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

[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.

You done bitching?

nope, 

[1714816941]

1714816941

[1714816941]

1714816941

[1714816941]

1714816941

[1714816941]

1714816941

[rjk]

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.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

[seriouscoin]

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.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

[SgtSpike]

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.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Sure.  There are botnets with millions of computers in them.
http://www.damballa.com/downloads/r_pubs/Damballa_2010_Top_10_Botnets_Report.pdf

[DeathAndTaxes]

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Yes. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

You can buy botnets easily if you know where to look, the thing is they are more commonly situated in less developed countries where they have shit CPUs and shit graphics cards among other issues.

Anyway, this rise in difficulty has nothing to do with botnets. It has everything to do with this: https://glbse.com/assets

What makes you think that.  The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

[DILLIGAF]

You can buy botnets easily if you know where to look, the thing is they are more commonly situated in less developed countries where they have shit CPUs and shit graphics cards among other issues.

Anyway, this rise in difficulty has nothing to do with botnets. It has everything to do with this: https://glbse.com/assets

What makes you think that.  The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

Not to mention that the rest are sitting on a wait for the BFL to get their shipping time down and deliver the units.

[BinaryMage]

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Of course. There's just a world of difference between a few hundred thousand infected machines and a few hundred thousand botnets. In any case, I'm glad we now understand each other.

[check_status]

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.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

[SgtSpike]

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.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

What makes you think that.  The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67547.msg847664#msg847664
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75126.msg884756#msg884756
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75802.msg874037#msg874037
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.msg890486#msg890486
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75867.msg879865#msg879865

Not exactly sure how future delivery of hashing equipment has caused the difficulty to already rise

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's.  

+1.  I remember is the last article I read the botnet they took down was roughly 80%+ Windows XP machines.  Given XP hasn't been sold for 4 year most of those machines are at least 4-8 years old.   Try looking up the hashing power of a Pentium IV or Core 2 CPU.  Also anyone hanging on to a 6 year old machine is unlikely to be someone who buys cutting edge gear.   So a lot more likely to see celerons and lower clocked P4s than Extreme Edition chips

[lulzplzkthx]

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Very reasonable. You can buy them.

[SgtSpike]

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.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's.  

+1.  I remember is the last article I read the botnet they took down was roughly 80%+ Windows XP machines.  Given XP hasn't been sold for 4 year most of those machines are at least 4-8 years old.   Try looking up the hashing power of a Pentium IV or Core 2 CPU.  Also anyone hanging on to a 6 year old machine is unlikely to be someone who buys cutting edge gear.  So likely low end models for their time.  Lots of Celerons and lower clocked P4s.

To add on top of that, most people who are enthusiasts that buy the latest and greatest computing gear often know how to keep malware off of their computers.

[-ck]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

[SgtSpike]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I don't think that's a shame at all.  My $0.02.

[BinaryMage]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

[fabrizziop]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

[BinaryMage]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

Where do you get power so cheap? That's a quarter of the lowest I've ever seen.

[fabrizziop]

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

Where do you get power so cheap? That's a quarter of the lowest I've ever seen.

Venezuela. Gasoline is 0.1$/gal, diesel even cheaper.