Pages:
Author

Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 36. (Read 60498 times)

legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
No economic benefit? They are being subsidized by the community for 50BTC per block for Christ's sake. IMO no tx no subsidy,

Just reject the empty blocks and if there are no transactions there is also no use for additional blocks.

They are being subsidized by a magic money-making algorithm, not the community. The mining reward is well thought out as a way of releasing the currency and encouraging blockchain difficulty. The only thing encouraging the inclusion of transactions in the generated block are transaction fees, which recently are approaching zero.

They are subsidized by the community because giving out new coins is diluting existing coins.

Just like I am subsidizing the banking crisis in Europe because the European bank created a trillion euro's out of thin air.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1036
Yup, 195.234.103.99 (on Alpha Networks Austria) seems to be doing the same thing, not including any transactions, so it's the same operation or someone that liked the idea. They are finding a block every ~1.5 hours, which is some serious hashing.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000

well,  IMO  they have changed the IP to    195.234.103.99

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1036
Interesting block.
Would it be possible the owner of the 1VayNert... address is the mining pool that did a large payout to multiple addresses and didn't broadcast these transactions over the network but generated this block?
It would be an interesting idea for mining pools not to pay transaction fees if they can create blocks themselves for confirming the transactions.
That address and block is indeed deepbit, they don't pay any fees when sending, which means that miners may have to wait a long time to get their payouts. The payout address has a big balance of mature coins though (edit: correction - they are currently paying unconfirmed coins). The only pool including free transactions that break fee rules is Eligius.

Like you suggest, Eligius pays out by designating the 50BTC block-finding reward be split and paid directly to it's miners and not to their own wallet, which means they don't need a fee since they aren't re-sending coins, but the newly-minted coins need to mature 120 blocks before they can be spent.
hero member
Activity: 1596
Merit: 502
No economic benefit? They are being subsidized by the community for 50BTC per block for Christ's sake. IMO no tx no subsidy,

Just reject the empty blocks and if there are no transactions there is also no use for additional blocks.

They are being subsidized by a magic money-making algorithm, not the community. The mining reward is well thought out as a way of releasing the currency and encouraging blockchain difficulty. The only thing encouraging the inclusion of transactions in the generated block are transaction fees, which recently are approaching zero.
Interesting block.
Would it be possible the owner of the 1VayNert... address is the mining pool that did a large payout to multiple addresses and didn't broadcast these transactions over the network but generated this block?
It would be an interesting idea for mining pools not to pay transaction fees if they can create blocks themselves for confirming the transactions.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1036
No economic benefit? They are being subsidized by the community for 50BTC per block for Christ's sake. IMO no tx no subsidy,

Just reject the empty blocks and if there are no transactions there is also no use for additional blocks.

They are being subsidized by a magic money-making algorithm, not the community. The mining reward is well thought out as a way of releasing the currency and encouraging blockchain difficulty. The only thing encouraging the inclusion of transactions in the generated block are transaction fees, which recently are approaching zero.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
No economic benefit? They are being subsidized by the community for 50BTC per block for Christ's sake. IMO no tx no subsidy,

Just reject the empty blocks and if there are no transactions there is also no use for additional blocks.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1036
Why would anyone push out 0 tx transactions without malicious intent? Putting in the transactions costs negligible effort, rakes in a little bit of fees and helps Bitcoin in the long run 9which is in the advanatge of someone miningtois because this is a driver, albeit small, for the price of Bicoins.

Maybe they are saying FU to including transactions that have no economic benefit. If people started including 0.1+ BTC fees (which is like the minimum you'd pay with PayPal), that would encourage miners with no interest other than financial gain not to miss out on the extra income.

More likely it is easier for their operation to not update transactions with getworks/etc. If they have a botnet that is reducing the possibility of detection by only transmitting new blocks (e.g. just a single open long poll to a command and control server), they can't include transactions other than old ones, ones that have already been passed on by the last block's miner.
hero member
Activity: 1596
Merit: 502
Rejecting empty blocks would be a bad idea.
If a block is generated with all the transactions so there are no more unconfirmed transactions, all hashing would stop until someone makes a new transaction.

About the botnet idea, why only one 'exit-node' to submit the work to the bitcoin network?
If I would make such a botnet, I would create multiple smaller networks within the big network so I wouldn't have to host them and they won't get to much load.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
Why would anyone push out 0 tx transactions without malicious intent? Putting in the transactions costs negligible effort, rakes in a little bit of fees and helps Bitcoin in the long run 9which is in the advanatge of someone miningtois because this is a driver, albeit small, for the price of Bicoins.

This seems scary. Can we adapt our bitcoind's to reject empty blocks? The if at least 51% of the network uses such an altered Bitcoind such a choking attack will be nullified.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
watching

Goat, just click 'notify' instead of posting in the thread to 'watch' it

But then they wouldn't get their precious post count as high as it is Tongue

Hmm, yeah I guess that makes sense.

And here I was think GigaVPS was just trolling after my post
lol. Clicking "notify" enables email notifications, but doesn't subscribe the thread to your "new posts" replies page.
c_k
donator
Activity: 242
Merit: 100
watching

Goat, just click 'notify' instead of posting in the thread to 'watch' it

But then they wouldn't get their precious post count as high as it is Tongue

Hmm, yeah I guess that makes sense.

And here I was think GigaVPS was just trolling after my post
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
Simple answer: Spain enforces every citizen to bitcoin mine to make up for the countries limited TAX returns Wink
What do you mean?
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
What's a GPU?
watching

Goat, just click 'notify' instead of posting in the thread to 'watch' it

But then they wouldn't get their precious post count as high as it is Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
Just to be completely clear, everything I'm posting is pure theory.  There is nothing that says 88.6.216.9 is a botnet bitcoind node, or has any setup like what I described above.  A lot of what I've posted came from originally looking at what it would take to redesign the current miner/pool communication model, but modified to how it could work if designed for a malicious user.

I suppose in the end this is preferred to the alternative:  1 million bot miners bouncing between pools and taking them offline with the obscene levels of overhead/traffic it would generate if acting legit.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
I see, interesting. I can understand that a solominer of this scale would need fewer resources than a proxy. It would be fun to know exactly how much resource would be needed.

Tough to say exactly what you'd need to respond to it, but just some rough numbers.  Assuming a 1 million bot botnet (which might be conservative):

If each bot checks in once per minute to see if the block has changed, you're looking at 16.6k connections per second.  Lets assume its still using HTTP just for simplicity.  The response will be ~200 bytes including headers/overhead give or take if no block change has occurred, and ~300 bytes if it did (a response would have to include wallet address, prevblockhash, and difficulty).  A block change every 10 minutes would mean every 10 minutes you have 2375 bytes of data being transferred, per bot.

That comes out to 1.95 gigabytes per 10 minutes, or 27 mbps.  You'd probably have a fairly even distribution since each bot started at different times, though it would actually be 25 mbps 9 minutes out of 10, and 38 mbps for the minute after a block change.

16.6k connections per second is the real bottleneck there.  However, if the system was distributed to where the slaves contact any one of 25 cheap $5 VPSes, you have about 600 connections per second, and each VPS would only need ~1 mbps of transfer.  Basically 1 hour worth of bot activity would likely pay for an entire month of servers.  They could add/remove servers quickly and use DNS as a method for distributing the bots without a central control location.


The above is why I stated this type of activity is scary, even though it is inevitable.  You're looking at a system that could easily grow to make up a majority of the network, for a few hundred dollars a month in expenses to the operator.  It can, and eventually will make mining unprofitable for any legitimate party*.  It would be good for network security, unless it was turned into a 51% attack attempt.  Alternatively, it could be a sort of strangulation attack, where the the botnet is pumping out 0 tx blocks, and difficulty gets driven up to the point legit blocks can't fit all the transactions into them, causing a growing backlog.

*: By "any legitimate party" I'm not including very small miners. While some people do have free electricity, very few can grow beyond a few GPUs before a landlord gets suspicious/angry.  And even then, it could reach the point where the mining income doesn't match the cost to replace dying hardware.
c_k
donator
Activity: 242
Merit: 100
watching

Goat, just click 'notify' instead of posting in the thread to 'watch' it
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
watching
posting
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
As you yourself have pointed out previously, such a large botnet would require a massive investment in proxy hardware that could stand up to it. I would be interested in what kind of profits such a botnet would have, after deducting the cost of the proxy.

Also, I heard something on IRC back in November about some guy that had access to "some kind of hardware" and was asking us how to utilize it without anyone being able to locate it. Our advice was to run a proxy from his home or from a cheap VPS. Still wondering how that turned out, as well as what the hardware might have been.

I stated previously the kind of hardware it would take for a botnet to proxy around and use a traditional pool.  THIS type of behavior would be drastically different.  A custom coded server that responds to a bot with:  UniqueWallet,PrevBlockHash,Difficulty, and a solo miner that takes that information and continually generates its own work instead of relying on a central bitcoind to generate work on its behalf.
I see, interesting. I can understand that a solominer of this scale would need fewer resources than a proxy. It would be fun to know exactly how much resource would be needed.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 502
I bet this company here is testing one of their fpga/asic products: http://www.sevensols.com/

It's located in Granada, Spain. That's where the ip is from.

Well colour me chocolate, that is a good find Smiley
Pages:
Jump to: