[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 161.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:25:16 PM

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.
That thread was DIRECTLY related to this discussion and was about as ON TOPIC as one can get, under the circumstances.

Both THIS post and that thread belong where they were intended.

T'wasn't me. Though I doubt that is going to discourage your attempted character assassinations in the slightest. Apparently, the ALT-coin way is to ineptly try to make people afraid of being critical, or of pointing out (/demonstrating) the fragility of the alt-coin ecosystem. :-/

(Not to mention the fact that the thread in question is right here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pool-ops-are-now-the-alt-currency-police-56791)

But as I pointed out before (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.677202), the apparent effort to get away with horrific over the top verbal abuse by attacking your critics and then claiming a conflict of interest simply isn't going to work.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

I guess gmaxwell has said all he wants to say at this point, in the earlier quote that was posted...when talking about the CLC demise.

Code:

[10:31]	luke-jr	coblee: I didn't orphan anything mature
[10:31]	coblee	luke-jr: oh ok
[10:32]	luke-jr	I intentionally avoided anyone actually losing money
[10:32]	coblee	so just mining, not including transactions, and dumping?
[10:33]	luke-jr	coblee: actually, I decided it was better not to dump
[10:33]	luke-jr	coblee: I've also asked BTC-e to reverse the dumping I did earlier
[10:33]	coblee	how would they reverse the dumping?
[10:33]	gmaxwell	presumably the counterparties would rather have their btc back.
[10:34]	gmaxwell	So they could just undo the trades, luke didn't withdraw the bitcoin he got.
[10:34]	luke-jr	coblee: well, presuming by dumping, we mean "selling"
[10:34]	TuxBlackEdo	what happen?
[10:34]	TuxBlackEdo	and why are we still awake?
[10:35]	coblee	this is pretty funny
[10:35]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: I effectively disabled the latest scamcoin
[10:35]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: a new altcoin showed up out of nowhere.. complete with an exchange and a bunch of eager ponzi pumpers.
[10:35]	_W_	TuxBlackEdo, it's morning here
[10:35]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: and look took charge of the chain.
[10:35]	TuxBlackEdo	coilcoin, right?
[10:35]	luke-jr	Coiled*
[10:36]	gmaxwell	And some people who were planing to make money fast, are none too happy that they can't get any blocks or txn in, and that luke crashed the price on the market.
[10:36]	luke-jr	why is artforz helping them workaround it?
[10:36]	gmaxwell	Awesome. The race is on.
[10:36]	luke-jr	gmaxwell: well, he's just encouraging them to get BTCGuild onboard "next time" -.-
[10:36]	luke-jr	nothing fancy
[10:37]	TuxBlackEdo	instead of crashing the price of a alt chain we should try to somehow make the price of namecoin go through the roof
[10:37]	gmaxwell	oh. meh, well fine. Its true— but since the cost of setting up more merged chains is still high— good luck with that.
[10:37]	coblee	they are bashing you on btc-e luke-jr lol
[10:37]	TuxBlackEdo	that's pretty cool though, props luke-jr
[10:37]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: pfft, you abuse namecoin anyway
[10:38]	gmaxwell	coblee: it's a little beyond bashing. At least earlier is was pretty scarry.
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	how
[10:38]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: you just sell them
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	explain how i "abuse" namecoins?
[10:38]	coblee	scary how?
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	I never sold a namecoin
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	actually i do the opposite
[10:39]	TuxBlackEdo	while everyone was selling i was setting up big buy orders
[10:39]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: then why do you want price up?
[10:39]	TuxBlackEdo	i own a ton of namecoins
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	ill move some namecoins right now to prove
[10:40]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: I'll give you an address to move them to.
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	hehe
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	ill move them to
[10:40]	luke-jr	lol
[10:41]	TuxBlackEdo	MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP
[10:41]	TuxBlackEdo	done
[10:42]	TuxBlackEdo	a412edf5e41529582f138cbc4bd3991203150fab4797fc472853dedd730b5ca9
[10:43]	gmaxwell	hahah
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: so what can we say CLC stands for?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: crazy loser coin?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	k65onyx: catastrophic loss of coins?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	artforz: lol
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: cunt luke coin
[10:44]	luke-jr	hmm
[10:44]	luke-jr	just in case I accidentally orphaned some non-generation, I just let them all through a few blocks ago
[10:44]	luke-jr	bet they don't notice <.<
[10:45]	doublec	I saw them
[10:45]	gmaxwell	well they were saying that you'd stopped earlier, so who knows.
[10:47]	TuxBlackEdo	how long is namecoin going to take to generate a block...
[10:48]	JFK911	;;bc,stats
[10:48]	gribble	Current Blocks: 160874 | Current Difficulty: 1159929.4972244 | Next Difficulty At Block: 161279 | Next Difficulty In: 405 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1221673.16179828 | Estimated Percent Change: 5.32305323054
[10:51]	luke-jr	reckon I should leave it on overnight?
[10:51]	TuxBlackEdo	luke-jr, http://explorer.dot-bit.org/a/MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:25:16 PM

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 11:30:25 AM

My thread in regards to "Pool Ops being the new Alt Coin Police" has been DELETED from the Pools Forum.

Censorship at it's finest.

I feel as though I am about to be banned....and I guess that makes sense, considering this forum allows scammers of all sorts to thrive in the Marketplace without consequence, yet a LEGITIMATE POST in regards to a malicious act of vandalism is deleted from view.

Par for the course, as it seems.
Just in case this is my last post, thanks for the memories.

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.
That thread was DIRECTLY related to this discussion and was about as ON TOPIC as one can get, under the circumstances.

Both THIS post and that thread belong where they were intended.

I have posted a message about this censorship in META. Hopefully there will be an appropriate response.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

There's an ongoing discussion in #bitcoin-otc about this right now.

Direct quote:

Code:

 luke-jr also, it was unethical to take your users' hashing power and use it for other purposes
<+luke-jr> btc_novice: I didn't.
 luke-jr did you use your hashing power, or eligius combined hashing power?
<+luke-jr> btc_novice: all hashing involving CLC was done by me

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on January 06, 2012, 12:34:21 PM

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:25:07 PM

I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc. Spell it out. That is the only way to protect yourself.

Protect themselves? How was a miner in the pool harmed?

They haven't been. My point is that if they are afraid of what a pool may/may not do on a whim, they should get it all spelled out so everyone has the same expectations.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:25:07 PM

I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc. Spell it out. That is the only way to protect yourself.

Protect themselves? How was a miner in the pool harmed?

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:31:41 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:25:16 PM

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.

Don't worry, its just one developer looking out for another. Roll Eyes

There are several mods, more than just gmaxwell. Be careful with the accusations.

It's not an accusation, just a question, as he was the most active in the discussion and might have insight./

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: ?? on ??

Well that is the first thing I thought of when I seen all them blocks starting to fly by when he pulled a scumbag slush move by secretly starting to mine with massive hash power, when people start doing things undercover on the down low they usually have something to hide. And there he is claiming to be a god faring man, yeah right.

People are require to notify you when they mine?

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:25:16 PM

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.

Don't worry, its just one developer looking out for another. Roll Eyes

There are several mods, more than just gmaxwell. Be careful with the accusations.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 11:30:25 AM

My thread in regards to "Pool Ops being the new Alt Coin Police" has been DELETED from the Pools Forum.

Censorship at it's finest.

I feel as though I am about to be banned....and I guess that makes sense, considering this forum allows scammers of all sorts to thrive in the Marketplace without consequence, yet a LEGITIMATE POST in regards to a malicious act of vandalism is deleted from view.

Par for the course, as it seems.
Just in case this is my last post, thanks for the memories.

I am still waiting for gmaxwell to answer why my thread was deleted, before we get too far and forget about this.
That thread was DIRECTLY related to this discussion and was about as ON TOPIC as one can get, under the circumstances.

Both THIS post and that thread belong where they were intended.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

I think all miners should demand more explicit rules/agreements with regard to how their hashing power will be used. Don't leave it up to 'verbal' agreements, 'common sense', etc. Spell it out. That is the only way to protect yourself.

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:19:24 PM

Quote from: rjk on January 06, 2012, 12:17:43 PM

To mine blocks but intentionally discard transactions by not including them in the blocks is certainly counterproductive. Is this what happened?

That is my understanding. There are miners on the bitcoin network that do the same thing. They only mine for the generations and ignore any transactions. Nothing requires a miner to include a transaction.

This supports my statement of "counterproductive" - Not including a TX means not collecting the fee. The folks that do this will need to fix their systems before long, especially when the reward halves.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: OneMINER on January 06, 2012, 12:15:57 PM

The actions in question were malicious. I do not grant Luke or anybody else the authority to choose which coins will succeed or fail. I do not excuse bad behavior. This is not the wild west and it does matter how you act. I urge my fellow miners to vote with their feet and run from any pool that would take such liberties with their members.

Well said. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.......It's unfortunate that more people do not feel the same way.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: rjk on January 06, 2012, 12:17:43 PM

To mine blocks but intentionally discard transactions by not including them in the blocks is certainly counterproductive. Is this what happened?

That is my understanding. There are miners on the bitcoin network that do the same thing. They only mine for the generations and ignore any transactions. Nothing requires a miner to include a transaction.

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

To mine blocks but intentionally discard transactions by not including them in the blocks is certainly counterproductive. Is this what happened?

OneMINER

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 13

I agree that there's a sense of mistrust. It has always been ok for the pool operator to do what they will with the hashes. I don't think anyone clearly thought this out in the past.

As to verbal contract, it was a web sign up. What you see is what you get. The only terms were what is/was on the page when you agreed.

The larger hash power always wins. That is how the e-currencies are setup and that is what everyone accepts. It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains. Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.
[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think it has ever been ok for a pool operator to do whatever they want. Why are they above morality?

It clearly is not a verbal contract you have with your pool. I mean its similar to one. Attacking alt coins is basically the opposite to mining your own. Whatever the agreement between the miner and pool that kind of behavior is extraordinary.

I reject the assumption that "united we stand, divided we fall" is grounds for an attack. The actions in question were malicious. I do not grant Luke or anybody else the authority to choose which coins will succeed or fail. I do not excuse bad behavior. This is not the wild west and it does matter how you act. I urge my fellow miners to vote with their feet and run from any pool that would take such liberties with their members.

EDIT: Stupid quotes. I don't understand them... Sad

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:07:45 PM

It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains. Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.

These were merged mined that were stabbed in the back by the "United we stand, divided we fall" crowd it seems, so no split at all, but don't let facts get in your way.

It is a split when the alt chain doesn't support merged mining or if you're mining on a pool that does support it but is so small that the blocks keep getting orphaned.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:00:52 PM

When you sign up for Eligius, the terms state you will be paid X BTC per share and Y NMC per valid share you submit. NO WHERE does it say that the shares will be used for the exclusive purpose of advancing the bitcoin and/or namecoin blockchains.

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:03:08 PM

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 11:57:06 AM

What YOU are basically saying is that, it's nobody's business what the hashing power is used for, as long as it is partially used for BTC......
The Pool Op can do whatever he/she chooses to do with it....WITHOUT the miner's consent.

You almost got it..

What I'm saying is that for all PPS pools, you are being paid for shares. Those shares can be used however the pool wants. Hell, some pools pay you for stale shares just because they want to. You do work (make shares) and get paid for it. How the work is then used is up to whomever bought it in the first place. If you don't like those terms, find somewhere that has more agreeable terms to you.

That's a set of KEEPERS.....quotes that will live in infamy.

....and once again, I propose (using YOUR rationalization of fair use that is)

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:04:56 PM

I hope you unknowingly sign up at a pool that uses YOUR hashing power to crack Government site passwords as well as re-encode Child Pornography videos for web publishing.... and your IP is logged as being part of the 'hashing power'.........but hey, as long as you get paid in BTC and NMC for each share, who cares what else is done with your hashing power, right ?

How could someone be as THICK as you ? ......you seem to have no clue.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: bitlane on January 06, 2012, 12:04:56 PM

Quote from: imsaguy on January 06, 2012, 12:00:52 PM

When you sign up for Eligius, the terms state you will be paid X BTC per share and Y NMC per valid share you submit. NO WHERE does it say that the shares will be used for the exclusive purpose of advancing the bitcoin and/or namecoin blockchains.

I hope you unknowingly sign up at a pool that uses YOUR hashing power to crack Government site passwords as well as re-encode Child Pornography videos for web publishing.... and your IP is logged as being part of the 'hashing power'.........but hey, as long as you get paid in BTC and NMC for each share, who cares what else is done with your hashing power, right ?

You realize of course, that everyone only knows about this because it was announced. It wasn't hidden. Now just imagine what the pools are doing and NOT telling you about. Not just Eligius but DeepBit, slush, BTCGuild, etc.. If you're that concerned, solo mine. Then you know, for certain, that your hashes are being used for whatever coin base(s) you want and nothing else.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: OneMINER on January 06, 2012, 12:03:57 PM

It seems to me that joining a mining pool is kinda like having a verbal contract with the operator. It's clearly stated that it's a mining pool and nowhere is it identified as an "attack pool". Has he broken laws? No. Has he abused the trust of the people mining in that pool? Yes.

What implications does this have for the community as a whole?

Basically if it's ok to do this then it's ok for a pool operator to do anything with the hashes. It could be construed to support any type of attack. So for an example, lets say there's a pool operator who starts a DDoS attack on the largest pools while simultaneously starting a 51% attack. Is this person within his/her rights? Is that ok? I think my example is similar to what Luke did.

I think he broke what is essentially a verbal contract and has displayed some of the worst behavior possible from a pool operator.

It's important that we differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not. Starting a war between pools and coins is counter productive. The larger hash power always wins? If that's the case it would make adopting a better (imaginary) coin impossible. There is no higher authority in this case. So the burden rests with the individuals. Do the right thing.

I agree that there's a sense of mistrust. It has always been ok for the pool operator to do what they will with the hashes. I don't think anyone clearly thought this out in the past.

As to verbal contract, it was a web sign up. What you see is what you get. The only terms were what is/was on the page when you agreed.

The larger hash power always wins. That is how the e-currencies are setup and that is what everyone accepts. It is the principal reason people are concerned about splitting up the hash power among several alt chains. Basically, "United we stand, divided we fall" type thing.

Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 161. (Read 458370 times)