Multipool and Middlecoin - big profit, even bigger troubles... - page 3.

DrGoose

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

Quote from: CoinBuzz on July 28, 2013, 01:13:15 PM

...
Do you think there is any problem in a big pool (or a big mining rig) targeting a new coin, take profit and leave when it's not profitable?

Personally, I am concern about automating the mining/dumping part... with some synchronization at a large scale.

I have observe the effect of this on CAP for days. The sell orders are constantly filled, so both price and difficulty get into a cycle of reduction. It remains profitable from a miner standpoint, but it stink from an investor/speculator perspective. On long term, that can't be good for everyone.

I am not as much concern about the size of a given pool (and the fork thing which might be another matter). More automated service will be created and it is now becoming easier to collectively target the same coin. Coinchoose was just the tip of the iceberg.

Solution?
======
Making newly minted coin "special" may address the issue fairly. It will not matter if being produced from a large automated pool or not... it is all about making it harder to profit from mining/dumping systematically.

CoinBuzz

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Let's be realistic

I believe there is two sides here: 1) Profit side , 2) Cryptocoin innovation side. One can be in each side

if you decided to be on profit side, there are 1001 reason to justify multipools and blame technology or even blame no one!

if you be on cryptocoin structure, you would be concerned about the future of coins, the future of cryptocoins and their effects on our world, so if you are in this side, we can brainstorming to find a solution.

one upon a time cryptocoin people had a problem called 'pool hopping', they gathered together and found a solution for it.

So, first lets decide if we have any problem or not? and then we can talk about it's solutions.

Do you think there is any problem in a big pool (or a big mining rig) targeting a new coin, take profit and leave when it's not profitable?

flound1129

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

www.multipool.us

Quote from: skyhigh2004 on July 28, 2013, 11:41:33 AM

Quote from: kobaya74 on July 28, 2013, 11:30:44 AM

Can we defend some little coin if attacker has 3+GHs of power to attack it? Can we defend FTC? No we cant, someone is mining a hell out of it every time he wants to. Only acceptance of coin by many independent miners like LTC has can defend scrypt coin. So when and only when scrypt coin has over than 10GHs it can be resistant. Sorry for CAP being forked, but us small miners wont defend it by not mining on autopilot pools, when someone has the power to fork any time he wants to.

Awesome point. Its free choice if you don't like it don't use it.

To the OP: Please quit spreading FUD about high hash rates causing forks. No one and more so the dev of caps has no clue what caused the fork. If you could OP please answer my question since you "know" according to the OP that the increase in hash rate caused the fork, explain how that actually happened?

Actually it should be pretty obvious what caused the fork, since there is really only one way to have a hard fork: the network was split into two, most likely because one side didn't have it's addnodes set up properly.

I don't blame the dev for not wanting to orphan BigVern's blocks, since if he did that Vern might remove C AP from cryptsy.

skyhigh2004

full member

Activity: 201

Merit: 100

Quote from: kobaya74 on July 28, 2013, 11:30:44 AM

Can we defend some little coin if attacker has 3+GHs of power to attack it? Can we defend FTC? No we cant, someone is mining a hell out of it every time he wants to. Only acceptance of coin by many independent miners like LTC has can defend scrypt coin. So when and only when scrypt coin has over than 10GHs it can be resistant. Sorry for CAP being forked, but us small miners wont defend it by not mining on autopilot pools, when someone has the power to fork any time he wants to.

Awesome point. Its free choice if you don't like it don't use it.

To the OP: Please quit spreading FUD about high hash rates causing forks. No one and more so the dev of caps has no clue what caused the fork. If you could OP please answer my question since you "know" according to the OP that the increase in hash rate caused the fork, explain how that actually happened?

kobaya74

full member

Activity: 130

Merit: 100

Can we defend some little coin if attacker has 3+GHs of power to attack it? Can we defend FTC? No we cant, someone is mining a hell out of it every time he wants to. Only acceptance of coin by many independent miners like LTC has can defend scrypt coin. So when and only when scrypt coin has over than 10GHs it can be resistant. Sorry for CAP being forked, but us small miners wont defend it by not mining on autopilot pools, when someone has the power to fork any time he wants to.

MaGNeT

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1002

Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na

Quote from: DrGoose on July 28, 2013, 11:26:16 AM

Here are a few thought about how to make a coin relatively less lucrative to mine by these pools:

(1) Make a coin POS more profitable than its POW. In other word, make ownership more rewarding than mining/dumping.

(2) *Newly* minted coin could take, say, 72 hours to be confirmed... this will cause a high risk of price slippage. Furthermore, long delay will throw a wrench into multicoin pool daily payout. That will make mining heavily this coin a tough choice compare to the other coins. The long term investor/miner won't mind though.

(3) *Newly* minted coin could have a very high transaction fee, which would be offset by doing POS on it for a little while.

(4) Difficulty fine tuning that consider market price(s) relative to other coins. This is likely a tough one to implement and get people agree with... just mentioning it. Some neutrality might be possible if that system is somewhat decentralized by many coin developers, exchange and volunteer servers.

These are just a few seed for brainstorming, I did not do much work into checking for feasibility.

A very constructive approach, thanks for your contribution!

I think point 1, 2 and 3 would help solve the problem.

2 is the easiest to implement, I guess.

4 would create some resistance, but it seems you think the same about that

MaGNeT

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1002

Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na

Quote from: flound1129 on July 28, 2013, 11:21:51 AM

When CAP forked, sounds like only cryptsy and bigvern's pool were on the small side of the fork, then they mined 100+ more blocks due to the low difficulty.

Now they get to keep those blocks and the rest of of the network will have their blocks orphaned.

The truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork and pointing fingers at switching pools is easier than figuring it out.

It's not only the fact that CAP got forked, it's also about the miners who support their coin, securing the chain and making the transactions possible.

They only see high difficulty. When difficulty drops, the profit switchpools take the low diff blocks, pushing the diff up again.

DrGoose

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

Here are a few thought about how to make a coin relatively less lucrative to mine by these pools:

(1) Make a coin POS more profitable than its POW. In other word, make ownership more rewarding than mining/dumping.

(2) *Newly* minted coin could take, say, 72 hours to be confirmed... this will cause a high risk of price slippage. Furthermore, long delay will throw a wrench into multicoin pool daily payout. That will make mining heavily this coin a tough choice compare to the other coins. The long term investor/miner won't mind though.

(3) *Newly* minted coin could have a very high transaction fee, which would be offset by doing POS on it for a little while.

(4) Difficulty fine tuning that consider market price(s) relative to other coins. This is likely a tough one to implement and get people agree with... just mentioning it. Some neutrality might be possible if that system is somewhat decentralized by many coin developers, exchange and volunteer servers.

These are just a few seed for brainstorming, I did not do much work into checking for feasibility.

flound1129

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

www.multipool.us

When CAP forked, sounds like only cryptsy and bigvern's pool were on the small side of the fork, then they mined 100+ more blocks due to the low difficulty.

Now they get to keep those blocks and the rest of of the network will have their blocks orphaned.

The truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork and pointing fingers at switching pools is easier than figuring it out.

MaGNeT

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1002

Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na

Quote from: skyhigh2004 on July 28, 2013, 11:09:23 AM

If a coin can't handle the rapid swings in hashrate maybe they don't deserve to be alive. Survival of the fittest at its finest

Does everyone here forget a few months ago when LTC was going from diff 70ish to 900+ in a matter on a few weeks? It wasn't just a simple up and stay there thing. People were bitching about how only big time miners can mine it now and that the hashrate got to big to fast. This is a dangerous market, if you think you can just buy a few gpus and just collect money and never lose out on a high risk investment (which all crypto is) maybe you should rethink your situation and do something else with your money. This isn't the kind of thing anyone should do to make a living. Get a job and then worry about high risk investments and if they are worth it.

That's one way to look at it.

I not stating people have to stop using Multipool or Middlecoin, it would be plain useless.

I'm asking how we can protect our coins against high hashrate profit hopping pools.
Not only to prevent forks, also for the miners who support their coin but only mine against high hashrate and diff.

twobits

sr. member

Activity: 574

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hydroponica on July 28, 2013, 09:14:58 AM

Quote from: captainfuture on July 28, 2013, 09:07:16 AM

i am pissed off if if the wrong cap chain goes on. will loose much money.

How do you determine which is the right chain?

Quote from: DannyDisco on July 28, 2013, 09:15:42 AM

Couldn't the coins block a certain IP/port from mining? Thus simply blocking the connection from the monster pool?

Or simply adding code to prevent anything with 40%+ of the hash to connect.

I've never coded a coin or ran a pool, so I'm just wondering. Also, I'm not sure how ethical that would be.

But if you block the pool from connecting... the problem would be solved IMO.

just a thought

No

Quote from: mercSuey on July 28, 2013, 07:22:36 AM

Multipool should have more than one port, each port corresponding to physically separate servers, partitioning their hashing power so that each port can be allowed a maximum of 40% of the minimum network hashrate of the coins on the multipool port.

-Merc

EDIT: this increases their costs, but they need to be more responsible because overall this is hurting altcoin infrastructure and integrity, especially with so many young coins.

Is this a clever joke or serious? If serious what do you think that accomplishes?

skyhigh2004

full member

Activity: 201

Merit: 100

If a coin can't handle the rapid swings in hashrate maybe they don't deserve to be alive. Survival of the fittest at its finest

Does everyone here forget a few months ago when LTC was going from diff 70ish to 900+ in a matter on a few weeks? It wasn't just a simple up and stay there thing. People were bitching about how only big time miners can mine it now and that the hashrate got to big to fast. This is a dangerous market, if you think you can just buy a few gpus and just collect money and never lose out on a high risk investment (which all crypto is) maybe you should rethink your situation and do something else with your money. This isn't the kind of thing anyone should do to make a living. Get a job and then worry about high risk investments and if they are worth it.

EDIT: I also have asked this in the CAP thread but seeing as the OP here "knows" that multiswitching pools are the cause of the fork, please enlighten me. I would love to hear the actual technical reason for the fork being miners' fault. So CAP never had any plans on growing into a large network?

maco

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Interesting

Eli0t

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

profit seeking pools that slam small networks with vastly massive hashrate are clearly irresponsible
the only way to stop this is to dump the price at low difficulty so coins stay out of the top5 for profit

good(and bad) coins will continue to be killed until one manages to gain enough stable hash to survive such an attack

DannyDisco

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Couldn't the coins block a certain IP/port from mining? Thus simply blocking the connection from the monster pool?

Or simply adding code to prevent anything with 40%+ of the hash to connect.

I've never coded a coin or ran a pool, so I'm just wondering. Also, I'm not sure how ethical that would be.

But if you block the pool from connecting... the problem would be solved IMO.

just a thought

Hydroponica

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100