Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 11. (Read 60498 times)
If i am not mistaken, the spike is just before the last difficulty change... maybe to keep the diff from jumping?
Anyway, your data seems to span a relatively short period of time. I found 5 1TX by deepbit blocks in it that I eliminated, it doesnt change the chart in any significant way:
Well, if someone would like to get more precision, they can fetch the block data from deepbit.net, it's available for all the blocks ever found by deepbit. 
Just find your block numbers in this table and remove them if they are marked as Deepbit's
Yeah I knew what you were getting at, I was just trying to be lazy.
Anyway, your data seems to span a relatively short period of time. I found 5 1TX by deepbit blocks in it that I eliminated, it doesnt change the chart in any significant way:
Any chance you can provide me with a csv or something to subtract your (1tx) blocks ?
If you cant give me a csv, can you give me a ballpark estimate of how many 1tx blocks you mine per day or week?
I don't have such stats available, but hashes of ALL my blocks are published on my site.If you cant give me a csv, can you give me a ballpark estimate of how many 1tx blocks you mine per day or week?
You can use the link mentioned above to find out my blocks since 11.03.2012, that won't require you to download my stats.
Just find your block numbers in this table and remove them if they are marked as Deepbit's
I did certainly generated 1tx blocks this month. Please use something like this - http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/blocklist.php to filter out my blocks, may be your graph will be cleaner. (or not)
Okay, I goofed up. *blush*. I was looking at "bits", which is just difficulty, not exactly proof its the same guy heh.
Any chance you can provide me with a csv or something to subtract your (1tx) blocks ?
If you cant give me a csv, can you give me a ballpark estimate of how many 1tx blocks you mine per day or week?
BTW, I did the same exercise on some data preceding the recent 1TH boost. Its not quite as clear cut, but it does seem to follow a similar pattern:
There seems to be no relationship with difficulty, just a bottom at around 3Hr, like there is one now at 1hr.
Are there only her blocks or all 1tx blocks ?
All. But almost certainly, all 1TX blocks over that period belong to the mystery miner, they all have the same "bits" for 10 or more blocks, not a single exception. BTW, that actually applies to all 1TX blocks since the beginning of the year. If other pools or miners produce 1TX blocks on rare occasions, I havent seen it this year.Are there only her blocks or all 1tx blocks ?
All. But almost certainly, all 1TX blocks over that period belong to the mystery miner, they all have the same "bits" for 10 or more blocks, not a single exception. BTW, that actually applies to all 1TX blocks since the beginning of the year. If other pools or miners produce 1TX blocks on rare occasions, I havent seen it this year.
Had another look at the stats of our mystery miner, and rather than just counting blocks per day, I had a look at the average time in between blocks (gets rid of variance when finding blocks just before or after midnight). The result is interesting:
Are there only her blocks or all 1tx blocks ?
Nice find :)
Had another look at the stats of our mystery miner, and rather than just counting blocks per day, I had a look at the average time in between blocks (gets rid of variance when finding blocks just before or after midnight). The result is interesting:
(click to enlarge)
What you see above is a 24hr average of time inbetween blocks every day.
Aside from 2 obvious spikes, possibly caused by some downtime?, its surprisingly stable around 1 block per hour.
Of course you could say thats a logical consequence of having 16.6% of the network hashing power, and that its coincidence, but it looks like he may be throttling himself to an average of 1 block per hour.
It will be interesting to see what happens after the upcoming difficulty change, if he maintains 1 block per hour or if the time between blocks increases and he just maintains his hashrate.
(click to enlarge)
What you see above is a 24hr average of time inbetween blocks every day.
Aside from 2 obvious spikes, possibly caused by some downtime?, its surprisingly stable around 1 block per hour.
Of course you could say thats a logical consequence of having 16.6% of the network hashing power, and that its coincidence, but it looks like he may be throttling himself to an average of 1 block per hour.
It will be interesting to see what happens after the upcoming difficulty change, if he maintains 1 block per hour or if the time between blocks increases and he just maintains his hashrate.
I'd be willing to bet $100 of my own real money that this is a botnet.
I'd think so too, but during the height of the 2011 Bitcoin hype there were several mining botnets. This was extensively reported by AV blogs and tech news outlets. There was also a rush of infected power users joining this forum asking what was going on. The Magical Mystery Miner appears to have more power than any of the unidentified miners that turned out to be botnets last time, but MM have managed to stay completely under the radar...By harnessing only a portion of the GPU and doing nothing else on that p0wned computer other then 1/4 or so power mining they stay under the radar. No big fan noise. Email messages and irc control channel use are usually what gets a bot noticed and so you do not use those. Only finished work is reported with MAYBE a heartbeat every few hours. The computer could monitor any number of websites for new work. With a good cash cow computer you keep it unnoticed and under the radar. Greed looses you that machine.
I'd be willing to bet $100 of my own real money that this is a botnet.
I'd think so too, but during the height of the 2011 Bitcoin hype there were several mining botnets. This was extensively reported by AV blogs and tech news outlets. There was also a rush of infected power users joining this forum asking what was going on. The Magical Mystery Miner appears to have more power than any of the unidentified miners that turned out to be botnets last time, but MM have managed to stay completely under the radar... 
It's likely he rejects all transactions. Reasoning being: he's rejecting because of some restraints he's working under. If he had the tech in place and it wouldn't harm his operation in any way, I'm sure he would include transactions.
This is exactly the reason that this particular problem needs stronger solutions than simply waiting for tx fees to rise. He could be under such restraints that the security of his whole operation is threatened if he starts adding transactions. There is a possibility that he truly doesn't have any threshold where he starts giving a shit about transactions if the technological solution to include transactions in general is too disruptive for his operation. 
What is the highest tx fee this miner has rejected? What tx fee would he need to reject to be an 'attacker'?
It's likely he rejects all transactions. Reasoning being: he's rejecting because of some restraints he's working under. If he had the tech in place and it wouldn't harm his operation in any way, I'm sure he would include transactions.
I'd be willing to bet $100 of my own real money that this is a botnet.
If you go ahead and formulate a bet at http://betsofbitco.in/, I will bet against you.
EDIT: I didn't say I would bet $100 worth.
No blocks are mined until a match is found. Then a miner with 100 BTC fee, would be able to provide his "quality" service, without hampering the flow (event if it's insignificant at this moment). This way there will be competition among high fee miners and low fee miners, without the high fee miners going on strike and milking the network at the same time.
Forget that. You do understand the logical end game is that miners have no pricing power (they already have very little).
You can set your prices but if nobody agrees to them then you lose the potential block reward. Thus the one is forced to accept free & no fee tx and clients would be stupid to ever pay a fee (or more than a token fee).
Also not sure if you see the logical fail in your "proposal".
I set my fee to 100 BTC. I send a tx w/ 100 BTC to myself and include it in my block. Tada that block is now valid right? I never mine any tx except my own. Kinda bypasses any security such an asinine protocol rule would create.
EDITED:
A hypothetical question:
If I rent 13 Th/s of hashing power now, will I be able to do what I want with the block chain? And if yes, how long will I need to rent such hashing power to accomplish that?
(I really want to know what is the plan if someone does that)
A hypothetical question:
If I rent 13 Th/s of hashing power now, will I be able to do what I want with the block chain? And if yes, how long will I need to rent such hashing power to accomplish that?
(I really want to know what is the plan if someone does that)
Quote from: DeathAndTaxes
First a service is provided. It adds nearly 15% hashing power to the network. The network is harder to attack at 11.5 TH/s vs 10.0 TH/s.
As long as it excludes transactions it's meaningless. In case of 51% attack, it will be an unwilling (or willing) ally to the attacker.Quote
Quote
I agree that miners should be able to set tx fees, but they should be able to mine only containing tx that match their fees, but no empty blocks.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
No, depends how it is implemented.
Quote
How do you know the "mystery" miner isn't doing that. It just happens to be his fee threshold is 100 BTC.
More realisticly say I wanted to only include tx which have a fee of 0.01 BTC or more. Most blocks would have no tx. How do you reconcile the statements a miner should be able to set fee BUT not include empty blocks? What if no tx match the desired fee?
No blocks are mined until a match is found. Then a miner with 100 BTC fee, would be able to provide his "quality" service, without hampering the flow (event if it's insignificant at this moment). This way there will be competition among high fee miners and low fee miners, without the high fee miners going on strike and milking the network at the same time. More realisticly say I wanted to only include tx which have a fee of 0.01 BTC or more. Most blocks would have no tx. How do you reconcile the statements a miner should be able to set fee BUT not include empty blocks? What if no tx match the desired fee?
What is the highest tx fee this miner has rejected? What tx fee would he need to reject to be an 'attacker'?
Where all of your nonsense breaks down is that there is no possible fee that would get this guy to include your transaction because he isn't even looking at transactions.
How do you know? Have you tried?
A more practical example is that in the near future I will be only including tx w/ fee of 0.01 BTC. Now about 90% of blocks will be empty (looking at past record of tx). Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to do that?
What if "mystery" simply has an unrealistic min fee (say 100 BTC per tx)? Is he not allowed to do that.
It comes down to:
Do miners have the right to set the min fee for tx they will include in the next block?
If no then I will fight any proposal you try to cram down the throats of miners. If yes then that will lead to genuine empty blocks. How do you penalize "bad" empty blocks from blocks which are empty simply because users are cheap?
I'd be willing to bet $100 of my own real money that this is a botnet. The evidence so far points seriously towards a botnet that operates by distributing only the bare minimum of information (the previous block's hash) to the nodes, which then generate a valid block themselves and try hashes. If anyone can provide convincing proof that this is something else, I will mail the first person to do so a check or send them the equivalent in BTC.
[/quote]
Jump to: