51% HASHRATE COINMINE.PL !!!

[alex-ru]

Suppose the GPU miners made a switch to ASIC mining hardware, would that help with more evenly spreading the hashrate or is
current botnet just too massive ?

link:
https://medium.com/@soleoshao/asic-dash-miner-is-in-town-f6b833d3fdcc
http://pinidea.io/

"Normal miner" (with or without ASICs) should always care about being profitable - to compensate electricity, equipment, ... expenses.
"Unnormal miner" (botnets) have no expenses - so no ASICs can beat them (but may help a little bit...). The problem is miners wouldn't invest into ASICs if they can't recoup it's cost.

 

[qwizzie]

"Normal miner" (with or without ASICs) should always care about being profitable - to compensate electricity, equipment, ... expenses.
"Unnormal miner" (botnets) have no expenses - so no ASICs can beat them (but may help a little bit...). The problem is miners wouldn't invest into ASICs if they can't recoup it's cost.

I'm starting to think there is only one true effective solution to our current hashrate problem, build in the possibility to blacklist any offending actor
(Pool / Miner reaching more then 50% of total hashpower) on Dash blockchain level. What if that botnet or any future botnets decide to use a pool
which isn't as ethical as coinmine.pl ? I also think this should be top priority for the dev-team if it isn't already or inform us how they look at it in terms of priority

 

[moli]

"Normal miner" (with or without ASICs) should always care about being profitable - to compensate electricity, equipment, ... expenses.
"Unnormal miner" (botnets) have no expenses - so no ASICs can beat them (but may help a little bit...). The problem is miners wouldn't invest into ASICs if they can't recoup it's cost.

I don't condone botnets, but I'm surprised there's not another hacker in our midst who can create one or more botnets to make the distribution a bit better.. lol..
ping poiuty ... :wink:

 

[crowning]

link:

https://medium.com/@soleoshao/asic-dash-miner-is-in-town-f6b833d3fdcc
http://pinidea.io/

Hmh, the link shows an USB stick with an ALTERA Cyclone IV FGPA. I pretty much doubt that you can overclock this thing to 400 MHz (standard clock is 40 MHz if I remember correctly), but who am I to doubt those numbers.

And I think I remember someone telling me that it's a bit smallish for X11. And I think I remember this thread https://dashtalk.org/threads/darkcoin-fpga-mining-co-op.836/ .


BTW, a FPGA is no ASIC.

 

[raganius]

It makes me think: Even though mining pools are a good way to spread miners risk (and small miners inclusion), the only thing it actually seems to be promoting is hashrate concentration. This way, hurting decentralisation. Endangering, in theory, the profits of the same miners, in the long run, simply because these miners seem to be motivated by short-term gains selfish-recklessness decisions (a real tragedy of the commons situation).

So, it seems, mining pools will tend to form mining cartels (extremelly dangerous), a situation opposite to the "satoshi" goals/philosphy. (Sorry if I am speaking non-sense, but that's how I am feeling after all that's been going on on our network).

Is the "no pools allowed" solution an acceptable topic for the DASH community? Can the DASH community start thinking about a solution to make mining pools impossible in our network?

What I need to know, beforehand is:

• Is this "no pools" talk a taboo for us?
• Technically, is it possible to implement this no-pool policy?

 

[qwizzie]

we dont really have a taboo here but i think we will need the POW part as it strengthen our Multi-tier system.
we just need to figure out a way to balance those pools a bit more.

 

[raganius]

we dont really have a taboo here but i think we will need the POW part as it strengthen our Multi-tier system.
we just need to figure out a way to balance those pools a bit more.

Sure, I am totally pro PoW, because it has shown to be trustworthy. But (as a layman) I'd like to know if it is technically possible for the network to be pool-free, and if not having pools would be a viable solution after all (if it would not do more harm than good).

I "see" these possible future "mining cartels" as a huge problem, because they could control everything on the network, like enforcing a "minimal extortional fee", or blackmailing and excluding nodes or transacions, etc. But I have no technical basis at all... just speculation.

 

[qwizzie]

Sure, I am totally pro PoW, because it has shown to be trustworthy. But (as a layman) I'd like to know if it is technically possible for the network to be pool-free, and if not having pools would be a viable solution after all (if it would not do more harm than good).

I "see" these possible future "mining cartels" as a huge problem, because they could control everything on the network, like enforcing a "minimal extortional fee", or blackmailing and excluding nodes or transacions, etc. But I have no technical basis at all... just speculation.

I suspect (thats just a theory though) that the proof of service / masternode network in the near future will have a lot more control over proof of work,
i just hope its rather sooner then later as i think its important this gets handled as soon as possible.

quote from Evan on i think the Bitcointalkforum with regards to the Big Thing (TM) that's coming :

The goal is to make a confirmationless wallet, where all transactions are protected by IX. 51% attacks become much less powerful in that case, they can't really touch IX. That would protect our millions of users we're currently shooting for (valid / non-illegal users btw), which leaves an attacker one option... to buy masternodes to attack Dash. We know how that will go.

We really do have an end-to-end solution to all problems within crypto now. I'm working on a 50+ page whitepaper that details the rest of the solution, I'm quite excited about it Grin

Here's another one for good measure. We have sub-quorums for super secure tasks, but we could implement full-quorum based actions the masternode network can take as a whole. For example, banning attacking pools from the network, people, countries, etc.

That last part (the quote) could explain why the dev-team is not making any specific comments on this pool situation at this time .. the solution could be part of the yet
undisclosed whitepaper(s)

 

[camosoul]

I think it's gone on far too long and we are continually being hurt by this in the markets. I do have to say though that this guy is brilliant for this idea and may even have a built in way to update the code remotely on all his zombies. Changing things on our end may only be a temp fix.

Has anyone traced any of the coins to a wallet....or is (s)he D/S'ing everything?

Someone putting in that kind of effort to mine DASH must think it's valuable... The markets are full of dumb crack addicts who can't read the signs...

 

[camosoul]

I suspect (thats just a theory though) that the proof of service / masternode network in the near future will have a lot more control over proof of work,
i just hope its rather sooner then later as i think its important this gets handled as soon as possible.

quote from Evan on i think the Bitcointalkforum with regards to the Big Thing (TM) that's coming :


That last part (the quote) could explain why the dev-team is not making any specific comments on this pool situation at this time .. the solution could be part of the yet
undisclosed whitepaper(s)

I never understood why the masternodes themselves can't facilitate a distributed gateway type thing for mining to eliminate both, the problem of consolidation, and the potential for exactly this 51% business.

No need to pay the MNs any more. And the Miners can finally thank the Masternodes instead of calling it a tax... It makes sense... From the miners' limited, narrow perspective, they may as well get something for giving up that block reward, eh?

Proof of Work is essential. The fact that DASH still isn't an integral hybrid proof bothers me much more than the 51%+ situation... We have a 10 deep agreed vote queue... A unique hash dependent upon that could be part of the block proof. I realize that the way that is done might change, and upset the whole apple cart, which is why it hasn't been implemented. But someday, the best solution has to be found and nailed down. Then the block proof can finally be integrated.

 

[camosoul]

Look at it this way... It's not that hard. It's just hashes on top of hashes.

Mining produces a block proof. Not really. It produces a number. We're just using it as a block proof.

What if we added another layer?

Take a hash of what we currently call the block proof.

Take a hash of the pending vote list.

Add them, or otherwise combine them together, call that the block proof.

MNs monitor block outputs. If a given source manages to output 51%, it's discovery is rejected, and the next in line is "blended" with the vote stack hash. That becomes the valid block proof.

There would be a race to be second place instead of first place, because whoever is next in line gets one walloping huge payoff for the small amount of hashing they did.... Perfection.

With this extra layer, it doesn't have to be just two inputs. Any number of metrics could be blended and labeled as the proof.

This is an incomplete idea because I can already think of a way to possibly game it. But it's something.

Essentially, let the masternodes be "the boss." The miners come to the MN wit what they've found. If they found too much, their solution doesn't get merged with the vote stack hash, the next one in line does.

I'd like to see a better, distributed idea. This merely punishes the best mining pool for being the best... That's a bad idea economically (if you cut down the tallest tree "for the greater good" every day, eventually there are no more trees; socialism). But, it might work... At first it could be ugly. But, eventually, it might become better to mine without pools as there is nothing left but shrubberies... If the ban for being #1 lasted for 48 hours, holy cow... The chaos that would create in the current bad idea mining pool infrastructure... That might work...

NI!

Stop mining so much or the MNs will say "NI!" to you!

 

[Syntax360]

Very interesting idea, camosoul!

My InstantX post went mostly unresponded to, but from qwizzie's post, it sounds like that's what Evan's had in mind for awhile... Forcing InstantX ought to fix the issue without needing a fancy new system where pools are policed by the MN network.

 

[Wolf0]

I don't condone botnets, but I'm surprised there's not another hacker in our midst who can create one or more botnets to make the distribution a bit better.. lol..
ping poiuty ... :wink:

I condone them; I actually considered creating one, but I really can't be fucked to take care of it and herd bots. It'd be fun to have, though, like a pet. Distributed supercomputer.

Look at it this way... It's not that hard. It's just hashes on top of hashes.

Mining produces a block proof. Not really. It produces a number. We're just using it as a block proof.

What if we added another layer?

Take a hash of what we currently call the block proof.

Take a hash of the pending vote list.

Add them, or otherwise combine them together, call that the block proof.

MNs monitor block outputs. If a given source manages to output 51%, it's discovery is rejected, and the next in line is "blended" with the vote stack hash. That becomes the valid block proof.

There would be a race to be second place instead of first place, because whoever is next in line gets one walloping huge payoff for the small amount of hashing they did.... Perfection.

With this extra layer, it doesn't have to be just two inputs. Any number of metrics could be blended and labeled as the proof.

This is an incomplete idea because I can already think of a way to possibly game it. But it's something.

Essentially, let the masternodes be "the boss." The miners come to the MN wit what they've found. If they found too much, their solution doesn't get merged with the vote stack hash, the next one in line does.

I'd like to see a better, distributed idea. This merely punishes the best mining pool for being the best... That's a bad idea economically (if you cut down the tallest tree "for the greater good" every day, eventually there are no more trees; socialism). But, it might work... At first it could be ugly. But, eventually, it might become better to mine without pools as there is nothing left but shrubberies... If the ban for being #1 lasted for 48 hours, holy cow... The chaos that would create in the current bad idea mining pool infrastructure... That might work...

NI!

Stop mining so much or the MNs will say "NI!" to you!

Do you need a CAT scan? In a system where any address can belong to ANYONE, and any person can generate basically infinite addresses... finish this thought.

 

[moli]

I condone them; I actually considered creating one, but I really can't be fucked to take care of it and herd bots. It'd be fun to have, though, like a pet. Distributed supercomputer.

You have my support if you create one... balancing the power... :grin:

 

[Wolf0]

Sure, I am totally pro PoW, because it has shown to be trustworthy. But (as a layman) I'd like to know if it is technically possible for the network to be pool-free, and if not having pools would be a viable solution after all (if it would not do more harm than good).

I "see" these possible future "mining cartels" as a huge problem, because they could control everything on the network, like enforcing a "minimal extortional fee", or blackmailing and excluding nodes or transacions, etc. But I have no technical basis at all... just speculation.

You can decentralize block generation while allowing pooled mining.

 

[David]

I suspect (thats just a theory though) that the proof of service / masternode network in the near future will have a lot more control over proof of work,
i just hope its rather sooner then later as i think its important this gets handled as soon as possible.

quote from Evan on i think the Bitcointalkforum with regards to the Big Thing (TM) that's coming :


That last part (the quote) could explain why the dev-team is not making any specific comments on this pool situation at this time .. the solution could be part of the yet
undisclosed whitepaper(s)

^This.

I'm not too worried right now...it sounds like a solution is in the works.

 

[camosoul]

This is an incomplete idea because I can already think of a way to possibly game it. But it's something.

Do you need a CAT scan? In a system where any address can belong to ANYONE, and any person can generate basically infinite addresses... finish this thought.

I'm pretty sure they can't generate infinite IP addresses tho. Enough to be annoying, possibly. But as long as the top producer is always banned for 48 hours... Race to second place. How many block pop in 48 hours? OK, make it 96 hours... It goes around almost the same as MN payments... There currently aren't even that many mining pools. The only way to support the network at all, would be to start solo mining.

As I said, I can already think of a way for that to be gamed, but I can think of a solution for the game, too... Were you really trying to troll me with my own thought that I pointed out myself?

I even said it was an incomplete idea... Plagiarism as trolling, that's a new one.

The underlying concept of adding a layer to the block proofing strategy that includes aspects of the MN's PoService efforts, and the miners' PoW, is a valid idea which would allow the needed scrutiny to wrangle this matter. The only metric I can think of that would make sense to use, because it is now distributed instead of controlled by a central node, is the MN payment vote list. Something no other coin can boast even thinking about because MNs

I bet a CAT scan of me would be fun. You paying?

the MNs will say "NI!" to you!

 

[Wolf0]

I'm pretty sure they can't generate infinite IP addresses tho. Enough to be annoying, possibly. But as long as the top producer is always banned for 48 hours... Race to second place. How many block pop in 48 hours? OK, make it 96 hours... It goes around almost the same as MN payments... There currently aren't even that many mining pools. The only way to support the network at all, would be to start solo mining.

As I said, I can already think of a way for that to be gamed, but I can think of a solution for the game, too... Were you really trying to troll me with my own thought that I pointed out myself?

I even said it was an incomplete idea... Plagiarism as trolling, that's a new one.

The underlying concept of adding a layer to the block proofing strategy that includes aspects of the MN's PoService efforts, and the miners' PoW, is a valid idea which would allow the needed scrutiny to wrangle this matter. The only metric I can think of that would make sense to use, because it is now distributed instead of controlled by a central node, is the MN payment vote list. Something no other coin can boast even thinking about because MNs

I bet a CAT scan of me would be fun. You paying?

Except first, you never KNOW who mined a block. To do so would be to tie an IP address to the coin address. You only know who RELAYED it. And if you're mining with a botnet, you've got PLENTY of IPs. You people are thinking WAY too hard.

 

[camosoul]

Except first, you never KNOW who mined a block. To do so would be to tie an IP address to the coin address. You only know who RELAYED it. And if you're mining with a botnet, you've got PLENTY of IPs.

And then there's that thing about mn blinding...

Yep, we know the IP of the pool which relayed. NI! to that pool! How many IP's the pool going to buy? The botnet is reporting THROUGH THE POOL, is it not? So, it can't use any of those IPs as you've suggested.

You people are thinking WAY too hard.

You're not thinking anywhere near enough.

You people? I'm just one guy. I'm pretty sure nobody else here gives a shit. Which means they might take a shit... Which is weird because when one says "I have to take a shit" they generally leave it in the toilet and flush it, not take it with them disguised in a child's lunch box or something... I guess it's kinda like that "park on a driveway and drive on a parkway" thing, but with your ass. Anyway, what were we talking about?

 

[Wolf0]

And then there's that thing about mn blinding...

Yep, we know the IP of the pool which relayed. NI! to that pool! How many IP's the pool going to buy? The botnet is reporting THROUGH THE POOL, is it not? So, it can't use any of those IPs as you've suggested.

You're not thinking anywhere near enough.

You people? I'm just one guy. I'm pretty sure nobody else here gives a shit. Which means they might take a shit... Which is weird because when one says "I have to take a shit" they generally leave it in the toilet and flush it, not take it with them disguised in a child's lunch box or something... I guess it's kinda like that "park on a driveway and drive on a parkway" thing, but with your ass. Anyway, what were we talking about?

Being a botnet owner and having the ability to set up a pool server are mutually exclusive? News to me.