Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Tenebrix, a CPU-friendly, GPU-hostile cryptocurrency - page 38. (Read 127211 times)

Poolops banned botnets ?

My oh my, that's both not very wise and technologically hardly sustainable.


By involving a miner rig in a DDoS strike you increase the probability of being detected / getting owner in hot water, so the benefit of doing "other stuff" must outweigh risks of miner loss.

That means that some high risk / not so high income activities will be less popular.



Depends on specific economics involved. Where I live, DDoS rent is about  45$/hour for a bot net that is enough to take down a Belorussian governmental site.

If Tenebrix mining gives you  > 45$ / hour with such net, involving it in a DDoS op makes far less sense.

Well, on the other hand botnets connected to a diverse set of pools will contribute to Tenebrix's security

As for CPU-ming btc, it makes sense only when you have lots and lots of CPUs and don't pay electricity, and even then it is likely kinda meh due to all the super-duper GPUs


Well, now they will mine both BTC and TBX, on same box, lol

The thing is, there are botnets CPU mining bitcoins right now.
That's what kicked off the DDoS attacks, banning botnets.

It's clearly worth it, and doing something simple like using half the available threads would give the botnet operator fantastic income while not rendering them meaningfully more detectable.  They can do both that and the other bad stuff, they are exclusive.
On one hand yeah, they risk loosing that machine that gives 'em 5kh/s, but in doing so they may earn a few thousand bucks via ID theft, or they can just sell the credit card numbers they get without meaningful risk of loosing their tenebrix botnet boxes.

Mainly though, it's worthwhile to CPU mine bitcoins and people are doing it, why on earth wouldn't they do it to tenebrix?
In doing so the difficulty gets ramped way the hell up and profits for people mining legally go down.


This is simply an issue with anything that can be CPU mined meaningfully.
Also don't forget there are GPU capable BTC botnets now, too.

Occasional windows "transparent and unresponsive" appear to be a glitch (strongly related to processor load tho). Click on the icon in the tray to un-freeze the thing.

I wonder how EC would do, lol


A little bit from colon A, a little bit from B

While partially my response is in jest, you are thirty first person who bothered to inform me that Geist and / or Tenebrix have an "inflation" issue and that it's bad, and that cutting miner subsidy is teh ossom.

At first it leads to interesting discussion about what inflation and deflation are, and whether it is likely that there will be a miner freak-out at first or second "subsidy kink".

At thirty-first it starts getting mildly weird. I do think about writing a large entry for the FAQ i can link people to, because honestly, there's only so many times I can run through same arguments, I'm not an argument-based PoW cruncher

And now that I think of it, I do have a distinct idea as to how to implement an additional "quasi deflationary" influence without cutting subsidies or implementing demurrage.


Good, good


As far as physical commodities (and to a lesser extent, physical money) go, divisibility does affect the behavior of a system strongly dependent upon said physical construct as a form of money for transaction.

While gold is pretty divisible (compared to diamonds it indeed is ), I think you would agree that paying people in little pieces of gold  0.00001 grams each would be troublesome and incur additional cost of precision equipment needed.

Also, you should bear in mind that so far, we are conflating (woefully so) growth of money mass (monetary inflation) and inflation proper (which only deals with prices, not amount of money in a system).

Inflation / deflation as typically described in the context of Keynesian and Austrian arguments typically assume artifacts that can't just move a decimal point in arbitrary direction at a drop of a hat, which x-coins  are capable of without much trouble (not to mention both assume a nation-state economy of some sort, which is a whole can o' worms that is completely inapplicable to coin...until USA embraces Tenebrix as legal tender, that is )

Well, that's a question of definitions

It's not deflationary in the sense that is usually peddled in x-coin talks, but it *can* be deflationary for some very specific economic context

No, especially since in a system with a static monetary output of x units per y of time spent, losses and currency introduction scale differently (losses will scale with userbase and to a lesser extent overall monetary mass, the output remains nominally static while, quite obviously, shrinking relatively)


Tenebrix would suffer less due to faster blocks and faster retargets (two weeks of retarget time is well, pretty damn slooow)

Also, by not having the "must have a card this ossom to really mine" effect it has different adoption dynamics

Actually, that's pretty nifty on the top of it, that I have to agree with.

Do tell more.

yo kiddin?

x@x:~/Downloads/Tenebrix$ ./bitcoin-qt
bitcoin-qt: src/main.cpp:1754: bool LoadBlockIndex(bool): Assertion `block.hashMerkleRoot == uint256("0x4e77ffdc1baa20ffffab9d901f418f7496b2a710e462ac4047accdb8b3b774f9")' failed.
Aborted