Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Enterprise Bitcoin Mining For Go-Green Initiatives?

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the idle-cycles dept.

Bitcoin 312

Supp0rtLinux writes "Bitcoins are currently trading around $75. I work for a very large organization. We have a fairly large HPC that is usually about 50% idle, as well as about 18K desktops on 4 campuses connected with dark fiber. All stay on 24x7 for after-hours AV scans (weekly) and backups (2-3x a week). All are leases that refresh every 2 years so all have fairly good CPU & RAM specs. As part of a go-green initiative a proposal has come up to use all the PCs for bitcoin in our own mining group; sort of like SETI-at-home style, but with a real dollar value return to us. Additionally, we would setup a queue in our HPC that dedicates 30% to BC mining when in use and up to 99.5% when no other jobs are running. The thought is that all the PCs are on 24x7 anyway and consuming resources so why not allow them to be useful 24x7 as well and generate bitcoins which can then be sold to offset the electrical costs of the running equipment and/or possibly even make a little profit. The guy with the idea says its a no-lose situation as if the price of bitcoins drops to below a certain level and is no longer a financially viable option, we simply stop the mining process. I'm curious what the Slashdot community thinks of this? " Read on for a few more details.

Supp0rtLinux continues, Is it viable? Would we generate enough revenue to cover our electrical costs even with CPUs running at 100% utilization all evening? Are there any security risks? Any thoughts on network impact? The consensus is that the proposal sounds good, but no one has enough info to make a knowledgeable decision either way. As a follow-up question and one that came up after the initial proposal, this entire idea has us wondering why the botnet/malware guys aren't doing this already? It would seem like a trivial task to take a botnet of hijacked PCs and have them do BC mining instead of spreading more malware and generate real revenue for the owner's of the botnets wouldn't it?

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ask the (ABC) Australian Broadcasting Corp. (4, Informative)

Macfox (50100) | about a year and a half ago | (#43291989)

Why not ask this guy? Seemed to work out well for him. []

On a serious note. If it were viable, the practice would be wide spread. The serious miners have moved onto purpose built hardware. []

Green schmene (4, Insightful)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292569)

Anyone else notice that this question is being asked during a massive bubble period [] , and what is necessary to prop up a bubble is public awareness? Just like my post just now is shamefully unrelated to its parent, might the true purpose of this Ask Slashdot be to bring in a few more suckers before it crashes down to 15 or 20?

I will admit my biases against Bitcoin and my post history speaks to this, but this is a tactic also used to prop up stocks and precious metals. So yeah, I'm calling out TFS.

Re:Green schmene (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292843)

IF Bitcoin is sustainable, technically, 33 is the place where you should start buying in again.
Also keep in mind that Bitcoins popularity may be entirely triggered by the worldwide wild printing presses going mad with greed and fear, combined with the nature of Bitcoins to be generated in limited numbers (which also COULD mean limited usefulness).
This might mean BC will never revisit 20, or it might mean it will all crash 98% style when governments stats banning Bitcoins, simply because they cannot abuse it.

It's a hedge. I wouldn't bet any serious money on it. If it gains popularity to threaten governments and corporations, it WILL be shot down. Period. Kleptocrats will just not tolerate anything outside their control. They will shut down the internet if they need to, and it is in their power to do so with the gratitude of the masses.

Re:Ask the (ABC) Australian Broadcasting Corp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292763)

"If it were viable, the practice would be wide spread"

No, no, the poster knows "the guy with the idea" - he's connected to the source. Go green!

Later it will be widespread.

Unlikely. (5, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292027)

From what I have gathered, mining via CPUs is, at this point, not cost effective. It eats more power then it produces in bitcoins. The OP would probably get a better economic result by letting the computers go to sleep.

Re:Unlikely. (2)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292141)

From what I have gathered, mining via CPUs is, at this point, not cost effective.

They aren't even close to being cost effective any more. Two years ago this would have been a good plan, but now even the best general purpose CPUs are three technological generations behind the state of the art.

Re:Unlikely. (1)

liquidpele (663430) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292143)

Most of the mining software will use the GPU to do it now, so if they all have a hardy video card it could still be cost effective.

Re:Unlikely. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292197)

Most of the mining software will use the GPU to do it now, so if they all have a hardy video card it could still be cost effective.

GPU mining has been superseded by FPGA, and now ASIC technology. Most GPUs on the market aren't cost effective anymore.

Re:Unlikely. (3, Interesting)

Agent ME (1411269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292661)

Good GPUs still compete with FPGAs in hashing rate. FPGAs win in power efficiency, but depending on electricity costs and the computers' efficiency, GPU mining can still be worthwhile.

ASICs appear to give at least a hundredfold improvement over GPUs (similar to GPUs vs CPUs) but there are only hundreds or less out right now. Only one company is currently selling and shipping them right now and they're in small batches.

Re:Unlikely. (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292199)

And no AV scans or backups. Unfortunately, not an option for our org but thanks for the info. Any resources or public data available for figuring out the value of BC mining? I've looked but can't find any...

Re:Unlikely. (1)

LordNightwalker (256873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292373)

And no AV scans or backups. Unfortunately, not an option for our org but thanks for the info. Any resources or public data available for figuring out the value of BC mining? I've looked but can't find any...

Wake on lan? Wake by BIOS clock (scheduled)?

Re:Unlikely. (5, Insightful)

n7ytd (230708) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292419)

And no AV scans or backups. Unfortunately, not an option for our org but thanks for the info. Any resources or public data available for figuring out the value of BC mining? I've looked but can't find any...

Would it not make sense to alter your AV scan and backup scripts to do their thing, then put the machines to sleep afterwards?

If the goal is truly to "go green", using less electricity is the only way. If you're not looking to go green, but are instead looking to offset some of the money that you're spending now on electricity, turning the machines off will be orders of magnitude more effective than trying to offset the cost by mining and selling BitCoins.

Plus, running 18,000 desktop machines at 100% will put an extra heat load on your HVAC systems, which aren't free to run from either environmental or monetary costs.

Re:Unlikely. (1)

gmack (197796) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292617)

There are more power save states than just sleep. Most modern processors have the option to to reduce speed when idle, saving power. The same goes for the PCIe bus, and even some video cards if you run the machine full out mining bitcoins you will use extra electricity.

Personally, I would attach a power meter to one machine and compare the difference and have a look at whether it mines more value in bitcoins than the extra electricity it consumes during the process.

Re:Unlikely. (1)

Technician (215283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292239)

Having seen a server demo with 3 10 core Xeon processors do raytrace rendering ( like Monsters Ink ) the idle power is just over 100 Watts. Full load 60 threads running is a little over a KW. If BC is ramping idle machines, you will have a power requirement to support it.

Server was similar to this one but three processor..
HP ProLiant DL980 G7 E7-4870 2.4GHz 10 Core 4p Server

Re:Unlikely. (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292767)

Why can't bitcoin mining do something with some knowledge value, like Seti@home tries to do? It seems that bitcoins base a currency on wasting energy. Which would seem to be contrary to the principles of a "Green" organization.

B I T C O I N S lol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292031)

You are fucking stupid as hell.

Go Green (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292037)

For a Go-Green initiative, maybe you should consider turning 18,000 computers off over night.

Re:Go Green (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292135)

You misunderstood. "Go Green", as in mining bitcoins, each worth 75 greenbacks.

Re:Go Green (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292195)

"Lets go green by making all of our always on 18,000 desktops run at full load at all times."

Makes sense to me.

Re:Go Green (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292227)

Trust me I would like to. In fact, in our ESX environment we do turn vmotion VMs and turn off servers each evening to save power in the datacenter. However, for desktops and to meet requirements, etc we are required to have them on for the AV scans and backups, as well as automated Windows Updates.

Re:Go Green (1)

Chatterton (228704) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292283)

For the desktops. Why not use the wake-on-lan feature of most of the current bios? You can then wake up your computer when the AV or the Backup need them...

Re:Go Green (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292285)

> we are required to have them on for the AV scans and backups, as well as automated Windows Updates.

I was under the impression this is what wake-on-lan functionality is for. Maybe your machines don't support this?

Re:Go Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292525)

... you shut off SERVERS in your DATA CENTER to save power... but you're afraid to issue a sleep/wake command to desktops over the network to do the same? Fucking ridiculous.

Also - going "green" by making 18,000 computers consume maximum electricity is ass-backwards.

Also - going "green" by running 18,000 computers at peak load 24x7x365 will lead to faster failure of numerous components, which means more crap in e-waste recycling/landfills, more expense for your company, and more downtime for your employees, is also ass-backwards.

"Going green" by increasing your electricity consumption & accelerating your generation of e-waste and landfill materials is about the largest bit of dumb-fuckery I've ever heard.

Want to go green? Push out settings that will force all computers to turn off their display after 5 minutes of idle time, 24x7. Consider issuing a sleep/wake command over the network to some of them. Schedule your AV scans to run at lunchtime, or during the day - very few modern systems are going to have a noticeable performance drain from AV running in the background, and set your windows update crap to run & then hibernate the system after updates are applied. Adjust your thermostates so the office is allowed to get warmer overnight (nobody's there anyway, probably), and put all your office lights on motion-sensing timers that are very aggressive outside peak hours.

Don't want to go green? Mine bitcoins and ignore all the above.

Re:Go Green (2)

dave420 (699308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292689)

As others have stated, the only serious way to be green in this situation is to use Wake-on-LAN. Just schedule certain computers to wake up, scan and backup, and then turn off. Do it in batches to ease possible network congestion or power spikes, and you're good to go. Even better, you can schedule the computers to wake before work starts so people don't even know anything has changed. Problem solved. Running every computer 24/7 is simply going to chew up energy.

Re:Go Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292421)

Yes, exactly. Not so much turn them off, but have them set to use sleep. If you need them to wake up to do the silly AV scan (useless; just use the on access scanning) or the backup, then set the policy for the machine to allow wake timers and have them wake up to do those tasks and go back to sleep. You'll save a lot more power and add to it the cooling load that you won't have due to the machines being in sleep and you are looking at a lot higher return than silly BitCoins. It is easy to set this up so that machines can wake at certain times to patch, AV, backup, etc. and then sleep again. No need to fart around with mining operations when there are much simpler and greener answers out there.

Highly unlikely (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292041)

Unless you are getting your electricity at extraordinarily low costs, close to free, the increase in your electric bill will exceed the revenue you can bring in by an order of magnitude or two.

Even if all your computers had the best ATI graphics card that you could use to mine with it you'd be lucky to break even.

Re:Highly unlikely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292175)

This. The only really profitable mining these days is FPGA or ASIC based. Mining does eat up power and generate heat, computers do NOT use x power all the time - they really do throttle down. My beast consumes about 240W at adle, but up to about 800W when really thinking about stuff (mining on the CPU and both GPUs, for instance). I do not break even when mining. You will not fare any better unless you have a vector supercomputer, or something like that, in which case using it for something as trivial as mining is usually a hanging offense.

How about donating the time to a project on BOINC? Fold proteins or something like that, for Science.

Re:Highly unlikely (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292301)

There's a small possibility it could be beneficial if they have an arrangement with the power company that would give them extremely low rates in exchange for using power during off-peak times, but even then it would make more sense to buy ASICs or FPGAs as throttleble loads to arbitrage electricity rates with.

Re:Highly unlikely (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292839)

If you want to make a profit on Bitcoins you have to steal the power... That is basically what Bitcoin is for, its to make a new revenue stream from stealing elektrisity. It used to be that you had to grow weed to convert the stolen power to cash but that is illegal, this is a much better option.
1. Rent house in false name (or with a goalie).
2. Bypass meter.
3. Put in lots of mining hardware and cooling.
4. Automatically transfer mined Bitcoins to "secure" site.
5. Profit.
6. Leave sit until discovered and removed.
7 goto 1.

computers are terribly inefficient (4, Informative)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292057)

I bet your company ends up with a noticeably higher electricity bill, more so than you'd recover in bitcoins. I ran Seti@Home for a month on a single gaming grade system and my electricity bill jumped a staggering amount. But, I'd love to hear if I was wrong.

Re:computers are terribly inefficient (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292335)

But if you are a publicly funded institution, you just make the taxpayers suck up the power bill while you 4: profit!!!1!

Re:computers are terribly inefficient (1)

ggraham412 (1492023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292381)

I don't think many people realize that a computer consumes more electricity when the CPU is loaded than it does when the CPU is idle.

It's not like a hairdryer which draws the same power whether or not it is blowing at your head..

Re:computers are terribly inefficient (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292627)

Form what I understand no one can mine bitcoins cost effectively anymore, except for custom built systems.

It is a guarantee that they would put orders of magnitude more money into the project then they would get out.

And in no scenario would this ever of been green.

Learn the TRUTH... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292059)

Mainly in efficiency - it runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/PnP Kernelmode (on Windows), as merely a filter for the IP stack (no overheads of more driver layers OR browser level slower less efficient addons):

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY file is), so it reads F A S T upon re-reads/subsequent reads (until it's changed in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc on Windows, which marks it "Dirty" & then it gets re-read + reloaded into the local diskcache again). This may cause a SMALL initial load 1 time lag upon reload though, depending on the size of your HOSTS file.

E.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. BGP exploits - Sorry, once it's out of your hands/machine + past any interior network + routers you have, the packets you send are out there into the ISP/BSP's hands - they're "the Agents" holding all the keys to the doorways at that point (hosts are just a forcefield-filter (for lack of a better description) armor on what can come in mostly, & a bit of what can go out too (per point #20 above on "locking in malware")). Hosts work as a "I can't get burned if I can't go into the kitchen" protection, for you: Not your ISP/BSP. It doesn't extend to them

F.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. IP addressed adbanners (rare) &/or IP address utilizing malwares (rare too, most used domain/host names because they're "RECYCLABLE/REUSEABLE"), so here, you must couple HOSTS files w/ firewall rules tables (either in software firewalls OR router firewall rules table lists)... apk

I want to help spread the TRUTH (0)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292137)

I don't think it's best to post the TRUTH in Slashdot comments. Please contact me here [] .

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292235)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


Can I have some of what you're on? - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


oh come on.. this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


As mentioned by another AC up there, the troll in question is actually a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


It's actually a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


$20,000 to anyone providing proof of Alexander Peter Kowalski's death. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


And here I was thinking I was having a bad experience with a Dr. Bronner's bottle. - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


Does anyone know if OpenGL has been ported to Windows yet? - []


golfclap - []


The Truth! wants to be Known! - []


DNS cube? - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


You got that right. I think. - []


Michael Kristopeit, is that you? - []


ROFL! :) (Now the sick bastard will follow me again) - []


I miss Dr Bob. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


I am intrigued and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


1. You philistine, that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


I don't know if it is poorly-thought-out, but it is demented because it is at the same time an APK parody. - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


performance art - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Oh, come on. Just stand back and look at it. It's almost art, in a Jackson Pollock sort of way. - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


I'd have a lot more sympathy if you would log in as APK again instead of AC. - []


If [apk] made an account, it would be permanently posting at -1, and he'd only be able to post with it twice a day. - []


DAFUQ I just look at? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Do you know about the shocking connection between APK and arsenic? No? Well, your innocence is about to be destroyed. - []


Send bug reports to 903 east division street, syracuse, ny 13208 - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


lul wut? - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


Tabloid newspapers have speculated for years that APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. Too bad we didn't believe them sooner! - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


Don't hate the player, hate the game. - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


The thirteenth link is broken. Please fix it. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


Anyone else think that sounds like Ron Paul? - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


You make mikael christ the pet look like an huggable teddy bear - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


Happy now - []


Professional. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Holy shit - []


this is a perfect example - []


You're my personal hero. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Is that ALL you have to say? C'mon! Tell us what you really think. - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


PROOF apk is a liar! - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


Oh shit, the hosts files have become self-aware and started hacking accounts. - []


What mad skillz you have!! - []


Am I the only one who enjoys this sort of insanity? - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292337)

You too can contact me for server space through the same link. Let's please not clutter Slashdot with this.

Re:I want to help spread the TRUTH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292601)

Why are you hosting Zionist propaganda on your server? Do you support the genocide of innocent Muslim children?

I can't believe apk would stoop so low (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292471)

Wow, I cannot believe my mom stooped so low...

My mom called my doctor and said to him "What's the most accurate measurement for weighing?"
The doctor said "An underwater weighing test"
And just like that, my mom said "Yes. When can my son and my daughter can take it?" and the doc said "Today at 2pm."

So, I didn't bother taking a shower and so did my sister too, so I had to get into a special swimming suit(tight pants...Ugh).

My sister said "Can I pull my hair down to a ponytail?" The doctor said "No."
So my sister with her long, blonde hair went underwater with 8 seconds and had she must enjoyed it..but I didn't.

My sister had to wear pants and a bra, so she enjoyed minutes of going underwater. I didn't take a shower and she didn't too.

Before she got into the tank, you see girls 'pretend' to pull their hair into ponytails, but they don't. That's what she did.

The reason for this topic to not get too confusing is that don't you guys like to see teenage girls in a tank with their hair and their body soaked and wet? That's the reason for this topic.

You want a detailed summary of what happened today? Alright, here goes:

My mom wanted to do something instead of weighing myself on a scale. She heard about a underwater weighing test from my doctor last year and she wanted to give it a try to both, myself and my sister.

She called the doctor and wanted to schedule an appointment for my sister and I and today was the only day they could get us in. So my mom told both of us you don't need to take a shower if you don't want to(since I got up at 12pm and she got up at 12:30p.m.) It goes on from there with the underwater weighing at the doctor's office.

My sister constantly talks about her hair. "Should I wash it?" "Should I pull my hair up or leave it down?" Stuff like that. It wasn't my idea to take this underwater weighing thing. The doctor puts you in a tank (and I didn't have a shower), makes you do certain things of breathing, and you put your head underwater for a few seconds. Not hard at all.

To answer you question, before my sister and I got into the tank, the doctor did a basic weight test then I got into the tank and did some breathing excerises to see how my lungs would be situated underwater. Then the doctor took the temperature of the water inside the tank. After I taken my underwater tests, I had to stick my head underwater for 8 seconds and it was done. 30 minutes its all it take.

About the topic title:

I have a life on an off day from school. I didn't expect to go to my doctor's office and take an underwater weighing test. That said with my sister. I wasn't mad at my mom for doing this, but if she would've let me know about it days in advance, then it would be okay.

About the hair:

Everytime I go swimming at the YMCA, I see girls having their hair down and it doesn't disrupt them when they are swimming because it would get in the way, wouldn't it? You know if you've ever seen girls at your school that grab their hair and they look like they are going to pull their hair up, but don't.

About the shower:

Both my sister and I didn't feel like taking a shower yesterday because it was around noon time and had little time to get ready to go to the doctor's office. My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports bra, so she enjoyed every minute of going underwater. I DIDN'T ENJOY IT BECAUSE IT WAS MY DAY OFF FROM SCHOOL?! MY SISTER ENJOYED IT BECAUSE SHE HAD LITTLE ON GOING ON, WHILE I DID!

About the reason for the underwater test:

My mom wanted to do something instead of weighing myself on a scale. She heard about a underwater weighing test from my doctor last year and she wanted to give it a try to both, myself and my sister. I didn't enjoy the test but my sister did.

Again about the hair:

I go down to the YMCA and see where girls pretend to pull their hair back so it does or does not get in the way but the doctor said she couldnt for the underwater test through we had not taken a shower either

About the shower:

So my mom told both of us you don't need to take a shower if you don't want to so I didn't take a shower and she didn't too. Before she got into the tank, you see girls 'pretend' to pull their hair up, but they don't. That's what she did.

More about the topic title:

I have a life on an off day from school. I didn't expect to go to my doctor's office and take an underwater weighing test. That said with my sister. So I was mad at my mother and I wasn't going to take a shower if she said I had to but she let me skip the shower. Anyways I wasn't thinking well and was saving time (saving time by not taking a shower too) so I posted the topic title that I thought of because I was mad.

More about the hair:

She skipped the shower around noon. As said same goes with me. Then we took the underwater tests. My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports bra, so she enjoyed every minute of going underwater. Before that she tried to put her hair up but she wasn't allowed to. The doctor said no. So she did to her hair like what I see when I go down to the YMCA and see where girls pretend to pull their hair back.

About the water:

The water is located in a room that is different than the office. It is in a different location. My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports bra in a different room than the doctors office. My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports bra in the room with the water.

About the underwater test:

My mom wanted to do something instead of weighing myself on a scale.

More about my sister:

My sister was in tight clothing due to the test. My sister was wet just like me because the test was in a tank of water. My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports brain the room with the water. My sister did not wear tight pants and a sports bra in the office. My sister had to change into tight pants and a sports bra in the restroom before we got into the room with the water. I too had to change before and after the water room and did so in the restroom.

About the test:

To answer you question, before my sister and I got into the tank, the doctor did a basic weight test then I got into the tank and did some breathing excerises to see how my lungs would be situated underwater. Then the doctor took the temperature of the water inside the tank. After I completed my underwater tests which were underwater, I had to stick my head underwater for 8 seconds and it was done. 30 minutes its all it take.

This process then goes repeated for my sister.

After around noon I did not take a shower. Then the doctor did a basic weight test then I got into the tank and did some breathing excerises to see how my lungs would be situated underwater. I did not drown or lose oxygen during this process.

About the clothing:

My sister had to wear tight pants and a sports bra. I had to ware tight clothing as well.

About why I'm mad:

I have a life on an off day from school. I didn't expect to go to my doctor's office and take an underwater weighing test.I was happy with the off day from school and I got a off shower day too. Then we had to get tested underwater.

She's 17 years old
Long hair
Usually has her hair up but like I the doctor didn't let her so she made her hair like the girls I see down to the YMCA where people pretend to pull their hair back.

My sister enjoyed the tight clothing. My mother forces us to take showers. However we had an off school day and I guess was nice and gave us an off shower day. Nether the less I would not have took a shower due to my anger. I would have enjoyed the tight clothing but however I was angery due to the test so I did not enjoy so.

About the topic title:

I have a life on an off day from school. I didn't expect to go to my doctor's office and take an underwater weighing test. That said with my sister. I wasn't mad at my mom for doing this, but if she would've let me know about it days in advance, then it would be okay.I couldn't think of a topic so I said "Stooped so low."

About the house:

The house contains a kitchen , two bathrooms, a living room, a dining room, three bedrooms and a basement. Like I said I got up at noon did not take the shower. My sister did not take the shower. Then we went to the underwater test.

My sister also did not take a shower before taking the underwater test that got us wet. My sister found it enjoyable to be in the water because for the underwater test she was required to ware a sports bra and tight clothing. She and I got wet in the underwater test. Is it not enjoyable for you guys to be soaked and wet in tight clothing ?

I find it enjoy able to be wet in tight clothing. She was wearing tight pants and a sports bra and therefore found it enjoyable.Same for my sister. However it needs to be said that showers I do not find enjoyable. Same goes for me sister. Yes if I am going to get wet I would prefer to be in tight clothing. Because I enjoy being wet in tight clothing . Same goes for my sister. We were both wet during the underwater test.

I do look at girls at the YMCA when they are swimming. I mean have you ever watched what girls do to there hair at the YMCA. Watch girls at the YMCA. You will see the girls do that. I saw my sister do that too after the doctor said she couldn't put her hair in a ponytail.

I think I made mistake somewhere. I was in the room with her and so was my mother. However only me and my sister took the test. We each got in to the tank seperately. She was waring a sports bra and tight pants and had not took a shower that day. The doctor said she couldn't so she did was those YMCA girls did.

My sister and I did not take a shower because our mom let us have an off shower day. Then we went to the underwater testing that caused us to both ware tight clothing and get wet. Really its not a big deal that we had an off shower day. Due to the fact that I spent a lot of time underwater in clorinated water it killed the germs anyways. It also killed my sister's germs irregaurdless of the fact she was in tight clothing.

I do not like showers because I do not like getting wet if I am not in tight clothing. The same goes for my sister. However it needs to be said that my sister did enjoy being in a sports bra and tight clothing. I take showers like normal because my mom forces me. I didn't like the pool because my mom made me take the underwater test on an off school day and an off shower day.

I keep describing my sister in order to describe the clothing that she was waring. It was tight clothing. I do not like getting wet because it bothers me. However me and my sister like to get wet if we are in tight clothing. However my sister doesn't dislike being wet. It makes it ok because I enjoy it. Its a combination of being wet and nude I dislike. However my sister does not dislike this.

My sister is 17. I already posted this. I am 16 years old. She makes me take vitamins. We used to take baths together when we were like 3. However that is normal. We only had one bathroom and two bedrooms back then. Now our house has 2 bathrooms, 3 bedrooms , a dining room , a kitchen, a basement, and a living room. I am detailing the house because someone accused me of living in a gingerbread house.

I used to play runescape for a year but my mom made me stop. My sister used to play also. However our mother made us stop because we played so much. She has more of a life than me now but still I still have a life. I am stocky

I have friends in school and talk to them. My sister also has a lot of friends. I am part of the bowling club. I bowled a 160 last week. My sister does not belong to that club. However my sister only likes Lord of the Rings. My sister enjoyed the underwater test while she ware a sports bra and tight clothing.

She watches the television show Grey's anatomy all the time. She likes that show. It is a show that she enjoys watching. I don't enjoy it. She does not watch me she watches Grey's anatomy.

She has not been to the dentist since she was 4. She went to a crappy one and it scared her.I have to go often because my teeth are bad. She does not go because she is scared. I do not like dogs. She likes pretty much all dogs but she likes small dogs better. However she likes all dogs unlike me.

Today my mom made my sister and me take a shower. I didn't like it. My sister was ok. Today was another off-school day. Our family is a christian family. My sister is a christain. Same goes for me.

I am going to bed. I am sure this will still be alive this morning.

Re:I can't believe apk would stoop so low (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292725)

You make me sad with your complete lack of either bel-airing *or* "that dog's not so shaggy" at the end of that. Don't you know long, rambling, pointless, off-topic posts are required to end with one of those memes?

if you use ASICs maybe (0)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292061)

but I'm not a math expert.

not green (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292071)

This might be financially feasible, but it is NOT green. Bitcoin mining *uses* more power, and does not produce anything "tangible", meaning something that offsets the use of energy elsewhere.

Wouldn't that waste more energy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292081)

Idle computers don't actually waste all that much power, especially newer hardware. Mining bitcoin instead would use more power and generate more heat which you would need to get rid of somehow - in short, this is in no way "green", and I'm not even sure you'll break even.

Re:Wouldn't that waste more energy? (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292465)

Well, that's the general idea we're trying to figure out. Obviously if the PC is idle it uses fewer resources. But at what point does ratcheting it up to 100% utilization for 8-12 hours become worthwhile? Sure, it will consume more electricity, but say the extra electricity is $0.10 per PC times 18K PC's is an electrical bill increase of $1800. So we would need to generate 24 bitcoins in that 8-12 hours to break even and more to make money. Granted, this is loosely rounded math, but that's what we're trying to figure out. Is it feasible now? Or do I need to wait til a BC is $200 versus $75? Of course the real money *could* be to the botnet guys as they can use the swarm to generate revenue without caring about the electrical costs.

Re:Wouldn't that waste more energy? (1)

The_PS4_Will_Fail (2847449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292723)

Sure, it will consume more electricity, but say the extra electricity is $0.10 per PC times 18K PC's is an electrical bill increase of $1800. So we would need to generate 24 bitcoins in that 8-12 hours to break even and more to make money.

Using more electricity to generate money is not a "go green"-initiative, as others have pointed out. This proposal should be rejected as it is going to use more electricity.

You need a stockpile (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292089)

Your issue is that you'll have to mine bitcoin when it's not economically sound to do so in order to have bitcoin available to trade when they are worth something. Good luck selling that idea to the beancounters.

No Bitcoins expert, but this doesn't seem "green" (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292117)

As far as I know, mining bitcoins is extremely CPU intensive. So unless the bitcoins will be spent on planting trees (or something...), the increase in the electric bill due to the increased CPU power dissipation (more electricity to feed the CPU and more electricity to cool it) makes things less green, not more.

But maybe a new definition of "green" is used here? Such as... "profit"?

Don't waste your time or electricity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292119)

You have to understand that BitCoin scales the mining difficulty to match the mining power in the network.

Once ASIC miners are out there, you won't have any significant return on investment for GPU mining (CPU mining is already a waste of time). ASICs kill GPUs, which kill CPUs. It's like rock paper scissors where rock destroys everything.

Folding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292125)

Do something useful for humanity, shut the machines off to actually be "green", or don't lie to yourself and call it green. Mining Bitcoins is not some "greater good," unless you're going to cash out the Bitcoins immediately, and donate the money directly to some other cause.

Some Thoughts (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292129)

Okay, frankly, I don't see the "Go-Green" aspect of this. Maybe I'm missing something here -- was that joke to make it sound eco friendly but actually reflecting the color of money? I'm lost as to how this would be environmentally friendly as opposed to your current situation unless that extra money is going to subsidize your enterprise using renewable energy or something ...

One, it's a great idea and even if you don't move forward with this plan I think it's important to give the employee kudos for suggesting something new. If everyone came up with a half crazy/half ingenious idea you'd be able to try out a lot of innovative stuff. That said, I think there's some underlying costs you should evaluate up front: there needs to be an administrator for the Bitcoin mining software, (I assume you know this but) your electrical bill should rise up a bit to reflect the increased power draw when your cluster is crunching numbers and there needs to be a way to record any incidences where you think the BTC software ran into the day or inhibited a normal work related job on the server. That shouldn't be a deal breaker, just have a system in place to assess those monetary incursions on your business. It may also require you to do some interesting tax claims as you might "earn" so many bitcoins that your accounting department has to start including it on an asset sheet so that the books stay legal. I'm not an expert in this.

Something that is important is that the sooner you get this up and running, the better. Read up on the distribution of bitcoins to understand what I mean [] .

Is it viable? Would we generate enough revenue to cover our electrical costs even with CPUs running at 100% utilization all evening?

Probably? The real problem is the volatility of BTC on trades and, if you become a major reserve of BTC, you would likely have difficulties realizing your USD valuations of BTC in one swift action. One day it could make sense and the next day it could be a bust all based on whether MtGox was hacked or some major holder cashed out. How exactly did you plan on evaluating these holdings?

Personally, I wouldn't do this. I'd take a more entrepreneurial approach and attempt to lease CPU time to new customers. I know this practice has grown less profitable as people have been better equipped to set up their own clusters but what you might do is look into software that rents out your cluster by the hour and then seek out customers. As far as I know you can only expect a couple cents an hour per core on something like that but it slowly adds up. Plus, it's a little more legit and on the level.

Another idea is to lease this downtime as CPU usage to a local university or high school or something and, whether they use it or not, you might be able to write off some of that donated time and save a little money on taxes or at least build good will.

As a follow-up question and one that came up after the initial proposal, this entire idea has us wondering why the botnet/malware guys aren't doing this already? It would seem like a trivial task to take a botnet of hijacked PCs and have them do BC mining instead of spreading more malware and generate real revenue for the owner's of the botnets wouldn't it?

I'm not an expert in this but I'm pretty sure the answer is simple: when a botnet is up, it takes commands instead of issuing information back to the command and control. The idea behind a botnet is more frequently to control millions of random desktops from one central point. If botnets phone home with a new wallet or information, you run the risk of being traced more easily, being detected more easily and also DDOSing yourself if your botnet gets out of hand. That's my suspicion anyway. I'm sure some do do this, they probably just can't get very large.

Re:Some Thoughts (1, Informative)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292519)

Thanks valuable insight here. I would mod you up if I could...

Not Enough Information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292133)

I didn't see your electricity cost anywhere in the post. It seems like that's really what it's going to depend on. Your HVAC costs will go up as well.

Re:Not Enough Information (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292611)

True. This started as a technical solution with only one finance person present. We know we have evaluations to do, etc to figure it out. I figured why waste the time going into budget and P&L meetings and crap if there's some huge reason it won't pay off. From the majority of replies it sounds like we'll burn more electricity and make some money but likely earn less BC value than we'll spend in power. That will be the focus of our next meeting and investigation and determining if we move forward with this.

Green ? (1)

kuiken (115647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292147)

Using more CPU = using more power
So this is not really green

A hahahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292149)

Nice troll.

Might not be as green as you think (2)

Digital_Quartz (75366) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292157)

The one thing that jumps out at me immediately is that, for almost any modern computer, a computer which is powered up but otherwise idle is going to draw less power than a computer which is mining bitcoins. If you want to use GPU mining (and, realistically, if you don't, this is probably a waste of time since you'll probably never mine any bitcoins) then I think you'll find the power draw from a mining machine is substantially higher than that of an idle machine.

So, what you need to do is work out your idle power consumption (with, say, a Kill-A-Watt meter), then work our your fully-loaded power consumption (preferably by trying to mine some bitcoins, but you could get a reasonable quick estimate by firing up a modern 3D game), work out the delta, which is your effective power consumption for mining, and then use one of the various calculators out there (e.g. [] ) to decide if this is a profitable venture for you or not.

Re:Might not be as green as you think (2)

Digital_Quartz (75366) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292255)

Actually, I will mention that here in Ontario, larger organizations get their electricity on HOEP pricing ( HOEP basically stays at a fixed market rate, provided that electricity demand is close to projected electricity demand. When demand differs from projections, the price fluctuates. You can get the current price off their website, updated in realtime.

If demand is too high, the price goes up, and if demand is lower than expected, the price goes down (because they have extra capacity, possibly from nuclear sources that can't easily be spun down, that they need to bleed off somewhere.) Sometimes, the price actually goes substantially negative, but usually only for a few hours a few times a year.

So, if you're on your local supplier's equivalent of HOEP, you might review your historical pricing, and see if it's worth your time an effort to build a system that starts furiously mining when the price goes low/negative.

Great idea if you need drugs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292163)

Bitcoin's primary function is currency for illegal goods. Since you want to do a relatively large scale mining operation, I can only assume you and your higher-ups have a significant interest in buying illegal drugs or pornography, because that's what Bitcoins are mainly used for.

You could argue that it is a no-lose situation as long as breaking the law is your intended goal. I think everyone involved with this scheme should be fired.

But hey, gotta get that weed anyway you can, right? Fucking junkies.

Wasting electricity to "go green"? (1)

PremiumCarrion (861236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292181)

How would wasting electricity by mining bitcoins on CPUs and then increasing cooling demand from your HVAC system be going green at all?

I'd genuinely be interested in hearing the logic behind that, have you considered burning all the worlds forests in order to make some road salt too? I'm sure that's green too, somehow.

Not the desktops (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292187)

Bitcoin mining right now is barely profitable using GPUs, and has been a complete waste on the CPU for over a year.

Just because the machines are on 24/7, you cannot add load to them without increasing their electrical consumption. I have a desktop that idles around 80W, and under full load can reach 400W. And don't forget, every watt a computer uses means one more watt of heat that needs to be removed.

The desktops, unless you have gaming-level GPUs in them, aren't going to turn a profit just on the electrical costs. The HPC might, depending on what sort of hardware is in it. If you're set up to do a lot of GPGPU computing, it would work well. Or if you have FPGAs that you can configure for mining. But if it's just a bunch of CPUs, it's not going to work. Bitcoin mining was explicitly designed to be embarrassingly parallel - the only thing that matters is throwing a lot of wimpy cores at it.

poster is dumb fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292203)

You dumb fuck CPU mining has long past, GPU mining has peaked and its all fucken ASIC's now bitch! Fuck off with your lame CPU's!

Re:poster is dumb fuck (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292603)

Apparently /. has started to allow 12 year olds to post again. Please go back to pretending you have a life on Facebook and leave /. to people that don't have to pretend their existence is greater than their phone tells them it is. :P

Go Green ...lulz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292207)

I'm sorry I had to LOL real hard.....'Go Green' ...muahahahaaaaaa

Power consumption increases when mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292213)

I've run a bitcoin CPU miner on a server attached to a current meter and I can tell you the current drawn goes up massively when compared to idle. On top of this the fans spin up to maximum and lots of heat is generated, so there will be AC costs too. So you can't just take the view that 'the servers are on overnight anyway' - the extra computation has a real cost. My understanding is that even for GPU mining it's hard to break even on power costs these days so I'm highly doubtful that CPU mining is worth it.

Test and do the math (5, Insightful)

RayHahn (454772) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292223)

Get a "Kill-O-Watt" for about $20. Test a PC at idle. Then load up the bitcoin processes, and test again. You will indeed find that the PC is drawing considerably more power under load than at idle. Multiply the increase in wattage by the number of hours in a month, then by the number of PCs you're talking about, and then divide by 1000 to get the increase in kilowatt hours. Multiply that by your cost of power per KWh.

Then go read how increasingly impossible it's becoming to mine coins, and how you'll have a very difficult time getting one.

Then don't do it.

Better to lease the CPU time (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292229)

I agree. Better to lease the CPU time to a local university or anyone else who wishes to pay - is there a market for this out there? I'm sure I remember hearing out this somewhere.

Definate kudos for the idea. This inspires the leasing out to a University or similar who might be able to bee more green as a result and then you are lining up on that green goal... assuming making such processing available isn't like roads and actually encourages growth.

you're already not green (4, Insightful)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292289)

You leave 18K systems on 24/7 so you can do a once-per-week virus scan and a twice per week backup? Really?

This is the opposite of going Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292311)

Going green would mean saving CO2 emissions. Running all the CPU' s your organisation owns at 100% during off hours causes extra CO2 emissions. At least SETI@home or Folding@home do calculations that may be sort of useful to someone, maybe. Bitcoin is literally calculating arbitrarily difficult hashes. In theory it makes bitcoin more secure but not really since most of the mining resources are owned by a tiny number of mining pools and even thousands of CPU' s and GPU' s mining around the clock would make a negligable impact and still allows big pool operators to double spend or fork the blockchain if they feel like it.

Bitcoin is literally the worst idea ever.

GPU (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292327)

if the computers have GOOD gpus, then it might be cost effective.
If you are mining on cpus, forget it.

Follow-up from the OP (0)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292333)

So one thing I should throw out there we're already very, very green compared to many companies. We are positioned near a local river & lake for cooling needs and use a solar farm (no I don't work for Apple in NC). All building roofs are painted white, etc etc etc. All laptop users are required to run on battery power throughout the day until 20% and then they plug in. Compared to your average company on a grid, we're already about 60% green and our electrical bills now are about 75% lower than they were 5 years ago accounting for inflation and the market and other offsets and adjustments that bean counters like to do. Our goal is to shave off another 10% within 3 years EITHER by consuming fewer resources or by offsetting our costs (ie: making money that covers electrical costs) or both. Please add your comments to the main thread, not this one just wanted to throw this out there as some additional information.

Re:Follow-up from the OP (2)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292415)

The proposal is still not green. Increasing profit is not the same as reducing energy. So it sounds like your accounting method has self-induced delusion on this issue.

Re:Follow-up from the OP (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292499)

All laptop users are required to run on battery power throughout the day until 20% and then they plug in.

Is that really the most efficient use of the laptop battery?

Re:Follow-up from the OP (1)

j-beda (85386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292769)

All laptop users are required to run on battery power throughout the day until 20% and then they plug in.

Is that really the most efficient use of the laptop battery?

Probably not as it can "wear out" the expensive battery sooner.

However it might make some sense in terms of shifting electricity use away from the peak hours of solar generation and high electricity prices. In a grid-tied system with time-of-use pricing, you want to minimize the use of electricity during the highest priced times (working hours typically), so shifting them to later in the day might be economically and environmentally a positive move.

None of this is an argument for increasing your power use by running extra processes on your systems.

Re:Follow-up from the OP (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292613)

Another issue with a fungible commodity like Bitcoin is that, by adding to the market rage for it (increasing the price), you're encouraging others to burn more (horribly non-green) resources to create their own. Even if you have completely free, clean, green energy for making Bitcoin, by giving publicity and support to this fundamentally ecologically disastrous project, you're helping to push the price up --- thus making it worthwhile for someone else to fire up their coal-powered mining rig. You can see similar patterns with other fungible extractable commodities --- as the price goes up, new and more ecologically damaging mines go into operation (because it's worthwhile to tear up even more mountains and dump more arsenic to get a smaller amount of material). If you really want to "go green" (in a meaningful rather than empty-nerd-PR-only manner), then you shouldn't be encouraging growing the market for super-energy-expensive resources.

Re:Follow-up from the OP (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292711)

We are positioned near a local river & lake for cooling needs

You do realize that aquatic organisms are affected by heat? Warming rivers and lakes with your waste heat is not ecofriendly. It may be cheap because you can shift the cost to the commons, but do not confuse cheap with green. []

The most common cause is reduced oxygen in the water, which in turn may be due to factors such as drought, algae bloom, overpopulation, or a sustained increase in water temperature.

The warmer the water, the less oxygen it can hold.

rough calculation (1)

nu1x (992092) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292787)

Let's say a single, ATIx7xx (or better) graphics carded desktop (anything else is not price-effective) consumes ~250 Watt on idle (reasonable estimate).

Let's say you mine with it - you now consume ~350-550 Watt per desktop, let's say, average of 150 Watt per desktop increase.

With 18000 desktops, that would be, if we are careful with time allocation, (8 hours x 150 Watt x 18000 desktops) / 1000 KW/h increase in power consumption, per night.

That is ~21600 KH/h increase in power consumption per night, or 648000 KW/h increase in power consumption per month.

Now, as it is (and it is a floating, quicksand value), 1 GH/s gives you ~2-2.5 BTC per month.

150 Watts of low-medium ranged ATI card gives you ~100 MH/s, (which you want to run @ 50%, for your offices will catch fire, and no, I am not kidding). So that is ~50 MH/s optimistic value per desktop (remember, provided they are optimally equipped, that is, ATI x7xx cards or better).

50 MH/s x 18000 desktops per month is 900 GH/s per month. That would amount to ~1800 BTC, which go by $70-80 right now, say $75. So a profit of 135000 $ if you somehow can convert them to useable (spendable) form.

Now take 135000 bucks per month and substract from that 648000
KW/h per month (where I live 1 KW/h is about 20 american cents).

So you substract from 135000, 129600 Dollars for electricity, and you are left with 5400 Dollars profit (provided you have god like ability to convert that amount of bitcoins to real, useable currency at such rates).

So, in perfect world conditions, yes it breaks even, barely.

Sorry if there were any crude errors, but you get the point.

Re:rough calculation (1)

nu1x (992092) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292821)

s/~21600 KH/h/~21600 KW/h

Why not donate the resources? (2)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292345)

You mention SETI in the post, but why not pick some distibuted projects that are useful to your company to help push the research forwards? Most big companies want to find ways to improve their public image, this is a great way to do it.

There are many options: []

If you don't already you should look into getting a special deal for power consumption at night. It should cost much less than powering on in the daytime. In fact, if you could have your system off in the daytime and only run it at night you could likely get really good deals in certain electric markets.

probably irresponsible at best (1)

erikscott (1360245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292429)

If then entire value of this thing is predicated on finding SHA256 collisions, then we need ask "what is the practical value of an SHA256 collision?" Looks like some one or some group has found a way to fraudulently-sign-digital-certificates@home. Is that something you want to participate in, especially in a way that can be traced back to you? :-)

Competition (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292443)

Your competition is botnets, they consume no power to their owners and the return is hard to beat. Your far better off from a financial stand point to put those computers to sleep. Your also running against bit coins becoming always harder to make with time. Bottom line is that the cost of making them is more than the return. That is why botnets will free to make them, they aren't paying the costs.

Test the theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292447)

Take 10 computers and mine coins for 30 days. This test lets you know about how many coins you can expect each machine to produce.

  Then take 100 computers and mine for another 30 days. This will give you even better numbers, but the goal of this test is to see the impact of a larger deployment. Deploy to these 100 like you would to the 18,000 and monitor to see if you can minimize the user impact.

Take this info back to your team as proof of concept. You should have enough data to calculate the return on investment. Make sure you calculate the cost of power for these computers working harder. A idle computer uses much less power.

With that said, take a serious look at the current generation of VDI. You could have low power clients talking to high end servers. VDI is growing up fast.

Clueless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292463)

There is nothing green about bitcoin mining it is total waste of power. All miners work on the same calculation at the same time so the work being done can be done by one computing device only giving you the same result.


Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292493)

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

It's amazing how often people consider the cost of something is free or negligible because their electric bill and paycheck come in separate envelopes. I wonder how popular electric cars would be if the charging station looked like a gas pump with a dollar amount on it.

Power off (2)

vvaduva (859950) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292535)

You are better off powering off all the unused machines at night and saving your company quite a bit of money.

exchange rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292545)

kinda off topic but:
who would've thought that one (1) bitcoin would be worth £58.00 Pound Sterling, €68.60 Euros, $87.60 U.S. Dollars, $89 Canadian Dollars, 4,792 Rupee or ¥8,291 Japanese Yen, 515 Norwegian Krone so soon? Wow. i'm actually tempted to buy some bitcoins now and sell them at a higher price later this year.

as long as i don't loose my wallet, i'll be fine.

Broken compass (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292555)

I never understand the appeal of bitcoins. All transactions are basically public information subject to any number of statistical methods to develop profiles of user activity over time. Your local paper currency still wins out big in the areas of privacy and legitimacy nor is it clear that governments would actually continue to tolerate the usage of bitcoin if it ever popped its head out of the ashes of irrelevance without subjecting it to at least the same rules as normal currency. Perhaps this is unlikely due to the self limiting nature of coin circulation.

Like a chorous caroling under a troll bridge if you want to go green turn the goddamn things off when your not using them.

Re:Broken compass (1)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292863)

I see the attraction.
The currency is global, which means that unlike some things (paypal) I might be able to do things with people in some countries that could not happen before.
Its breaking the ice and allowing anyone to barter goods or services in exchange for coin.
Its not really monitored by government yet/or heavily - and as such it has certain nice features.

The downside, is that it can and is being used for illegal things. An Iranian man can pay for a server outside Iran. This may be illegal to the zealots who run a theocracy there. A man in the US might pay for something outside of US gov finance circles and the gov may deem this non legal. And criminals may use it for finance. And certainly I know that people are buying drugs on the silk road via it.

Given in the US there is some talk of ending the drug way, the better way for them to face that off would be to legalise then tax it.

As its a small internet currency, my personal take on this is that if someone is doing something illegal - its not the coin that is the crime. It will largely be the end product, drugs, violence. These are often dealt with under existing law. I think it terms of small sized bartering, Its creating people opportunities for goods and services. I don't mind the governments saying large transactions or repeating transactions should have monitoring, but I hope they allow it room to operate.

I may change my view on this, but thats roughly what I think at the moment.

How would this be green? (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292563)

When CPUs go idle, they consume less power. By keeping them pegged at full capacity, you're using more power, not the same amount. I'm not even sure how this is green at all, ignoring the whole Bitcoin angle.

CPUs are bad at Bitcoin mining (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292571)

Bitcoin miners use GPUs, which are orders or magnitude better than CPUs at Bitcoin mining. Unless your server has a high-end GPU in it, you will probably get nowhere (even assuming that the underlying idea is sound, which it is not for reasons pointed out by other posters).

Re:CPUs are bad at Bitcoin mining (2)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292629)

Bitcoin miners use GPUs, which are orders or magnitude better than CPUs at Bitcoin mining.

Miners are moving to ASICs, which are an order of magnitude more efficient than the FPGAs they replace which were already an order of magnitude more efficient than GPU mining.

GPU mining was how things were done a year ago, but in terms of the speed at which Bitcoin is evolving "last year" means "back in ancient times".

Re:CPUs are bad at Bitcoin mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292833)

The hilarious thing about the whole situation is that, as I understand it, the Bitcoin mining chain is designed to release about the same amount of coins per unit time to the mining network; having better mining hardware increases your chances of getting these coins. Purchasing an increasingly expensive array of GPUs, FPGAs, ASICs, quantum supercomputers, etc., just becomes a keep-up-with-the-competition rat race, one that's only currently sustainable because of the current price bubble.

In other words, having faster hardware in absolute terms doesn't help you, the only thing that helps is having faster hardware relative to the other miners in the network. If you're the first on the block with ASICs, you out-compete other miners for a while, but once everyone has an ASIC rig, you're all producing the same coin output that you did back when you all had GPUs. Do I have that right?

You're doing it wrong. (5, Insightful)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292579)

If this is your "Go Green" initiative, you either don't understand Bitcoin mining or "Go Green" means something different than most would assume.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43292727)

Money's green. That's what he's talking about.

Don't think so.. (2)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292649)

I've done some testing. I tried to create conditions for success.

1. I had handy an M18 R2 - with dual 7970s.
2. I work a lot of hours and my kit is used by my employer. In trade off I use some juice for testing.
3. CPU bitcoining is worthless - just forget about it totally. Anyone telling you that only high power GPUs, FPGAs or ASICs offer a return are correct, and thats before ever discussing power.
4. I am vaguly able to generate 0.05 BTCs a day in test conditions. This currenty equates to 1/20th of a bitcoin per day, so 20 days would get me around $75.

Notes: At current rates, it will take 400 days to recover the cost of the laptop - assuming power was free, which it is not. Power draw is not far off a nasty P4 desktop box - but daya by day 24/7 I don't like the look of the power costs.

ASICs and FGPAs seem to be full of start ups, and small companies offering various now and future hardware and G/hs rates. These offer performance that will - as far as I can see eliminate GPUs in the near future, and make BTC mining the home of specialist miners only. Which is perhaps where it needs to go given the silly power required now on commodity hardware for minimalist return.

I can't really equate this being green, in any way, no matter how I cut it. I think the idea is to cut your power use, not get creative in trying to generate money of silly power usage.

I think previously, some crazy folks might have been able to make large btc mining operations on commodity hardware - I think its moved away from that now. At least where I live, and with energy costs what they are.

And the figures now are not what they were, when BTCs fell to 2$ - its fairly scary to see the loss basis if you make assumtions of hardware costs/ profit. For me, it has to be hobbyist mining, and with no direct aim 'to make' money.

If someone else buys your hardware for you; and if someone pays your power costs and colling / air con costs - then on the surface money could be made... but its a mirage really. Someone has to pay

World Community Grid (3, Insightful)

Dishwasha (125561) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292663)

I'd recommend looking at the World Community Grid [] and BOINC [] . You can pick any number of projects to contribute resources to from solving clean water problems to finding a cure for AIDS to processing massive antennae data sets to detect asteroids that may be on a collision path with earth.

*POP* (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292669)

Bitcoins are currently trading around $75.

Until the imminent pop, at which point all those bitcoins you were hanging on to because they were going up uP UP! are now worth squat, and there's still a giant power bill to pay.

I went back to Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292735)

Assuming this is about money and not the environment... Bitcoin has been mostly off my radar, so I went back to the original paper [] describing the system. A very important aspect is this:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

If you can get enough CPUs together to break that requirement, then you'll be able to make some real money.

Re:I went back to Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. (2)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292777)

If you can get enough CPUs together to break that requirement, then you'll be able to make some real money.

And just how many CPUs would you need to calculate 30 trillion SHA256 hashes per second?

Re:I went back to Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292781)

Or you could instead use your powers for good and destroy the entire thing.

How is using up more electricity "Go Green" (1)

Tomji (142759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43292785)

Save the energy, let unused system sleep.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?