Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 19. (Read 60498 times)

This^^ 1000x this^^

But I changed my opinion. Let this thread be. This way we learn who are the persons who use Bitcoin for it's properties and the one's that just want to make a quick buck and who'll turn their back and go away the moment it stops being profitable for them.

Bitcoin as it currently is, is nearing perfection of what is achievable in real world right now.
Any action against MM (if there is such) will make it worse. Like sticking training wheels on a GSXR.

But you can do something about MM ... Increase your hashing power and earn more!

Were your TXes guaranteed to be confirmed in some specific timeframe ?

Transactions are being delayed? Haven't noticed... And I have couple thousand transactions on the last 2 months only, sent and received.

There is no need for a protocol change. At least on Bitcoin. If you want control start using Solidcoin. Bitcoin is not for you.
6 months ago I would probably agree with you, but not now. I'm learning to appreciate the decentralized, no control nature of Bitcoin.
A sage Portuguese poet said about Coca-Cola in 1927: Primeiro estranha-se, depois entranha-se.
Translation: At first it's unfamiliar, then it strikes root. And interestingly enough, the slogan he made for Coca-Cola was refused, not by Coca-Cola itself, but by the fascist regime that ruled Portugal back then.
I feel the same way about Bitcoin

Speaking of evidence, it would seem that luke-jr has made some changes to bitcoind that allowed him to log the actual ip addresses that are pushing out these blocks.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.812474

While most of us in the thread may be greedy miners, we are the only way transaction happen within the network. So unless everyone is ready for bitcoin to fail, might as well let us greedy miners have our fun.

No. 
That is untrue.  Transactions are being delayed.   The questing is if the harm is significant enough to warrant doing anything.  Currently I say no.  But interested parties should monitor the situation.


This is not a court case, it is a discussion.   I personally do not recommend doing anything other then watching and discussing possible protocol changes that would encourage better miner behavior. 

It is also reasonable to look for possible botnet behavior.  It is unreasonable to file abuse reports at this time as no direct evidence has been found as of now.   

Just lock this nonsense thread. Please.

As a bitcoin user I'm not being harmed in any way whatsoever.

And I say that greedy miners can go fuck themselves.
All others who think this is bad for Bitcoin for so and so reasons: You have no proof whatsoever. IRC bragging won't hold up in any court anywhere. Just quit it. It's for the best.

There are no issues with empty blocks.

i always wondered why that happened, thanks for explaining.

I pondered a few days over the MM issue and came with the conclusion that we will have to make bitcoin client "smarter", like the people that use it, to avoid issues like this. The easier way to try solving empty blocks issue would be:

- track source ip of incoming txs in memory
- client wouldn't accept only blocks from other peers, while working normally (not downloading blockchain), should have at least a few txs from that peer in memory
- blocks should contain at least one incoming transaction from that peer

Empty blocks are like blank pages in a book but they come with a prize for the miner even when not writing anything on it. I know sometimes even big pools can come up with a <1 sec empty block (freebie) so it will be the miners election if they want a better network quality (no empty blocks) or situations like this in the future.

TL;DR Miners will have to decide over the MM issue with their hashing power.

Right after receiving a new block.

I don't like it either and I'm not suggesting to do this, I was merely improving a bit on the initial "idea".

I understand the "orphan attack on a node", but please explain why "sometimes bitcoin just have to create 1tx blocks even when there are lots of TXes" ? Right after startup?

Someone can connect to your node from different IPs, fill your memory pool with TXes and then you'll orphan yourself.
Of course it's not that easy, but I don't like this way. Also sometimes bitcoin just have to create 1tx blocks even when there are lots of TXes.

All I know is that my normal daily mining earnings have crippled. I don't like it. I feel like I should whine. Really though, people here are right. Mining is a business, we should upgrade if we don't like what we're earning, etc. We can view this as a great motivation to find cheaper ways to pump out hashes. Sort of like an renewable energy crisis. "Somebody is using up 10% of the oil we're used to getting. We either stop him from getting the oil that could be ours, or we find a new way to power our stuff". Not greatest analogy, but meh.

That's why I got another card. Bring on the hashes.

I agree that a botnet mining network isn't fair. it isn't right. But it isn't our jobs to control that. BitCoin network will work it out itself (through our own hash pushes making the botnet worthless in ratio retrospect. There are more of us than there are of them.)

Just my 2 Satoshis. 

He creates a single 1 satoshi transaction from one account he owns to another.  Tada 2 tx block. 

you should have t-shirts made that say that!

Got Milk?

all the talks about pushing against this MM is just plain stupid. Stoppind 1tx blocks? Oh come on.
You guys are asking exactly what bitcoin is the opposite of: Central authority.

There is no proof of botnet, there is no proof of any ill doing what so ever. Every miner is free to choose to include TXs or not to. TX fees will adjust for that *EVENTUALLY*.
This could just be some HONEST miner who made a huge investment. This could be BFL testing all their singles, rigs etc. ie. for 800Ghash it takes "only" 1000 BFL Singles, or 40 mini rigs! *40*, not 40000, not 4000, but 40. The full blown rigs you would only need 16 of!
16*30k$ = 480k $. Hardly a sizeable investment in grand scale of things.

Even if this MM has 4Thash, and does not include TXs, he is increasing the strength of BTC, as long as he doesn't exceed 50% and does something stupid. Even without including transactions.

But no, you guys are asking for Central Friggin' Authority. You want that? Well go use Paypal, and don't whine when they freeze your account for receiving too much in a week!
Being under the whims of a central authority is a no go for you? Then don't demand that for bitcoin.

People demanding all kinds of actions against this MM are actually doing much more damage to BTC than the MM is. Infact, as i see, MM is increasing the overall strength of BTC. Only downside he is causing right now is slightly slower transactions.
Sure, YOUR mining revenues for now are lower, but in the long term you will gain more. BTC price will eventually follow.

Every single Ghash added to the network makes just that much unlikely anyone could take over 50% of the network. When we reach a point where 1billion USD investment is not sufficient to take 50% of the network BTC starts being really strong. Currently at newegg list prices that purchases roughly as 4x7970 rigs 754Thash. You only need roughly 10mil $ right now to take 65-70% of the network.

Like it or not, but we do need the hashing strength of MM. He was capable of doing what, 1.4Thash? That's just 10%! And doesn't he keep the operation off most of the time?

Are we even sure this is just 1 party? No.

So the price drops, and this thread become hot.

here's a patch to bitcoind (git) that logs the ip-addresses from which 1-tx-blocks are received: http://pastebin.com/EgJAGnSj

so in case someone sees his own IP in this thread, you could go ahead and identify the origin

The one trans blocks are now appearing to come from Eligius