06:41:15 supportxmr 920 MH/s, minerxmr 918 MH/s, moneroocean 320 MH/s 06:41:19 all at the same time 06:41:23 it's someone BIG 09:23:01 why aren't they running their own pool ... 09:42:09 give them a chance,, they just learnt xmrig proxy 10:26:02 not like it really matters anyway 10:40:33 Interesting graph of nonce frequency https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/HMsUUtGrHUFTfufDGhPkSJbW 11:29:04 damn M5M400 . 1.38 GH/s! 11:32:24 gingeropolous: ikr? 11:33:54 so when you gonna start changing the rules on us / :P 11:34:21 free monteros for everyone! blockreward 100! 11:38:06 I guess we should start DoSing that pool. 11:38:26 I hear there are DoS for hire services. 11:39:05 But seriously, it looks like PoW is really like communism. Utopia that doesn't work in practice. 11:39:43 stop tha A(zure)SIC 11:40:02 Bad channel. Guess I should say that on something with more and less technical people. 11:40:22 So, are you doing anything to voluntarily stop being Eve ? 11:40:34 Or are you going to claim "I would if I could" ? 11:41:03 Guess we know, since it's not new., 11:41:08 redirect it to my wallet 8) 11:41:29 I made a variable fee years ago. Nobody gave a shit. 11:42:10 Anyway, time to find something else to work on. 11:42:10 moneromooo: what do you want me to do? kick it? so it moves to minexmr and pushed them to 80% nethash? 11:42:18 Yes. 11:42:32 Then we DoS that pool :) 11:42:42 last 1000 blocks has been equal split between minexmr and supportxmr 11:42:44 moneromooo invested in minexmr ICO confirmed 11:42:44 both 36% 11:43:33 I mean, what's the point in working on a "trust me" crpytocurrency, right ? 11:43:48 I'll go work on grin instead. 11:44:43 M5M400: it's those same 4 proxies ? 11:44:43 * moneromooo wonders if saying that widely will cause a price crash and starve pools 11:45:35 moneromooo: yeah. best to drive out the 12 people still mining on their ryzens 11:45:58 Ah, great, a non sequitur. 11:46:09 seriously though, this should die down any minute now 11:46:28 what if it doesn't 11:46:35 Till next time. Because it's happening every once in a while, does it not. 11:46:41 it does. 11:46:53 this is the largest occurence by far though 11:48:00 M5M400: wen 1.5% fee? 11:49:30 i'm with mooo, we DoS your pool and throw eggs at your house until you ban new addresses from mining (and then repeat for minexmr) 11:50:03 And even that is a shit solution since it's a "trust us" solution. I don't have a good one though. 11:55:10 can I throw eggs too? 11:55:20 You can aim at minexmr. 11:57:52 but xnbya was always nice to me! 11:58:52 xnbya: are you the minexmr op ? Please also up fees and/or start refusing connections when you get to like 40%. 11:59:13 they're both under 40% though 11:59:25 I mean... we can go to 110% fee 11:59:39 "this fee goes to 110% " 11:59:46 next share only accepted if paid first 12:00:38 we only have to nuke 40 pools before xmrpow.de is #1 12:01:44 Did anyone port jtgrassie's self select to other pools btw ? 12:01:58 I don't think I can face javascript again. Please someone do it :D 12:02:05 bring back minergate 12:02:06 xd 12:02:22 That'd be one excuse fewer for pool ops using other pool software. 12:03:29 I... think I'd rather minergate with 20%, even though they're bytecoin scammers... 12:03:47 moneromooo: selfselect is nice on paper but will never catch on with miners 12:03:57 bring back minercircle 12:04:05 RXboost3+ 12:04:23 Oh, I thought the blocker was pool ops. Why wuld miners not like it, it'd be tansparent for them, no ? 12:04:27 )) 12:04:27 regarding these azure spikes, i mean one thing is to make mining pools dead simple stupid to run, so these data center security audits can use their own daemon 12:05:22 ok, so I got some juicy data to analyze from an unknown pool op (not pointing fingers) 12:05:28 the thing is, they are currently not. and if you've only got n hours to use the resources, you wanna make sure it works 12:05:32 it looks like xmrig workers behind a proxy 12:05:35 3.2 kh/s average 12:05:47 i still have doubts my solo mining effort is working with the frigging daemon. 12:05:53 3.2 kh workers lol 12:05:56 well, xmrig pointed at the daemon 12:06:14 that's a lot of workers 12:06:20 not xmr-stak like the last time we had fat miners on nanopool 12:06:32 I can see very distinct pattern coming from xmrig 12:06:35 damn, 3.2 is like intel machines 12:06:45 that number is very approximate 12:06:46 wtf shit intel machines are that slow?? 12:06:58 they haven't mined enough blocks to be sure 12:07:07 It might be anywhere between 1-6 kh/s 12:07:09 i guess desktop skus still have like no cache 12:07:12 well, consumer end intel, like my i7 something something 12:07:26 but these are prolly vcpus anyway 12:08:04 what an absolute waste 12:08:47 F8s on azure produce 3.2 KH/s on xmrig 12:09:05 and we got our suspect 12:09:06 it started about 8 hours ago now? 12:13:02 1 acccount * 1xF8s per account * 30 regions * 3.2 KH/s = 96 KH/s 12:13:07 900 MH/s / 96 KH/s = 9600 trial accounts 12:13:14 usually banned in few hours 12:19:17 here's 35 xmr for your troubles... 12:19:38 well, based on the hash increase @ moneroocean it has to definitely be xmrig 13:01:38 there's really no way to stop the power law, rich get richer 13:01:51 the more resources you have, the faster you acquire more 13:03:17 we would need something analagous to the dynamic fee algorithm. there, when usage goes up, fees go down. 13:03:48 here we want when individual hashpower goes up, rewards go down 13:04:14 of course, miners can just split off to separate accounts, so we can't tally their total hash power 13:04:31 WOuldn't something like that be extremely helpful for any sympathetic pool OP to implement? But do it on a pool-wide level? 13:04:54 Fees dynamically raise as % of network hashrate approaches X%, so smart miners will move, and dumb miners will lose revenue? 13:07:56 yeah something like that would work 13:08:38 shape some kind of logarithmic curve, so that once you get to e.g. 10% of network, rward goes to zero 13:09:24 but you can't just raise pool fee - that just further encourages these guys to use their own pools 13:09:39 it has to be network level, block reward calculation 13:10:10 But that's the whole issue, it's permissionless and anonymous, there's no way I can think of to do it on a network level 13:10:20 right 13:10:41 We can at least make it harder on them, and if they make their own pool it still helps spread hashrate among the network, increasing decentralization (unless they have 51%+ of course) 13:10:51 if you rely on pools to regulate, there'll always be the one pool who won't comply because greed. 13:11:00 yep 13:11:46 True, but that's not a reason to do nothing IMO 13:12:05 We can still do something to help encourage the spreading of hashrate 13:12:51 At the level of first mover/network effect advantage minexmr etc. have, it would be hard for a no-fee variant to take over 13:13:18 If we could get 70% of the network hashrate under a log curve of fees, that would be a big step forward to incentivize miners to move to smaller pools 13:13:29 And if they don't you just make more money 13:13:38 Seems like a win win to me 13:13:41 .shrug 13:14:31 sure. get the top 20 pools to commit to that and I'm in 13:16:03 anyone knows how much HR you get out of a digitalocean droplet? 13:16:19 If someone can write it I'll drive a campaign gladly 13:16:26 Across Reddit/Twitter/direct to pool ops 13:17:10 I'm not sure why you can't lead by example, honestly, but if I have to convince others first so be it. 13:18:04 because as I see it supportxmr is the only thing standing in the way of minexmr network dominance 13:18:34 not that I don't trust xnbya, but I do trust myself considerably more 13:18:39 So if I get them onboard you'd enable a similar fee approach? 13:18:51 I'd be open for it, yes. 13:20:05 Or I need the entire top 20? 13:20:29 I'll see if I can get in contact. 13:20:30 you will probably bite out your teeth at nanopool already 13:20:43 M5M400 do you know who made these graphs? https://imgur.com/a/0rKqdWi 13:20:57 is the second one logarithmic? 13:21:03 sech1: endor over at -pools 13:21:05 yes 13:21:25 so thick line starts at 32768, lol 13:21:46 that's xmrig right there, it spreads nonces between cores with step=32768 13:22:15 xmrigASIC confirmed! 13:22:17 :D 13:22:37 if you just make the pool fee dynamic, that means pool operators keep more of the rewards as their total hashrate goes up, if miners aren't paying attn 13:22:50 so it's in their interest to adopt the approach, they'll pocket more money 13:23:39 why does everything always have to be about money 13:24:09 Inge- https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/HMsUUtGrHUFTfufDGhPkSJbW <-- top 8 bits are randomly selected by proxies/nicehash, and 50% of blocks have nonces < 16777216, this is why 13:24:16 It's about money for the miners, so the only way to change their behavior is incentives/disincentives :) 13:24:24 the spike at 16 (actually 15) is also because of how xmrig works 13:25:15 so a key question for implementation is what time window you use to estimate the network hashrate 13:25:38 and likewise to estimate the pool hashrate, since pools don't know miner's true hashrate 13:26:09 although perhaps we could add a field to the job message, for the miner to report its instant hashrate 13:26:27 not sure if that's actually useful, or if there's any benefit to lying 13:26:30 sech1: thanks 13:26:37 the pool can always fallback to its estimate anyway 13:33:33 M5M400 pool ops right now: https://youtu.be/hf_7xAX_fBE?t=20 13:34:39 :P 13:35:22 so... does it sound workable? 13:35:42 can throw self-select in at the same time 13:38:35 an example setup: pool op sets arbitrary fees, they apply up till 10% of network hash rate 13:38:56 if rate rises to 11% for >= 1 hour, pool fee becomes 2% 13:39:21 and doubles for every percent increase from there, to maximum of 100% at 17% of network 13:40:19 so miners on big pools are just throwing money at pool ops 13:46:41 but normal or even lower fee for self-select? 13:47:04 That would be pretty damn cool 13:49:49 do you mean self-select is completely excepted from the fee increase? 13:49:55 exempted 13:50:11 I guess that could be reasonable, since self-select doesn't feed centralization 13:50:57 let's just start with supporting self-select on big pools :D 13:51:02 with lower or no fee 13:51:16 why would a pool offer it for no fee? 13:51:22 what do they get out of it? 13:51:32 more healthy network? 13:51:49 fees can be balanced between different miners 13:52:07 It's like moneroocean has 0 mining fees, but gets money from withdrawal fees 13:52:14 ok 13:59:59 asymptotically did you see the fat miner at moneroocean switch to rx/wow? 14:00:10 or maybe it was just other miners there? 14:00:49 it went from 2 Mh/s wow to 70 Mh/s wow, mined a ton of blocks and then i think it went back to xmr 14:01:05 https://github.com/moneromooo/cryptonote-universal-pool/commit/5e31901ab3ff1d18eed478b8818577c9093c91d6 if someone wants to run with it 14:01:43 hmm, 70 mh/s is not what miners there can usually do :D 14:03:11 ah yeah, I see blocks 235401-235431 on Wownero, almost all mined by MoneroOcean, lol 14:03:41 24 of 31 blocks 14:42:37 i wonder if you could put a throttle at the protocol level 14:42:53 similar to the max block size increase. i dunno what that would do to things though. 14:43:38 i.e., only n% is allowed in hashrate delta over n blocks 14:43:56 would be a bitch for pool ops to implement how to payout pplns etc 14:44:33 but basically, if hashrate hits some spike threshold, blockreward drops to 0 14:44:47 (kicks it for future, obvi) 14:45:13 wait, isn't this what wow is doing jwinterm ? 14:45:41 oh, no, that was about pool hopping 14:45:45 no I don't think so 14:46:02 wownero is going to add pseudorandom block maturity time that varies from like 1 day to 1 month 14:48:22 so throttling block reward via some derivative of difficulty... wouldn't necessarily modify pool centralization 14:48:46 but would penalize fast block producers 14:49:08 There was this idea of linking block reward to coinbase lock time. Lock for 6 months and get +10%. For 3 months, only +5%. etc. 14:49:39 so you could end up with attack miners (azure etc) mining their own chain with diminishing block rewards 14:49:40 Opportunistic miners would likely not want to get to a pool but not bother solo mining though. 14:49:51 but legit miners continue making regular speed blocks 14:49:54 so could lead to reorgs 14:50:27 i like that idea moneromooo 14:50:29 So what we need is an easy to use miner GUI with stupid videos showing how to clikc on a button, which connects to pools based on their hash rate. 14:51:07 Miners are lazy people, so let's use that laziness to our benefit. Make the easiest to use UI, and have it balance. 14:51:25 * moneromooo overgeneralizes like there;s no tomorrow 14:51:53 that doesn't really help with the guys with like 300 Mh/s on nanopool tho probably 14:52:12 Is monero-update easy to use ? I think I made it easy to use but I don't know what non computer literate people find easy to use. 14:52:33 maybe just linking block maturity time to the derivative of difficulty 14:52:41 diff ramping up fast, blocks mature in 2023 14:52:49 diff coming down, blocks mature in three blocks 14:53:07 rather than fiddling with reward also 14:53:11 That screws everyone though, no ? 14:53:39 Fiddling with reward screws only those who want fast unlock (ie, those who would not trust a pool to pay them in 6 months). 14:53:41 yes, but under the assumption that opportunistic miners would care the most 15:12:13 the block difficulty adjustment algorithm's purpose is already supposed to be to regulate block emission rate 15:12:34 throttling with emission or unlock time is just redundant work 15:14:57 Isnt it a little bit weird that sb can spin ub 1.4 Ghs within a day? 15:15:10 Do you still think that is cloud mining? 15:15:33 cloud mining is designed for this, no? 15:15:38 spin up more instances when required 15:15:53 I mean cloud computing 15:16:14 I thought it is not profitable? 15:16:26 it's not, if you're paying for it 15:16:26 if your paying for the cloud mining its probably not profitable 15:16:48 Even with spot instances at azure? 15:17:05 i dunno, u could do the calcs 15:17:15 I thought you can get a 90% discount 15:17:44 Maybe i gonna do that. 15:17:51 go for it 15:36:42 So... With spot instances you get 2 epyc vcpus for 0,0092 Euros/h (D2av4) . These should bring round about 1000khs. During one day with that hashrate and the current difficulty that should result in 0,034 Euros/day. Mining with these vcpus costs 0,22 Euros. So it s far away from being profitable. 15:37:27 I rly dont believe that all the big cloud companies dont see such a high load on their systems. 15:37:59 maybe they see it but who cares if clients pay? 15:38:15 it's clients' problems if their accounts get hacked 15:39:26 at least with aws they usually forgive costs you end up with if you get hacked 15:41:12 Dont think that entities with a lot of credits secure their account properly? 15:45:06 I think people who own aws or azure accounts are mostly tech savy. 15:45:11 Do you think Twitter was secured properly? 15:45:23 god damn Florida teen hacked it 15:45:50 True ;) 15:46:52 you can buy aws credits at 70-80% off face value with bitcoin 15:47:04 but even so probably not profitable even with on-demand 15:47:30 I think if this hashrate stays for longer then we can conclude that it is not cloud mining? 15:47:36 jwinterm: it's against the tos of the free credits to use it for mining (they mention cryptocurrencies explicitly), it doesn't take long to get banned 15:47:50 also that 15:48:15 but somehow these guys are regularly spinning up 10-100k instances 15:48:17 presumably 15:49:52 Dont they make additional profit by boosting hashrate while difficulty is adjusting slowly? 15:54:01 if their "free" credits are limited, it makes sense to ramp up when difficulty is low and stop when it adjusts 15:55:59 Wasnt the difficulty calculated by the last 720 blocks? 15:56:39 kind of 15:57:37 So they would have round about 24 h 15:58:12 less if blocks come faster which they do 16:00:02 looks like all moved to minexmr 16:00:15 minexmr 1.45 GH/s, 55.7% 16:00:23 crap 16:01:29 DoS it! 16:03:24 AWS didn't care for the longest time. Used to be great because you could buy AWS codes for 10% or less of face value, w/ spot instances, you'd double-quadruple your cashe without too much of a problem. 16:03:36 Because by the time you were paying < 1% of face value, it was more than profitable to mine. 16:04:01 if it was possible would there be anything against getting rid of user pools and only having network pool(s)? distributed and powered by monerod or another daemon if needed. 16:04:33 kinghat[m]: how do you prove it's just the daemon mining and not anything else like a bunch of xmrigs connecting to it? 16:05:12 Snipa: But you cant buy that now right? 16:06:19 well there would only be one network pool so you wouldnt have to worry about a user pool getting 51%. 16:06:44 Rumor: https://i.imgur.com/ILTBkcP.png 16:06:56 xmrpow - Of course you can? 16:07:13 You just have to be ready to roll through AWS accounts and do some heavier lifting. 16:08:50 Snipa: Why should aws sell credits under value? 16:09:08 They don't sell them, they hand them out for /free/ 16:09:29 Communism! 16:09:29 You mean to startups etc? 16:09:36 Go hit the massive bitcoin sales forum, and check it out. People collect them in bulk from events, then resell them at a fraction of face value. 16:09:39 Because they got them for free. 16:09:49 Used to be able to buy 10-15k/month per AWS account w/o a problem. 16:11:06 But yeah, people used to make fake AWS accts too, get the 150k credit and sell it for 10-15k. 16:11:54 https://i.imgur.com/pdDHn0r.jpg 16:11:59 there you go 16:12:12 Way back on CN, wolf0 had a chunky private miner for AWS that had even more profitability on AWS instances. 16:12:59 M5M400 same address just switched pools? He didn't like you? 16:13:51 maybe I leaked too much info 16:14:30 If that guy wanted to hide, he wouldn't mine on a pool, lol 16:15:10 82oiMVmcV8W7yhWeK2hiDZLVNxwHcugNafCSzk9Zbs3p645n7gbHqf4TKHXrMTHXYPQffgZ9TUebKTr5ZfRN5arV4Vjtvko 16:15:13 oops 16:15:16 :P 16:15:41 lol 16:16:03 Lets adjust the payout threshold to 0.01 ;) 16:18:40 Does the free payout threshold at minexmr autoadjust? 16:19:03 I set it to 50 16:19:10 because why not? 16:19:16 Why not 0.5 16:19:26 more transactions 16:19:28 ;) 16:19:55 Let's hope he won't mine to 50 XMR :D 16:20:44 sech: You rly dont like the 0.5 ? ;) 16:21:04 minexmr should really use password for changing these things 16:21:09 yes 16:21:10 now everyone will mess around there 16:22:27 sech: True. 16:22:43 Im curious if these guys are monitoring this channel ? ;) 16:23:32 probably 16:24:16 I'd almost be more surprised if they weren't. 16:24:16 Sadly the payout now button has a cooldown :-D 16:31:58 lol 16:32:06 you devils 16:33:15 I dropped them a line at their workerid:-D 16:33:56 what does it say? "come to my pool, bitch?" 16:34:18 Not that rude :P 16:34:28 pussy 16:34:32 :P 16:34:57 oh, sorry. this is not -pools ;) 16:35:17 I go stand in a corner for using that language 16:35:42 * M5M400 stands in a corner 16:37:07 I'd expect them to change to a differnet address if you anoy them enough 16:37:20 and idk about passwords, didn't you drop them M5M400 16:37:33 I did. smooth sailing support wise since 16:37:35 Yup, because people couldn't remember them. 16:37:40 Or figure out how to set them. 16:37:47 Or really, understand how to mine effectively. 16:37:53 xnbya: hurr durr raise fees ban ban durr 16:40:15 they'll stop soon i suspect 16:40:24 he has 5-7% expired shares 16:40:31 very inefficient proxy 16:41:22 DO droplets probably maxxed out 16:41:46 wonder why he switched 16:41:53 should've used xmrig-proxy, lol 16:41:58 our luck has been consistently berrer today :) 16:42:04 Hashrate already dropping. 16:42:04 *better 16:42:13 max was 950 16:42:50 the one thing I don’t get, why do these cloud providers don’t fix their security 16:42:55 these spikes have been going on for a while 16:43:09 yeap. they don't seem to care 16:44:45 Maybe he is switching address. 16:45:34 or runs out of steam 16:45:37 long overdue 16:45:42 Also, there's a huge difference between "Cloud providers need to fix their security" and "Developers need to stop leaving private keys in repositories" 16:45:52 lol 16:45:58 There's tools that literally just walk github looking for AWS and MS API keys. 16:46:10 Though I think github finally put in some protections against uploading them. 16:47:09 never underestimate the stupidity of "developers" 16:48:12 Particularly "senior" developers. :D 16:48:17 especially in docker generation 16:51:50 xnbya: lol I rat out his address and he jumps back to us? 16:52:10 almost certainly unaware of it 16:52:54 well, he didn't get a payout on minexmr because I set threshold to 50 XMR 16:52:56 yeap 16:52:59 and decided to switch back, lol 16:53:10 WHY DIDNT HE GO TO XMRPOW.DE?????11 16:53:20 Lulz. 16:53:20 he doesn't know about dashboard? 16:53:24 Yes ;) 16:53:37 xmrpow: I feel for you <3 16:54:05 Im trying it again:P 16:54:39 bur... it would instantly make you a megapool 16:54:45 you hate megapools 16:54:50 I do :) 16:55:03 But it is cheap marketing ;) 16:55:05 but you could use a block. fair enough 17:02:59 M5M400: Maybe he is going to bite this time :P 17:03:20 fingers crossed, I guess? 17:04:03 just remember it's temporary. don't make the same mistake as respectXMR did and already spec your lambos color 17:04:17 "WhyNotXmrpow" would be better :D (twitter hack message) 17:04:43 sech1: Im going to improve my marketing ;) 17:05:33 * Snipa looks up from speccing his nismo's color. 17:06:00 M5M400: With 0% fee a lambo will be difficult :) 17:08:03 Snipa: black. black nismos matter 17:09:53 xmrpow: true. 17:10:32 M5M400: Block would be totally fine, because I still have ton of shares in that round. 17:17:00 Somebody has stolen my idea :) 17:17:21 what doeas it say? 17:17:28 MoneroOceanFTW 17:17:33 lol 17:17:35 :-D 17:18:44 M5M400: Are you instantly removing not working rigs? 17:20:07 no. there's a grace period 17:20:15 how long? 17:20:29 no idea 18:42:41 M5M400: you should just start relaying shares to smaller pools. transparently 18:46:19 ugh. still no solo blocks 18:47:46 jtgrassie's pool is mocking me with its 296 blocks 21:48:10 2.8GH/s 22:23:32 Crazy... 22:25:03 Hey... reporter here... Anyone has 5mins to talk to me about a botnet currently impacting the hashrate? 22:26:27 What info are you looking for? What's the core of the story? How do you know it's a botnet and not just someone abusing free Azure credits? 22:28:47 That's what I'm here to do. Gather leads, info from some monero pool operators, and go from there. Just following a tip for now. 22:29:05 Best contacts would probably be sech1 22:29:22 or M5M400 22:29:34 But depends on what you're looking for. 22:31:15 hyc: I would rly like getting more hashrate, but does it rly solve the problem? 22:32:07 Relaying to smaller pools is worse than bumping fees or rejecting, since there's still the possibility to commandeer the hash rate without notice. 22:32:10 hyc: M5M400 would decide as a central entity about small pools getting hashrate or not. 22:33:54 moneromoo: I agree, variable fee would be a better option. 22:48:11 campuscodi40: It’s not a botnet, it’s someone abusing cloud providers, these hashrate spikes usually die down quickly 22:59:20 campuscodi40: as I noted in my tweet at least a portion of this if not the whole thing is on Azure. my original estimate of servers is too low 23:04:48 Even if it's not a "botnet" in the classic meaning of the word (as relying on malware), it's still of interest, just because of the mass-abuse of cloud infrastructure 23:05:32 yep 23:05:58 https://cointelegraph.com/news/microsoft-azure-machine-learning-clusters-cryptojacked-to-mine-monero 23:06:36 but I don’t think the same attack vector was used this time 23:52:40 My feeling is Monero is still "small" enough that reputations and ethos matters significantly compared to pure economics, and with enough social pressure we can enforce the variable fee. 23:53:30 Might not be possible forever, but I think we're still there 23:53:54 "enforce" to be interpreted in the soft sense of course.