RE: How @supercomputing was able to dominate the mining queue and how the bug was fixed. by arhag

View this thread on: hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

Viewing a response to: @steve-walschot/re-arhag-how-supercomputing-was-able-to-dominate-the-mining-queue-and-how-the-bug-was-fixed-20160816t062249229z

steem · @arhag · Aug 16 '16 (edited)

$0.69

I don't think so, because smart botnet operators weren't really at risk in the previous system either. All they needed to do was make sure their active miner accounts only held Steem Power and no liquid funds (i.e. no STEEM and no SD). Then exposing their active keys to their victim's computers is not really a risk. They could have changed it back at any time using their owner key, which they would not have to expose to their victim's computers.

In short, nothing has really changed for botnet operators.

I tried to think of various solutions to a new mining algorithm that could significantly deter botnets, but wasn't able to come up with anything that didn't also seriously weaken the security of legitimate users' accounts.

👍 liondani, fury, on247

`author`	arhag
`permlink`	re-steve-walschot-re-arhag-how-supercomputing-was-able-to-dominate-the-mining-queue-and-how-the-bug-was-fixed-20160816t073114908z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-16 07:31:15
`last_update`	2016-08-16 07:33:57
`depth`	2
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2016-09-16 02:57:09
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.518 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.170 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	733
`author_reputation`	52,490,827,205,383
`root_title`	"How @supercomputing was able to dominate the mining queue and how the bug was fixed."
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	830,618
`net_rshares`	948,126,446,938
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (3)

voter	rshares	pct
fury	17,391,552,604	100%
liondani	930,664,631,118	100%
on247	70,263,216	100%

@leprechaun · Aug 16 '16

No because the hasher could at least take some of the reward and even have evidence of an account linked to the hack.  Generous robinhood hacker could use my account name to ruin my reputation.

properties (22)

`author`	leprechaun
`permlink`	re-arhag-re-steve-walschot-re-arhag-how-supercomputing-was-able-to-dominate-the-mining-queue-and-how-the-bug-was-fixed-20160816t114523642z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-16 11:45:27
`last_update`	2016-08-16 11:45:27
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2016-09-16 02:57:09
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	193
`author_reputation`	43,025,797,524,251
`root_title`	"How @supercomputing was able to dominate the mining queue and how the bug was fixed."
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	832,728
`net_rshares`	0

@on247 · Aug 16 '16

I personally i think the algorithm should not care about the source of the compute power , much like it doesn't really care about the posts content , users do , but not the code

properties (22)