Topic: Multipool and Middlecoin - big profit, even bigger troubles... - page 2. (Read 14360 times)

If coins adapt to multipools as you suggest, then the multipools will cease to be relevant, they will spend more time hopping, and less time mining, you will eventually be better off directly mining the coins. The only reason multipools work atm is because they know coins will stay at a certain diff for a number of blocks whilst they hammer them. As coins adapt it will just become a game of Whac-A-Mole.

Stop making clone coins that have zero innovation. If a coin has so little interest that there's only 30MH/s typically thrown at it then it doesn't need to exist. Multipools are the best things to happen to alts since Cryptsy. Without Cryptsy tens of people would still be clinging to the delusion that their pet crap coin was actually worth something. Without multipools there'd be no drive to produce an innovative coin with the fault tolerance necessary to withstand the abuse of a global market. If the next generation of alts can handle the rapid adoption of multipools then maybe they can handle an attack by a more determined player. Who knows, perhaps we'll be spared three page ANN threads for a "new" coin that disappears in 12 hours.

It is not sufficient to mine a coin that you continually are rewarded in loss of expenses that can never be reclaimed.

If it is not profitable then it should hold some intrinsic value, like .bit or XPM if you want people with a good heart to invest their livelihood into it.

Hit the nail on the head.  There has to be a reason for using a cryptocurrency over fiat, and for most of these currencies there is none or they offer no better option than Bitcoin.

What it a coin does not change it's difficulty rapidly, maybe every 24 hours.

Is that going to help?

This is pretty much the exact attitude that makes multipool as bad as it is... you say release a coin worth keeping? How can it even be kept when profit-hoppers beat it into submission the moment it gets on an exchange? There's no reason for people to be loyal to a coin if it's going to continually get gang raped and left with a high difficulty, not to mention the fact that it causes an abhorrent amount of orphans and risks a chain fork, which isn't good for ANYONE mining the coin.

But that's not the real problem i have with multipool users. What really makes me laugh sadly is the fact that most of those new coins are only 3-4BTC away from a 300% increase in profit. That's what happened with DGC, it had great beginnings and slowly grew with a loyal community behind it. An intelligent speculator sees this and decides to invest 5 btc in it, buying up all the sell orders, and then next thing you know it's #1 on coinchoose for all of two hours and the chain gets raped by multipool and profit hoppers who's combined hashpower is double the original. It's like watching a bunch of retarded chickens scurrying around for scattered BTC feed.

Just pick a damn coin and commit to it! There are decent coins out there that aren't just bullshit clones, profit-hoppers just lack the intelligence and foresight to make a smart investment and look further than the next 24 hours, so they commit their hashpower to a program that does the work for them, albeit poorly. They could actually increase their returns if they had the patience to mine a promising coin and wait for the price to increase instead of being ADD manchildren after an easy buck.

So yeah, whatever, if it's gonna happen it's gonna happen. Plenty of evidence in the world to suggest most people don't make wise decisions, I guess this is just another example.

The more general problem:

1.  There are, conceptually, an infinite number of coins

2.  The dollar average value of these coins will approach zero (finite amount of dollars / N as N approaches infinity)

3.  The average hash rate of these coins will approach zero (finite amount of hash / N as N approaches infinity)

So the end state:

-> Most coins will be highly vulnerable to attack

-> Most coins will trend toward a value of zero

-> Most speculators will get wiped out

We explore the true depths of a zero trust system when the coins have to defend against miners.

Kill the goose indeed.

Good one

This is not in any way a topic against Middlecoin or Multipool. If something is possible and creates a 10-20% extra profit, it will happen anyway, sooner or later.

Question is, like back in the days of "poolhopping", how do we protect ourselves against it.
This will be fixed by one or more coin developers, question is how and when.

Expect it to happen.

I agree that multi pools can be blamed for what they are doing.

What we suggest here is to developers, to change their code to be resistant for sudden increase in hash rates.

As someone else said, the big Bitcoin has this problem too and there is not any system to protect it from these situations.

So is there any coin developer seeing this thread? What is your opinion?

Or...you need to NOT have altcoin exchanges trading alt coins literally DAYS after they are released.  Give them atleast 1 month of release time before listing them.  There needs to be some more stringent requirements to list altcoins at places like coins-e or cryptsy.  Each individually altcoin needs not any regulation (they are all self policing for the most part), but the altcoin exchange market as a whole needs to get together and put some sort of laws or rules in place.  Else this niche market is all the way to the ground.

There is so much irony in this subject it's hard to know where to begin.

This discussion actually appears to be somewhat productive despite the sensationalist title.

Auto switching pools *could prove to be one of the best things to ever happen to crypto.



 

It's certainly not the responsibility of the multicoin pools to accommodate turdcoins. I know it's cool to villainize miners as profiteers but like it or not miners incur substantial expenses and many will dump your favorite turdcoin for BTC. The are a few exceptions but for the most part it's not worth the risk for miners to hold mined coins in this currrent environment.

Frankly I've made 10x the profits trading securities than my rigs have made mining alts this year. It's almost not worth the trouble maintaining GPU rigs as my ASICs are much easier and profitable to operate.

So instead of whining about your coin getting stomped on and calling miners puppy killers - release a coin worth keeping. Bunch of damn babies....

-Tin foil hat off-

tl;dr Dump them into oblivion gents!

MANY of these small coins have had pools, sometimes Vern's, controlling >90% of the hash rate.  Few people complain.

Why is it an issue if a multi-pool, running a legitimate client, throws a ton of hash at a coin?  So long as the pool is not malicious it should not cause any serious issues.

The CAP fork seems to be a perfect storm scenario starting with the bottlecaps pool having to much hashrate then suddenly hanging up stopping 90% of the miners on CAPs most didn't know for quite a bit. Then around the same time frame multipool coming online with CAPs and then throwing a massive Sh*t ton of new miners at it some 760MH's at one point I'm told. All the while this is happening as the first Proof of Stake blocks started to be minted so who knows what that threw into the mix. And folks with bad peers and un-upgraded wallets never help.

I know the bottlecaps devs are working on it and I'm told a new release should be out very soon. As far as which chain yes someone will lose coin from the chain they were mining on or trading on its an unfortunate thing its not the first time and definitely wont be the last time. Best course for these scenarios is know what it is your mining understand what it is your trading and pay attention to events that take place folks noticed a possible fork a bit back. Continuing to mine a forked chain is well a risk probably 50-50. I don't blame the multipools and I think some of the ideas on how to prevent coins from these sorts of things are what all these altcoins are about a grand experiment to figure out what combination, features additions work best.

We only mine coins that people are willing to buy.  If people stop wanting to buy a coin its value and profitability will go down and we won't mine it anymore.  See PXC.

Right now there are many competing coins and many speculators who want to diversify into them.  The cream will rise to the top, the dregs will fall to the bottom, just like any free market system.

The coins don't have appropriate error handling for sudden changes in hash rate.  That needs to be added to every coin. The original BTC code lacked this, and everything else has evolved from that.

There needs to be minimum time between blocks, at the moment there is not, and the network will happily accept blocks at any old rate, even injected by an attacker.

This is what I suggested in the DGC thread the other day if you could comment:



The idea would be to make the client software delay blocks for network submission until the minimum next timestamp had elapsed. Someone with a hacked client would have their too rapid block injection rejected by the rest of the network.

True, but I think the discussion here is to protect the coin against issue (e.g. bearish pressure) coming from its own mining process. Finding ways to make the coin go UP on the market is a whole other subject.

Who will keep buying a given coin in large quantity if speculators have no room left to operate?

Please don't kill the goose  

I understand most are not to be concern about this on short term. I just hope a coin developer is observing and willing to try to experiment about this. It might make a difference on long term.

If you want the price of a coin to go UP, you need to give people something to do with the coin other than dump it for BTC.

Ensuring profits for speculators is not a miner or pool operator's priority and really should not enter into our concerns in any way.