Pages:
Author

Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 14. (Read 60438 times)

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
I am pretty sure it is either an ASIC miner or ArtForz. No evidence but I think that is what is happening.

This is no botnet. Maybe an institution or government ?

Anyway, watching because I don't like how this crap looks. No TX in blocks = something fishy is going on here.

What if this dude gets above 51% ? The supposedly 40 million value of BTC will become worthless all of a sudden as people realise this system is flawed ?

Funny that with about 10 million you can compromise a system that is supposedly worth 40 million now Cheesy

10 million for the NSA and their limitless budgets is like 1000 USD for all of us comparatively ( e.g. spare change ). Sooner we realise this and move on from the dumb explanation "won't happen" and we actually fix the fault using technology the better for BTC and all our coins, I think.

I don't even want to think about it TBH ...
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
There is.  What chart are you looking at?  Maybe your monitor is upside down?

That happens to me all the damn time!!! 

http://techpaul.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/image-on-my-screen-is-upside-down-help/

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
There is.  What chart are you looking at?  Maybe your monitor is upside down?
full member
Activity: 148
Merit: 100
so if this is e new miner, why isn't there a increase of the total network has speed?
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
donator
Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015
Sorry, I've been known to both fat-finger and Bitcointalk while drunk.

I meant 38 gigahash, it's still a huge amount by just one person reselling FPGAs. And keep in mind he had two sets of over 100 each and at one point linked some of us (via email) to his actual sales stats on accident (it was over 400 Icarus boards on just batch 3).

Quote
Evidence please?

We all know Artforz has, in the past, mined without including transactions and was kind enough -- when he was GPU mining over 50% of the blocks for a short while -- to include them again once he figured out how to. Also, he had between 50-100 gigahash at his immediate disposal when he was active in the alt currencies forum, and all-the-while he was still mining BTC while crushing alt-currencies (though luke-jr proved he was better at it). Art's been absent, and probably very busy if this is actually him. No, I don't have hard evidence, but he's been gone for months at a time before (last summer through the fall, for example, and always comes back with larger and larger gigahash at his disposal).

But should we even care? No!

You guys really are freaking out about nothing. The Chinese New Year ended and the FPGA manufacturers all shipped out their units, then someone comes online with about 20% of the network and after a difficulty increase only has around 15%. Here soon with the scores of FPGAs going online and possible sASIC devices being sent, it really is a wonder that we haven't seen these kinds of increases sooner, especially after it bounced off the $2 mark. Someone clearly liquidated any remaining GPUs and struck a deal with a large financier to mine with FPGA or custom ASIC.

I've mentioned several times that a few million spent to own 20-40% of the Bitcoin network is chump change for a small country or medium sized bank. Hell, the CIA venture capital fund could own 15% of the Bitcoin network in a lead time of less than 6 months and probably has the qualified staff either within their own walls or in the NSA to operate this. And you think an intelligence organization that has knowingly engaged in illegal markets in the past is just going to sit and overlook an opportunity to own part of the biggest electronic black market?

I guess my point is that this seems to be a pretty small issue and diminishing. Even assuming it was the world's largest botnet, it's only going to be profitable a short while longer. I'd recommend ignoring this, especially after the next two difficulty increases. If a miner ever gets to the point where they have 50%, the entire Bitcoin network becomes untrustworthy to actually use, so the price will plummet and the whole thing will be worthless to use, meaning the miner will have wasted their time. Whoever it is has no incentive to tell us who they are, nor reach 50%, they'll mine at pools to hide that they have so much computing power so as to preserve the price of their coin.

TLDR;Everything's going to be alright.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
So, is it that implausible that he was not talking BS and the investor(s) have just started to happy-slap existing GPU miners?

Yes. I only read a few posts in that thread, thats a 100% scam. Developing a full custom asic costs millions of dollars. Anyone begging on this forum to raise that kind of cash is a scammer, period.

That said, its not entirely implausible someone else did produce an asic, like largecoin. But Im fairly confident our MM is just a botnet.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
True, we can change the definition of 'valid' though Smiley
donator
Activity: 919
Merit: 1000
Not sure someone brought the speculation already up (thread got tl;dr), sorry if so.

While searching the forum for something else, I noticed in [1] that user 'asicminer' tried to raise funds for an ASIC mining card last year. Forum majority agreed that he is a scammer and he left claiming to have found some investor for an exclusive contract including non-disclosure agreement over 3 years.

Two things came to my mind: 1) BFL was heavily accused being a scam by forum majority until they delivered Singles (some minority still claims), and 2) asicminer brought the investor(s) up mid of 2011 which would perfectly match the time frame to deliver and ramp up a ASIC mining farm.

So, is it that implausible that he was not talking BS and the investor(s) have just started to happy-slap existing GPU miners?


[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.395632
donator
Activity: 826
Merit: 1041
The botnet operator is only defrauding those whose computers are controlled by the botnet. The botnet doesn't defraud Bitcoin by hashing blocks.

The botnet (if that's what it is) is not causing a significant problem for Bitcoin. And if it does cause a problem in the future, it's self-limiting due to the block reward change and the possibility for transaction fees.

There are many things that really are worth worrying about. This "botnet" is not one of them.

Finally, what would Satoshi do? Take a look at this post of his from 2008:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09980.html

He's talking about blocks with double-spends, but he might equally-well have been talking about blocks with no transactions:

Quote from: satoshi
Even though everyone present may see the
shenanigans going on ... we can't have subfactions of nodes ... The CPU power
proof-of-work vote must have the final say.  The only way for everyone to stay
on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one,
no matter what.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
Considering ngzhang had about 100 FPGAs in his room mining at about 380 gigahash, it is entirely possible someone is just mining with FPGAs on their own. We've said his name numerous times, but he's not Beetlejuice. We all know he has the early money and funding to do it and the technical expertise to make it work.

Why isn't he including transactions? Because he doesn't have to. This happened in Bitcoin's history once before.

It's ArtForz, folks. Move along.

"because he doesn't have to" is not a reason. He doesn't have to mine either, yet he does.

I'm not ruling him out, but I find it suspicious that there are no tx.

Someone else with the FPGA/ASIC power? More likely.

It could really be FPGA board testing, as was suggested. Maybe someone doing this stealthily without the higher-ups knowledge so he tries to keep a low profile network-wise or the testbed-hardware doesn't have the resources for full blockchain or is booted from a read-only usb stick or something...
donator
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
Considering ngzhang had about 100 FPGAs in his room mining at about 380 gigahash

A 3.8GH/s FPGA? Me waaaaant one!   Grin Grin Grin

Quote
It's ArtForz, folks. Move along.

Evidence please?
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
Considering ngzhang had about 100 FPGAs in his room mining at about 380 gigahash,
You made me LOL.  Grin

Just a slip of the digit!!
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
Considering ngzhang had about 100 FPGAs in his room mining at about 380 gigahash,
You made me LOL.  Grin
donator
Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015
Considering ngzhang had about 100 FPGAs in his room mining at about 380 gigahash (EDIT: 38), it is entirely possible someone is just mining with FPGAs on their own. We've said his name numerous times, but he's not Beetlejuice. We all know he has the early money and funding to do it and the technical expertise to make it work.

Why isn't he including transactions? Because he doesn't have to. This happened in Bitcoin's history once before.

It's ArtForz, folks. Move along.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Is breaking SHA256 the only way to bypass proof-of-work?  

Yes.  By breaking I mean a pre-image or round reduction attack.

The "work" is taking the hashed block header, double hashing it, and checking if the result in smaller than the target.  It is that simple.

We know that based on probability that on average it will take 2^32 attempts to find a hash below the target at difficulty =1.  To do it in less than 2^32 attempts would require some pre-image or round reduction attack on SHA-256.

donator
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
Is breaking SHA256 the only way to bypass proof-of-work?  
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
If you were smart enough to break SHA-256 and could mint money on a handful of low end computers don't you think you would be smart enough to

a) spread the blocks around (i.e. purchase some dedicated servers around the world)
b) include all transactions.

If that had been done nobody would even know "mystery" existed.  Likely any TH/s rise would be explained away as new BFL Singles coming online.

So someone is smart enough to break SHA-256 an algorithm which entire crypto world has been trying to attack for a decade and yet not smart enough to blend into an anonymous network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

this is the best argument yet that proof of work has not been bypassed...  guess I can keep my gold 1000 btc bar a while longer Wink
donator
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
And if someone figured out a way to cheat, it doesn't automatically mean they completely "solved" SHA256. Even if you find a way to save some magnitudes of time, they'll be king.
This already happened when GPUs started mining (orders of magnitude faster mining). For a while a couple folks made a killing.

This is certainly right.
When I think of cheating I actually thought of bypassing some of the proof-of-work.

But certainly a new technology can do that too; the reason why I don't automatically throw new technologies into the same box as cheating, is that new technologies are part of progress and typically require a large initial investment. Otherwise we would all be mining like crazy with ASICs by now, with an astronomically high difficulty and similar block rate and profit as before.

@D&T. Yeah, the lack of including transactions is indeed something to ponder about.

Maybe this guy had the urge to create a mystery?  Just brain-farting...
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
If you were smart enough to break SHA-256 and could mint money on a handful of low end computers don't you think you would be smart enough to

a) spread the blocks around (i.e. purchase some dedicated servers around the world)
b) include all transactions.

If that had been done nobody would even know "mystery" existed.  Likely any TH/s rise would be explained away as new BFL Singles coming online.

So someone is smart enough to break SHA-256 an algorithm which entire crypto world has been trying to attack for a decade and yet not smart enough to blend into an anonymous network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
And if someone figured out a way to cheat, it doesn't automatically mean they completely "solved" SHA256. Even if you find a way to save some magnitudes of time, they'll be king.

This already happened when GPUs started mining (orders of magnitude faster mining). For a while a couple folks made a killing.
Pages:
Jump to: