Certainly, I’ll do more research. But I’d hoped you could have presented more to convince people with a credible mathematical analysis.
ummmm … this is gossip, not facts.
If you firmly believe it then go out and find this code and sell hpool and Chia the data. I’m sure that they would by happy to pay you a reward. 
1 Like
Really? What happened to your trained monkey?
When did we become responsible for providing you with the math?
These issues have been discussed to death over and over. Research and you will find the answers you seek and many to questions you never thought to ask.
Don’t expect the forum to regurgitate at your whim.
1 Like
You don’t have to believe anything others said. But you seem have heard something more than I do. Selling code to HPool? Very interesting.
Again, you don’t have to. People come to this board to exchange thoughts.
If there is hacking software out there you can be reasonably sure that Chia and hpool are already aware of it and you probably would not get your reward. I was being facetious.
And yes, we come to exchange thoughts, but my point is that these thoughts have repeatedly been discussed in threads here and on reddit r/chia. They still are. We need more threads about fair pools like we need a hole in the head.
If you’re really interested, here’s the mathematical basis for Chia: ChiaGreenPaper.pdf. It covers the very issues discussed in this thread.
3 Likes
Thanks for the link. As the discussion has gone way deeper into the protocol, it’d be more intuitive to share your insight.
By the way, the fake plots were reported by Chia Core Dev , too https://www.reddit.com/r/chia/comments/nuzhxd/chia_core_ride_is_over/ and the issue of PPS cheating contributed to the shutdown of their pool service.
The issue of fake plotting is real and serious.
Please look into the official pool protocol and block-chain
what you are pointing out are un-official pools getting cheated on, because they have no real means of determining the plots a farmer has.
stop the FUD, there are no ‘fake plots’ on Chia blockchain… only bad pooling implementations by parties that are not using the official pooling protocol (because that protocol is still in testnet)
2 Likes
This was a report from Chia Core Dev at CorePool, not a report from Chia Inc. CorePool delivered this message as they closed their pool.
CorePool survived their, “fake plotting” issue but is now considered by many to be a bad actor.
I wouldn’t pass a judgement on who was a bad actor or not in pooling. Economically speaking, bad pooling won’t survive, but bad plotting could last. The issue is about the existence of fake plotting and how to deal with them.
For the benefit of Chia Network, it takes courage to face the problem and solve the problem, instead “try to justify the things and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist because it’s an inconvenience” (quote).
Could you point out where in the official docs stating that “there are no ‘fake plots’ on Chia blockchain”?
Judge CorePool or not, my point is that the only people talking about fake plots were corepool.
There was no further mention of fake plots. CorePool was being fooled somehow, but not Chia’s network or blockchain.
Wow … first time I’ve seen 4 replying at once, lolz! 
1 Like
Yes and not just core pool, upool quit because of it i understand, hpool also released a statement saying they have problem with double farming.
Just the problem of not being able to use vdf to send actual challenges
Otherwise there is no issue with fake plots.
1 Like
Yes … double farming, not farming fake plots.
I agree, the gap between full technical details and an intuitive understanding isn’t filled very well right now.
Here is my mental model of what the pooling protocol relies on to be ‘fair’
-
The Chia proof of space does not allow for false positives of solutions, even at its lowest difficulty
-
Pool can get enough true positive solutions from each participant so that the positive solution frequency is high enough to correlate with the participant’s number of plots within an accepted variance, even for the smallest farmers.
If both of these hold, then the protocol is solid. Well, there is obviously
- The protocol in practice should not be cost prohibitive on either side of the pool and the pool participants
It is no use arguing ‘I think it is’ or ‘I think it is not’ without pointing out specific flaws or specific control measures. You will not convince anyone that wasn’t already on either side to switch just because.
1 Like
True, the green paper is quite a read. The last time I did any serious mathematics…I think there was a guy called Bill having fun in the whitehouse. So i got to page five or so and called it quits.
But the point is that the two situations are not comparable.
The unofficial pools are relatively easy to cheat because they can’t use the same funtions as the chia blockchain to verify the validity of plots.
The blockchain on the other hand sends out mathematical challeges that requires a plot to prove it’s size and data.
And that is very very difficult to cheat. And even if you could cheat it, it is doubtful that you can do it in such a way that it is actually profitable.
You cant rule out that someone someday might find a way. But the core point is that the way those pools work and the way chia itself works are fundamentally different, so there is no reason to assume that double farming on those pools has anything to do with the possibility of “fake” plots on the blockchain. There is just no relation between the two
2 Likes
Ok, now you’re just trolling…
We’ve been kind enough to engage in a conversation with you, so that you could understand Chia better. But this response tells me you are not interested in that, you just want to stir the pot.
2 Likes
We’re in complete agreement here. I was holding out an olive branch to PDD, who was humble enough to recognize that a little better understanding would go a long way toward building trust in the system.
1 Like