Search Results
ID: YFxnsqBE/biz/60714190#60722002
8/1/2025, 3:39:55 PM
>AI analysis of yesterday's MRL discussion on the matter: https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-research-lab/20250731
### 1. **Concerns Over Qubic Mining Pool**
A large portion of the chat centers on the increasing influence of the **Qubic mining pool (Jetskipool)** and the potential for **network centralization** or attacks:
* **Hashrate Surges**: Qubic reached **2.2 GH/s at peak**, with frequent on/off mining patterns—likely tied to botnets or opportunistic data center mining.
* **Potential 33% Attack**: While not enough for a 51% attack, Qubic could conduct a **selfish mining attack at \~33% hashrate**, particularly over a weekend to cause disruption and panic.
* **Speculated Botnet/Cloud Activity**: Participants suspect **datacenter mining** or even **cloud provider misuse** (e.g., AWS EC2) is behind the fluctuations.
* **Lack of Transparency**: Qubic doesn’t report hashrate like other pools, making their total share **difficult to track**.
* **Danger of Hashrate Rental**: A **stratum port for rented hashrate** is being enabled, possibly allowing the pool to **suddenly scale** via platforms like NiceHash or MRR.
### 2. **Technical Breakdown of Attack Vectors**
* **33% selfish mining**: Would allow Qubic to orphan blocks and manipulate transaction ordering.
* **51% threshold**: Theoretical and practical barriers are discussed; it would require over **2.5 GH/s more** than their current known hashrate.
* **Amplification by switching pools**: Shifting miners from other pools to Qubic not only boosts their share but weakens the rest, **doubling their net advantage**.
## Takeaway
Participants agree that while a full 51% attack is unlikely at this moment, a well-timed selfish mining attack could still be damaging, especially if used to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) or manipulate Monero’s credibility.
### 1. **Concerns Over Qubic Mining Pool**
A large portion of the chat centers on the increasing influence of the **Qubic mining pool (Jetskipool)** and the potential for **network centralization** or attacks:
* **Hashrate Surges**: Qubic reached **2.2 GH/s at peak**, with frequent on/off mining patterns—likely tied to botnets or opportunistic data center mining.
* **Potential 33% Attack**: While not enough for a 51% attack, Qubic could conduct a **selfish mining attack at \~33% hashrate**, particularly over a weekend to cause disruption and panic.
* **Speculated Botnet/Cloud Activity**: Participants suspect **datacenter mining** or even **cloud provider misuse** (e.g., AWS EC2) is behind the fluctuations.
* **Lack of Transparency**: Qubic doesn’t report hashrate like other pools, making their total share **difficult to track**.
* **Danger of Hashrate Rental**: A **stratum port for rented hashrate** is being enabled, possibly allowing the pool to **suddenly scale** via platforms like NiceHash or MRR.
### 2. **Technical Breakdown of Attack Vectors**
* **33% selfish mining**: Would allow Qubic to orphan blocks and manipulate transaction ordering.
* **51% threshold**: Theoretical and practical barriers are discussed; it would require over **2.5 GH/s more** than their current known hashrate.
* **Amplification by switching pools**: Shifting miners from other pools to Qubic not only boosts their share but weakens the rest, **doubling their net advantage**.
## Takeaway
Participants agree that while a full 51% attack is unlikely at this moment, a well-timed selfish mining attack could still be damaging, especially if used to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) or manipulate Monero’s credibility.
Page 1