Is the BCC pool still active? All you need is the internet. Replacing them breaks it. A layer to cross both blockchains Example: Using Vertcoin to pay and get paid is easy and accessible to everyone.
OP is being altruistic and losing money by doing this. This is where one miner, or mining pool , does not publish and distribute a valid solution to the rest of the network. OP, I love this, a truly awesome thing to do. The ones between that minimum difficulty and the network difficulty are just shares that prove that they are working for the network. A further solution is to discriminate against a block depending on the timestamp it was released — so if a miner releases a long list of blocks in one shot — then the rest of the network would weight their validity against the timestamp they were hashed and the timestamp they were reported to the network.
koers bitcoin 2010 chevy silverado В»
To mining Bitcoin secure against Sybil attacks, Eyal and Sirer argue, honest miners should switch to the selfish of propagating all blocks and if they receive multiple competing chains of the same length mining on a random one. Thank you for the help in this fight. Such that the delay is increased on processing mined hash or they will bitcointalk be vertcoine to process bitcointalk. I thought that miners in pools don't know which has wins a block, they only vertcoine hashing a portion of the data at a mining difficulty, not the real block itself. Verified with Deep Vault. Don't forget Twitter and Reddit. So even if pool software problems selfish the earlier apparent bad luck, those should have been fixed for more than a week, yet the bad luck continues.
usd to bitcoin chart history В»
As it stands now every miner is paid on every block. Being paid out every day or two is low enough variance for pretty much anyone.
Include a method for recovering orphaned shares. I would propose allowing and even slightly incentivizing miners to name 2 or more shares as the precursor to their own when mining, provided both are at the same share height and parent.
The sharechain does not verify transactions so this does not present a double-spending vulnerability. With these changes you could viably have a large P2Pool where even relatively small miners get pretty low variance. No, that doesn't work. If it did, you wouldn't send it to another pool, you would just send the whole 25 BTC to yourself ;.
To be more specific, the reason why it doesn't work is that when mining, you basically build a hash of the content of the block. If you were to change the coinbase address, the hash would be different and your solution wouldn't be valid anymore. No, because the header and thus the coinbase mining payout is also hashed in the proof-of-work.
Replacing them breaks it. It breaks my heart to see desperate attempts to fix fundamental design flaws of a technology with political intervention, benevolent cheating, duct tape, and prayers. If you can, exploit it. It's better to break it sooner than later. If it's broke, fix it. The bitcoin devs have no plans to fix it. Fortunately a new coin with a goos pos system is around the corner.
Personally, this kind of attack imo is not the right way to go about it. Obviously things like this will happen, but really moving hash to another pool rather than punishing everyone at your current pool is more constructive, even if it doesn't achieve the end goal. Because if bitcoin is about freedom from control, then this action is the opposite, in a similar way that ghash. The attacker decides which pool is bad and attacks. There is no decentralised opinion or consensus.
Thank god we are smarter than the developers! It's somewhat dishonest to lie about your motives. You claim that they are a bad pool that is harmful; however, other than talking about some old attacks on 0 confirm transactions, nobody is saying that they are anything except popular, which! Whenever it comes to fucking with people's money should should almost always go with the default of don't fucking do it.
Things get a little murky when you say that the person being attacked is fucking with people's money causing lower prices due to panic but that is one twisted rabbit hole you want to go down.
If Obama buying Bitcoin would make it go down should he not be allowed to buy it? Anyhow, it's fucking suck. I do know one thing though, threads like these show everyone exactly what Bitcoin is all about. Deception, no, but I suspect this is against the ToS of Ghash. IO which still makes it dishonest, even in total anarchy. As for morality, well that is relative to your values. Can you describe the principle you apply making it okay to attack one pool but not another?
What is a pool that is okay to attack, and what is one that not okay to attack, and what is fundamental difference between the two? You can attack any pool you want at any time. If there aren't limitations at the protocol level, you have to assume it will happen. That's kind of the point of this whole experiment;. Does that mean if everyone exits the network at once leaving just you it's okay to attack you? That's niggling the point.
If enough leave making him the largest remaining is it okay to attack him even though he didn't do anything but run the protocol? Well that's not what you said. I thought that miners in pools don't know which has wins a block, they only are hashing a portion of the data at a low difficulty, not the real block itself.
How exactly do you know when your hash is one that would actually find a block? Miners are computing the complete hash, but they have to compute the hash of a block that pays out to the pool. This prevents them from taking a good hash for themselves. In normal, honest mining the miners report all hashes they find that are above a minimum difficulty.
The ones between that minimum difficulty and the network difficulty are just shares that prove that they are working for the network. Shares that are above the network difficulty are reported to the pool which publishes it to mine a block. The nature of the mining algorithm prevents a miner from looking for hashes that will get them shares without looking for hashes that will mine the block for the pool.
However, they are free to look at the hash once computed and to choose not to report it. This is generally a bad idea for them since it causes the pool to not get that block, which would have given them a slightly higher payout.
However, the premise of pooled mining is that unlucky miners get paid for work that doesn't mine blocks so this attack is brutally effective at harming a pool. If the miner themselves aren't doing the SHA work on the entire block header, who is? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of mining, since the only thing that matters in the end is the hash of the entire header?
Stratum focuses on giving miners the minimal information they need to construct block headers on their own: I'm truly depressed about Bitcoin more than ever before. Third parties like Gox can screw up, but not Bitcoin!. Taking the centralised part of Bitcoin away means I'm working with a new beast. Questioning how much I'm going to sell off. Ethereum is perhaps the way to go. Bitcoin is not really that big. Ethereum or another could rise quick enough. Have you published your patch?
Maybe share the code so that others might be able to do they same if they wish. That's not what selfish mining means. Selfish mining is strategy for delayed publishing of blocks that maximizes orphan blocks for other miners. This is really not a solution. Do you really think the issue is with ghash? Exactly, just move pools. Ghash isn't necessarily doing anything wrong. They just happen to have one of the best business models and admin interfaces for mining pools. FYI People mine on ghash.
I highly doubt they want to harm bitcoin in any way. The lack of identity will make the conversation that much more confusing. Imagine searching google for "coin". It's not really THAT much better. So "I highly doubt they want to harm bitcoin" is not good enough.
I've never heard of selfish mining before. I'm off to google this. Anyone want to give me some cliff notes for the road? This is not actually selfish mining. Selfish mining refers to pools hiding their blocks from the rest of the network. Basically, if they find a block, they hold it back and work as if that block is already in play. If someone else broadcasts a block, then they broadcast their own block. At that point it's a race. But, if they mine the next block on their own chain, they will win if someone submits a single block.
Once they find a second block, they will beat anyone's single block. Once they find a third block, they beat any two blocks, etc etc etc. The more hashpower you have, the higher statistical advantage you receive. That would be an obvious move and the rest of the network would detect it and revolt. The more likely manifestation would be somebody uses it to get a few extra blocks, while letting the other miners have fewer, and blames the whole thing on luck.
This can only happen if you have the majority of the network. Indeed, orphan rate is a pretty good indicator of whether or not someone is selfish mining with any success. The orphan rate will definitely show even if the attack is used with some level of finesse. Eventually we'd see a rise in statistics. It would just take longer for people to believe it's malicious and not luck. The Bitcoin tip for 1 beer 5. Are the miners that make up the pool really to blame here? So, please post your modified source on github so others can do the same.
If the free market's self-interested participants chose ultimate self-interest selfish mining , then large centralized pool mining will become less profitable than more decentralized mining, right? Block withholding which is what this guy is doing is not in most miners' interest. It also hurts decentralised pools just as much as centralised ones What you're describing is not what "selfish mining" actually means. What you're doing isn't "selfish mining", it's just being a dick and defrauding totally innocent miners who have every right to use ghash if they choose.
They share non winning hashes to appear to be working, but if they find a winning one they don't broadcast it. This causes them to earn a payout while not actually providing useful work. The goal is either to drain the pool's resources or to make it appear "unlucky" in hopes of driving people to other pools. Well, selfish mining involves withholding winning blocks, but for a different purpose and they eventually announce them all.
They keep blocks, but only so they can keep mining off that block before others get the chance. The goal with selfish mining is to get the rest of the network to waste their time. They can determine with high probability. This just happened with Eligius. Basically given enough hashes eventually you should find a winning one. If an actor is sending you a whole bunch of losing hashes and never a winner, you can say with some probability that an attack is occurring.
Link to Eligius operating announcing block withholding attack: My point with asking that is, if the pool can do that, can't they also blacklist anyone attempting to defraud them? I realize that the miner will just leave the pool, but that doesn't hurt the pool if they aren't sending their winning hashes anyway. It's trivial to exit and rejoin the pool under a different identity with a new IP address and start the attack right back up again.
The interesting thing here is the attack has an effect right away but can only be detected some time later when you notice the probabilities of seeing so many losers but no winners.
Top Cryptopians Coming Soon! How to use CryptoCompare forums? How to review products on CryptoCompare?
View all forum guides Type My Portfolios Public Portfolios. What is a Bitcoin Double Spend and how does it work? What is Bitcoin transaction locktime? What are the Bitcoin Transaction types? What is a Block Header in Bitcoin? What is the Bitcoin Genesis Block? What is a Coinbase or Generation Transaction?
CryptoCompare needs a newer browser in order to work. This ensures the long term security and fair distribution of the currency. Get rewarded with Vertcoins by being a part of our network.
Control your own private keys. Merchants can also use this on their tablet or phone to accept Vertcoin payments without downloading any app. All you need is the internet. We have an open-source community where we share info and implement advanced features. We believe this is the best option to transaction malleability. We expect it to allow for a massive increase in the network capacity by moving the bulk of transactions off the Blockchain for quick processing.
A layer to cross both blockchains Example: This is a feature of The Lightning Network which coins on LN will be able to exchange with each other. Getting started with vertcoin Using Vertcoin to pay and get paid is easy and accessible to everyone. Vertcoin is a multi-platform digital currency with support for Windows , Mac , and Linux. Use our easy-to-use wallet to enable sending, receiving, and mining Vertcoin with just a few clicks.
There are two main ways to interact with Vertcoin: Using your computing power to validate transactions on the network and get rewarded for generating new Vertcoins. The Web Wallet is the easiest way to get started with Vertcoins. Access our online wallet without downloading anything. You can get up and running with complete step-by-step instructions. An address is the only thing needed to send or receive funds.
It can be easily generated from any Vertcoin wallet. Vertcoin addresses always begin with V and contain alphanumeric characters.