This is what happens when people decide to make their own algorithm and don't leave it up to peer review. We all saw what happened with the DAO exploit. lol Getting down and dirty with the quick code rarely works out well. For every good coder in the world there's usually a much better one who remains anonymous until they launch their 0-day exploit.
It's not that new but once you make it open source like it is, someone will find a way to 0-day the crap out of it. There's loads of people who make their whole living using, finding and selling 0-day exploits.
Do you have a proof that he is really using an exploit? And even if he does, he is still playing by the rules as he is calculating POW numbers that satisfy the set criteria (even if he found a different method for it). Finding more efficient ways of computing POWs is really a part of the competition.
And there is no danger for Steem in this as most blocks are generated by non-miner witnesses. Miners can not generate more that 1 block in 63 seconds and can not earn more than one top 19 witness. Supercomputing will not be able to crash the market the way it was feared about the DAO attacker.
I have no proof. The only thing I noticed is that his POW nonce is different from everyone else.
I am speculating that either he found a short cut or he has a GPU miner.
Danger or not, it is not good to have one miner controls the miner queue(IMO).
I have no proof. The only thing I noticed is that his POW nonce is different from everyone else.
I've explained the likely reason for that in the #mining channel on steemit.chat.
From what I've seen, my only conclusion is that he is most likely not using an exploit, but rather using his own more efficient custom implementation of the miner. If we take his account name at face value, it likely means that he has built a GPU miner.
No... Please... No bailout fork, just fix it. Otherwise we have a whole new Steem and Steem Classic mess on our hands like Ethereum.
@alifton,
Agreed.
Well, @dan needs to rewrite his algorithms, a more secure one.
Maybe dev should pay him a bounty and tell him not to mine.
This is what happens when people decide to make their own algorithm and don't leave it up to peer review. We all saw what happened with the DAO exploit. lol Getting down and dirty with the quick code rarely works out well. For every good coder in the world there's usually a much better one who remains anonymous until they launch their 0-day exploit.
@alifton,
Agreed. Yet, this is the best CPU mining algorithm out there(IMO).
This algorithm still new. It will take time for them find all the bugs.
It's not that new but once you make it open source like it is, someone will find a way to 0-day the crap out of it. There's loads of people who make their whole living using, finding and selling 0-day exploits.
Do you have a proof that he is really using an exploit? And even if he does, he is still playing by the rules as he is calculating POW numbers that satisfy the set criteria (even if he found a different method for it). Finding more efficient ways of computing POWs is really a part of the competition.
And there is no danger for Steem in this as most blocks are generated by non-miner witnesses. Miners can not generate more that 1 block in 63 seconds and can not earn more than one top 19 witness. Supercomputing will not be able to crash the market the way it was feared about the DAO attacker.
I have no proof. The only thing I noticed is that his POW nonce is different from everyone else.
I am speculating that either he found a short cut or he has a GPU miner.
Danger or not, it is not good to have one miner controls the miner queue(IMO).
I've explained the likely reason for that in the #mining channel on steemit.chat.
From what I've seen, my only conclusion is that he is most likely not using an exploit, but rather using his own more efficient custom implementation of the miner. If we take his account name at face value, it likely means that he has built a GPU miner.
@arhag,
Thank you for your answer. I guess it is pretty certain that he has a GPU miner.
Agreed. What I am talking about is that there is no need nor justification for forking out the rewards (was answering to @fubar-bdhr).
I see.
He is using multiple accounts so he can generate a block every 3 seconds.
No, only one in every 21 blocks is generated by any miner, that is 1 block in 63 seconds.
@fubar-bdhr,
I meant one person.