MemoryCoin 2.0 Proof Of Work - page 6.

Sharky444

hero member

Activity: 724

Merit: 500

Quote from: bahamapascal on December 03, 2013, 06:36:05 AM

regarding the botnet,

is it possible to force the client to only mine when 50% or more of the CPU is used? As far as I know botnets are working in the background with little CPU use to stay undetected, so if the client can only mine when the CPU is used with more then 50% it could stop botnets I hope

Is that technical possible?

It's not possible, because an alternate miner would just use 100%.

FreeTrade

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1030

Not with open source Sad

, even with closed source, it would be tough to impose limitations like that.

bahamapascal

hero member

Activity: 695

Merit: 500

regarding the botnet,

is it possible to force the client to only mine when 50% or more of the CPU is used? As far as I know botnets are working in the background with little CPU use to stay undetected, so if the client can only mine when the CPU is used with more then 50% it could stop botnets I hope

Is that technical possible?

Kazahstanec

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

But if the mining isn't profitable, the small group of enthusiasts like us will be engaged in it. But for a large number to the people purchase of accessories just for the hell of it to possess them - a utopia

FreeTrade

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1030

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 03:13:26 AM

That is why I am asking him if his domain might be for sale at a high enough price, assuming he owns memorycoin.com and .org. And hopefully memcoin.* also.

Just the .org - but not for sale.

It's an interesting idea regarding having very large memory requirements. It would certainly be better and more de-centralized than ASICs. For me though, it doesn't allow for the distribution I want.

I want to see news stories on TV about how simple it is for ordinary people to download software, switch it on, and start to earn coins.

FreeTrade

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1030

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 03:21:03 AM

Do we want to create a socialistic coin where everything is equal (e.g. ObamaCare requires men to carry maternity insurance) or do you want a capitalist coin where people are rewarded for effort, iniative, insight, and correct calculations on expenditures?

I primarily concerned with creating a wide distribution - the hope is to do that by making mining unprofitable as a business (because of the capital acquisition cost, or capital rental cost), but profitable where capital is already a sunk cost (the PC, laptop, game console etc) and alternative acquisition costs are high (banking, regulation etc).

FreeTrade

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1030

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 03:11:01 AM

A slow hash is a huge problem in terms of denial of service attacks on the mining nodes.

The hash looks like being 0.01 seconds - maybe faster with some optimization. That should be sufficiently fast.

Kazahstanec

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

And you understand that the coin will be popular and to be in use only if it will be in use in the big mass of people?

Addition: Instead of in a limited narrow circle of mayner who will lift up complexity to heavens and will safely forget about it. (An example - TRC)

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: Kazahstanec on December 03, 2013, 03:17:26 AM

In something you are right. But understand huge audience in the world (I think not less than 80% of cars) has less than 16 GB of memory.

Do we want to create a socialistic coin where everything is equal (e.g. ObamaCare requires men to carry maternity insurance) or do you want a capitalist coin where people are rewarded for effort, iniative, insight, and correct calculations on expenditures?

Motivating people to improve their computers and differentiate from botnets can't be nearly as bad as motivating them to buy useless ASIC bricks. When your ASIC is outdated, you can't repurpose it, e.g. if the Bitcoin ponzi crashes (okay you might not agree with that ponzi assertion, yet ASICs might become outdated if you prefer to mine MemoryCoin, selling used goods is sometimes lossy and time hassle losses too).

Edit: The advantage of a general purpose computer is it is general purpose, so economically it is not fragile and is a replacement good for many things even unforeseen.

Hope my feedback was helpful. Buzz me if I forget to come back and missed something important. Thanks for helping me refine my thoughts on ASICs.

Kazahstanec

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

In something you are right. But understand huge audience in the world (I think not less than 80% of cars) has less than 16 GB of memory.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: superresistant on December 03, 2013, 03:12:43 AM

Hey wait...

MemoryCoin = the coin that require memory

That is why I am asking him if his domain might be for sale at a high enough price, assuming he owns memorycoin.com and .org. And hopefully memcoin.* also.

Memory is generally available. It is an investment in an asset you use. The extra memory can be employed in a ramdisk when not mining to aid compiling speed and other tasks. ASICs not.

Edit: Memory is fungible, meaning you can sell/repurpose it in parts and separate from the PC.

superresistant

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1131

Hey wait...

MemoryCoin = the coin that require memory

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

A slow hash is a huge problem in terms of denial of service attacks on the mining nodes.

This is not an easily surmountable issue.

You won't solve it by thinking about a high-level algorithm for a few hours.

superresistant

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1131

Quote from: Kazahstanec on December 03, 2013, 03:03:34 AM

16 GB? ? ? ? ? Then the coin will lose huge audience of users, and you which stands up for such restrictions remove profit and you will escape on other coin.

Yes but if a CPU coin have no botnets it is more valuable, so it could be seen as an investment for miners.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: superresistant on December 03, 2013, 03:03:57 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:59:33 AM

Quote from: FreeTrade on December 03, 2013, 02:56:46 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:52:38 AM

You are making progress towards CPU only, but as far as I see you haven't defeated botnets.

Thanks. I have not included any measures to defeat botnets. I wish there was, but I don't see there is any way to combat botnets that is compatible with a wide mining base.

There is a tradeoff for sure. Should we ask users to add 16 GB to their PC so coins are going to the users instead of the hackers and botnets?
Then the technical issue of designing a hash that can work at that memory scale.

Do you mean that putting a requirement of 16GB for mining will defeat botnets ?

It won't defeat all bots, yet it will greatly diminish their scale.

Quote from: Kazahstanec on December 03, 2013, 03:03:34 AM

16 GB? ? ? ? ? Then the coin will lose huge audience of users, and you which stands up for such restrictions remove profit and you will escape on other coin.

Profit scales to the investment required for the difficulty as set by the free market. Actually the more investment, the more the coin is worth. You can verify this by correlating mining hash rate growth and bitcoin's price.

superresistant

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1131

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:59:33 AM

Quote from: FreeTrade on December 03, 2013, 02:56:46 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:52:38 AM

You are making progress towards CPU only, but as far as I see you haven't defeated botnets.

Thanks. I have not included any measures to defeat botnets. I wish there was, but I don't see there is any way to combat botnets that is compatible with a wide mining base.

There is a tradeoff for sure. Should we ask users to add 16 GB to their PC so coins are going to the users instead of the hackers and botnets?
Then the technical issue of designing a hash that can work at that memory scale.

Do you mean that putting a requirement of 16GB for mining will defeat botnets ?

Kazahstanec

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

16 GB? ? ? ? ? Then the coin will lose huge audience of users, and you which stands up for such restrictions remove profit and you will escape on other coin.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: FreeTrade on December 03, 2013, 02:56:46 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:52:38 AM

You are making progress towards CPU only, but as far as I see you haven't defeated botnets.

Thanks. I have not included any measures to defeat botnets. I wish there was, but I don't see there is any way to combat botnets that is compatible with a wide mining base.

There is a tradeoff for sure. Should we ask users to add 16 GB to their PC so coins are going to the owners of the capital instead of the hackers and botnets thieves?

Then the technical issue of designing a hash that can work at that memory scale.

FreeTrade

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1030

Quote from: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 02:52:38 AM

You are making progress towards CPU only, but as far as I see you haven't defeated botnets.

Thanks. I have not included any measures to defeat botnets. I wish there was, but I don't see there is any way to combat botnets that is compatible with a wide mining base.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

You are making progress towards CPU only, but as far as I see you haven't defeated botnets. They are a serious problem. You can buy them for as low as $100 and including asian gaming machines that contain up to 8 - 16 GB of memory. Their owners prefer warez than to pay for software, thus are easy targets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/05/19/i-run-a-small-botnet-and-sell-stolen-information-ask-me-anything/

Is your domain name for sale? IMO, would be more efficient for you to piggyback on a coin which has really solved the cpu only design quest. But I don't want to discourage you also.

Topic: MemoryCoin 2.0 Proof Of Work - page 6. (Read 21430 times)