|
Nintendo Kid posted:you don't actually gently caress over the other pool doing this. you're right. although even if it doesn't actually hide any genuine solutions, the news that it's happening will drive people off elgius onto ghash e: I didn't even think to ask, how the hell can they know that miners are throwing away correct hashes without having direct access
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:you don't actually gently caress over the other pool doing this. not sure you're understanding this very well. the hypothetical here is that ghash has a chunk of mining hardware that is being subsidized by mining contracts they sold, if they don't run that hardware, they still have to payout (in bitcoins) to whoever purchased the contract. additionally, they have an incentive to not put all of their mining power in their pool directly, because concern of them controlling 51%+ could/does cause customers to go to other pools (obviously not that many, but some). solution? use them to mine in another pool, easy, but why not take it just a little bit further and get the extra small amount of benefit by collecting rewards from that pool without ever actually contributing a correct solution, even if you get one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
i mean discarding the solutions isn't some master plan that's going to destroy the competition, but it would be marginally better than actually submitting them if indeed ghash is using extra mining power in other pools
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
fishmech why don't you use you are fishmech account any more 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:not sure you're understanding this very well. i understand it perfectly well, it simply doesn't work to cover the costs of running the hardware versus not running the hardware all you can do is attempt to make the other guy lose a few hundred bucks while you burn thousands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
to be fair making a small gain while rationalizing a huge loss is a very bitcoin thing to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:i understand it perfectly well, it simply doesn't work to cover the costs of running the hardware versus not running the hardware running mining equipment paid for by mining contracts is literally ghash's business model though doing it in another pool and getting payouts proportional to their (substantial) hashing ability is not in any significant way different than running the hardware in their own pool. i dont understand why you think that running the hardware in a different pool would somehow drastically change their (apparently working) business model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:i understand it perfectly well, it simply doesn't work to cover the costs of running the hardware versus not running the hardware It depends on if the users whose hardware you're running can log in to their own machine or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:running mining equipment paid for by mining contracts is literally ghash's business model though they can just not run the equipment, and pocket the money. in fact they are likely already doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:they can just not run the equipment, and pocket the money. in fact they are likely already doing this. and then where do the bitcoins that they pay back to the people who bought the contracts come from? note, it would be pretty immediately obvious if they paid back those contracts with old bitcoins from somewhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:and then where do the bitcoins that they pay back to the people who bought the contracts come from? the rest of their massive pool that controls 51% of the network.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
so the hardware they run in their own pool provides the bitcoins they pay back to people who give them real money to buy the hardware, but it's more profitable for them to not run the hardware because... you are not thinking this through
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:they can just not run the equipment, and pocket the money. in fact they are likely already doing this. honestly, if there's anything they're likely to do, it's running their contracted miners in such a way that they're reporting as "unknown" instead of ghash.io
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:so the hardware they run in their own pool provides the bitcoins they pay back to people who give them real money to buy the hardware, but it's more profitable for them to not run the hardware because... you're the idiots claiming they're hiding hashing power in the first place, which already doesn't make sense. if they're going to hide hashing power they would do it by simply not running the hardware. they would not make money using laboriously crippled hashing software on another pool
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
i mean unless the pool fees are large enough to eat their profit margin on contracted mining (in addition to the effective % reduction in mining efficiency they would get from discarding full solutions), then as long as their normal operation is somehow profitable for them, then it does not make more sense to just buy the hardware and not use it while still having to pay back the people who contracted with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:i mean unless the pool fees are large enough to eat their profit margin on contracted mining (in addition to the effective % reduction in mining efficiency they would get from discarding full solutions), then as long as their normal operation is somehow profitable for them, then it does not make more sense to just buy the hardware and not use it while still having to pay back the people who contracted with them. this is why it doesnt make any sense to be "hiding hashing power", and especially not by joining other pools with sabotaged mining software that requires fisrt spending time and money to perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:you're the idiots claiming they're hiding hashing power in the first place, which already doesn't make sense. if they're going to hide hashing power they would do it by simply not running the hardware. again, they don't necessarily need to run it in another pool, they can just run it as a non-pool 1. all blocks the non-pool miners get go directly into their pocket 2. the divvying up of the thus-smaller "ghash.io" blocks ignores those bonus blocks, so they're only divvying up the 3600*.45 coins/day amongst miners instead of 3600*.55 or whatever 3. staying below the official 50% mark makes people think that they can join the fee-less pool without worrying about pushing them over the 51% mark, allowing ghash to devote more cex.io hardware to the unknowns in point 1 note that a major thing in favor of this is the fact that they've been saying "it's too hard" to let cex.io contractors pick their own mining pool, which should be like a week of work if that
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:this is why it doesnt make any sense to be "hiding hashing power", and especially not by joining other pools with sabotaged mining software that requires fisrt spending time and money to perfect. the only reason to hide hashing power is if they're concerned about people getting nervous that they run ~50% of the network.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Ursine Asylum posted:again, they don't necessarily need to run it in another pool, they can just run it as a non-pool i think it's likely that a good chunk of those 20% of unknowns are cex.io miners not yet identified
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
mayo update: I tried making my own. I used olive oil and I feel like that was a mistake. Gonna try again with veg oil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
mayo the force be with you
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Ursine Asylum posted:again, they don't necessarily need to run it in another pool, they can just run it as a non-pool so if they were doing this they wouldn't be trying to attack an actual pool by hacking the software to never return correct blocks
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:so if they were doing this they wouldn't be trying to attack an actual pool by hacking the software to never return correct blocks why do you think it would be so difficult to change your software to not return correct blocks? you wouldnt even have to necessarily change the mining software, it could be done at a network level. if you're running a full datacenter, youre very likely to have network appliances where you could write traffic rules to drop results matching a certain pattern. this is not more than a day or two worth of work for a reasonably clever person to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:so if they were doing this they wouldn't be trying to attack an actual pool by hacking the software to never return correct blocks assuming there is some factor keeping the elgin pool from finding blocks, what's the deal with that then
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:why do you think it would be so difficult to change your software to not return correct blocks? please explain how you would do this and test it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
thread getting fishmech'd pretty hard right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:please explain how you would do this and test it. i'd probably use an irule on one of the viprions i work with and point the pool miners at that to act as a laodbalancer/traffic filter for the pool management server that they return solutions to. snort rules could also handle it quite easily, or really any proxy software at all. the point being that since the communication protocol of the miner software is known and it's really trivially easy to spot a "full solution", blocking the reporting of them is really easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:i'd probably use an irule on one of the viprions i work with and point the pool miners at that to act as a laodbalancer/traffic filter for the pool management server that they return solutions to. snort rules could also handle it quite easily, or really any proxy software at all. the point being that since the communication protocol of the miner software is known and it's really trivially easy to spot a "full solution", blocking the reporting of them is really easy. except testing this first requires actually getting a successful hash, which even with a full up data center is going to take a very long time,
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:except testing this first requires actually getting a successful hash, which even with a full up data center is going to take a very long time, or using a previously solved one and making sure your regular expression isnt hosed also ghash solves a block every 10-15 minutes or so
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:why do you think it would be so difficult to change your software to not return correct blocks? it wouldn't be difficult, it would just be more of a waste of time than solo mining and just taking the blocks if you've got (ostensibly) 12% of the network tied up in cex.io, it makes more sense to get 12% of the blocks coming directly into your pocket with the added bonus of "we have no fees and we're still under 50%, you're fine, come join us" than trying to do some ephemeral "make the other pools less profitable" thing that would have very little visible effect on the other networks, and what effect it *did* have would be to, again, boost ghash.io's visible hash rate, which is probably the last thing they want right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:or using a previously solved one and making sure your regular expression isnt hosed you will not do this successfully, and this assumes you are even putting the miners in a facility that allows doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:also ghash solves a block every 10-15 minutes or so on their vast fleet of miners that aren't being artificially limited for some bizarre and pointless reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
if ghash is actually doing this against another pool, it's likely because someone(s) who works there just "knows" that this is a more effective use of their power than solo mining in an unknown pool because... it's clear that bitcoiners are stupid and believe stupid things likequote:[–]dcc4e 14 points 3 hours ago Nintendo Kid posted:you will not do this successfully, and this assumes you are even putting the miners in a facility that allows doing this. you really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably just stop
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Disabled Hitler posted:if ghash is actually doing this against another pool, it's likely because someone(s) who works there just "knows" that this is a more effective use of their power than solo mining in an unknown pool because... it's clear that bitcoiners are stupid and believe stupid things like ghash isn't doing it in the first place because it's pointless and dumb no i know exactly what I'm talking about, it's you who doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
please don't fight
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
come back ...!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
InShaneee posted:thread getting fishmech'd pretty hard right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
when fishmech has 51% of the poste's, were doomed
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
still can't believe anyone seriously thinks "it's pointless and dumb" would stop a bitcoiner from doing a thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
it's
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:57
|
|
