@HiDevin The pool was getting 15k in IP hits, so it looks like a botnet, but the odd same nonce winning repeatedly is peculiar too.
Something to look into in any case.
@HiDevin The pool was getting 15k in IP hits, so it looks like a botnet, but the odd same nonce winning repeatedly is peculiar too.
Something to look into in any case.
@haitch That would certainly mess up his plots if his mining address was blacklisted. He'd have to replot everything, or find a pool that didn't have him blacklisted.
Although if he's using tiny plots on 15k machines it may be fast and trivial for him to replot to a different address.
Ahh understood! That's actually a very clean design. I retract my previous uneducated statements :)
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.
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.