Topic: [ANN][XMY] Myriad | Multi-Algo, Fair, Secure - page 139. (Read 850209 times)

Quote from: HR on July 12, 2014, 04:54:47 PM

What would stop a botnet operator from making his own wallet implementation that bypassed said throttles? I feel like this would have to be apart of the coin itself.

You're probably right. Wallet hacking would be a huge vulnerability, but I don't know enough about the technical aspects to be able to intelligently comment on this. Hopefully we'll hear from others with more specific knowledge on the subject.

But the general idea would be to do as much as possible with the wallet, and only the absolutely necessary with the coin.

You don't even need to do any hacking. Just set up multiple headless linux VMs and install have multiple wallets. With a 32gb system you could have about 15 VMs (assuming 2gb per machine) and 15 wallets. So 15x what normal people would be getting...

Would tying the wallet to the users IP address help, as in the blockchain woulk only accept 1 miner from any IP?

That's an idea, but if people have multiple machines (laptop for work, old machine dedicated to downloads, the kids' computer, etc.) they should be able to use them all . . .

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with multiple VMs - the real 'horse power' of the 'rig' can't be broken into more parts than the whole so, well, if it's got some powerful graphic cards to break up into CPU equivalents (remember there's a throttling threshold that caps each VM), then maybe . . . but would it really be worth it? The reward differences aren't really equivalents - not by a long shot - the GPU still has a handsome advantage over the CPU (and ASIC over GPU) and would most likely be better off mining Skein or Groestl anyway in the vast majority of cases, and the operator breaking things up into VMs would probably be shooting him/herself in the foot by trying to get cute. In the best of cases it would be a close call, but the margin of error would always go to legitimate use.

A compromise then, say up to 5 devices from the same IP? This way the 'family' is catered for but the geeks like us would find it harder to stand up 500 bots (although there would probably be a way round it).

Sounds good.

I also like e-mail registration/confirmation for each install. (I know that would kill anonymity, but that's a pipe dream that I think we'd better get out of our heads sooner than later, because sooner or later we know the IRS will have its ugly nose in the middle of everything and that sooner or later we'll be looking at forced transparency. You know what they say about negatives? Turn them into positives! MYR would also become the first truly transparent coin - my coins are my coins by golly, and I want my identity time stamped on each and every one of them!

)

Muzzargh

member

Activity: 133

Merit: 10

Quote from: Muzzargh on July 12, 2014, 04:10:59 PM

Quote from: birdonwheels5 on July 12, 2014, 03:31:54 PM

Quote from: primer- on July 13, 2014, 02:40:33 AM

What would stop a botnet operator from making his own wallet implementation that bypassed said throttles? I feel like this would have to be apart of the coin itself.

You're probably right. Wallet hacking would be a huge vulnerability, but I don't know enough about the technical aspects to be able to intelligently comment on this. Hopefully we'll hear from others with more specific knowledge on the subject.

But the general idea would be to do as much as possible with the wallet, and only the absolutely necessary with the coin.

You don't even need to do any hacking. Just set up multiple headless linux VMs and install have multiple wallets. With a 32gb system you could have about 15 VMs (assuming 2gb per machine) and 15 wallets. So 15x what normal people would be getting...

Would tying the wallet to the users IP address help, as in the blockchain woulk only accept 1 miner from any IP?

That's an idea, but if people have multiple machines (laptop for work, old machine dedicated to downloads, the kids' computer, etc.) they should be able to use them all . . .

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with multiple VMs - the real 'horse power' of the 'rig' can't be broken into more parts than the whole so, well, if it's got some powerful graphic cards to break up into CPU equivalents (remember there's a throttling threshold that caps each VM), then maybe . . . but would it really be worth it? The reward differences aren't really equivalents - not by a long shot - the GPU still has a handsome advantage over the CPU (and ASIC over GPU) and would most likely be better off mining Skein or Groestl anyway in the vast majority of cases, and the operator breaking things up into VMs would probably be shooting him/herself in the foot by trying to get cute. In the best of cases it would be a close call, but the margin of error would always go to legitimate use.

A compromise then, say up to 5 devices from the same IP? This way the 'family' is catered for but the geeks like us would find it harder to stand up 500 bots (although there would probably be a way round it).

birdonwheels5

full member

Activity: 160

Merit: 100

Quote from: birdonwheels5 on July 12, 2014, 09:25:15 PM

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 06:28:14 PM

Quote from: foodies123 on July 12, 2014, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

because everyone has 16G+ ram computers and runs 64 bit oses ... right ...

15G ram eliminates botnet mining. You can still run the wallet on an old x86 box with 1gb ram but you wont be able to mine..

I have 32gb of ram, but I don't have 15gb to throw away for mining... I actually use my ram.

Good, now go jump off the bridge..

You know, there's been a lot of talking about bridge jumping lately, and I think I want in on it. Can you point me to a starter bridge so that I may go and jump off it? I only learn from the best.

Edit: Interesting concept, though. I tried mining for a little while on my 32gb laptop, and it got me thinking. Are there any other CPU friendly coins out there so I could squeeze a little more coinage out of my hardware? Turns out cryptonight (as mentioned before) is the answer. Currently doing my homework on which one to mine & invest some BTC in, as I get my Bitcoin from Coinbase tomorrow. You can bet that I'm buying a truckload of MYR with it, though. I wanna make my paper wallet's balance an even 1,000,000 MYR.

Oh and is that tigerwoods guy still here? Last I heard from him was about his dildos.

Cheena

full member

Activity: 222

Merit: 100

When is PolyMyr coming out the multi pool MAMMMP

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: birdonwheels5 on July 12, 2014, 09:25:15 PM

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 06:28:14 PM

Quote from: foodies123 on July 12, 2014, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

because everyone has 16G+ ram computers and runs 64 bit oses ... right ...

15G ram eliminates botnet mining. You can still run the wallet on an old x86 box with 1gb ram but you wont be able to mine..

I have 32gb of ram, but I don't have 15gb to throw away for mining... I actually use my ram.

Good, now go jump off the bridge..

birdonwheels5

full member

Activity: 160

Merit: 100

Quote from: primer- on July 12, 2014, 06:28:14 PM

Quote from: foodies123 on July 12, 2014, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

because everyone has 16G+ ram computers and runs 64 bit oses ... right ...

15G ram eliminates botnet mining. You can still run the wallet on an old x86 box with 1gb ram but you wont be able to mine..

I have 32gb of ram, but I don't have 15gb to throw away for mining... I actually use my ram.

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: foodies123 on July 12, 2014, 06:07:14 PM

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

because everyone has 16G+ ram computers and runs 64 bit oses ... right ...

15G ram eliminates botnet mining. You can still run the wallet on an old x86 box with 1gb ram but you wont be able to mine..

foodies123

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

because everyone has 16G+ ram computers and runs 64 bit oses ... right ...

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: killermonkeys on July 12, 2014, 11:18:54 AM

unfortunately botnet ops wouldn't even need to hack the wallet with this idea. They'd just have to create a payload that deployed a headless version of the wallet, created an address, started mining, and then use the api to send the funds back home. It would take a tiny bit of scripting.

also, if it had some kind of ram requirement (like 16gb) it would only work with 64bit systems, with enough memory. Not a solution for everyone...

I like your spirit though:)

Take a look at shinycoin wallet, it requires 15gb for mining but not for syncing/normal use. Would love to see MYR implement the algo.

HR

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1011

Transparency & Integrity

Quote from: Muzzargh on July 12, 2014, 04:10:59 PM

Quote from: birdonwheels5 on July 12, 2014, 03:31:54 PM

Quote from: birdonwheels5 on July 12, 2014, 03:31:54 PM

What would stop a botnet operator from making his own wallet implementation that bypassed said throttles? I feel like this would have to be apart of the coin itself.

You're probably right. Wallet hacking would be a huge vulnerability, but I don't know enough about the technical aspects to be able to intelligently comment on this. Hopefully we'll hear from others with more specific knowledge on the subject.

But the general idea would be to do as much as possible with the wallet, and only the absolutely necessary with the coin.

You don't even need to do any hacking. Just set up multiple headless linux VMs and install have multiple wallets. With a 32gb system you could have about 15 VMs (assuming 2gb per machine) and 15 wallets. So 15x what normal people would be getting...

Would tying the wallet to the users IP address help, as in the blockchain woulk only accept 1 miner from any IP?

That's an idea, but if people have multiple machines (laptop for work, old machine dedicated to downloads, the kids' computer, etc.) they should be able to use them all . . .

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with multiple VMs - the real 'horse power' of the 'rig' can't be broken into more parts than the whole so, well, if it's got some powerful graphic cards to break up into CPU equivalents (remember there's a throttling threshold that caps each VM), then maybe . . . but would it really be worth it? The reward differences aren't really equivalents - not by a long shot - the GPU still has a handsome advantage over the CPU (and ASIC over GPU) and would most likely be better off mining Skein or Groestl anyway in the vast majority of cases, and the operator breaking things up into VMs would probably be shooting him/herself in the foot by trying to get cute. In the best of cases it would be a close call, but the margin of error would always go to legitimate use.

Muzzargh

member

Activity: 133

Merit: 10

What would stop a botnet operator from making his own wallet implementation that bypassed said throttles? I feel like this would have to be apart of the coin itself.

You're probably right. Wallet hacking would be a huge vulnerability, but I don't know enough about the technical aspects to be able to intelligently comment on this. Hopefully we'll hear from others with more specific knowledge on the subject.

But the general idea would be to do as much as possible with the wallet, and only the absolutely necessary with the coin.

You don't even need to do any hacking. Just set up multiple headless linux VMs and install have multiple wallets. With a 32gb system you could have about 15 VMs (assuming 2gb per machine) and 15 wallets. So 15x what normal people would be getting...

Would tying the wallet to the users IP address help, as in the blockchain woulk only accept 1 miner from any IP?

birdonwheels5

full member

Activity: 160

Merit: 100