5 ms·
This isn’t true, you could still mine (poorly) with reduced RAM by recomputing as needed. And I’m not sure what you mean by “clocking-in” a share in a useful ti
by tracedddd 6y ago
This isn’t true, you could still mine (poorly) with reduced RAM by recomputing as needed. And I’m not sure what you mean by “clocking-in” a share in a useful timespan. Compromised devices aren’t people, so they don’t care if a particular machine can’t get regular payouts. If the whole network can reliably find a low diff share solutions anywhere it can make money.
It would be horribly inefficient however a network of tens or hundreds of thousands of low resource units can absolutely make money since the costs are zero.
- belval 6y agoTo run argon2 (monero) you would need a significant amount of time to compute even one hash that means that the synchronization overhead of your workers would trump any "hashing speed" an IP camera (even a good 4K one) would have. By the time you get any amount of work done, the block will be processed by a regular miner and you will not get a payout. Same goes for a pool, doing any "share" of work would take too long and you would be out of sync. Hell given a bad enough ping I get refused shares on a Ryzen 3800X. Also on top of all of that most IP cameras are designed with tightly defined specs. Trying to run a miner on them would absolutely requires stopping the video feed which would make the "attack" (which is still useless) easy to detect.
- ghayes 6y agoYou could run a SHA256 hash of random values and send it to a database in hopes of mining a Bitcoin block with it one day when the input (block hash) happens to match. It's only 2^256 times less efficient than standard mining techniques.