>>60832862
>>60832915
>>60833046
>BOTNET BOTNET
>But muh profits, le hackers get Moneros free
You faggots are so insufferable, I bet none of you have even done napkin math on this shit. The only worthwhile systems to infect are dumb fucks using game cheats and if that was the case the only time a botnet would get full compute is outside of gaming hours.
Let's throw out a rough estimation of the top games, CoD, CS2, Fortnite, PUBG, Valorant and absolutely conservatively (maximally for your argument) call it 24 million 'hackers' total. Now divide it up between however many cheat devs one could speculate there are and their client count.
Then consider that about 10% (based on Steam surveys) of that total is about 2.5 million hackers with high-end CPUs (12+ cores) that would be worth mining on in the first place. That's not even factoring that over 50% of that is still Intel with it's rubbish e-cores and abysmal cache.
>but they don't check their system utilization
But they'll definitely fucking notice their system shitting itself during their game and stop using that hack
>but you could just do minimized, dynamic core allocation or off-hour mining
On Intel with garbage hashrate even with full core allocation?? Ryzen will also do full cache allocation (per CCD) regardless of core count for XMRig. Very noticeable either from fan speed or performance drop even during basic tasks. If it's truly 'off-hour', slash the mining time to a fraction then.
>N-no they infect average PCs and laptops
So 5x-10x or even 20x the amount of systems and in a broad sweep botnet only mining? No other tasks? Get fucking real, if that was the case we'd have better network security.
