No, once ASICs come out most middlecoin miners will not bother to buy the ASICs required to mine the coins they do not feel deserve long term support.
For example if they feel that Quark-style hashing is the way to go, they will buy Quark ASICs, and those ASICs will only be able to mine coins that are stupid enough to copy Quark's hashing method and thus make themselves vulnerable to Quark's ASICs.
And so on, coin by coin.
-MarkM-
Topic: how to destroy the coin switching pools before they destroy the ALT coins (Read 1243 times)
December 28, 2013, 02:00:09 AM
December 28, 2013, 01:55:45 AM
Just don't list coins on exchanges until they have over 50% of the hashing power. Problem partially solved (aka ameliorated).
The whole problem is only arising in the first place because people are irresponsibly - some might suggest deliberately, with malice aforethought, which maybe could be argued down to criminal negligence if a judge is in a lenient mood - encouraging people to throw their money away by buying crap that is not even 50% of the hashrate let alone over 50% of the hashrate.
Basically the coins people are complaining about are coins the complainers have not even bothered to adequately secure.
Responsible exchanges should not list such coins.
The exchanges that specialise in listing such garbage are basically just like those "gold game" forums and topsites that encourage the classic ponzi games known as "gold games".
The whole point of those games is to get out fast before you are one of the inevitable losers/victims.
They are in a way a "marketer olympics", where marketers compete to see who has the largest mailing-list of suckers, the marketers earn commissions for referring suckers to such ponzi games plus also some of them actually put money into the games at the start and compete to see which of them manage to get their money back out again before it is too late. If you don't manage to get back at least what you put in you are a loser, a sucker, a "mark", not a champion marketer. But hey if you buy the latest greatest spammer-tools so you can build a bigger list of suckers and get your spam into their inboxes instead of into their spamboxes you might win the next game so step right up folks there are new games starting every day...
Research "51% attack" aka "50+ % attack".
For example of the scrypt coins which has more than half of the scrypt hashpower?
If none, do any two of them added together have half?
As soon as there are three scrypt coins it is mathematically inevitable that at least one of them has less than half the hashpower.
So if you are lucky there might be one that might conceivably be able to be secured provided its miners upgrade to FPGA and ASIC, and there might conceivably be another that might beat it and end up the winner. The rest are garbage, get their hash rate up first before wasting money buying them.
Also, do not be fooled by alternative hashing schemes that use the same equipment.
All coins that are hashed by CPUs are part of the CPU hashpower, which has more than 50% ?
All coins that use GPUs are part of the GPU hashpower, which of those has over 50% of the GPU power.
All coins that can be mined with FPGAs are part of the FPGA hashpower, which as over 50% ?
Only when you get to an ASIC per coin type or per merged mined family of coins do you start to have some chance of maybe being able to secure the coin provided attackers do not buy/own/control/rent more of that coin's ASICs than defenders do.
-MarkM-
The whole problem is only arising in the first place because people are irresponsibly - some might suggest deliberately, with malice aforethought, which maybe could be argued down to criminal negligence if a judge is in a lenient mood - encouraging people to throw their money away by buying crap that is not even 50% of the hashrate let alone over 50% of the hashrate.
Basically the coins people are complaining about are coins the complainers have not even bothered to adequately secure.
Responsible exchanges should not list such coins.
The exchanges that specialise in listing such garbage are basically just like those "gold game" forums and topsites that encourage the classic ponzi games known as "gold games".
The whole point of those games is to get out fast before you are one of the inevitable losers/victims.
They are in a way a "marketer olympics", where marketers compete to see who has the largest mailing-list of suckers, the marketers earn commissions for referring suckers to such ponzi games plus also some of them actually put money into the games at the start and compete to see which of them manage to get their money back out again before it is too late. If you don't manage to get back at least what you put in you are a loser, a sucker, a "mark", not a champion marketer. But hey if you buy the latest greatest spammer-tools so you can build a bigger list of suckers and get your spam into their inboxes instead of into their spamboxes you might win the next game so step right up folks there are new games starting every day...
Research "51% attack" aka "50+ % attack".
For example of the scrypt coins which has more than half of the scrypt hashpower?
If none, do any two of them added together have half?
As soon as there are three scrypt coins it is mathematically inevitable that at least one of them has less than half the hashpower.
So if you are lucky there might be one that might conceivably be able to be secured provided its miners upgrade to FPGA and ASIC, and there might conceivably be another that might beat it and end up the winner. The rest are garbage, get their hash rate up first before wasting money buying them.
Also, do not be fooled by alternative hashing schemes that use the same equipment.
All coins that are hashed by CPUs are part of the CPU hashpower, which has more than 50% ?
All coins that use GPUs are part of the GPU hashpower, which of those has over 50% of the GPU power.
All coins that can be mined with FPGAs are part of the FPGA hashpower, which as over 50% ?
Only when you get to an ASIC per coin type or per merged mined family of coins do you start to have some chance of maybe being able to secure the coin provided attackers do not buy/own/control/rent more of that coin's ASICs than defenders do.
-MarkM-
you got it. some people think they have the right to walk over a coin and take the BTC's to the bank. middlecoin has almost 9000 megs, they'll take over almost any coin where they go. Once ASIC's come out it will be many times worse
December 27, 2013, 10:32:29 PM
Just don't list coins on exchanges until they have over 50% of the hashing power. Problem partially solved (aka ameliorated).
The whole problem is only arising in the first place because people are irresponsibly - some might suggest deliberately, with malice aforethought, which maybe could be argued down to criminal negligence if a judge is in a lenient mood - encouraging people to throw their money away by buying crap that is not even 50% of the hashrate let alone over 50% of the hashrate.
Basically the coins people are complaining about are coins the complainers have not even bothered to adequately secure.
Responsible exchanges should not list such coins.
The exchanges that specialise in listing such garbage are basically just like those "gold game" forums and topsites that encourage the classic ponzi games known as "gold games".
The whole point of those games is to get out fast before you are one of the inevitable losers/victims.
They are in a way a "marketer olympics", where marketers compete to see who has the largest mailing-list of suckers, the marketers earn commissions for referring suckers to such ponzi games plus also some of them actually put money into the games at the start and compete to see which of them manage to get their money back out again before it is too late. If you don't manage to get back at least what you put in you are a loser, a sucker, a "mark", not a champion marketer. But hey if you buy the latest greatest spammer-tools so you can build a bigger list of suckers and get your spam into their inboxes instead of into their spamboxes you might win the next game so step right up folks there are new games starting every day...
Research "51% attack" aka "50+ % attack".
For example of the scrypt coins which has more than half of the scrypt hashpower?
If none, do any two of them added together have half?
As soon as there are three scrypt coins it is mathematically inevitable that at least one of them has less than half the hashpower.
So if you are lucky there might be one that might conceivably be able to be secured provided its miners upgrade to FPGA and ASIC, and there might conceivably be another that might beat it and end up the winner. The rest are garbage, get their hash rate up first before wasting money buying them.
Also, do not be fooled by alternative hashing schemes that use the same equipment.
All coins that are hashed by CPUs are part of the CPU hashpower, which has more than 50% ?
All coins that use GPUs are part of the GPU hashpower, which of those has over 50% of the GPU power.
All coins that can be mined with FPGAs are part of the FPGA hashpower, which has over 50% ?
Only when you get to an ASIC per coin type or per merged mined family of coins do you start to have some chance of maybe being able to secure the coin provided attackers do not buy/own/control/rent more of that coin's ASICs than defenders do.
-MarkM-
The whole problem is only arising in the first place because people are irresponsibly - some might suggest deliberately, with malice aforethought, which maybe could be argued down to criminal negligence if a judge is in a lenient mood - encouraging people to throw their money away by buying crap that is not even 50% of the hashrate let alone over 50% of the hashrate.
Basically the coins people are complaining about are coins the complainers have not even bothered to adequately secure.
Responsible exchanges should not list such coins.
The exchanges that specialise in listing such garbage are basically just like those "gold game" forums and topsites that encourage the classic ponzi games known as "gold games".
The whole point of those games is to get out fast before you are one of the inevitable losers/victims.
They are in a way a "marketer olympics", where marketers compete to see who has the largest mailing-list of suckers, the marketers earn commissions for referring suckers to such ponzi games plus also some of them actually put money into the games at the start and compete to see which of them manage to get their money back out again before it is too late. If you don't manage to get back at least what you put in you are a loser, a sucker, a "mark", not a champion marketer. But hey if you buy the latest greatest spammer-tools so you can build a bigger list of suckers and get your spam into their inboxes instead of into their spamboxes you might win the next game so step right up folks there are new games starting every day...
Research "51% attack" aka "50+ % attack".
For example of the scrypt coins which has more than half of the scrypt hashpower?
If none, do any two of them added together have half?
As soon as there are three scrypt coins it is mathematically inevitable that at least one of them has less than half the hashpower.
So if you are lucky there might be one that might conceivably be able to be secured provided its miners upgrade to FPGA and ASIC, and there might conceivably be another that might beat it and end up the winner. The rest are garbage, get their hash rate up first before wasting money buying them.
Also, do not be fooled by alternative hashing schemes that use the same equipment.
All coins that are hashed by CPUs are part of the CPU hashpower, which has more than 50% ?
All coins that use GPUs are part of the GPU hashpower, which of those has over 50% of the GPU power.
All coins that can be mined with FPGAs are part of the FPGA hashpower, which has over 50% ?
Only when you get to an ASIC per coin type or per merged mined family of coins do you start to have some chance of maybe being able to secure the coin provided attackers do not buy/own/control/rent more of that coin's ASICs than defenders do.
-MarkM-
December 27, 2013, 06:27:47 PM
My opinion is all these fakecoin started only because the main coin got expensive and difficult, meaning they here to serve the master and exist only for that, also because they have no other real uses.
So this is how fakecoins treated, like slaves which are good only while they profit.
So this is how fakecoins treated, like slaves which are good only while they profit.
December 27, 2013, 06:02:59 PM
OP, You can't stop us... If your shit coin is worth mining by itself then the multipools won't stop it.. If noone wants to mine it, then its going to die anyways.. Problem solved. You like the coin, mine it.. You don't, let it die..
you miss the point. and yes, any switching pool can be stopped, it's that easy.
December 27, 2013, 05:49:44 PM
OP, You can't stop us... If your shit coin is worth mining by itself then the multipools won't stop it.. If noone wants to mine it, then its going to die anyways.. Problem solved. You like the coin, mine it.. You don't, let it die..
December 27, 2013, 05:49:20 PM
Coin switching pools level out alt coins and give them realistic values. What's your problem with them?
What you suggesting is turning altcoins into a fatamorgana. Look a good coin let's start mining ... *difficulty goes through the roof* ... damn.
That said a lot of coins adjust difficulty every block so it won't help. Coin switching pool will switch faster and all difficulties go to hell using your method
What you suggesting is turning altcoins into a fatamorgana. Look a good coin let's start mining ... *difficulty goes through the roof* ... damn.
That said a lot of coins adjust difficulty every block so it won't help. Coin switching pool will switch faster and all difficulties go to hell using your method
looks like you're part of the problem, you depend on someone stupidity to continue mining as to lower the diff for you to come back and raid the coin again. Much can be said about what a good coin is or not, that goes with individual preferences, nothing wrong with that. The issue stands when a coin switching pool hits a coin and a few blocks later leaves, the regular miners are left to hold the bag. So if everyone starts mining with coin switching pools there would be no ALT coins left soon after
December 27, 2013, 05:43:14 PM
Hashrate is unknown. The network never knows the hashrate. Hashrate can only be estimated based on AVERAGE block solving time. Each individual block will vary significantly.
Lets look at Bitcoin. Average block time is 10 minutes. This month we had a 2 minute block. Was it because intra block the hashrate rose 500% to 50 PH/s? No of course not it simply was good luck. Hashrate is unknown and variance (lucky) can't be differentiated from actual changes in hashrate in the short term. It is only over a much longer period of time (hundreds of blocks) that probability separates the variance from the real change.
Lets look at Bitcoin. Average block time is 10 minutes. This month we had a 2 minute block. Was it because intra block the hashrate rose 500% to 50 PH/s? No of course not it simply was good luck. Hashrate is unknown and variance (lucky) can't be differentiated from actual changes in hashrate in the short term. It is only over a much longer period of time (hundreds of blocks) that probability separates the variance from the real change.
you correct, that's why the hashrate is calculated over an X number of blocks that average out the best guess hash rate and uses it to determine new difficulty. Some coins do it every block, others after several, and normally have a max change percentage. That's the area the can contain a poison pill
December 27, 2013, 05:39:05 PM
can't beat 'em, join 'em.
by the time you work out how to destroy coin switching pools, your hardware will be obsoleted by ASIC farms.
make whatever you can right now, in 2013.
by the time you work out how to destroy coin switching pools, your hardware will be obsoleted by ASIC farms.
make whatever you can right now, in 2013.
the ASIC farms (when they come live, and that's a huge question of if and when) will not change the issue. If everyone was doing coin switching pools the coin would be left to die with no miners once they leave. and that could be another solution, as radical as it might seem, that is stop mining outside coin switching pools. You'll see the coins dropping dead one by one, because those pools are counting on the stupid ones that will continuing to mine the coin, lowering the diff for them to come back.
December 27, 2013, 05:24:38 PM
Hashrate is unknown. The network never knows the hashrate. Hashrate can only be estimated based on AVERAGE block solving time. Each individual block will vary significantly.
Lets look at Bitcoin. Average block time is 10 minutes. This month we had a 2 minute block. Was it because intra block the hashrate rose 500% to 50 PH/s? No of course not it simply was good luck. Hashrate is unknown and variance (lucky) can't be differentiated from actual changes in hashrate in the short term. It is only over a much longer period of time (hundreds of blocks) that probability separates the variance from the real change.
Lets look at Bitcoin. Average block time is 10 minutes. This month we had a 2 minute block. Was it because intra block the hashrate rose 500% to 50 PH/s? No of course not it simply was good luck. Hashrate is unknown and variance (lucky) can't be differentiated from actual changes in hashrate in the short term. It is only over a much longer period of time (hundreds of blocks) that probability separates the variance from the real change.
December 27, 2013, 05:20:24 PM
can't beat 'em, join 'em.
by the time you work out how to destroy coin switching pools, your hardware will be obsoleted by ASIC farms.
make whatever you can right now, in 2013.
by the time you work out how to destroy coin switching pools, your hardware will be obsoleted by ASIC farms.
make whatever you can right now, in 2013.
December 27, 2013, 05:17:35 PM
Coin switching pools level out alt coins and give them realistic values. What's your problem with them?
What you suggesting is turning altcoins into a fatamorgana. Look a good coin let's start mining ... *difficulty goes through the roof* ... damn.
That said a lot of coins adjust difficulty every block so it won't help. Coin switching pool will switch faster and all difficulties go to hell using your method
What you suggesting is turning altcoins into a fatamorgana. Look a good coin let's start mining ... *difficulty goes through the roof* ... damn.
That said a lot of coins adjust difficulty every block so it won't help. Coin switching pool will switch faster and all difficulties go to hell using your method
December 27, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
Although at the surface it seems a good idea - easy bitcoins with little effort - these pools are destroying the ALT coins and something has to be done to counteract them. What I'm proposing to the developers is already being implemented in SXC and wil be available in the next client release.
These are the issues to counteract:
This is what I propose, but it could be just one of several possible implementations:
these adjustments would not take into consideration any max adjustments a coin may have. It would also protect against slow hash rate increases in the pool algorithm. To re-establish the correct hash rate readjust the difficulty in a similar faction as the pools depart.
It's open for debate
These are the issues to counteract:
- when a raid starts the difficulty goes up so much that when they leave regular miners are left to hold the bag
- These pool do an immediate sell, depressing the trade value of a coin, bought by speculators that will sell later to those interested in the survivability of the coin
This is what I propose, but it could be just one of several possible implementations:
- when a hash rate increase of 50% or more from one block to the next, adjust the difficulty right away
- when a hash rate increase of 75% or more from two blocks, adjust the difficulty right away
- when a hash rate increase of 90% or more from three blocks, adjust the difficulty right away
- when a hash rate increase of 100% or more from four blocks, adjust the difficulty right away
these adjustments would not take into consideration any max adjustments a coin may have. It would also protect against slow hash rate increases in the pool algorithm. To re-establish the correct hash rate readjust the difficulty in a similar faction as the pools depart.
It's open for debate
Jump to: