Topic: [ANN][XMY] Myriad | Multi-Algo, Fair, Secure - page 182. (Read 850023 times)

I have no idea on the feasibility, Mr. MYRssaiah, but if something like that worked it would only add to the benefits of multi-PoW. Would be funny as hell to watch all the multipools spend half their time just trying to herd their clients between algos. The question would be which algo you weighted favorably? Or do you weight them all? I like the idea of weighting the weakest, but then you introduce the possibility of pre-determination so that a pool could switch to that algo just as it gets weighted.

It's a good thing Myriad was designed with an incredibly fair distribution model (48 weeks of initial block rewards!). We do not need to trip over forwards trying to create a hurried solution. A few days of multipool "rape" means nothing in the long run, it is the creativity, intelligence, and diligence of our decision-making that define it.

I've got the perfect anti multipool solution but like I said ass biting to come.
Here it is:
Whenever a surge happens on one algo we add a shitload weighing factor to other algos thus when they find their normally timed block they'll most likely orphan the string of fast submitted blocks belonging to the multipool.


Tadaaa I am now your myrssaiah.

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

I'm just trying to understand: Your main concern right now with multipools is that they mine and dump and this creates a loss of value?

I want to make a couple points if so:

1) If Myriad had the most perfect difficulty readjustment calculations for dealing with mutlipools, it still does not prevent them from mining and dumping. Nothing can prevent this.
2) Instead of worrying about something we cannot fix (mutlipool dumping) and its perceived negative impact on the day-to-day value of MYR (which is still debatable), why not attack this problem from the other direction? I think we should focus on creating buying demand for Myriad that would offset any multipool effects.

But that point is incorrect. There are a bunch of new altcoins that get hit by profit switching pools every day. They survive the network hit. What they complain about is loss of value to the miners and investors who want to hold rather than dump for BTC. The networks don't drop (most of the time). If you want to point out the loss of value to the MYR community (everyone that actually acquires MYR rather than mine 'n dump) as being low since there are other algos, that's what I'm warning about. Those other algos will not be free of profit switching pools long.

Again, whether or not the network survives is unimportant to this conversation. This is not something unique to MYR. I've seen it on many new altcoins that get hit. The drag is on the pools themselves. They have less resilience to a bump in hashrate than the altcoin chains. This has nothing to do with the concerns raised about MYR and the response to profit switching pools. We are not talking about frozen networks or forked chains. We are talking about loss of value to the coin and the community that supports it in favor mine 'n dump profit switching pools.

But that point is incorrect. There are a bunch of new altcoins that get hit by profit switching pools every day. They survive the network hit. What they complain about is loss of value to the miners and investors who want to hold rather than dump for BTC. The networks don't drop (most of the time). If you want to point out the loss of value to the MYR community (everyone that actually acquires MYR rather than mine 'n dump) as being low since there are other algos, that's what I'm warning about. Those other algos will not be free of profit switching pools long.

Again, whether or not the network survives is unimportant to this conversation. This is not something unique to MYR. I've seen it on many new altcoins that get hit. The drag is on the pools themselves. They have less resilience to a bump in hashrate than the altcoin chains. This has nothing to do with the concerns raised about MYR and the response to profit switching pools. We are not talking about frozen networks or forked chains. We are talking about loss of value to the coin and the community that supports it in favor mine 'n dump profit switching pools.

Just doing some research into an address (MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ) that keeps popping up using http://myr.coinpi.pe/ since it will display addresses with large numbers of transaction.

On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 305,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/AU2EakQW). Based on a block time of 2:30 (150 seconds), there should be an average of 576 blocks per day (per algo). This one address accounted for 53% of those blocks. At the end of the day, that address held a whopping 13,000 MYR. The rest were sent to M8LtymYa42xrxXmA8yydFcBDzeRhdz9X25. That account currently holds 17,537,005 MYR, and I can only assume is an exchange.

This is the address used by Wafflepool, as you can see from the image below (taken from the Wafflepool rolling stats page)...

The referenced hash (6ad7beca9ba28732c598c06f6c40f958fe02e565d39d7d6988f16e82a895b45a) links to a payout to MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ.

http://myr.coinpi.pe/tx/cb96fe1fc6b4d91631767b3b630b3baaef9d5faad701d2e61de371c83790b881

This is ONE profit switching pool grabbing greater than 50% of the expected blocks in a 24 hour period. I did not look to see if blocks were created in greater numbers than expected, although I suspect they may have been based on the overall percentage of scrypt blocks climbing to 21.6%.

Looking at a second address from that "burst" of blocks (MQgsHVckUWdELkyHxeQJJ3m7Dfu23ZKkpH) is interesting as well. On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 160,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/jrtdG9Z2). It also dumped most of its coins to a single address (MEuTEpcNfFmMC8msP1t2vhis63rZgfo82f), having a total of 15,000 MYR left at the end of the day. I'm assuming this is also an exchange, as that address has a current balance of 4,403,000 MYR.

On these 4 addresses (wafflepool & exchange + suspected profit switching pool & suspected exchange), there are no micropayments (sub reward size) like you would expect to see from a regular pool to miners. We know that one is a profit switching pool, and if we assume the second is as well, that means that 465 of the 576 daily blocks went to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 payed out to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 dumped the same day. (assuming that each pool carries over an average 10k - 15k daily)

I would love to see some more detailed research performed to validate/invalidate my assumptions. Please!

Now I can understand the thinking that, "oh, it's just ASIC flooded scrypt and we don't care because we have 3 other GPU algos." That's what I thought originally. But follow it through the next most likely progression. 80% or more of all blocks created by all 4 gpu algos will be generated by profit switching pools that dump everything as soon as they can. Like I said earlier, the folks on the Wafflepool thread are already talking about an algo+profit switching pool. This can't be far away. A solution should be researched NOW, before it spreads.

If those of us concerned about this are correct, this coin will soon become nothing but a mine & dump with no one holding but us poor schlubs who believed in the coin. Please, somebody take a look and waylay our fears with analytical data sets, not assumptions or questions. This is a big enough concern that I believe needs to be answered. We need to stay ahead of the curve.