[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2033.

Buratino

legendary

Activity: 1151

Merit: 1003

Hehe, seems lasybear is that "someone C++ skilled". Grin

Пpивeт, пoдeлиcь cвoими нapaбoткaми cooбщecтвy, дyмaю, зa этo тeбe пoлaгaeтcя пpиз. Я cкинycь нa бayнти, ecли ты coглaceн.
[Hi, contribute please your work to community, i think you should be rewarded. I also will send donation to you, if you agree.]

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

lazybear are you interested in a bounty to release the source code (maybe cleaned up a bit?) your optimized miner?

If not, I'll probably play around with the code myself tomorrow and see if I can come up with something, or maybe Noodle Doodle will take an interest.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:27:09 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 06:10:18 AM

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

A screen shot of simpleminer if its an optimized version would suffice next to screenshot of the system screen showing the CPU.

If its a complete separate miner a screen shot of that miner including the command used to start it which should show an MRO address.

Failing that, the source code will do Wink

Sorry, very big...

Thats more like it Wink

Are you mining to your own pool?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ?? on ??

Hypothetically, were I to write a silent miner for a botnet, I would make it use far less CPU when the user is on it. Maybe 25% to 50% of the CPU. This is not obvious to the user, and when the system goes idle, I simply kick the miner into full gear. You might say Windows defaults cause the system to suspend/hibernate when idle, but I can easily change that from my code, and 99% of users would never think anything of it.

If you kick up to full gear, the computer will run loud and hot (especially laptops) and definitely be noticeable. Granny will ask her 12 year old grandkid computer expect why her computer is always making a ton of noise when she's not using it, and the kid will figure it out.

This is especially true for the typical consumer grade (not enthusiast) PC that is not thermally optimized. In fact even 25% may be noticeable, especially if such botnets become widespread and people are warned to look for precisely that.

Operating systems may adapt too. The new Mac OS has something called App Nap that puts applications to sleep when they don't have a visible window. Apps can request to not be put to sleep and this is currently invisible, but widespread mining bot nets would motivate a feature where any app programmatically consuming CPU must have an icon in the menu bar or some similar visible indicator. Something similar already exists in some mobile OSs.

Everyone and everything adapts. You can't assume that bot nets do X, Y, or Z on a widespread basis and nothing else changes. You have to game it out to see what actually might happen, and even that is usually wrong.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

Finally, someone who knows their asshole from their elbow when it comes to botnet administration. However, you are wrong about one thing: If I write my miner correctly, the average user will never know it's there.

Hypothetically, were I to write a silent miner for a botnet, I would make it use far less CPU when the user is on it. Maybe 25% to 50% of the CPU. This is not obvious to the user, and when the system goes idle, I simply kick the miner into full gear. You might say Windows defaults cause the system to suspend/hibernate when idle, but I can easily change that from my code, and 99% of users would never think anything of it.

As this author, I know the idea is to keep as many bots as I can for as long as I can. Therefore, I will not abuse my bots by running a miner at 100% on them at any point where I think the user would notice. If someone has a slow computer, they will do a malware scan or just outright reinstall - and if they can't, they will find someone who can. This is why you keep the users happy.

So, correctly implemented mining malware not very easily noticed by most users, therefore, it's easy money.

P.S. About the DDoS thing, most users won't notice the DDoS itself, but the consequences may hit the user right in the face - people being constantly harassed by way of a DDoS have a tendency to start sending notifications of abuse to the ISPs of the bots. If the ISP contacts the user because they keep getting abuse emails, that's something the user would have a hard time ignoring if they tried.

Some very good points.

In regards to the silent miner, I think its interesting to speculate what sort of PC's are infected and the hardware that they are likely to be running. From what I can ascertain the majority of botnets are comprised of low hardware PC's.

This brings up a number of considerations.

One being the actual HR you can get from 25% of a pentium 4 for example. I agree that if you have 1000's of PC's its still likely to = a high HR but not too many botnets particularly private ones that aren't rented out for bigger purposes are that large.

Another being that if they are running low powered machines, 25-50% of cpu usage is still likely to make other simple tasks mundanely slow. In addition just because the PC is idle doesn't mean you can't see or hear it being hot or loud.

lasybear

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 14

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 06:10:18 AM

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

A screen shot of simpleminer if its an optimized version would suffice next to screenshot of the system screen showing the CPU.

If its a complete separate miner a screen shot of that miner including the command used to start it which should show an MRO address.

Failing that, the source code will do Wink

Sorry, very big...

One i5 and One e5 connected to local pool:

eizh

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

I agree on the implementation part. They'll have to take complex, obfuscated code and try to put it in without breaking anything. They'll likely need someone who's damn good at higher math, if not a cryptographer.

Yes, I expect this should restrict adoption in Bitcoin-based alts for a significant time to come. CryptoNote was a genuine research effort with professional cryptographers involved. The result is actually a modified version of what exists in academic literature rather than a direct implementation (in order to block double spends). Impressive stuff. Easy to promise, but delivery is going to be tough. I do hope someone tries, though. Maybe we'll actually get something well-documented and understandable. Cheesy

lasybear

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 14

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

Source code would be good (and useful!). Alternately, I guess, you could have a trusted person test it.

Heh ) How are you think, how high difficulty will grow up after?
BTW my source additions are too ugly to show others - I'm not a pro ) But it works )

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

A screen shot of simpleminer if its an optimized version would suffice next to screenshot of the system screen showing the CPU.

If its a complete separate miner a screen shot of that miner including the command used to start it which should show an MRO address.

Failing that, the source code will do Wink

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: lasybear on May 16, 2014, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

Source code would be good (and useful!). Alternately, I guess, you could have a trusted person test it.

lasybear

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 14

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:58:56 AM

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

Ok. What are you can accept as evidence? Other words, what you want to see?

Ivan166

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 107

Russian thread updated.
Does multi language support in monero.cc work properly? I don't think so. Earlier I did Russian translation for main Monero website.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

^^^ again thats not evidence.

You don't know what coins or processor is doing that mining. Not saying its not true just that that's not real evidence.

lasybear

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 14

Quote from: Buratino on May 16, 2014, 05:46:44 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:41:37 AM

Quote from: Buratino on May 16, 2014, 05:30:27 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:13:16 AM

Evidence?

I posted it earlier:

Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.

I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell.

You don't see a lot of evidence for it in the hash rate. Currently a 20 H/sec computer mines about 2 coins a day, worth about $1, and uses very roughly 30c of electricity (15c/kwh rate). So it is still quite profitable to mine this coin using a regular computer and the standard miner. It does require extreme patience though, with no pools available yet.

Yes, I can't prove that, I didn't see any proofs. But I don't think that he lied us. There is no reasons.

i5

Code:

[2014-05-16 13:54:57] accepted: 48/48 (100.00%), 137.72 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:54:57] thread 2: 7 hashes, 21.35 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:54:58] accepted: 49/49 (100.00%), 121.27 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:54:58] thread 2: 7 hashes, 21.49 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:54:58] thread 0: 40 hashes, 26.60 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:54:59] thread 1: 88 hashes, 30.90 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:54:59] accepted: 50/50 (100.00%), 110.51 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:54:59] thread 2: 7 hashes, 36.26 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:00] accepted: 51/51 (100.00%), 125.27 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:00] accepted: 52/52 (100.00%), 125.27 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:01] accepted: 53/53 (100.00%), 125.27 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:01] thread 2: 7 hashes, 21.45 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:01] accepted: 54/54 (100.00%), 110.46 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:02] thread 3: 159 hashes, 32.07 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:02] thread 0: 40 hashes, 30.40 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:02] thread 2: 7 hashes, 24.43 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:02] accepted: 55/55 (100.00%), 117.80 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:03] accepted: 56/56 (100.00%), 117.80 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:03] thread 2: 7 hashes, 21.39 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:04] thread 0: 40 hashes, 27.27 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:04] thread 1: 88 hashes, 28.45 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:04] accepted: 57/57 (100.00%), 109.18 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:05] accepted: 58/58 (100.00%), 109.18 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:05] thread 2: 43 hashes, 37.23 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:05] accepted: 59/59 (100.00%), 125.02 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:06] accepted: 60/60 (100.00%), 125.02 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:06] thread 3: 162 hashes, 33.04 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:08] thread 3: 23 hashes, 21.37 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:08] thread 2: 43 hashes, 23.45 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:08] accepted: 61/61 (100.00%), 100.53 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:09] accepted: 62/62 (100.00%), 100.53 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:09] thread 3: 23 hashes, 27.27 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:10] accepted: 63/63 (100.00%), 106.44 hashes/s (yay!!!)

e5

Code:

[2014-05-16 13:55:40] thread 9: 11 hashes, 14.14 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:41] accepted: 83/83 (100.00%), 196.97 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:41] accepted: 84/84 (100.00%), 196.97 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:41] thread 4: 13 hashes, 15.87 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:42] accepted: 85/85 (100.00%), 200.53 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:42] thread 8: 66 hashes, 14.64 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 10: 86 hashes, 17.07 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 11: 91 hashes, 17.54 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] accepted: 86/86 (100.00%), 198.35 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 3: 93 hashes, 17.88 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 2: 81 hashes, 15.38 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 7: 89 hashes, 16.61 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 0: 85 hashes, 15.82 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] accepted: 87/87 (100.00%), 195.78 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 0: 2 hashes, 13.63 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:43] thread 6: 89 hashes, 15.28 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:44] accepted: 88/88 (100.00%), 191.45 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:44] thread 0: 2 hashes, 13.00 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:44] thread 1: 35 hashes, 16.89 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:45] accepted: 89/89 (100.00%), 189.38 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:45] thread 0: 2 hashes, 12.28 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:45] thread 3: 22 hashes, 12.19 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:45] accepted: 90/90 (100.00%), 182.96 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:46] accepted: 91/91 (100.00%), 182.96 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:47] accepted: 92/92 (100.00%), 182.96 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:47] thread 0: 2 hashes, 12.71 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:48] thread 11: 64 hashes, 14.06 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:48] thread 5: 77 hashes, 15.58 hashes/s
[2014-05-16 13:55:48] accepted: 93/93 (100.00%), 180.41 hashes/s (yay!!!)
[2014-05-16 13:55:48] thread 0: 2 hashes, 10.20 hashes/s

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Buratino on May 16, 2014, 05:46:44 AM

Yes, I can't prove that, I didn't see any proofs. But I don't think that he lied us. There is no reasons.

There are a few reasons I can think of;

Casting doubt over whether the devs have released the best miner they can.

Discouraging others from mining as there's no point if you have a 4 times faster miner.

I could go on, Im not saying he was lying but saying there are no reasons isn't true.

Buratino

legendary

Activity: 1151

Merit: 1003

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:41:37 AM

Quote from: Buratino on May 16, 2014, 05:30:27 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:13:16 AM

Evidence?

I posted it earlier:

Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.

I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell.

You don't see a lot of evidence for it in the hash rate. Currently a 20 H/sec computer mines about 2 coins a day, worth about $1, and uses very roughly 30c of electricity (15c/kwh rate). So it is still quite profitable to mine this coin using a regular computer and the standard miner. It does require extreme patience though, with no pools available yet.

Yes, I can't prove that, I didn't see any proofs. But I don't think that he lied us. There is no reasons.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Buratino on May 16, 2014, 05:30:27 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:13:16 AM

Evidence?

I posted it earlier:

Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.

I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell.

You don't see a lot of evidence for it in the hash rate. Currently a 20 H/sec computer mines about 2 coins a day, worth about $1, and uses very roughly 30c of electricity (15c/kwh rate). So it is still quite profitable to mine this coin using a regular computer and the standard miner. It does require extreme patience though, with no pools available yet.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: fiddelingones on May 16, 2014, 05:38:03 AM

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:12:34 AM

Botnets are very good for some things and not very good for others. The bottom line is the owner of a botnet wants to keep his botnet as large as possible and for as much as is possible, undetected.

This means two things, this is risky for the owner of the botnet as he may have people de-infect their PC or turn it off altogether, this also makes these botnets very expensive to rent. This then throws into question not just risk/reward but whether you will actually break even.

The more valuable the CPU only coin is the more you can expect botnet to be used. Im affraid but if the coin is as valuable as Bitcoin, botnets would have majority of mined blocks.

The more valuable a coin the more you can expect any miner to be used. Yeah but its not as valuable as Bitcoin so you have no point.

fiddelingones

full member

Activity: 127

Merit: 100

Quote from: dreamspark on May 16, 2014, 05:12:34 AM

Botnets are very good for some things and not very good for others. The bottom line is the owner of a botnet wants to keep his botnet as large as possible and for as much as is possible, undetected.

This means two things, this is risky for the owner of the botnet as he may have people de-infect their PC or turn it off altogether, this also makes these botnets very expensive to rent. This then throws into question not just risk/reward but whether you will actually break even.

The more valuable the CPU only coin is the more you can expect botnet to be used. Im affraid but if the coin is as valuable as Bitcoin, botnets would have majority of mined blocks.

Buratino

legendary

Activity: 1151

Merit: 1003

Quote from: smooth on May 16, 2014, 05:13:16 AM

Evidence?

I posted it earlier:

Quote from: Buratino on May 08, 2014, 09:09:39 PM

Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very unoptimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet.
Can the dev's core review code for that?

Also he (someone C++ skilled) wrote later:

Quote

I used ASM code inserts and SSE, AES-NI optimizations.

model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4430 CPU @ 3.00GHz
...
hashrate: 76

model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz
...
hashrate: 145
...

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2033. (Read 4670562 times)