Time to address the elephant in the room f2pool NOT processing transactions


#41

Here is backlog in graph nice to see it that is now dropping


#42

But seems that f2pool stop mining at our blockchain (maybe they ended test period for some new ASIC miners) and these backlog was the result because we dropped in hash power from 6,69 GHs to 2,67 GHs so same situation like when we change our algorithm from ASIC to only GPU - you have only limited hash power and difficult is high so it take time to adjust…
Some asic go to poolin so we can see that go from 815 MH/s to 1420 MH/s see more in image or live data HERE: https://miningpoolstats.stream/electroneum


#43

And 5 min later i make update on these pages and F2pool is again there :smiley: so they didnt stop testing and making problem to us… We need other miners to diversificate… like the increase by hash power at poolin…


#44

@Mr.CryptoCZ yeah you have to be careful with those “pool lists” because sometimes the API can’t connect or something is delayed and pools get put to the bottom of the list with 0 hash despite them actively working…

but just to show more of whats going on today, over 1200 transactions at the time were being ignored and not processed, empty blocks still rolling in despite all that waiting…

when I looked at all the pools, there were a couple pools that were processing only a partial amount of transactions (max10 and max50), they were limiting the amount of transactions they add, which only amplifies the problem of the pools processing 0 transactions, so it would seem the pool owners with the bulk of the hash are all deciding to harm the network by not processing transactions available by ignoring and/or limiting transactions…

at this point, I think Electroneum Ltd should make a public statement, to either acknowledge this, and tell us if they are contacting the pool owners to discuss this, and if they need to get aggressive and modify the blockchain with some nuclear options to punish those who will not process transactions, when 4 of the top 5 pools are not processing transactions, this is now a destructive reasons to react… (it can only get worse from here if nothing is done)

@ETNCEO @ImogenD is there any official word from Electroneum on this subject?


#45

Thank you for your contributions to the community Darkbane.

I am sure you are aware of this, but for those who do not know, please allow me to enlighten you. F2Pool is notorious for mining empty blocks, it is not a secret, and they do not try to hide it. They are known for this type of activity all across the networks, they have done it to Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Litecoin and the list goes on, if there was a way to stop them do not you think all those big coins/projects would have? There is no nuclear option on the block chain, and while there are some parameters that can be adjusted it is all band aid solutions.

The team is and the devs are well aware of what is happening to the blockchain and are actively working on a solution. If you have an idea please feel free to share it here, I will be more than happy to forward it to the devs and the team.

Thanks
M.


#46

@MSystem

it would be nice to hear from the team in an official announcement, but aside from the usual things the others have done to decrease issues like quicker validations mechanisms and robust low latency backbones to ensure transmission issues are neutered, and all the other tricks in the bag… there ARE nuclear options to explore…

they all have their own pitfalls too sometimes, but if pools are not going to play nice, and point the finger at others, then perhaps its time to pick one of the nuclear options, one I am not a gigantic fan of, but would certainly open up the participation field is for POS with a low stake requirement that would allow just about anyone to participate, opening up the field of participants to many more folks rather than large centralized pools… I mean decentralization is always the talking point right, we have nothing like that at this point, so why not go nuclear at the mining level…

I don’t want folks to think something like that choice, or others, are quick and easy, they as I mentioned have their own difficulties and drawbacks as well, but if the network is going to be held hostage by pools, and we’re in the infancy of this coins potential for transactions, there is little reason to cater to pools and the large owners of that hash if they will not support the network itself… there is just no reason to care about them enough or their investment in equipment if they are willfully choosing this…

so like I said, there are several nuclear options, I was hoping Electroneum Ltd would make a public statement, point out the issue, and then say we will be in contact with the pools and hear their point of views, and then we will make a decision to try and move this forward, but all we’re hearing is crickets when asking for a response… in fact yours is the first and I’m not even sure if you’re an employee of the company? my apologies if you are, but isn’t this something that deserve a public statement and perhaps announcement in the proper thread on this forum and other social media?

P.S. don’t you think there are enough ETN fans that would LOVE the chance to run their own low cost staked nodes to validate transactions at this point? you could argue all the pitfalls and potential for duplication, but I suspect having 10,000 nodes willing to process transactions will trump 4 pools with the majority hash refusing to fully participate in the network because they are attempting to get rewards… (like I said, nuclear options)


#47

just to give everyone another option, as I realize nuclear options are never comfortable, you could keep a similar system as today, but have the validation of blocks check the mempool, and if there are more transactions than a certain block size, you mandate any block added will have to include “x” amount of transactions, or other pools should reject that solution from the other pool, this way transaction fees can still play a role in allowing people paying more to get priority from that set amount being forced in… but it also would stop this disgusting behavior of flatly refusing to include transactions to chase block rewards… variations upon this even, but something to give pools who want to play fair, the opportunity by having a mechanism in place that can reject the large pools attempting to circumvent transactions…

(I make it sound WAY easier than it would be to implement, but thats the whole point of this, to start this discussion now, because of we want this coin to succeed and grow to the levels they have dreamed about and pitched, you are going to need a blockchain processing WAY more transactions that what we have today, and if this is any indication of whats to come, this coin will struggle and choke itself to death from the greed of the lead pools attempting to profit without doing the work)


#48

@Darkbane I am not an employee of ETN. I am just another community member trying to help and assist where I can. I have come across your posts and comments on Reddit in the past, and while not all were favorable, I know you were trying to keep things real and in perspective. I will be sure to pass your ideas up the chain of command.

Community members such yourself is what makes this project the way it is. Often the solutions to the problems can be found within and thanks to people like you, we are moving forward.

Number of solutions are being discussed.

Thanks
M.

p.s.Please see the thread above @ETNCEO @chris.gorman @mrdeangaming


#49

I don’t think that would work Bane, for a multitude of reasons. For example, things like the fact that not every node has all the same mempool…also Pools could add dummy TXs to bypass.

There are ways to encourage the inclusion of TXs moving forward, usually fee is a factor but due to ETN being one of the cheapest POW coins, it doesn’t have the same effect.

As M said above, the team are considering all options, and have been in communication with F2pools as well. They will get something sorted.


#50

I would argue they should have a very close mempool, especially pertaining to older transactions, which is what I would target, the “first in first out” mentality but with the fee structure placed on top of it…

lets say we set the threshold so when we reach 300+ transactions in mempool we mandate they must include 50 of the 100 oldest transactions, naturally they should want to pick the largest fees, but at this point they would have to add something right, we don’t want them to pick any 50 transaction of the entire mempool or yes they could on the fly generate new transactions to include in and keep the same issue…

by forcing them to pick from the oldest 100 they would not be able to flood new transactions to the mempool of the other nodes, but this is very simplified and far more technical to accomplish to avoid pitfalls like you eluded to them creating transactions on the fly, or what happens when 1 of those transactions is missing from the mempool of others (which should be a VERY rare instance and likely a much larger problem at that point if old transactions were never propagated well)…

something along these lines, I’m just giving generalizations not hard specifics… but at this point there would be a mechanism for pools that wanted to play fair, to now reject those empty blocks because they recognize the vast quantity of transactions sitting out there and want to clear them but realize they will be at a disadvantage if they play fair while the other pool soaks up the rewards and piggybacks more and more blocks… which is where we seem to be at today, the pools I have talked to, don’t want to change so long as the top pool gets to profit, I can’t be upset but I wish they were a little more vocal about the issue and came forward with ideas to work on solving this too, their inaction and willingness to sit back tells me nuclear options might be the only solution if they are not willing to become pro-active in a solution… maybe they just don’t want to talk to me because I am abrasive, but it would be nice to know Electroneum was actively in talks and working on solutions with them as a community…


#52

Thanks M System.
I know as a company, ETN doesn’t want to keep forking and making changes to the blockchain or announce there is anything strange happening.
All of these minor inconveniences are growing pains of crypto. We are all still learning along the way.
I do know the ETN team has everyone’s best interest in mind and are certainly discussing ideas and options to help keep the blockchain healthy, as that is the backbone of the whole project.
Thank you for your assistance and proxy.


#53

How big an Organization is f2pool? We could potentially rent harsh power every time they are on the network and compensate the other pool for the increase difficulty via etn for a short while to force them off the network if the pool owner do not comply to etn request. Sooner or later the asic miner will leave the pool to join another one. The other solution would be to temporarily offer better rewards to the pools that are processing transactions . This will incentives ascis miners to move pools.


#54

F2Pool is a multi billion dollar operation and they had been around for quite some time. They are not interested in 51% attacks as they hold and have held more than 51% hashing power in many coins,

As covered above, number of options and solutions are being considered and perhaps that is the reason why no official word had been released. Please be patient and Thank you for your Support.

M.


#55

I wonder if its possible that the ETN team is in talks with them doing some testing of the blockchain.


#56

Electroneum is on the right track because it is facing all the hard issues, overcoming difficulties and regulations and every time this coin makes progress it gets attacked.

  • At first attempt to launch online wallets hackers tried to steal everyone’s coins using emails and passwords from previous large data breaches. They fixed that. (check your email at https://haveibeenpwned.com )

  • AWS screwed up and didn’t properly prepare for the right amount of traffic flow. They fixed that.

  • Then we had Cryptopia wallet unable to start back up for a month and we were “held hostage” by that exchange. They fixed that.

  • Then Mike S crept in and promised to deliver us from Cryptopia and he was not an honest fellow. They fixed that.

  • Remember the spam transactions? They fixed that.

  • Then we had pools taking advantage of the difficulty algorithm. They fixed that. F^%&, that sucked!

  • Apple keeps rejecting the app because they don’t like the miner. They fixed that.

  • Lot’s of people and developers talking smack about their lack of technical achievements. Andre and Chris hired working and solving issues, more developers on the way, developers arrived, instant payment API released, community forum released and looks very well done. I say they fixed that.

  • Where’s the exchanges? They fixed and are fixing that.

  • Where’s the monster deals?

patience


#57

You can tell F2pool on their twitter to stop mining empty blocks in a polite way. Don’t curse or call them cockroaches or criminals or anything like that, remember you represent the ETN community.
https://twitter.com/f2pool_official?lang=en

Expose them to the world. Take screenshots. Bottom line, transactions are waiting and you mined an empty block. No excuses or justifications for cheating.


#58

26 days ago:


#59

They have absolutely no reason to care or change. Their Twitter page indicates that their business model is based entirely on securing market share in order to secure profits.

It can clearly be seen, so why on earth would they change that business model to assist Electroneum, which is only one coin?


#60

But we will have KYC now. Mining empty blocks?! Now your whole mining pool staff’s online wallets can be locked. Still not playing fair like all the other pools? Escalate to whole city online accounts locked until they stop or target government officials in the mining pool area that are letting them continue to do this. But then they can still do CLI wallets. But remember exchanges require KYC and if the team wants it can show to exchanges what is happening with clear proof and ask that they freeze the accounts of the pool operators and staff. I’m not saying they will, I’m just saying it’s possible that could happen.

KYC BABY! S’UP?

Make it publicly known you asked them to stop and gave them several warnings. This is social media leverage. It makes that country look bad and shows another example if proof is shown (and anyone can take a screenshot of the Electroneum blockexplorer) of them trade cheating.

What we can do If we launch a campaign to expose them online using hashtags like #F2PoolMinesEmptyBlocks #EmptyBlocks #TradeCheating #China #Cheating #TradeStealing and get that spreading everywhere and we’re not rude or vulgar or demeaning, we just present the truth and say it’s time to stop we can bring social and political pressure to make their government step in and stop them because the current political climate is they as a country want to trade cheat and trade steal and when countries and corporations complain they try to re-spin accusations as politically motivated and unfair. We take that away from them and show clear evidence they are cheating. The blockchain don’t lie.

We can also put social media pressure on them to make their miners leave and go to other pools by stating clearly not to support a cheating pool


#61

There are F2pool owners/operators and miners on this forum right now. They will flag a post if it gets too much attention to what they are doing.

Edit: in hindsight I have no proof of that so I shouldn’t speak of what I don’t know