Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 26. (Read 60442 times)
If it's a botnet Im fairly sure I will have confirmation of it within a few days, the "active researcher in a major company dealing in antiviral/security-software" I mentioned contacting a few pages back in this thread is actually prettymuch the "biggest star" in he's line of work: I got Mikko H. Hyppönen, the Chief Research Officer of F-Secure to look in to it. As soon as I have more I will be posting here.
If it truly was more worthwhile for him to add transactions, I believe he would be doing that. There are two possible reasons why he is not doing that. Either he can actually keep the miners less noticeable by doing this OR he is doing this with completely malicious intent, probably shorting BTC like hell at the same time. Neither option is good for the rest of us, we have a big problem here that requires immediate attention.
OR transactions on average are only worth 0.3% more than empty blocks. It simply isn't worthwhile to include transactions.
If you were an employer and offered employees $100K just to show up for work and they pay for performance for another $3K max such that the deadbeat who simply shows up and takes a nap gets $100K and the person who kills themselves with stress gets $103K you likely will end up with a lot of workers taking a nap.
If it takes less than 1.795 seconds it's more profit.
If he has a pool server you can divide this time by the number of clients connected to this pool if the pool also does mining.
If the pool doesn't do mining there is no lost at all, only more profit.
If it truly was more worthwhile for him to add transactions, I believe he would be doing that. There are two possible reasons why he is not doing that. Either he can actually keep the miners less noticeable by doing this OR he is doing this with completely malicious intent, probably shorting BTC like hell at the same time. Neither option is good for the rest of us, we have a big problem here that requires immediate attention.
OR transactions on average are only worth 0.3% more than empty blocks. It simply isn't worthwhile to include transactions.
If you were an employer and offered employees $100K just to show up for work and they pay for performance for another $3K max such that the deadbeat who simply shows up and takes a nap gets $100K and the person who kills themselves with stress gets $103K you likely will end up with a lot of workers taking a nap.
Well, it has to do with anything that mining "properly" (adding transactions) would be a lot more worthwhile compared to doing what this guy is doing.
That is true in most cases but it appears that for this guy this is not the case. I believe there is a reason why he's doing this and most likely the reason is that the way he has the mining set up minimizes traffic to and from the miners (infected PC's). There are a few ways this could make sense, not perhaps with the standard mining software but with a software of his own.If it truly was more worthwhile for him to add transactions, I believe he would be doing that. There are two possible reasons why he is not doing that. Either he can actually keep the miners less noticeable by doing this OR he is doing this with completely malicious intent, probably shorting BTC like hell at the same time. Neither option is good for the rest of us, we have a big problem here that requires immediate attention.
Would it be possible for me to modify my bitcoind so that it would refuse to relay transactions blocks to a specified blacklist? That way, it is possible that he won't be notified of new blocks, and will start producing orphans. Same thing in reverse as well - refuse to relay his blocks, causing them to become orphan. Obviously, this would have to be more than just my nodes in order to be effective, but it is an idea that could be somewhat effective.
In theory yes but remember Bitcoin network is designed to be self healing.
If the "blacklist" nodes share info with even a single node that also shares info with "mystery" then he will still receive all updates.
Any mining pool (botnet or not) maintains thousands of connections to nodes to ensure timely updated and rapid broadcasting of new blocks.
Would it be possible for me to modify my bitcoind so that it would refuse to relay transactions blocks to a specified blacklist? That way, it is possible that he won't be notified of new blocks, and will start producing orphans. Same thing in reverse as well - refuse to relay his blocks, causing them to become orphan. Obviously, this would have to be more than just my nodes in order to be effective, but it is an idea that could be somewhat effective.
May be people just need to add fees to their TXes ? 
I don't know what this has to do with anything. The botnet-blocks do not have any transactions in them, ever, regardless of fees. You could add a fee of 1000 BTC and it wouldn't be included in those blocks. I always add a fee of 0.0005 personally because free transactions seem to get stuck more often these days.Well, it has to do with anything that mining "properly" (adding transactions) would be a lot more worthwhile compared to doing what this guy is doing.
May be people just need to add fees to their TXes ?
I don't know what this has to do with anything. The botnet-blocks do not have any transactions in them, ever, regardless of fees. You could add a fee of 1000 BTC and it wouldn't be included in those blocks. I always add a fee of 0.0005 personally because free transactions seem to get stuck more often these days. 
we must find a way to make it unprofitable for any miner to not include any transactions. This requires significant changes to Bitcoin
May be people just need to add fees to their TXes ? :)
I think that Bitcoin devs should put this issue as a high priority. We can't simply wait and trust that this person knows that it's bad for his business if he starts doing this in a larger scale, we must find a way to make it unprofitable for any miner to not include any transactions. This requires significant changes to Bitcoin in my opinion and should be worked on as a priority.
Requesting work from a pool with transactions or without transactions is the same amount of data for the clients.
Yes, if they are indeed working that way. The miners may be doing all the work as solo and relaying the finished work (only when found) as well to a central location.
Unless they are getting work from central nodes or support their own p2p.
This is the typical and IMO arrogant excuse that's been repeated like a dogma over and over. Close our eyes, have faith in Satoshi's bible and all will be well.
Oh well...
Oh well...
Doesn't take a genious to do the maths.
If there is 500Th going on, even getting BFL Minirigs (15k $, ~20Ghash/s) at 10% price would require 375 000 000$ to make 50% ... Nevermind the ~3.1MW consumption ...
If this guy reaches over 50% then we are all royally screwed. BTC is inherently insecure and somebody really needs to fix the 51% issue.
"It will not happen" is not a technological fix and just a lame ass excuse to avoid working on improving the blockchain POW system we currently have.
Nobody is perfect, not even Satoshi or BTC ...
I agree, if this catches on and he or a collective of botnets reaches >51% we'll be reporting to criminals re "improvements" to the bitcoin protocol.
As for 51% attack, as bitcoin grows it becomes even harder and harder to pull of, eventually being near impossible to pull of. Before that point is met, it's just expected that some people might come close to that. But as BTC value drives up, so does miner rewards and that much harder it becomes!
This is the typical and IMO arrogant excuse that's been repeated like a dogma over and over. Close our eyes, have faith in Satoshi's bible and all will be well.
Oh well...
It would be hard, but a consensus of users (who stand to profit by stopping the deterioration of bitcoin) could come up reasonable formulas for the acceptance of transactions in blocks. The 1 trans miner could fix the problem and continue or try to resist. The point is the 1 trans miner would be working against bitcoin and therefore his juicy profits if he did resist. If they are smarter they will either fix it (which could be including just paid transactions) or keep to the rough level they are at now.
Just because one has a ton of power, does not mean using all is in their own best interest. There is a bell curve of profitability for this situation, and they are pretty close to the top right now.
Just because one has a ton of power, does not mean using all is in their own best interest. There is a bell curve of profitability for this situation, and they are pretty close to the top right now.
Never, ever underestimate the stupidity of a script kiddie.
I just had a script kiddie threaten all kinds of DDoS type of attacks on our business, and even log entries with his IP trying to gain access to one of our control panels, and he threatened under his own name, his full contact details inputted into our system and publicly available, and he hosts warez sites under his real identity.
Googling his name resulted in his facebook, google plus accounts plus a lot of other information confirming his identity.
Script kiddies are the most intellectually challenged, ego driven maniacs you can think of. certain things just don't "compute" for them.
and that's not even the only case, i've seen people bragging about doing DoS type of attacks, under their own real name, all verifiable what has happened, and every bit of evidence pointing to them, like asking to get jailed!
As for 51% attack, as bitcoin grows it becomes even harder and harder to pull of, eventually being near impossible to pull of. Before that point is met, it's just expected that some people might come close to that. But as BTC value drives up, so does miner rewards and that much harder it becomes!
It would be hard, but a consensus of users (who stand to profit by stopping the deterioration of bitcoin) could come up reasonable formulas for the acceptance of transactions in blocks. The 1 trans miner could fix the problem and continue or try to resist. The point is the 1 trans miner would be working against bitcoin and therefore his juicy profits if he did resist. If they are smarter they will either fix it (which could be including just paid transactions) or keep to the rough level they are at now.
Just because one has a ton of power, does not mean using all is in their own best interest. There is a bell curve of profitability for this situation, and they are pretty close to the top right now.
Just because one has a ton of power, does not mean using all is in their own best interest. There is a bell curve of profitability for this situation, and they are pretty close to the top right now.
Quote from: Littleshop
If it is a botnet that continues 1 trans blocks (or any fakery of non-real transactions), i hope they realize that anything over 25% will cause the community to really work hard to stop it, and that the distortion of both the selling of the coins and the lost confidence will actually make them have LESS PROFIT. Adding too many machines will kill their $3000 a day.
Any genius idea how you can do that ? BTC is not ran by a maniac like RealScam that can turn off clients he does not like with his pig nodes.
If this guy reaches over 50% then we are all royally screwed. BTC is inherently insecure and somebody really needs to fix the 51% issue.
"It will not happen" is not a technological fix and just a lame ass excuse to avoid working on improving the blockchain POW system we currently have.
Nobody is perfect, not even Satoshi or BTC ...
BTW the IP is now http://blockchain.info/ip-address/85.214.124.168
Seems to me percentage of gaming machines with GPU would be higher in a botnet than in a sample containing "all kinds of machine", because gamers probably tend to run untrusted .exe files and point their browsers to "dangerous" sites above average. They might make up for that by being more knowledgeable and careful about security, but I think the first effect is larger.
I would have thought gamers would be less likely to pick up malware and viruses than your average user. Gamers might venture into dangerous sites, but are they any worse than the majority of people who open emails with an "OMG_Kitties_Inside.ppt" attachment? The number of people who I've seen fall prey to even simple things like the "Your computer has a virus, click here to run a free scan." messages is pretty incredible.
I think it is most likely that an independent party has spent the money to make an ASIC farm, and found it easier to implement without including transactions. Becoming 20% of the network is about where you would find maximum profitability - if you doubled the total network hashrate yourself, you would only be earning 50% as many bitcoins per Thash.
Forgive my newbish ignorance, but depending on how they implemented it if a single entity actually reached 50% of the network with a cASIC would it not lead to basically the end of BTC? If you're a major miner you could look at developing your own ASIC, but the majority of the cost is already sunk for the 50% miner and they could simply churn out more wafers with the same mask. It might not be in the interest of the mystery miner to do a 51% attack, but it would be incredibly risky to sink hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into a cASIC design when there's a very good possibility that the person who's already at 50% could disrupt the network before your hashing power comes online.On the one hand, you're right. If I recall correctly, ArtForz once put it along these lines: Above 50% you're effectively competing against yourself. While it would not directly mean the end of BTC (let's say the >50% miner is benevolent), but it would probably make people feel so uneasy that the trust in bitcoin would deteriorate more and more, probably to the point where the whole things falls apart.
So actually what you'd probably want to do in case you have all the up-front work and cost of ASIC covered is to sell about 50% of your production at the highest price you can get and put the other 50% into your own farm.
If it is a botnet that continues 1 trans blocks (or any fakery of non-real transactions), i hope they realize that anything over 25% will cause the community to really work hard to stop it, and that the distortion of both the selling of the coins and the lost confidence will actually make them have LESS PROFIT. Adding too many machines will kill their $3000 a day.
+1. When most people think "botnet", they seem to be considering only CPU power - but it is entirely possible that the compromised machines have GPUs - and if the user from IRC is to be believed, this is indeed the case, from looking at his hardware manifest.
Seems to me percentage of gaming machines with GPU would be higher in a botnet than in a sample containing "all kinds of machine", because gamers probably tend to run untrusted .exe files and point their browsers to "dangerous" sites above average. They might make up for that by being more knowledgeable and careful about security, but I think the first effect is larger.
I think it is most likely that an independent party has spent the money to make an ASIC farm, and found it easier to implement without including transactions. Becoming 20% of the network is about where you would find maximum profitability - if you doubled the total network hashrate yourself, you would only be earning 50% as many bitcoins per Thash.
Forgive my newbish ignorance, but depending on how they implemented it if a single entity actually reached 50% of the network with a cASIC would it not lead to basically the end of BTC? If you're a major miner you could look at developing your own ASIC, but the majority of the cost is already sunk for the 50% miner and they could simply churn out more wafers with the same mask. It might not be in the interest of the mystery miner to do a 51% attack, but it would be incredibly risky to sink hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into a cASIC design when there's a very good possibility that the person who's already at 50% could disrupt the network before your hashing power comes online.On the one hand, you're right. If I recall correctly, ArtForz once put it along these lines: Above 50% you're effectively competing against yourself. While it would not directly mean the end of BTC (let's say the >50% miner is benevolent), but it would probably make people feel so uneasy that the trust in bitcoin would deteriorate more and more, probably to the point where the whole things falls apart.
So actually what you'd probably want to do in case you have all the up-front work and cost of ASIC covered is to sell about 50% of your production at the highest price you can get and put the other 50% into your own farm.
Jump to: