I think it seems there is standard compression with the plot creation process being the reducing size factor.
I think you will not be doing some extra decompressing of plots when checking for proofs.
Ithink they do not want to sign any NDA’s because even if they reveal the idea to the chia team, they could run with the logic and create their own process, even if the chia team don’t use their exact code
they say u need extra workload for the new plots to farm
Approximate maximum number of plots can be used for mining on 4-core CPU with Hyper-threading
| Compression Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proof time (ms) | 32 | 65 | 135 | 300 | 750 |
| Number of plots | 940000 | 550000 | 220000 | 80000 | 22000 |
Okay, that doesn’t seem like that much power then?
Thats like 2PiB worth of plots on a 4-core cpu?
That doesnt seem like that much extra… I guess its less “green” though haha
Please someone wake me when this soap opera is over? I can’t stand the suspense 
@alex83833 We think that it is an adequate salary for a group of four software engineers working on a risky startup for a year at least in Silicon Valley for instance.
Now what do you think a chia pool op makes……because that’s your alternative.
Chris, we don’t have any alternative, actually, @sargonas proposal was literally “show us every detail of your source code and we will decide how much to pay you (probably)”
Also, Chia team simply don’t need to review the source code to figure out that our software meet their requirements. We provided all tools to check our plot validness and they also can, of course, measure the performance of our plotter and miner with no problem (as MadMax already did it). I’m sure, devs in Chia team understand that too.
Totally not a scam 
This thread made one hell of a progress during these few days. I see a slow raise of confidence in our work but we need your support, we need your trust in our aims and goals and wait for you all in our pool.
Here is another bold statement from us: We will share our ideas with public after we
get our investments back. The faster the pool grows the closer we get to this point.
We see people are puzzled by our usernames and want to know more about our group.
I am proud to present you our team memebers and their roles in the project:
@Dawson project idea and plotter implementation, c++ stuff
@Anthony website and cloud backend
@iliasorazov Chia-blockchain codebase integration and similar work
@D.coMedoZ network protocol stack DDoS protection and build system
If I were you and if the smaller plot does exist, I would not publish it.
Why?
but if you’re altruistic (which I suppose you’re like many developers do), I would contact core developer so they can help verify and community benefits… well only for those replots their HDD… Then when there’s the same playing field, everything is the same.
Let’s say 1.2x plot for 1HDD…
at start may be 10% of miners believe so they gain advantage
then everyone has 1.2x… then there is no point again. similar to US vs Soviet and arm race.
we can bomb the whole world 10 times over but African still hungry…
there’s a conflict of interest… you see…
I ignored this thread for a while. Didn’t even realize it caught so much attention. Figure I’ll put in my two cents.
I look at this in one way. If they truly have a way to make plots so much smaller, implementing it in this way was just stupid. Nobody in their right mind is going to load software on any system that has automatic updates pulled from bittorrent. That is idiotic. No matter how much you say to put it in a safe, secluded environment. Just stupid. That person would be basically be handing over that infrastructure. Period.
If this is truly a technological step forward, they picked the absolute worst way to introduce it to the world.
My opinion, there is a software trick going on creating the plots and then an equaly tricky implementation of the tools someone would use to verify such plots. All of this done to get as many people as possible to run their software before they slip in an update that does some shady shit. That is the only way the math on this makes sense. Because anybody with half a brain knows that running a pool is not the way to make money. So something else is in play.
I had to go and buy more Advil to keep up with the thread… 
Signage points are 8.25 seconds apart, which means you have 8.25 seconds on average before another proof can also be generated from your plots.
At 750ms for proofs you have time for AT MOST 8250/750 = 11 proofs on average per signage point. That’s it. Go over that time and you eat into the time available from other signage points.
So… now that you have 11 proofs per signage point, with a filter of 512 you can handle at most 512*11 = 5632 plots, not 22000 as claimed. The 22000 erroneously comes from a proof submission time of around 30 seconds, but doesn’t take into account that if you use the full 30s from one signage point, you miss out on the 3 other signage points during that time (4 signage point per 30s).
Now you can do your own math on the cost of a 4-CPU rig running at 100% CPU usage and 300W, to save 23% of your costs of disks. You won’t get getting 30% more return vs using a low power cheaper harvester and no compression.
We once offered to show the flexfarmer code for free under NDA if the chia team wanted to check for anything malicious. If you can’t trust the core devs of the project your on then why stay.
You’d be lucky to make 3 BTC after 5 years running a Chi pool. 100 is insanity.
thx for the numbers, im not so deep in the proofs techs.
but one point, u will never save 23% of your costs for disks or space(cloud). if more use this smal plots, this 23% will melt to 0% because the netspace will grow and the difficulty will grow without that people need to invest more in space thats the big problem. at the and it dossent matter how smarl or big a K32 plot is if all use the same.
the only valid point of this new pool is the fast plotter without ssd (if its real) but thats 100% not worth to go to closed source and replot for me
OK everyone I have an easy mechanism to test this software. I don’t normally like to weigh in on scams and such but this one is easy to test and everyone is freaking out. If you want to do so the easiest way to do so is to deploy your pool on testnet10 and win some blocks that are accepted by the rest of the network as a function of the space you are farming. Then show us those plots (more than 1) that won blocks. That is checkable. I will host the storage if thats a big deal.
If you dont want to do a live proof test I am happy to act as a neutral 3rd party who would be both giddy to see you embarrass Chia Network with an incredible space savings on plots that they didnt consider but also someone who is extremely skeptical of your claims but that can reliably reverse engineer your stuff and look at code. If you are worried about it being stolen, lets get on a Zoom and you can screen share it to me.
Straight up only an idiot would install your stuff without you doing some of this stuff. Everyone keeps comparing this to Hpool but it really isn’t and that was still pretty sketchy. Hpool won blocks and made no claims about technical abilities beyond Chia Network on their own stuff.
We use static difficulty 18 for shares. You will have to read a full proof 18 times more rarely (approximately one proof per plot per day)
So, our numbers are correct.
OK so i did a very quick decompile of some of their files, don’t have a segmented environment setup for malware analysis but the whole thing is very suspect. They have no real ChiaPos code distributed with their client, the client itself simply takes a key and a plot directory and loads a bunch of DLLs they package with the software (i analyzed the windows version).
There definitely isn’t enough there to be plotting and farming on its own, but handily they packaged libtorrent and libgcc with it, so they can download code from random sources and compile it locally. Now, I’m sure the defense will be that they are doing this with ChiaPOS stuff they arent packaging with the application download, but this actually doesn’t make sense. They won’t show anyone their source, but their download mechanism is to download code from the internet and compile it? No sir, that doesn’t pass the smell test.
I also reverse engineered some of the DLLs and they are packaged very strangely with normal code at the head of the exe and then megabytes of white space followed by some weird loops (again, wont run this stuff through a debugger on my own machine, but I am setting up a test bench for it). This is a common tactic (packing malware into dlls with a bunch of whitespace) as any additional binary 0 in the middle changes the file hash. Any serious developer would remove all that, or at least a lot of it.
All in all my guess is that this is downloading something that ostensibly looks like a plotter and a farmer, but the reality is that could change on any startup based on what they reach out to with libtorrent and they could download and compile malware and run it with the privileges of the user running client.exe.
My verdict is that this is absolutely dangerous software, and if they have some sort of miracle and it isn’t malware they should package it like something other than malware.
Not to mention that it’s by unknown authors with fake names and the code contains some Russian terms (Russia doesn’t have the best reputation with some of the worst viruses originating from there).
That being said their plots pass some tests which is interesting so you can’t write it off entirely.
