Information about the new instruction set actually leaked ages ago, and it looks promising on paper.
Please provide a cite.
Topic: delete (Read 6143 times)
What would it take to take out SC?
@3phase,
Not going to argue with you on any of it.
Sounding very strangely like I am defending SC goons, your numbers are exactly what Ten98 came up with more or less. You are correct on a 24 hour setup, but it isn't rocket science to perfect an instance and clone it. Ten98 was aware of the cost and I firmly believe he can fund it if he wants to. A few thousand dollars isn't the end of the world for some people.
I can absolutely assure you it doesn't take the CEO of one of the largest companies to ever exist to approve a simple EC2 expansion. It's simply a matter of logging in and doing what I want actually. EC2 attacks are real and the report links you posted are nothing more than a black hole. Kind of like the "Contact Us" at iTunes LOL...
The 20 instance limit is for new users. I have access to 750 out of more than 2500 total at any time I want. They sit idle 24/7/365 until we use them. Could be why it's called Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud or Amazon EC2 (get it EC2).
FYI, many miners on several chains have been using EC2 to mine. When SC launched more than 20% of SC network hash were EC2 nodes (not all mine) and finally, just because you can't do it or it is difficult for you doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else.
Peace,
BCX
Not going to argue with you on any of it.
Sounding very strangely like I am defending SC goons, your numbers are exactly what Ten98 came up with more or less. You are correct on a 24 hour setup, but it isn't rocket science to perfect an instance and clone it. Ten98 was aware of the cost and I firmly believe he can fund it if he wants to. A few thousand dollars isn't the end of the world for some people.
I can absolutely assure you it doesn't take the CEO of one of the largest companies to ever exist to approve a simple EC2 expansion. It's simply a matter of logging in and doing what I want actually. EC2 attacks are real and the report links you posted are nothing more than a black hole. Kind of like the "Contact Us" at iTunes LOL...
The 20 instance limit is for new users. I have access to 750 out of more than 2500 total at any time I want. They sit idle 24/7/365 until we use them. Could be why it's called Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud or Amazon EC2 (get it EC2).
FYI, many miners on several chains have been using EC2 to mine. When SC launched more than 20% of SC network hash were EC2 nodes (not all mine) and finally, just because you can't do it or it is difficult for you doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else.
Peace,
BCX
Acknowledged. You have obviously access to more resources than I do. Can you confirm that you are talking about c1.xlarge instances? Because if you are talking about other instance types, the efficiency and the economics change (dramatically so). I would also personally doubt that you or any other could have 750 c1.xlarge instances at will, not because you can't, but this size is too big even for EC2 itself. However, I might be wrong in my assumption about this.
Just to clarify that my note about CEO approval was not concerning the EC2 usage, but concerning handling the effects of such an action becoming public, which is not difficult to happen. You can't hide 600 instances under the matress
@3phase,
Not going to argue with you on any of it.
Sounding very strangely like I am defending SC goons, your numbers are exactly what Ten98 came up with more or less. You are correct on a 24 hour setup, but it isn't rocket science to perfect an instance and clone it. Ten98 was aware of the cost and I firmly believe he can fund it if he wants to. A few thousand dollars isn't the end of the world for some people.
I can absolutely assure you it doesn't take the CEO of one of the largest companies to ever exist to approve a simple EC2 expansion. It's simply a matter of logging in and doing what I want actually. EC2 attacks are real and the report links you posted are nothing more than a black hole. Kind of like the "Contact Us" at iTunes LOL...
The 20 instance limit is for new users. I have access to 750 out of more than 2500 total at any time I want. They sit idle 24/7/365 until we use them. Could be why it's called Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud or Amazon EC2 (get it EC2).
FYI, many miners on several chains have been using EC2 to mine. When SC launched more than 20% of SC network hash were EC2 nodes (not all mine) and finally, just because you can't do it or it is difficult for you doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else.
Peace,
BCX
Not going to argue with you on any of it.
Sounding very strangely like I am defending SC goons, your numbers are exactly what Ten98 came up with more or less. You are correct on a 24 hour setup, but it isn't rocket science to perfect an instance and clone it. Ten98 was aware of the cost and I firmly believe he can fund it if he wants to. A few thousand dollars isn't the end of the world for some people.
I can absolutely assure you it doesn't take the CEO of one of the largest companies to ever exist to approve a simple EC2 expansion. It's simply a matter of logging in and doing what I want actually. EC2 attacks are real and the report links you posted are nothing more than a black hole. Kind of like the "Contact Us" at iTunes LOL...
The 20 instance limit is for new users. I have access to 750 out of more than 2500 total at any time I want. They sit idle 24/7/365 until we use them. Could be why it's called Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud or Amazon EC2 (get it EC2).
FYI, many miners on several chains have been using EC2 to mine. When SC launched more than 20% of SC network hash were EC2 nodes (not all mine) and finally, just because you can't do it or it is difficult for you doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else.
Peace,
BCX
Yeah so the conclusion of this is: BCX can 51% LTC whenever he wants (maybe therefore he currently is buying all the coins?).
I would wish that all those fantasies about using EC2 to 51% LTC were put to rest (to say it mildly). You all seem to think that AWS is a game that anyone can play as much as they want to their heart's wish.
First of all, some simple math. A High-CPU Extra Large Instance has a current best spot price of 0.24$/hr on US-East and produces about 15KH/s with the latest optimized miners. In order to get 9MH/s in order to have a good chance of overtaking the network you would need 600 of those which I doubt you could get on that region by itself, therefore you would have to split them to other, more expensive, regions also.
So assuming an average cost of 0.3$/hr per instance, this would mean 180$ per hour of operation.
Mind you, it would take at least a full 24-hrs to get such a full network started properly, and ensure that it is operational as intended. A small script mistake, a reach of the ceiling of available capacity in one region and the subsequent increase of the spot price, a controller instance malfunction (yes, you need controller instances: think you can just list 600 instances on a command line and find out what is wrong where?), or any other incident, costs a few hundreds of $$$ at this scale.
So actual costs to pull this off are in the range of a few thousand $$$.
1. You cannot just rent more than 20 standard instances or 100 spot (the latter is the most efficient one in terms of costs) without submitting a special Instance Limit Increase Request at:
http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
and then your request will be "considered". You can bet that there are not that many such requests every day so they are scrutinized sufficiently. And you definitely cannot submit a request like this and remain anonymous at the same time.
2. Large customers of AWS and large public traded companies can definitely get this Limit Increase easier, but then anyone doing this from within a company account, cannot do this anonymously and definitely risks a lot of their company's reputation. Just think what would happen when a "smart" rogue reporter breaks the news that "ACME Corp. is secretly involved in crypto-currency wars, aiming to (pick one or more of the following: devalue the dollar/end the Fed/undermine the financial stability of the nation/engage in money laundering/engage in illegal untraceable activities)".
Find me one CEO of such a company that would approve of this. And please BTCExpress, if you disagree with that view, feel free to offer a counter argument, since you have publicly claimed that you did such a thing at SC2 launch.
3. You can of course, create multiple accounts and circumvent these limits, but then you would definitely catch the eye of the monitors as a few hundred instances with similar network footprint would ring several bells at the NOC. I've personally seen that AWS response times when trouble is suspected is very fast (much faster that response to support requests TBH), and you can bet that they will investigate it extensively. Finding proof of the use of multiple accounts to circumvent the Instance limits is not that hard. And when that happens, account locking is warranted.
4. And finally anyone who finds proof that they are getting attacked by an AWS cluster of nodes, can use the abuse form:
http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
which, according to the AUP (http://aws.amazon.com/aup) can be problems that affect a "System" which would definitely fit to an existing P2P network. Anyone with an exposed public face/company is free to claim this (Graeme of Ozco.in comes to mind as an example).
So tl;dr:
Stop fantasizing about the dangers of EC2, and about such attacks to LTC or any other chain (I might add "of equivalent network size" in order to avoid misinterpretations). AWS is not child's games, unlike some of the crypto-currency experiments. It's a huge cloud service, run by people who might not be the best in the business in terms of support, but they are very sensitive to the responsibilities that they share with their customers and any liability that arises for them due to the actions of their customers.
P.S.
On the other hand, it's very easy to use EC2 to LOSE some money in mining. Even with spot instance pricing, it is still not profitable to mine any CPU chain.
First of all, some simple math. A High-CPU Extra Large Instance has a current best spot price of 0.24$/hr on US-East and produces about 15KH/s with the latest optimized miners. In order to get 9MH/s in order to have a good chance of overtaking the network you would need 600 of those which I doubt you could get on that region by itself, therefore you would have to split them to other, more expensive, regions also.
So assuming an average cost of 0.3$/hr per instance, this would mean 180$ per hour of operation.
Mind you, it would take at least a full 24-hrs to get such a full network started properly, and ensure that it is operational as intended. A small script mistake, a reach of the ceiling of available capacity in one region and the subsequent increase of the spot price, a controller instance malfunction (yes, you need controller instances: think you can just list 600 instances on a command line and find out what is wrong where?), or any other incident, costs a few hundreds of $$$ at this scale.
So actual costs to pull this off are in the range of a few thousand $$$.
1. You cannot just rent more than 20 standard instances or 100 spot (the latter is the most efficient one in terms of costs) without submitting a special Instance Limit Increase Request at:
http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
and then your request will be "considered". You can bet that there are not that many such requests every day so they are scrutinized sufficiently. And you definitely cannot submit a request like this and remain anonymous at the same time.
2. Large customers of AWS and large public traded companies can definitely get this Limit Increase easier, but then anyone doing this from within a company account, cannot do this anonymously and definitely risks a lot of their company's reputation. Just think what would happen when a "smart" rogue reporter breaks the news that "ACME Corp. is secretly involved in crypto-currency wars, aiming to (pick one or more of the following: devalue the dollar/end the Fed/undermine the financial stability of the nation/engage in money laundering/engage in illegal untraceable activities)".
Find me one CEO of such a company that would approve of this. And please BTCExpress, if you disagree with that view, feel free to offer a counter argument, since you have publicly claimed that you did such a thing at SC2 launch.
3. You can of course, create multiple accounts and circumvent these limits, but then you would definitely catch the eye of the monitors as a few hundred instances with similar network footprint would ring several bells at the NOC. I've personally seen that AWS response times when trouble is suspected is very fast (much faster that response to support requests TBH), and you can bet that they will investigate it extensively. Finding proof of the use of multiple accounts to circumvent the Instance limits is not that hard. And when that happens, account locking is warranted.
4. And finally anyone who finds proof that they are getting attacked by an AWS cluster of nodes, can use the abuse form:
http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
which, according to the AUP (http://aws.amazon.com/aup) can be problems that affect a "System" which would definitely fit to an existing P2P network. Anyone with an exposed public face/company is free to claim this (Graeme of Ozco.in comes to mind as an example).
So tl;dr:
Stop fantasizing about the dangers of EC2, and about such attacks to LTC or any other chain (I might add "of equivalent network size" in order to avoid misinterpretations). AWS is not child's games, unlike some of the crypto-currency experiments. It's a huge cloud service, run by people who might not be the best in the business in terms of support, but they are very sensitive to the responsibilities that they share with their customers and any liability that arises for them due to the actions of their customers.
P.S.
On the other hand, it's very easy to use EC2 to LOSE some money in mining. Even with spot instance pricing, it is still not profitable to mine any CPU chain.
True, they aren't banning LTC mining, but if you launch a couple hundred Litecoin miners they are going to be asking why and a phone call with shut it down if it is deemed an attack.
Based on what? Mining is proof of an attack. LTC isn't licensed software. There are no prohibitions on someone using 1 copy or 100,000 copies of mining software.
I don't buy it.
Not meaning to disagree with you D&T but anything even remotely related to an attack is knocked down. Launch 200 instances of EC2 with LTC and see if you aren't talking to compliance.
This is bullshit, do you think EC2 shuts down instances just because you want it? Any why should they add SC to their filter list, even if 51% is not possible in SC2? Another path of bullshit coming from your keyboard
Now it's official! Only BitcoinEXpress can launch 51% attacks on EC2... I think it's time for me to contact them and show them the postings about the attack he supposedly launched from there with his 400 free instances that he stole from the company he's working for...
It will not be hard for them to discover who he is when they know it's the same dude that warned them about LTC mining and give him a royal kick in the ass for abusing resources that AWS gave to the company he works for, for his own personal vendettas...
This will be fun! Or he's just full of shit.
I vote the full of shit hyphotesis...
BCX is a real grave digger... Too bad the grave he's digging is his own grave...
It will not be hard for them to discover who he is when they know it's the same dude that warned them about LTC mining and give him a royal kick in the ass for abusing resources that AWS gave to the company he works for, for his own personal vendettas...
This will be fun! Or he's just full of shit.
I vote the full of shit hyphotesis...
BCX is a real grave digger... Too bad the grave he's digging is his own grave...
It's definitely not an EC2 attack that much I know. Confirmed it with AWS and furthermore they added SC to their filters. In the event a large number of EC2 instances start to come online with SC2 running they are going to be dealing with and having to convince AWS Compliance they are legit. Not an easy task.
ec2 is definitely not banning litecoin mining yet, i had a cluster doing it yesterday
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
Well SC is down 5mh/s at the moment on the coinotron so could well be them and the ~4mh/s in bot machines that show up at this time of day making it all up.
Wouldn't the 4MH/s from coinotron continue mining in coinotron if it was like that?
Why?
I doubt it is an attack but if you have a group of motivated people willing to join the attack why not use that hashing power.
I wasn't saying that the miners that stopped mining SC at coinotron were attacking, and I think that wasn't what SAC meant either. Unless those miners joined the "bots", which is kind of doubtful, but not impossible ofcourse
I guess if the miners from coinotron switched to mine LTC they would stay at coinotron the same way, given that all they would need to do was select LTC from a dropdown box if I'm not mistaken. So it is also doubtful that those 4MH/s that dropped from coinotron would now be mining as "others".
Looking at the hashrate of these CPU based coins 4MH/s is a lot of hashing power, is it not?
Gotcha. Also SC has a higher hashrate than LTC on same hardware by a factor of 10x. 4MH/s of SC switching to LTC would only be 400KH/s
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
Well SC is down 5mh/s at the moment on the coinotron so could well be them and the ~4mh/s in bot machines that show up at this time of day making it all up.
Wouldn't the 4MH/s from coinotron continue mining in coinotron if it was like that?
Why?
I doubt it is an attack but if you have a group of motivated people willing to join the attack why not use that hashing power.
I wasn't saying that the miners that stopped mining SC at coinotron were attacking, and I think that wasn't what SAC meant either. Unless those miners joined the "bots", which is kind of doubtful, but not impossible ofcourse
I guess if the miners from coinotron switched to mine LTC they would stay at coinotron the same way, given that all they would need to do was select LTC from a dropdown box if I'm not mistaken. So it is also doubtful that those 4MH/s that dropped from coinotron would now be mining as "others".
Looking at the hashrate of these CPU based coins 4MH/s is a lot of hashing power, is it not?
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
Well SC is down 5mh/s at the moment on the coinotron so could well be them and the ~4mh/s in bot machines that show up at this time of day making it all up.
Wouldn't the 4MH/s from coinotron continue mining in coinotron if it was like that?
Why?
I doubt it is an attack but if you have a group of motivated people willing to join the attack why not use that hashing power.
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
Well SC is down 5mh/s at the moment on the coinotron so could well be them and the ~4mh/s in bot machines that show up at this time of day making it all up.
Wouldn't the 4MH/s from coinotron continue mining in coinotron if it was like that?
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
There's no way to find out that
Ahh yeah, I have no idea how to check blockchain stuff. I'm sure other folks do, it'll be interesting to see if they're legitimite miners, or if someone is trying to pull off something malicious.
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
There's no way to find out that
Well the unknown wasn't '0' before hand, so much of that unknown is probably honest solo miners.
That's not a 51%, that's a 66%
Quite interesting.
The hashrate of the litecoin network just shot up from 8 Mhash/s to 13 Mhash/s.
Now it is up to around 15, right around half the network. And all of it in the "other" category, not in one of the pools. It could be an attack, or it could be a user with a lot of cpu's. Should make for an interesting couple of hourse.
The hashrate of the litecoin network just shot up from 8 Mhash/s to 13 Mhash/s.
That is close to the botnet scum that show up every day around this time...
The fact that it is the same time makes me think system admin. Either rouge or authorized. When users go home he has x thousands of machines that can hash. Hopefully it is a rogue admin so eventually he gets caught.
The hashrate of the litecoin network just shot up from 8 Mhash/s to 13 Mhash/s.
Jump to: