Topic: brace yourself... difficulty is about to increase, a lot (Read 10965 times)

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 15, 2012, 07:27:04 PM

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

Still be plenty of peeps mining with free power, or who use the waste heat to heat their homes.

Also I think there will be small miners who are converting electricity into bitcoins, its still a pita to convert small amounts of fiat into BTC, if you just need a lil bit and have a decent gpu, its easier to just mine it even if the power costs the same or slightly more then the value of the BTC.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

I was referring to the low rates and lack of economy as odd, not the governmental stance.

Well the two are linked. The govt seizes wealth and then uses some of the "profit" to subsidize energy and fuel prices in an attempt to bolster the economy.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 15, 2012, 07:26:00 PM

Not odd when you consider the country is highly socialist and Hugo Chavez has such gems as:

Quote

“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”

and

Quote

I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet."

I was referring to the low rates and lack of economy as odd, not the governmental stance. I'm no expert in Venezuelan politics. (obviously)

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Not odd when you consider the country is highly socialist

http://www.usbcnews.com/socialism-throttles-investment-in-venezuela.html

and Hugo Chavez has such gems as:

Quote

“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”

and

Quote

I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet."

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 15, 2012, 07:17:08 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 15, 2012, 07:06:38 PM

Quote from: fabrizziop on May 15, 2012, 11:48:00 AM

Venezuela. Gasoline is 0.1$/gal, diesel even cheaper.

Thanks, that's quite useful information. Sounds like an excellent place for a mining operation.

The country also routinely seizes private property for the "common good". It would be the last place I would consider for a mining operation.

"Sorry BinaryMage, the people of Venezuala are better served if the govt owns your server farm. Your building, all mining rigs, offices, records, and any bitcoin wallets will now be directly managed by the people of Venezuala. Feel happy knowing that your contribution will make the country a better place for all its citizens. These Police Officers will provide you escort to the airport, your visa has been revoked".

There is a reason why economic growth in Venezuala is essentially flat lined while the majority of the continent is enjoying massive GDP growth.

Well, that certainly changes things quite a bit. Seemed a little odd. Thanks D&T for enlightening me.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 15, 2012, 07:06:38 PM

Quote from: fabrizziop on May 15, 2012, 11:48:00 AM

Venezuela. Gasoline is 0.1$/gal, diesel even cheaper.

Thanks, that's quite useful information. Sounds like an excellent place for a mining operation.

The country also routinely seizes private property for the "common good". It would be the last place I would consider for a mining operation. Hell it would be the last place I would consider a hotdog cart.

"Sorry BinaryMage, the people of Venezuala are better served by directly managing your server farm. These documents transfer ownership of your buildings, computing hardware, software, records, bank accounts, and wallets to the people of Venezuela. Feel happy knowing that your contribution will make the country a better place for all its citizens. These Police Officers will provide you escort to the airport, your visa has been revoked".

There is a reason why economic growth in Venezuala is essentially flat lined while the majority of the continent is enjoying massive GDP growth.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

*moves to Venezuela*

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: fabrizziop on May 15, 2012, 11:48:00 AM

Venezuela. Gasoline is 0.1$/gal, diesel even cheaper.

Thanks, that's quite useful information. Sounds like an excellent place for a mining operation.

fabrizziop

hero member

Activity: 506

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 15, 2012, 10:33:51 AM

Quote from: fabrizziop on May 15, 2012, 10:31:29 AM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 11, 2012, 05:50:35 PM

Quote from: fabrizziop on May 15, 2012, 10:31:29 AM

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

Where do you get power so cheap? That's a quarter of the lowest I've ever seen.

Venezuela. Gasoline is 0.1$/gal, diesel even cheaper.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 11, 2012, 05:50:35 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 11, 2012, 05:50:35 PM

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

Where do you get power so cheap? That's a quarter of the lowest I've ever seen.

fabrizziop

hero member

Activity: 506

Merit: 500

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

It's fine for me, as it's basically competition, and only miners with great efficiency or low power cost will survive. (0.01$/KWh here).

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 11, 2012, 04:02:00 PM

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

I don't think that's a shame at all. My $0.02.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: SgtSpike on May 11, 2012, 03:56:41 PM

Quote from: check_status on May 11, 2012, 03:56:04 PM

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's. Wink

+1. I remember is the last article I read the botnet they took down was roughly 80%+ Windows XP machines. Given XP hasn't been sold for 4 year most of those machines are at least 4-8 years old. Try looking up the hashing power of a Pentium IV or Core 2 CPU. Also anyone hanging on to a 6 year old machine is unlikely to be someone who buys cutting edge gear. So likely low end models for their time. Lots of Celerons and lower clocked P4s.

To add on top of that, most people who are enthusiasts that buy the latest and greatest computing gear often know how to keep malware off of their computers.

lulzplzkthx

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 251

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:28:26 PM

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Very reasonable. You can buy them.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: SgtSpike on May 11, 2012, 03:56:41 PM

Quote from: check_status on May 11, 2012, 03:56:04 PM

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's. Wink

+1. I remember is the last article I read the botnet they took down was roughly 80%+ Windows XP machines. Given XP hasn't been sold for 4 year most of those machines are at least 4-8 years old. Try looking up the hashing power of a Pentium IV or Core 2 CPU. Also anyone hanging on to a 6 year old machine is unlikely to be someone who buys cutting edge gear. So a lot more likely to see celerons and lower clocked P4s than Extreme Edition chips

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 10, 2012, 04:41:22 PM

What makes you think that. The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.847664
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.884756
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.874037
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.890486
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.879865

Not exactly sure how future delivery of hashing equipment has caused the difficulty to already rise Huh

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: check_status on May 11, 2012, 03:56:04 PM

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

You forget that most people don't have modern CPU's. Wink

check_status

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Most modern CPU's have a hashing power of 10 MH/s to 66 MH/s.
See Column 3, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs

4x Opteron 6174 - 115 MH/s
Phenom II X4 810 - 11.5 MH/s
Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 18.67 MH/s
Core i5 2500K - 20.6 MH/s
Xeon E7450 (quad) - 60 MH/s

From the numbers above it doesn't look like the botnet would need to be 100K strong, just 70K at 18.67 MH/s.
Koobface and TDL were in the 1 million range each, I think. For actual figures on botnet sizes you can check Damballa or Threat Expert.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:28:26 PM

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Of course. There's just a world of difference between a few hundred thousand infected machines and a few hundred thousand botnets. In any case, I'm glad we now understand each other.

DILLIGAF

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on May 10, 2012, 04:41:22 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You can buy botnets easily if you know where to look, the thing is they are more commonly situated in less developed countries where they have shit CPUs and shit graphics cards among other issues.

Anyway, this rise in difficulty has nothing to do with botnets. It has everything to do with this: https://glbse.com/assets

What makes you think that. The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

Not to mention that the rest are sitting on a wait for the BFL to get their shipping time down and deliver the units.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: ?? on ??

You can buy botnets easily if you know where to look, the thing is they are more commonly situated in less developed countries where they have shit CPUs and shit graphics cards among other issues.

Anyway, this rise in difficulty has nothing to do with botnets. It has everything to do with this: https://glbse.com/assets

What makes you think that. The vast majority of those (by hashing power) already existed prior to the bond being issued.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:28:26 PM

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Yes.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:28:26 PM

Quote from: rjk on May 10, 2012, 01:21:29 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:11:41 PM

To clarify, each botnet is a payload on individual machine. Thats how i understand a botnet. In distributed computing, you can say its a node but its not technically correct to say a distributed network a botnet.

Making a botnet is trivial, inserting such payload on a machine is not. Therefore, its not reasonable to think there are hundred thousands of botnets.

My theory is simple, there are more investors in mining business. Big miners will just get bigger. They can estimate well the cashflow. Ppl who say its botnets are in denial.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

Sure. There are botnets with millions of computers in them.
http://www.damballa.com/downloads/r_pubs/Damballa_2010_Top_10_Botnets_Report.pdf

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: rjk on May 10, 2012, 01:21:29 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:11:41 PM

To clarify, each botnet is a payload on individual machine. Thats how i understand a botnet. In distributed computing, you can say its a node but its not technically correct to say a distributed network a botnet.

Making a botnet is trivial, inserting such payload on a machine is not. Therefore, its not reasonable to think there are hundred thousands of botnets.

My theory is simple, there are more investors in mining business. Big miners will just get bigger. They can estimate well the cashflow. Ppl who say its botnets are in denial.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:11:41 PM

To clarify, each botnet is a payload on individual machine. Thats how i understand a botnet. In distributed computing, you can say its a node but its not technically correct to say a distributed network a botnet.

Making a botnet is trivial, inserting such payload on a machine is not. Therefore, its not reasonable to think there are hundred thousands of botnets.

My theory is simple, there are more investors in mining business. Big miners will just get bigger. They can estimate well the cashflow. Ppl who say its botnets are in denial.

The payload is the virus on the machine, the botnet is the collective whole of all infected machines. "Bot" is short for "robot" and "net" means "network" - i.e., a network of robots.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Gomeler on May 10, 2012, 01:15:37 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:11:41 PM

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Nah uh,,....

Someone with superior intelligence thinks 1GHs / botnet is more reasonable.

Why do i always see retards making a solid case for himself.

You done bitching?

nope,

Gomeler

hero member

Activity: 697

Merit: 500

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:11:41 PM

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Nah uh,,....

Someone with superior intelligence thinks 1GHs / botnet is more reasonable.

Why do i always see retards making a solid case for himself.

You done bitching?

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

Nah uh,,....

Someone with superior intelligence thinks 1GHs / botnet is more reasonable.

Why do i always see retards making a solid case for himself.

To clarify, each botnet is a payload on individual machine. Thats how i understand a botnet. In distributed computing, you can say its a node but its not technically correct to say a distributed network a botnet.

Making a botnet is trivial, inserting such payload on a machine is not. Therefore, its not reasonable to think there are hundred thousands of botnets.

My theory is simple, there are more investors in mining business. Big miners will just get bigger. They can estimate well the cashflow. Ppl who say its botnets are in denial.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 10, 2012, 03:06:27 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

A hundred thousand PCs is perfectly reasonable. A hundred thousand botnets, not so much. Thanks for clarifying though, I suspect that might be what he meant, though I'm not entirely sure.

norulezapply

hero member

Activity: 481

Merit: 502

STFU AND STOP BITCHING.

Jeez man..

AzN1337c0d3r

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: seriouscoin

You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet.

Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 01:49:43 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:39:42 AM

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

Assuming at least a GH per botnet, a "hundred thousand botnets" would equate to 100 TH, about 7 times the current speed of the entire network.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It might mean I simply did the math. Wink

You sure did your math,.................. as well as how you did your reading

Quote

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Yes 1 GH/s per botnet is a rational way to debate this.

I'm done. I cant argue with you there. You can sleep now,

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 01:39:42 AM

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

Assuming at least a GH per botnet, a "hundred thousand botnets" would equate to 100 TH, about 7 times the current speed of the entire network.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It might mean I simply did the math. Wink

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 01:26:50 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:55:53 AM

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing".. Roll Eyes

I was not insulting your English, I was trying to help you. Of course it is irrelevant, it wasn't intended to be relevant.

As for misquoting me, I invite you to find where I said anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets, or where you stated that there were not "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets and I disagreed with you.

But this is beside the point. I disagreed with your claim and I'm glad to debate it. I don't wish to spend my time arguing over what I did and didn't say. You can insult me, accuse me, and compare me with politicians all you want. If you consider me an idiot and interpret all of what I say according to that, nothing I could do or say will change that, ergo continuing this discussion is pointless for both of us.

Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.

Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:55:53 AM

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing".. Roll Eyes

I was not insulting your English, I was trying to help you. Of course it is irrelevant, it wasn't intended to be relevant.

As for misquoting me, I invite you to find where I said anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets, or where you stated that there were not "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets and I disagreed with you.

But this is beside the point. I disagreed with your claim and I'm glad to debate it. I don't wish to spend my time arguing over what I did and didn't say. You can insult me, accuse me, and compare me with politicians all you want. If you consider me an idiot and interpret all of what I say according to that, nothing I could do or say will change that, ergo continuing this discussion is pointless for both of us.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 12:44:06 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:36:32 AM

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

I'm not trying to be mean, nor am I insulting your language. Call me whatever you want, I'm trying to help you here. I understand I come off as a total jerk, making grammar suggestions in long, complicated, extremely polite sentences just takes too long. Apologies for any offense caused.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:36:32 AM

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad live.

That was rude and unnecessary, I apologize.

I'm glad you appreciate my meager attempt to be polite. Obviously I needed to up the ante a bit.

I'm not sure how the discussion turned to my brain, but I agree, I certainly wish I had an eidetic memory, which alas I do not. And I don't see where I stated anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets. By all means please argue with me, but I'd prefer you don't misquote me.

My brain, then my life. You switch topics rather quickly. I find my life rather enjoyable, but you can consider it whatever you want to. That's not really relevant, though.

So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant.

I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing".. Roll Eyes

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:36:32 AM

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

I'm not trying to be mean, nor am I insulting your language. Call me whatever you want, I'm trying to help you here. I understand I come off as a total jerk, making grammar suggestions in long, complicated, extremely polite sentences just takes too long. Apologies for any offense caused.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:36:32 AM

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad live.

That was rude and unnecessary, I apologize.

I'm glad you appreciate my meager attempt to be polite. Obviously I needed to up the ante a bit.

I'm not sure how the discussion turned to my brain, but I agree, I certainly wish I had an eidetic memory, which alas I do not. And I don't see where I stated anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets. By all means please argue with me, but I'd prefer you don't misquote me.

My brain, then my life. You switch topics rather quickly. I find my life rather enjoyable, but you can consider it whatever you want to. That's not really relevant, though.

[/quote]

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 12:24:12 AM

What am I disputing, not what's I disputing, and "police" is plural, not singular. Correcting your grammar may not endear me to you, but it will help your English grade.

bullshiet, your intention of correcting my grammar was clear : to belittle someone in an argument. What you've done so far was to show English isnt my mother tongue. Jackass.

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 12:24:12 AM

Doing a "forensic search", since it seems to be something you're quite the expert on, is not a trivial task, nor is it without risk. Even assuming someone wished to conduct such a search, the existence of a botnet is not necessarily easy to prove. I do not agree with many of the threads you term FUD in these forums, but some of them are based off information indicating a likely botnet. If a botnet got to the point where one could consider it's existence "proved" without a reasonable doubt, chances are we would be inable to do anything about it. Proactive concern is not always productive, but it's far better than the alternative.

Requesting more details of a claim somehow turns into "being quite the expert" ? Or was that your ill brain to pick on someone?

I love the " without ill intent" part.

Maybe English is native to you, but frankly your brain isnt as wonderful as you hoped it to be. Botnets always exist because the nature of the term. But saying the hashrate increase is due to botnets is what i'm troubling to see. My post clearly hinted why? CPU mining isnt fast. You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets.

With no ill intent, you must have a sad life.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:10:41 AM

So whats your disputing?
Being a grammar police doesnt help jack.

so let me ask, do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

What am I disputing, not what's I disputing, and "police" is plural, not singular. Correcting your grammar may not endear me to you, but it will help your English grade.

I am disputing the claim you made in the post I quoted:

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Doing a "forensic search", since it seems to be something you're quite the expert on, is not a trivial task, nor is it without risk. Even assuming someone wished to conduct such a search, the existence of a botnet is not necessarily easy to prove. I do not agree with many of the threads you term FUD in these forums, but some of them are based off information indicating a likely botnet. If a botnet got to the point where one could consider it's existence "proved" without a reasonable doubt, chances are we would be inable to do anything about it. Proactive concern is not always productive, but it's far better than the alternative.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 10, 2012, 12:08:50 AM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:03:26 AM

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Quote

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

We're not disputing the meaning of the term, the last time I checked. And FUD is not a singular noun, you don't add an s. Wink

So whats your disputing?
Being a grammar police doesnt help jack.

so let me ask, do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 10, 2012, 12:03:26 AM

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Quote

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

We're not disputing the meaning of the term, the last time I checked. And FUD is not a singular noun, you don't add an s. Wink

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: payb.tc on May 09, 2012, 11:59:17 PM

Quote from: dropt on May 09, 2012, 11:53:15 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 09, 2012, 11:43:23 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 09, 2012, 11:43:23 PM

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

you mean someone with Extra Special Linguistics?

dont let me DDOS you man.
I'm deep in street, i DDOS for fun yo!

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

Quote from: dropt on May 09, 2012, 11:53:15 PM

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I obviously meant digital forensic investigation.

Quote

Network forensics is a sub-branch of digital forensics relating to the monitoring and analysis of computer network traffic for the purposes of information gathering, legal evidence, or intrusion detection.[1] Unlike other areas of digital forensics, network investigations deal with volatile and dynamic information. Network traffic is transmitted and then lost, so network forensics is often a pro-active investigation.[2]

Maybe this is why this forum is full of FUDs.

payb.tc

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 09, 2012, 11:43:23 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 09, 2012, 11:43:23 PM

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

you mean someone with Extra Special Linguistics?

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on May 09, 2012, 10:35:29 PM

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

He/She may be ESL?

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

Did anyone do a "forensic search"? With no ill intent, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

I wonder if bitsingles are responsible for it...

nope, just botnets.

I know ppl throw botnets around alot on the forum, but is there any actually proof? anyone bother did forensic search?

I cant imagine all the botnets happend to have GPUs (high end ones), last time i look CPU mining is utterly low .

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452