Topic: [Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 209. (Read 381060 times)
November 05, 2014, 01:55:17 PM
utc.tumblingblock.com is working fine again. I think its the best of all pools. the others have fee for everything
November 05, 2014, 01:51:57 PM
Hey...so, erm...who is buying all the Ultracoins!!
November 05, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
Hello,
What is the issue with utc.tumblingblock.com? I haven't received any messages.
Thanks,
Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
[email protected]
What is the issue with utc.tumblingblock.com? I haven't received any messages.
Thanks,
Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
[email protected]
November 05, 2014, 10:19:45 AM
Hi for all people to write me about the issue with http://utc.tumblingblock.com IM NOT OPERATOR to the official pool
Steve can awser thanks
Steve can awser thanks
November 04, 2014, 10:51:26 AM
I lost 6 btc invest to this shit. Wish I can cut his dumb head
I am sorry for your losses.. He's claiming he got hacked tho.. Will see how it ends..
November 04, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
I lost 6 btc invest to this shit. Wish I can cut his dumb head
November 04, 2014, 10:06:51 AM
Which command line for 280x and 270x and 7950
November 04, 2014, 07:52:03 AM
November 04, 2014, 05:54:30 AM
OK thats encouraging then thanks - hope everyone keeps mining. Never imagined that Scrypt Jane was so low in terms of relative hash rates.
The MYR-Groestl network hashrate hovers around 3-7 Gh/s on CPU/GPU mining (compare UTC 5-8 Mh/s lately) - so UTC is only 1/1000th approx of the MYR Groestl CPU/GPU mining power (but we need to appreciate that it takes more grunt to get a Mh/s on Scrypt Jane than MYR-Groestl).
No. It looks like UTC relative hashing power is well over MYR-Groestl.
With Myriad-Groestl just one 750Ti may give over 11Mhash/s and one R9 280x something perhaps between >10 - <20Mhash/s
(ref: http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com/help.php )
My just one tiny 4x R9 280x rig give around 17kHash/s(gross) with UTC and 4x750Ti rigs some amount less.
And more "fun". Quite soon (2015-01-22) UTC N factor rise from 14 to 15.
But yes, if someone have. say example well over 1200 x R9 280x farm he can try but still not at all easy.
Of course it is possible that some develop lab test with MYR they FPGA-ASIC hybrid machines what they try develop for many algoritms and for higher N factors.
The MYR-Groestl network hashrate hovers around 3-7 Gh/s on CPU/GPU mining (compare UTC 5-8 Mh/s lately) - so UTC is only 1/1000th approx of the MYR Groestl CPU/GPU mining power (but we need to appreciate that it takes more grunt to get a Mh/s on Scrypt Jane than MYR-Groestl).
No. It looks like UTC relative hashing power is well over MYR-Groestl.
With Myriad-Groestl just one 750Ti may give over 11Mhash/s and one R9 280x something perhaps between >10 - <20Mhash/s
(ref: http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com/help.php )
My just one tiny 4x R9 280x rig give around 17kHash/s(gross) with UTC and 4x750Ti rigs some amount less.
And more "fun". Quite soon (2015-01-22) UTC N factor rise from 14 to 15.
But yes, if someone have. say example well over 1200 x R9 280x farm he can try but still not at all easy.
Of course it is possible that some develop lab test with MYR they FPGA-ASIC hybrid machines what they try develop for many algoritms and for higher N factors.
November 04, 2014, 04:49:39 AM
The MYR-Groestl network hashrate hovers around 3-7 Gh/s on CPU/GPU mining (compare UTC 5-8 Mh/s lately) - so UTC is only 1/1000th approx of the MYR Groestl CPU/GPU mining power (but we need to appreciate that it takes more grunt to get a Mh/s on Scrypt Jane than MYR-Groestl).
No. It looks like UTC relative hashing power is well over MYR-Groestl.
With Myriad-Groestl just one 750Ti may give over 11Mhash/s and one R9 280x something perhaps between >10 - <20Mhash/s
(ref: http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com/help.php )
My just one tiny 4x R9 280x rig give around 17kHash/s(gross) with UTC and 4x750Ti rigs some amount less.
And more "fun". Quite soon (2015-01-22) UTC N factor rise from 14 to 15.
But yes, if someone have. say example well over 1200 x R9 280x farm he can try but still not at all easy.
Of course it is possible that some develop lab test with MYR they FPGA-ASIC hybrid machines what they try develop for many algoritms and for higher N factors.
November 04, 2014, 01:02:09 AM
November 03, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
Hello Usukan,
Thank you for posting your concerns, as the Director of Management, I know we would rather spend our time on developments, collaborations and expansion of Ultracoin. However, network security is our number one priority as that is the foundation that Ultracoin is based upon. After some preliminary research on these Time Warp Attacks I was able to gather the following:
* Time Warp Attacks are essentially 51% attacks where active nodes are targeted and persuaded that a forked blockchain is legitimate. This forked blockchain dynamically adjusts the difficulty and begins to mine blocks quickly, usually ending in the attacker targeting an exchange whereby they sell the forked coins and vanish.
* Coins that implement SHA-256, such as Myriadcoin and Terracoin, may be much more susceptible to these attacks due to the fact that they do utilize SHA-256. SHA-256 is a dangerous algorithm for smaller coins because of the potential for large or even small ASIC farms to attack the coins network. This makes coins with small network hashrates such as Myriadcoin (9.4Th/s) very susceptible to these kinds of attacks. My SHA-256 miners on our multi-pool alone constitute about 1/12th of the Myriadcoin network hashrate, although I am not sure how their POW process works specifically as they do utilize 5 different algorithms.
* Coins that are purely POW are much more susceptible to these types of attacks, because Ultracoin is a hybrid POW/POS coin, it is much more secure against 51% attacks.
* There are currently no Scrypt-ChaCha ASIC's, which means that the network is still fairly secured. Ultracoin's network hash-rate fluctuates between 5-10Mh/s, with the average R9 280x only producing 3.9Kh/s, for a 51% attack to be successful the attacker would need SIGNIFICANT GPU power. Plus with Ultracoin's hybrid POW/POS, it would be even harder to successfully attack the network. It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely.
That is the benefit of being ASIC-Resistant, new coins are simply not prepared to be launched in an environment where ASIC's are prevalent, or they risk getting attacked by a predator. Ultracoin is in a very good position to defend itself based upon it's GPU/CPU decentralization and hybrid POW/POS structure. Needless to say, we will continue to research this kind of attack as a priority just to be sure.
Sincerely,
Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
[email protected]
Thank you for posting your concerns, as the Director of Management, I know we would rather spend our time on developments, collaborations and expansion of Ultracoin. However, network security is our number one priority as that is the foundation that Ultracoin is based upon. After some preliminary research on these Time Warp Attacks I was able to gather the following:
* Time Warp Attacks are essentially 51% attacks where active nodes are targeted and persuaded that a forked blockchain is legitimate. This forked blockchain dynamically adjusts the difficulty and begins to mine blocks quickly, usually ending in the attacker targeting an exchange whereby they sell the forked coins and vanish.
* Coins that implement SHA-256, such as Myriadcoin and Terracoin, may be much more susceptible to these attacks due to the fact that they do utilize SHA-256. SHA-256 is a dangerous algorithm for smaller coins because of the potential for large or even small ASIC farms to attack the coins network. This makes coins with small network hashrates such as Myriadcoin (9.4Th/s) very susceptible to these kinds of attacks. My SHA-256 miners on our multi-pool alone constitute about 1/12th of the Myriadcoin network hashrate, although I am not sure how their POW process works specifically as they do utilize 5 different algorithms.
* Coins that are purely POW are much more susceptible to these types of attacks, because Ultracoin is a hybrid POW/POS coin, it is much more secure against 51% attacks.
* There are currently no Scrypt-ChaCha ASIC's, which means that the network is still fairly secured. Ultracoin's network hash-rate fluctuates between 5-10Mh/s, with the average R9 280x only producing 3.9Kh/s, for a 51% attack to be successful the attacker would need SIGNIFICANT GPU power. Plus with Ultracoin's hybrid POW/POS, it would be even harder to successfully attack the network. It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely.
That is the benefit of being ASIC-Resistant, new coins are simply not prepared to be launched in an environment where ASIC's are prevalent, or they risk getting attacked by a predator. Ultracoin is in a very good position to defend itself based upon it's GPU/CPU decentralization and hybrid POW/POS structure. Needless to say, we will continue to research this kind of attack as a priority just to be sure.
Sincerely,
Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
[email protected]
November 03, 2014, 06:08:14 PM
Yesterday I had the opportunity to witness a "time warp" attack in progress on another Altcoin - Myriad.
Its terrifying to watch in real time - blocks generating faster than they can be displayed on your screen.
The attacker was able to reset difficultly to under 1 and produce a new block every second. In a short space of time they mined over 5,000 blocks - and the coins/blocks are all valid. Luckily the MYR devs had the fixes already on hand and the situation was fixed with 2 successive hard forks. MYR mines on 5 algo's simultaneously so this attack tested a very challenging target.
Quite a few coins have suffered this attack so far (Terracoin was a good first example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8ffDIw0J3Q ) and it seems that many if not most are still vulnerable - apart from allowing someone to get away with a bunch of free coins it has the potential to fork the coin's blockchain and cause serious chaos that is difficult and time consuming to fix - right through to the exchanges. At some point when the coins are sold some poor entity ends up paying out on a double spend.
So just a question - how is UTC positioned for a time warp attack? With its current popularity/raised profile, short block time, quick difficulty re-targeting, relatively low hash and a relatively attractive price compared to MYR I could easily see UTC as a potential target in the near future. Seems the MYR attack was just a practice run as the returns would not be great for the attacker - but it worked and all coins generated were valid and spendable - and this was just yesterday.
Could UTC be on the target list? Does Scrypt Jane provide some inherent protection?
I would appreciate some comments from the devs on how robust UTC is for this issue.
If UTC is not robust on this I urge the devs to address this as a matter of priority.
Its terrifying to watch in real time - blocks generating faster than they can be displayed on your screen.
The attacker was able to reset difficultly to under 1 and produce a new block every second. In a short space of time they mined over 5,000 blocks - and the coins/blocks are all valid. Luckily the MYR devs had the fixes already on hand and the situation was fixed with 2 successive hard forks. MYR mines on 5 algo's simultaneously so this attack tested a very challenging target.
Quite a few coins have suffered this attack so far (Terracoin was a good first example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8ffDIw0J3Q ) and it seems that many if not most are still vulnerable - apart from allowing someone to get away with a bunch of free coins it has the potential to fork the coin's blockchain and cause serious chaos that is difficult and time consuming to fix - right through to the exchanges. At some point when the coins are sold some poor entity ends up paying out on a double spend.
So just a question - how is UTC positioned for a time warp attack? With its current popularity/raised profile, short block time, quick difficulty re-targeting, relatively low hash and a relatively attractive price compared to MYR I could easily see UTC as a potential target in the near future. Seems the MYR attack was just a practice run as the returns would not be great for the attacker - but it worked and all coins generated were valid and spendable - and this was just yesterday.
Could UTC be on the target list? Does Scrypt Jane provide some inherent protection?
I would appreciate some comments from the devs on how robust UTC is for this issue.
If UTC is not robust on this I urge the devs to address this as a matter of priority.
I agree! Definitely worth looking into!
November 03, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
Yesterday I had the opportunity to witness a "time warp" attack in progress on another Altcoin - Myriad.
Its terrifying to watch in real time - blocks generating faster than they can be displayed on your screen.
The attacker was able to reset difficultly to under 1 and produce a new block every second. In a short space of time they mined over 5,000 blocks - and the coins/blocks are all valid. Luckily the MYR devs had the fixes already on hand and the situation was fixed with 2 successive hard forks. MYR mines on 5 algo's simultaneously so this attack tested a very challenging target.
Quite a few coins have suffered this attack so far (Terracoin was a good first example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8ffDIw0J3Q ) and it seems that many if not most are still vulnerable - apart from allowing someone to get away with a bunch of free coins it has the potential to fork the coin's blockchain and cause serious chaos that is difficult and time consuming to fix - right through to the exchanges. At some point when the coins are sold some poor entity ends up paying out on a double spend.
So just a question - how is UTC positioned for a time warp attack? With its current popularity/raised profile, short block time, quick difficulty re-targeting, relatively low hash and a relatively attractive price compared to MYR I could easily see UTC as a potential target in the near future. Seems the MYR attack was just a practice run as the returns would not be great for the attacker - but it worked and all coins generated were valid and spendable - and this was just yesterday.
Could UTC be on the target list? Does Scrypt Jane provide some inherent protection?
I would appreciate some comments from the devs on how robust UTC is for this issue.
If UTC is not robust on this I urge the devs to address this as a matter of priority.
Its terrifying to watch in real time - blocks generating faster than they can be displayed on your screen.
The attacker was able to reset difficultly to under 1 and produce a new block every second. In a short space of time they mined over 5,000 blocks - and the coins/blocks are all valid. Luckily the MYR devs had the fixes already on hand and the situation was fixed with 2 successive hard forks. MYR mines on 5 algo's simultaneously so this attack tested a very challenging target.
Quite a few coins have suffered this attack so far (Terracoin was a good first example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8ffDIw0J3Q ) and it seems that many if not most are still vulnerable - apart from allowing someone to get away with a bunch of free coins it has the potential to fork the coin's blockchain and cause serious chaos that is difficult and time consuming to fix - right through to the exchanges. At some point when the coins are sold some poor entity ends up paying out on a double spend.
So just a question - how is UTC positioned for a time warp attack? With its current popularity/raised profile, short block time, quick difficulty re-targeting, relatively low hash and a relatively attractive price compared to MYR I could easily see UTC as a potential target in the near future. Seems the MYR attack was just a practice run as the returns would not be great for the attacker - but it worked and all coins generated were valid and spendable - and this was just yesterday.
Could UTC be on the target list? Does Scrypt Jane provide some inherent protection?
I would appreciate some comments from the devs on how robust UTC is for this issue.
If UTC is not robust on this I urge the devs to address this as a matter of priority.
November 03, 2014, 12:07:52 PM
You shouldn't need add nodes as the DNS seeds are working. Maybe it's an issue with your SOCKS server. But you can add this to your config:
Thk u but isn't the pb. Wallet always don't sync. I think i must put add node ... someone can give me?
Code:
dns=1
addnode=utc.tumblingblock.com
addnode=utc2.tumblingblock.com
in the wallet - under Options
Network - I have these settings
Map Port using UPnP
Proxy IP 127.0.0.1
Port 9050
SOCKS Version 5
Mine works fine
Hope this helps
? please
Network - I have these settings
Map Port using UPnP
Proxy IP 127.0.0.1
Port 9050
SOCKS Version 5
Mine works fine
Hope this helps
Hello everyone,
I have not found an answer to my problem:
I just downloaded the wallet and it does not syncronise.
I did not find the node to add.
thank you in advance.
someone can give me?
I have not found an answer to my problem:
I just downloaded the wallet and it does not syncronise.
I did not find the node to add.
thank you in advance.
someone can give me?
? please
Thk u but isn't the pb. Wallet always don't sync. I think i must put add node ... someone can give me?
THANK YOU!
It's a good conf for me. My wallet sync!
November 03, 2014, 09:09:09 AM
oVPN.to has decided to offer a 30% discount ONLY for Ultracoin for their VPN service. Checkout through coinpayments and patronize businesses that accept Ultracoin!
November 02, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
Still selling UTC collector coins! Only $4 for this nice collectible and talking piece!
I have a bunch currently in stock. Get a nice piece of Crypto Memorabilia to display to friends!
Keychains also dropped in price as well!
http://www.cryptomemorabilia.com/product-category/utcmem/
-Brian Gleason
I have a bunch currently in stock. Get a nice piece of Crypto Memorabilia to display to friends!
Keychains also dropped in price as well!
http://www.cryptomemorabilia.com/product-category/utcmem/
-Brian Gleason
November 02, 2014, 01:02:02 PM
what is the current block explorer, the op needs to be updated as listed explorer is not working, and is there a bagholder listing? or rich list anywhere?
I just updated the block explorer to Ultrabex.com, I will continue to prune the OP later. Let me know if there's anything else you see that should be changed.
Sincerely,
Rapture
November 02, 2014, 10:14:33 AM
Yes. Autotune with scrypt-jane:14.
Cudaminer doesn't call GetNfactor() before going into the autotune so "scrypt-jane:UTC" will not work for an autotune- it defaults to NF4.
"scrypt-jane:UTC" works for regular mining though.
With CudaMiner, around 3-3.3 khash on NF14 Scrypt-Jane, with the right settings (Lookup Gap 4 + autotune). Without lookup gap you'll probably see something around 2.7-2.8 at stock clocks.
ah k, I thought your newly compiled cudaminer would give maxwell chips a boost but not for the 750ti it seems. (only 970/980)
(old miner gave me 3.3khash as well)
It's good to hear that it helped with the 970. I'll probably attempt a compute52 compile for 970/980 cards against cuda 6.5 to check for any more gains there. You lose compute10 going to 6.5, but anymore that's not really much of a loss. I don't think that the kernels have been really optimized for Maxwell, but there might be some improvement.
Whenever I use auto, cudaminer crashes after some time, I don't know how to make it work. Do I have to set scrypt-jane:14 or leave it? I tried to use your settings with debug switch but it crushed :/ I have one 750ti from Gigabyte.
I have same problem.
Cudaminer doesn't call GetNfactor() before going into the autotune so "scrypt-jane:UTC" will not work for an autotune- it defaults to NF4.
"scrypt-jane:UTC" works for regular mining though.
750TI hashrate ?
With CudaMiner, around 3-3.3 khash on NF14 Scrypt-Jane, with the right settings (Lookup Gap 4 + autotune). Without lookup gap you'll probably see something around 2.7-2.8 at stock clocks.
ah k, I thought your newly compiled cudaminer would give maxwell chips a boost but not for the 750ti it seems. (only 970/980)
(old miner gave me 3.3khash as well)
It's good to hear that it helped with the 970. I'll probably attempt a compute52 compile for 970/980 cards against cuda 6.5 to check for any more gains there. You lose compute10 going to 6.5, but anymore that's not really much of a loss. I don't think that the kernels have been really optimized for Maxwell, but there might be some improvement.
I have same problem.
November 02, 2014, 10:01:50 AM
750TI hashrate ?
With CudaMiner, around 3-3.3 khash on NF14 Scrypt-Jane, with the right settings (Lookup Gap 4 + autotune). Without lookup gap you'll probably see something around 2.7-2.8 at stock clocks.
ah k, I thought your newly compiled cudaminer would give maxwell chips a boost but not for the 750ti it seems. (only 970/980)
(old miner gave me 3.3khash as well)
It's good to hear that it helped with the 970. I'll probably attempt a compute52 compile for 970/980 cards against cuda 6.5 to check for any more gains there. You lose compute10 going to 6.5, but anymore that's not really much of a loss. I don't think that the kernels have been really optimized for Maxwell, but there might be some improvement.
Thanks for calling that out. "-a scrypt-jane:14" needs to be in there too.
Best settings for single 750 ti , cudaminer.exe --algo=scrypt-jane:UTC -H 2 -i 0 -m 1 -l t5x24 -L 4 -b 16384 -o stratum.....etc..etc
Consistent 3.3 - 3.5 khs
My 6x750ti is working better without -b .. . and two of 750ti working better with -l t60x2.
So right setup values depend your computer and gpu's. I have all 750ti same model and brand.
I didn't get a noticeable boost with the 6 x 750ti rigs using the -b flag either.
But, I'm getting 0.25khash/s more with the -b 16384 flag on my single 970, going from 8.75-9 to 9-9.25.
Code:
Hash: 0000e6e2e49a63a33fd38005f910d80c048571fc21c21aa82b1d67977959e920
Target: 0000ffff00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[2014-11-02 06:57:59] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 9.13 khash/s
[2014-11-02 06:57:59] accepted: 16/16 (100.00%), 9.13 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-11-02 06:58:00] DEBUG: hash <= target
Hash: 0000d22933dd3a5ae1545599dc2934a67997157c76a070b220be9e18908b7718
Target: 0000ffff00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[2014-11-02 06:58:00] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 9.08 khash/s
[2014-11-02 06:58:00] accepted: 17/17 (100.00%), 9.08 khash/s (yay!!!)
[2014-11-02 06:58:17] DEBUG: hash <= target
Hash: 00008387ad7ed543b8c8a0352b5628f908d7dc3f35cfe72ed66398d429a02dbb
Target: 0000ffff00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[2014-11-02 06:58:17] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 970, 9.20 khash/s
[2014-11-02 06:58:17] accepted: 18/18 (100.00%), 9.20 khash/s (yay!!!)
Jump to: