Cause of the botnet ( in response to " pajeet " exploit )


  • admin

    @HiDevin Not sure what that is trying to say. Larger capacity will always relate to higher earnings, but small miners always have a chance.



  • @haitch oh ok, I just thought small miners have small plots, which the website says the algo favors by design :P



  • I understand that this refers to someone like me with 5TB can find a block and that with the same investment for BTC is impossible



  • @haitch My Question stays if this stuff is just a botnets case - which I think pool owners will be able to cope with one way or another (at least I hope), or if there is serious doubt about the way mining is possible as such in the way it is currently done - if not with the consequences I described above.

    15K botnet abused clients sounds much - and is much for Burstcoin at a first glance but we all know is not that much, theres Botnets out there Controlling 10-100, prob. 1000 times of that. Just a matter of how much youre willing to throw in.

    eg. I stumbled about a botnet for the few qnaps Im Controlling couple of weeks ago where an exploit was used to create virtually processes which in the end were mining BC/Alts due to an glitch of the qnap updating process (still unclear in detail but would lead too far here now). Now, oc I know that the current prob is not attached to 15K qnaps out there being abused to mine Burst, but whats your opinion of hidevins post and the link and the sw behind?



  • @haitch, I believe what they are questioning is the statement in the BN post that says that nonces found near the end of a plot file algrothmically return lower deadlines. So nonces in a very small file are always closer the the end than nonces near the beginning to middle of a very large single file. They concede that reading will be slower, but they make it sound like the deadlines will make it worth it.

    Can anyone intelligently comment on the position of a nonce in a plot file influencing a deadline? I am under the impression that a nonce is a nonce is a nonce.

    @HiDevin, I'm pretty sure by small miner they mean any single miner by himself. This points out a key difference between Burst and Bitcoin: it's very difficult to mine bitcoin profitably anymore without expensive ASIC boards that also cost a bunch to run. Wealthy individuals, large organizations and governments can afford to set up the ASIC farms that mine most of the bitcoin now. You and I couldn't. Burst is ASIC resistant though, meaning the well off have no super advantage over a kid in his bedroom with a bunch of hard drives.



  • Honestly I think the "favors smaller miners by design." is BS. Like any token you're just trying to find the solution for that round before anyone else, the more competition the less likely that you'll find the solution as the difficulty rises.

    Yes it's possible a 1GH BTC miner could find a block, though it's highly unlikely to ever happen. Likewise it's possible a 1GB BURST miner could find a block, but with a high difficulty they'll only rarely see low and competitive deadlines.

    Being small gives you an advantage in read times. Your 1TB can be read in 3 seconds, whereas a large miner might take 60 seconds to read their PB. But that advantage doesn't really mean much in the long run.


  • admin

    @Marc That plotter would be useful to a botnet, but not for a dedicated miner. See above for why.

    @Evo A scoop is a scoop is a scoop. Each nonce is a hash of the previous nonce. The hashes in the scoop number are then combined with the previous blocks gensig, and hashed again, then computed against the block target height. A scoop at the beginning of the file is just as likely to win as the last scoop.


  • admin

    @HiDevin said in Cause of the botnet ( in response to " pajeet " exploit ):

    0_1498337216695_lol.png

    Big miners have an overhead: They have to buy new equipement, new HDDs and have additional operating costs (electricity).
    Small miners can simply use their existing non-used resources to mine Burst. No overhead in investment and probably a non-measurable rise in their electricity bill. Additionally 5 small miners have a better read time than one big mining machine.

    Small miners certainly get more Burst compared to their costs.

    Botnets and malicious software is nothing new to crypto. Many times botnets mined bitcoin or other coins and even android apps were mining on the phones of their victims.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @haitch said in Cause of the botnet ( in response to " pajeet " exploit ):

    @Marc That plotter would be useful to a botnet, but not for a dedicated miner. See above for why.

    @Evo A scoop is a scoop is a scoop. Each nonce is a hash of the previous nonce. The hashes in the scoop number are then combined with the previous blocks gensig, and hashed again, then computed against the block target height. A scoop at the beginning of the file is just as likely to win as the last scoop.

    That definitely sounded like an intelligent comment. And that's what I thought, though I didn't know the underlying mechanism. Thanks again!


  • admin

    @captinkid My phone with 120GB won a block. Small miners might have a small chance of winning, but they have a real chance. A small BTC miner has effectively a 0 chance of getting a block, a small Burst miner has a realistic chance of winning.



  • @captinkid proof of space ASICs lol, if you can simulate TB, how can u simulate a disk .-.



  • @haitch

    Yes, but I'm wondering if that's only because burst doesn't have the same relative difficulty that BTC does.

    When the Burst Diff goes up 100x or 200x that 120GB won't be getting any low deadlines. For the same reason a 1GH BTC miner from 2013 wouldn't be useful at all today other than a infinitesimal chance at a win.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @captinkid ofc, that's just the plotting part, I don't think you can actually make more space from the disk rn, but we managed to get to 10TB! on one drive :P



  • The botnet thing is a huge concern. If Antiviruses label our software as dangerous, then that will not be good for the coin.

    It was reported that he is working with 1198TB's. His Id BURST-EJGT-3BQR-4PS9-A7UMW kind of reflects this using the income calc.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @socalguy psh not really, look at claymore's eth miner, he takes a 1-2% fee for using his miner, and they connect to his miners for about 30-90 seconds,

    his miners get flagged by malwarebytes and windows defender for me, but I leave it as a exclusion so :P


  • admin

    @captinkid said in Cause of the botnet ( in response to " pajeet " exploit ):

    @Evo said in Cause of the botnet ( in response to " pajeet " exploit ):

    1. Burst will get ASICs when the price makes it worth it, we already have proof of concept CPU and GPU mining that doesn't use hard drives. If someone builds an ASIC that can generate nonces, it'll work just fine. How many TB can be simulated is based on the efficiency of the chip, but it'll happen.

    I have a miner that can process 150TB in 40 seconds. For an ASIC to be as effective as my disk, it would need to be capable of calculating 858,306,884 nonces/minute. I don't see that happening any time soon.


  • admin

    @captinkid
    Recalculating something constantly on the fly will be always more -expensive- than calculating it once, save it for forever, and just read it if necessary.

    It's like a speedy writer vs a library of books. What is more efficient in terms of getting information? Who would run an ASIC which simulates a 4 TB disk (random number) instead of a 4 TB HDD, when an ASIC costs 10 times more and uses 10 times more electricity? (All numbers are exemplary)

    The ASICs chips are getting faster every year but so does capacity increase...


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.