflow. Ppl who say its botnets are in denial.

[Gomeler]

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet. 

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Nah uh,,....

Someone with superior intelligence thinks 1GHs / botnet is more reasonable.

Why do i always see retards making a solid case for himself.

You done bitching?