Hey, @AmDD Thanks for taking the time to explain what was happening, we don’t get a chance to check the analysis on an anonymous network.
I was under the impression you should be able to conglomerate your dust payments back into one address. It would be worth looking into that a bit more, maybe @Ghostlander could comment…
FTC Block chain analysis
FTC Admin’s run a “planned” condition monitoring maintenance system for FTC. Explorer, support tickets and Members / Admin observation of the network highlight any changes from normal operations. One of analysis capability and template spreadsheets have been created to look at FTC specific parameters, like for eHRC. Some monitoring methods were created to test changes, like eHRC, others to investigate issues. (**)
Just to be clear, AmDD is talking about a test of the network on 25/10/2016. Which triggered a look at FTC Blockchain performance, from examining the FTC to LTC historical transaction frequency.
The analysis in this thread is 21/5/2017, which was triggered by the previous analysis, to compare with current details and the general increase in FTC mining, price and transactions over the last 3 months …
(**) FTC has no payed employees, wrapper is a chart contributer, other members have helped.
@Wellenrieter and I did an enormous amount of work testing simulations and monitoring eHCR with different parameters against kimoto gravity well.
There is always going to be a delay before a reaction can take place to a changing hash rate, even for an optimum solution. eHCR does handle the hash rate variation as fairly as possible, the high hash rates from the (multi-pool) would still be hashing transactions.
That is why it is important to have p2pool and solo mining in order to encourage a stable baseline hash rate.
Researchers have discovered multiple botnets January 27, 2016
In 2014, law enforcement agencies revealed that they had disrupted a Russian botnet that targeted personal bank accounts and stole $100 million.
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev cyber security researchers have discovered and traced approximately six botnets by analyzing data collected from past cyber attacks. The research was conducted at Deutsche Telekom Innovation [email protected] and was announced at Cybertech 2016 in Tel Aviv today.
Botnets are networks of malicious, remotely updatable code that covertly lurk on infected computers. Using botnets, which until now were largely untraceable, hackers and cyber criminals can carry out powerful attacks, spread viruses, generate spam, and commit other types of online crime.
My idea here isn’t to describe the attack and consequences from it. My idea was to start thinking how to protect the end user from scenario like this one. One solution ( I can say painless ) is to add feature to the wallet that will recommend to the end user what transaction fee need to be paid in order to complete the transaction in some time frame. Another solutions require architecture change and I don’t think is possible to be done in the near future
As the Drops are caused by several hosts, and the ports are in the range used as source port for outgoing connections, it may be just caused by not fully established or terminated outbound connections from your client where the other party either didn’t receive the disconnect packed or a timeout has occured and the other party is responding so late, that the temporary rule on the fw has been deleted already.
Just guessing here.
you could try a ‘netstat -tcp -n’ to check if you have corresponding connections in state ‘sync send’ or ‘time wait’ on your PC.
The command is linux syntax, for windows the options may be slightly different
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“53055” timestamp=“1389997914”]
[quote author=TrollboxChamp link=topic=5580.msg53024#msg53024 date=1389993690]
Your fears are kindve coming true already. ghash.io has way too much hashing power.
ghash.io is a pool, not a cloud mining company. The danger was from too many miners on it, which was solved within 48 hours through a community awareness campaign.
Fortunately the danger is entirely immagined: Cloud hashing can be pointed at any pool. Individuals still vote with their dollar. Therefore there’s no danger that a group of individuals (cloud hash purchasers) will give another individual (a pool operator) enough power to consistently devalue their investment. Such actions would not be rational at all. You all can sleep soundly at night again, cloud hashing won’t destroy the network. Promise.
Rational implies eyes on the ball. Easy service equals less attention. Hence middlecoin.
Cloud hashing has negligence issues.
And of course there’s always the suicidal attackers who want to see alts gone.
[quote name=“eaxvac” post=“55653” timestamp=“1390915363”]
The rate of a collision is so low that Bitcoin doesn’t even bother checking if the address has been used. It just generate one randomly without any communication to other nodes.