That was the thinking that spurred Qbix, developer of Calendar 2, to add a Monero mining system into its app. However, following a large bitcoin mining waste of resources meme from the Mac community due to the idea not working so well in practice, the feature has been quickly removed.
Troy Mursch, a Las Vegas-based security expert that publicized a Google Chrome attack last year, tells Inverse. On Monday, Ars Technica reported that Calendar 2 introduced a new tier of upgrade as part of its model. The fact it didn’t work gave people the wrong impression. Magarshak said that the bugs left people with the idea that Qbix didn’t really want to get people’s permission, which was not the case at all. Proof-of-work is wasteful, and the idea could encourage more waste. Monero, like Bitcoin and many others, uses an algorithm to create new tokens that rewards miners that ask their computers to solve complicated math problems. It’s a way of incentivizing the computers that power the cryptocurrency’s network, but it’s been criticized as a waste of electricity.
Note that this was not exactly the same as other cryptojacking incidents, where legitimate websites are attacked by hackers to harvest visitors’ resources. Tesla was one recent victim, as was a Google Chrome extension. However, Mursch argues that the Qbix incident does count as cryptojacking because users didn’t really understand what they were agreeing to. Once they’re hooked the developer or website can take as much CPU as they want to mine cryptocurrency. If you’re brave enough to have dipped your toes into the Wild West that is cryptocurrency, you probably know that people have long since abandoned trying to mine on their desktop computers. Farms of GPUs are all the rage now, but dedicated mining hardware has also enjoyed a following among those who are serious about their fictitious money. To that end, wrote in to the tip line to tell us about the progress he’s made reverse engineering the control protocol for the Antminer S1.
As is often the case, the documentation didn’t have all the details he needed, but it did have a schematic of the BM1380 chip at the heart of the device. For example, he found that the could set the frequency of the BM1380 as high as he wished without any consideration for thermal overload. This could potentially allow somebody to run the hardware to the point of destruction, à la Stuxnet. Once he figured out how to give the hardware hashes to work on over the UART interface, he setup a little head-to-head competition between the software he wrote to command the Antminer S1 and the official control software. No drop in performance was found between his software and the real deal, which sounds like a win in our book. Even if he can’t improve on the performance of this particular piece of outdated mining hardware, it still beats doing it by hand on a piece of paper. I wonder if n2 would cool enough to make overclocking worthwhile?
Overclocking also increases electricity consumption, and the N2 would add to the cost. It’s probably more cost efficient to run another miner. If your prize is fleeting digital tokens that are bound to be worthless in moments, then no. Because you’ll never get that time back. But if you enjoy super volatile worthless hashes of data, be my guess. I love how Bitcoin value dropped and everyone suddenly is a critic.