NSF Researcher Suspended For Mining Bitcoin 220
PvtVoid (1252388) writes "In the semiannual report to Congress by the NSF Office of Inspector General, the organization said it received reports of a researcher who was using NSF-funded supercomputers at two universities to mine Bitcoin. The computationally intensive mining took up about $150,000 worth of NSF-supported computer use at the two universities to generate bitcoins worth about $8,000 to $10,000, according to the report. It did not name the researcher or the universities."
Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the remote access and use of a mirror site in Europe rather points to it being illicit.
Re: (Score:3)
The bitcoins would then be the property of the university and he'd be charged with theft, not getting in trouble for misusing university resources.
Re: (Score:2)
"Research"? (Score:2)
Now if he was doing research into bitcoin and the mining of bitcoins, there might be a reason for him to have done that.
"Research into bitcoin"? Seriously? They were mining bitcoins and doing so at taxpayer expense. What legitimate "research" could they possibly have been doing?
Re: (Score:2)
To see what each one tastes like? My bad, that only works with whales.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
give them probation.... maybe felony if necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect you're joking but either way i hope they don't tag them w/ felonies just for this...the DA will surely pull some ridiculous damages figure but there's no reason to cripple good engineers forever w/ a felony for this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a felony. It's fraud and theft. Good engineers don't get fired for stealing 10% or less of what good engineers in the prime of their careers are making.
He didn't download a movie. He didn't copy that floppy. He appropriated a taxpayer resource to line his pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the low takings in relation to salery for someone in such a position, I suspect it may have been motivated as much by bragging rights or enthusiasm for bitcoin as direct profits. Sometimes you just want to impress people with your mining rig.
Re:give them probation.... maybe felony if necessa (Score:5, Funny)
He appropriated a taxpayer resource to line his pockets.
So basically, he's the very model of a good capitalist, sharing the costs and keeping the profits. Why should he be punished for his entrepreneurship? Why do you hate freedom so much?
Bald eagles cry tears of blood, red like the flag of Soviet Union, over your post.
Re: (Score:2)
>somebody got away with something so nobody should get prosecuted for something different
GJGE
Re: (Score:3)
Are we supposed to ignore all "lesser" crimes while there are greater ones (even metaphorical ones) outstanding?
THEN...your question would be valid
GP didn't ask a question.
Wall street is irrelevant here (Score:3)
when the 1000s of asshats who caused the financial crisis are held accountable...all of them...THEN...your question would be valid
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the scumbags in the financial world haven't been brought to account doesn't excuse what this guy (allegedly) did. If he committed a crime and it can be proven in an appropriate court of law then he deserves to be punished. We don't excuse people just because there are other criminals doing worse things.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to steal money from you. Since I am stealing less than the financial crisis, I should not be charged.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, there is a reason to cripple a "good"* engineer forever with a felony for this - he committed a bloody felony.
*Presuming he's "good", something neither you nor I know... but misuse of someone else's property indicates that he has significant ethics problems, which argues against him being "good".
Re: (Score:2)
First what-ifs are useless because they didn't happen.
Second it is not a profit issue. It is about stealing time that could be used for real research. Supercomputer time is a scarce resource and he misused it.
Why pick and choose? (Score:3)
I agree that the perpetrators of the 2008 financial crisis and LIBOR scandal ought to be severely punished for all the human misery they caused, and personally I would be comfortable with sentences including capital punishment.
But that is that, and this is this. Are you seriously advocating that lesser crimes should be forgi
You're so full of shit (Score:2)
Good job there mate, caught wrong in your assumptions and unable to refute the facts - you resort to personal attacks and blowing smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Formatting issues aside, your argument is somewhat weak if I am understanding it correctly: don't punish people for a lesser crime if there's a greater crime being unpunished. There's so many problems with that idea that it's not really tenable.
In general, if non-desirable behaviour is considered a "felony" then anyone perform
Re: (Score:2)
Minor thing, but it's more likely a scientist than an engineer.
Engineers are not saints (Score:2)
the DA will surely pull some ridiculous damages figure but there's no reason to cripple good engineers forever w/ a felony for this
If it was indeed a crime then after due process takes its course then they absolutely do deserve to be tagged with a felony. There are plenty of engineers who are corrupt just like any other profession. If they committed a crime then they deserve the punishment. While innocent until proven guilty and all that, if they did what it appears then the absolutely deserve to go to jail and pay restitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. you don't know if he actually wasted anything (the computers could have been idle otherwise)
2. perhaps he intended to donate the money, or he needed it to help a relative, etc.; you just don't know anything about the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
An idle computer consumes less resources to operate then one processing some task. Not only electricity to run the computer, but the considerable amount of heat that is generated that has to be conditioned. The article and the report don't go into details so we're just left presuming the cost to operate the supercomputers during the mining was $150,000.
I would imagine that there isn't too much idle time on a super
Road to hell and good intentions (Score:3)
1. you don't know if he actually wasted anything (the computers could have been idle otherwise)
Not relevant. Even if the computer was idle that doesn't give him the right to utilize it for his own enrichment. Furthermore even an idle computer costs money to operate and maintain, so if he did what he is accused of then it was certainly theft on some level.
2. perhaps he intended to donate the money, or he needed it to help a relative, etc.; you just don't know anything about the situation.
You're going to use a Robin Hood defense? You don't get permission to steal things just because you "intend" to donate the money to someone needy. I could point out that you don't know anything about the situation either. You have no evidence th
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. It breaks the law and makes you a criminal, but you can make that choice. It may or may not be a good choice, but pretending it isn't a possible course of action is self-delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you look at it a different way... If the Computer is Idle then it is just wasting everyone money. So use the spare CPU Cycles to mine Bitcoins, and make a few bucks.
I don't agree with that way of thinking, however way things get budgeted it is often hard to share your resources with other groups so the system seems to encourage computational inefficiency. He could run Seti-at-home, but he chose to mine bitcoins.
This really should be a slap on the hand type of punishment. Just like if you got a sup
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is probably where we get to see the divide between the "never give a sucker and even break" people and those that see such an attitude as amoral. Yes, perfectly f
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
well, most likely the computers werent being used for anything else at the time. he was probably only running it in spare time.
Using close to 100% of processing resources would definitely increase overall power consumption for the computers in question. This would result in increased overall cost of operation.
Re:Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:4, Insightful)
well, most likely the computers werent being used for anything else at the time. he was probably only running it in spare time.
Using close to 100% of processing resources would definitely increase overall power consumption for the computers in question. This would result in increased overall cost of operation.
And yet still less wasteful of money and resources than the vast majority of university administrators.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that waste isn't malfeasance.
Re: (Score:2)
"Spare" processing time doesn't exist anymore, computers aren't that horrendously inefficient these days. They only use what they need. And this jackass made them need a lot more.
Re:Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:5, Informative)
Many of those systems have no (or minimal) idle time. Also, this misuse caused them to consume more power, and increased the wear on the systems components. There was a real impact from this. The $150k indicates a lot of cpu time was consumed for this, but TFA doesn't indicate how much- certainly more than would have been 'spare time'.
Power is a real concern too (Score:3)
The amount of power supercomptuers take is IMMENSE. Like let's say he was using Stampede, the supercomputer at University of Texas. That thing draws 3 MEGAWATTS when fully spooled up. That is just what it draws, not what its cooling system takes, which could easily be another half a megawatt. Now we dunno what they pay for electricity precisely, but looking at industrial rates in Texas with the PUC it runs somewhere around the realm of $73/MWh. So running this thing for just one hour spun up costs $250ish.
Re: (Score:2)
The article points out that it was $150,000 over 6 months. So roughly $25,000 worth of time each month or at your costs about 100 hours of supercomputing time each month. Now I have no idea how long it would take a supercomputer to mine 12-15 bitcoin but it's certainly a valid question to ask if these numbers seem reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, this is true only for the top machines in terms of reputation of the institution where they are run. Many more supercomputing facilities actually idle around a lot if not most of the time. They were bought to confer bragging rights and are embedded into a context that makes them unable to operate effectively.
A lot of these machines are hard to program for, and the institutions that own them hard to deal with (often universities with bad
Re: (Score:2)
HPC computing has never been efficient on a cost per performance basis. you pay a large premium for the extra performance. but then certain problems can't be solved with simple commodity hardware.
Heck you can even see this in pricing for consumer level hardware. a certain processor may cost you $x but if you want to upgrade to another one that is just 10% faster it will cost you $2x. do you really need that extra 10%? some people certainly think they do.
as for the guy that stole $150k in computing tim
Re: (Score:2)
Do not -- by any stretch -- put it past the interested parties to thusly lie.
Re:Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:5, Informative)
Where is it written that a "supercomputer" must be efficient and cheap to run?
FWIW, at this point, any "general use" computer is not efficient to mine bitcoin - it only makes sense to use custom-designed ASICs. Unless you get free power, then use as many CPUs and GPUs as you want, but even the cost of the hardware components is going to be pricey compared to your return.
Re: (Score:2)
A computer in your parents basement doesn't require dedicated facilities, cooling and maintenance staff.
Costs are not comparable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
look, if you could by computing centre supercomputer time for mining bitcoin at cost efficient price now then everyone would be doing it and it would no longer be cost efficient(increased pricing).
the only way it would have been cost efficient would have been to speculate with the pricing, in which case you could just have bought the bitcoin and speculate that way.
what the guy should have done would have been to do some test research that just happened to run some calcs that mined bitcoin.......
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:5, Insightful)
...because you buy time on modern supercomputers all the time, and can give us the real scoop, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I may not buy supercomputer time, but I sell to the good ole' US of A's government quarterly. I promise, the OP is probably closer to the truth than you think. That 150k may have been only a day of sporadic use in total.
I know the radio portion of our software we sell for iOS, we charge over $800/yearly for per device license... Not including the support contract, the server software, the database software, the server support contract, the database support contract, the web ui software and matching support,
Re: (Score:2)
"That 150k may have been only a day of sporadic use in total."
That would make sense to me. Hell, 150K sounds more like a few hours.
Super computers are EXPENSIVE. A super computer is not just a tower with 30 gigs of ram and 10 processors, this is a building full of wires and computer components. I can just imagine the power draw on one. Hundreds of leading scientist crowd around them to hopefully get 30 minutes to run some computations.
Re: (Score:3)
Super computers are EXPENSIVE. A super computer is not just a tower with 30 gigs of ram and 10 processors, this is a building full of wires and computer components.
At this point, you can get a "supercomputer" in a rack for around US$500K, and it uses about 20kW of power.
Sure, it's not going to set any records, but with 500-1000 cores and 5-10TB of RAM, it's a lot more than most users will ever see. Heck, we have 40-core systems with over 2TB of RAM that fit in 2U. Again, not a supercomputer, but certainly a lot more power than in most single systems.
Based on TFA, I suspect the "cost" of $150K was what the time on the computer might sell for if somebody outside the p
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide any links? I'm interested. Thanks.
Re:Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:5, Interesting)
...because you buy time on modern supercomputers all the time, and can give us the real scoop, right?
It's a fantasy in as much as the police reporting the "bust" of 4.8m worth of pot, actual street value probably 80k. Or the MPAA/RIAA saying that piracy costs 70 trillion* in lost revenue every year.
*may or may not be true based on how well we can massage and fudge the fuck out of the numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
fudge the fuck out of the numbers.
As opposed to fucking the fudge out of the consumers.
Re: Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity for the machines is not free. And supercomputers take a lot of that. Unless you have free electricity, bitcoin is at the point where its almost impossible to mine it and break even in less than 9 months to a year or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the great lengths he went to to mine bitcoins, I wouldn't bet on that.
From the report:-
Re: (Score:2)
Supercomputing clusters generally have sophisticated job queues for handling job request by thousands of users. In my experience (in NERSC and TACC), utilization is pretty high, and it can take hours or days for a job to make it through the queue, depending on many factors. I doubt ze was running only on truly spare nodes, since someone can usually find a use for them.
Re: Throw the book... maybe literally at him. (Score:2)
Bingo. He was using a quota which said 'you can use X many nodes for this'. If he hadn't been using them, then they would've been allocated to finish other queued jobs faster (and its not like we're running out of protein folding work anytime soon).
Blame the cops. How convenient. (Score:2)
Bit convenient ain't it, pushing all the blame to the police? It's their job to keep politicians clean, not your problem? What about the voters who keep electing the same dirty officials into office term after term? Not their fault, I'm sure.
Politicians elect their buddies to become police commissioners who then control
$150,000? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that figure just based on some arbitrary appraisal of the the machine's time or what?
$150,000? (Score:2)
It's based on the rate that the owning entity (typically a university or the DoE) charges for time on it, which is (at least in theory) correlated with the machine's electric, AC (i.e. more electric) and ISP bills, the hardware manufacturer service and support contracts, and the price of the highly paid technicians and sysadmins who keep it working. All of these are nontrivial.
Re: (Score:2)
This counts as a good question, why did it get modded out of existence?
$150k counts as a lot of electricity. Even at the current difficulty, I find it hard to believe someone could have used that much power to mine only $8k worth of BTC.
So how did they get that number? Prorated over the expected useful lifetime, so quite possibly one or two days of CPU time at 500 million dollars total depreciated over 18 months
Re: (Score:2)
He was likely doing CPU based mining. That would be expensive and inefficient compared to ASIC or even GPU mining.
Re: (Score:3)
Even so, GPU-mining Bitcoins in 2014 is just pure lunacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... if this dumbass had half a brain, he would have mined a script based coin like Litecoin or Dogecoin instead. You could mine those profitably with a GPU up until recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry - nobody can catch them with this digital pretend currency made up of detailed list of all the transactions that have been carried out on it - or so they think for some very strange reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In the systems I have used, the supercomputers are composed of a cluster of nodes, with each node containing several compute cores. Each compute core is basically equivalent and fully capable of general tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I got in trouble in high school for "stealing" timesharing time at the local University (early 80s) and back then at least the time was valued based on some "retail" cost of the computing time based on operational costs.
Back then it was really bullshit, because unless you kept other jobs from running the damn system was up anyway and really didn't use any less resources if nothing was running. The same overpaid fulltimers and grad students still worked at the computer center, etc.
It's probably mostly still
Re: (Score:2)
Is that figure just based on some arbitrary appraisal of the the machine's time or what?
$150k counts as a lot of electricity. Even at the current difficulty, I find it hard to believe someone could have used that much power to mine only $8k worth of BTC.
So how did they get that number? Prorated over the expected useful lifetime, so quite possibly one or two days of CPU time at 500 million dollars total depreciated over 18 months?
I guess they hired a RIAA lawyer, and he tries to copyright those bitcoins!
Real costs + opportunity cost (Score:3)
$150k counts as a lot of electricity. Even at the current difficulty, I find it hard to believe someone could have used that much power to mine only $8k worth of BTC.
Electricity is just one of the costs involved and probably not even close to the biggest one. You have to consider the cost of the computers and other gear amortized across usage, rent/facility cost, support infrastructure, staff, insurance, maintenance, and more. Furthermore you have to consider the opportunity cost [wikipedia.org] if this guy used the system when it could have been put to other more productive use. Opportunity cost is probably where much of the $150K comes from. It was the price they could have sold
Re: (Score:3)
No. This figure is probably based on the actual rates that the supercomputing facility charges to research projects. For example, look at:
http://www.nersc.gov/users/acc... [nersc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just machine time. It's also personnel time, electricity, possibly wasted time for others since resources were being used, etc. It seems that the machines he was using didn't have GPUs so it was CPU only mining. This would have consumed a fair chunk of time and resources to generate that $8K-$10K.
This guy is incredibly stupid. I can't imagine what was going through his head when he tried to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably not arbitrary.
As background, I used to run a cluster at a Major New England University and got involved in some of the chargeback models that were set up. Some of the money for the cluster came from federal funds so I learned some of the high level rules associated with this.
You take all the charges associated with putting a cluster together - the hardware, software licenses, maintenance, system administrators, storage, storage administrators, network hardware and network administrators, data
Anakin (Score:2)
but since that ship has sailed,
wasn't this bound to happen once the electricity costs of bitmining begun to damage profitability? Perhaps even before the Peak Coin event, using electricity and the resources of others was attractive to a certain type of miner...
whoops (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to do funded networking work and this is one of the *first* things I thought when I heard about BTC...a friend who is a router R&D now and I talked all about it of course...never actually **did it**
I would have definitely put a miner bot in a broom closet next to a computer lab in a freshmen dorm or something...nowhere near our program's stuff, for alot of reasons
we just talked though...if my friend had took the time he'd be litterally rich right now...at least 6 figures b/c we were in school fro
Re: (Score:3)
now, i sure hope they don't "throw the book at them"...I hope they don't get felonies unless unavoidable and either way no prison time...get them on a hardcore probation for 5 years....
I think it should be a civil matter..... bill the researcher for the computer time intentionally misappropriated for non-work-related activities
This is really no different from an office worker abusing employer equipment for personal gain; e.g. long duration international calls to family placed on the employer's dime.
Re: (Score:2)
And why shouldn't an office worker embezzling from an employer be subject to criminal penalties? What is your distinction between a civil and criminal matter?
Proportionality and criminal intent (Score:2)
And why shouldn't an office worker embezzling from an employer be subject to criminal penalties? What is your distinction between a civil and criminal matter?
Proportionality and criminal intent. In the case of the bitcoin miner, he stole the use of $150,000 worth of computer resources to make $8,000-$10,000 for himself. Most people will agree that these are not small sums and should be treated seriously, hence criminal penalties are due. In the example of the parent post of an office worker making long duration international calls to family paid by his employer, the sums are likely in the small hundreds at most and there was no intention to make money for himse
Restitution vs punishment (Score:2)
I think it should be a civil matter..... bill the researcher for the computer time intentionally misappropriated for non-work-related activities
Restitution is certainly warranted but whether it is a civil or criminal matter depends on the laws and whether he broke any. The fact that he took pains to hide his identity seems to indicate awareness that what he was doing was wrong. If the dollar amount of what he took is high enough then it becomes a criminal matter. If one of my employees stole company resources I would certainly fire them and seek restitution and if it was more than a pad of post-it-notes I'd probably call the police as well.
Very bad analogy (Score:2)
Personal profit so more like charging people to use the employers phone system and pocketing the cash while the employer pays the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
now, i sure hope they don't "throw the book at them"
Would you feel the same way if he'd walked off with six figures worth of hardware rather than "computer time?"
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between talking about something and doing it is the difference between amusing talk and a crime. We've also talked about putting bitcoin miners in all the high power FPGAs we use for real time feedback. The thing is that we DIDN'T.
As far as the penalty - this is like any other theft of materials. There must be applicable laws.
NO (Score:2)
it's **not analogous**
to answer your question (even though your analogy is hilariously tilted)...NO...IF IT IS AVOIDABLE
you assholes want to pass out felonies like candy...it's BS
Villain? (Score:2, Funny)
And then used it for Piracy (Score:5, Funny)
And then imagine if he used that $8000 to buy a computer and an internet connection and downloaded a few pirated songs doing literally $trillions in damage.
My estimates are that he could easily have downloaded enough pirated content with that much internet to cause enough damage to bankrupt the entire world.
What a Noob. (Score:2, Funny)
Supercomputers are so last year. Do you even ASIC, bro?
$150k? (Score:2)
I do most of my research on supercomputers. "Servcie Units" (SU's) are the currency on these machines. They are usually either node hours or core hours. Typical allocations are in the hundreds of thousands to millions of SUs.
I don't know what formula they used to come up with a dollar value. It would be nice to know, however, as I am in academia where real dollar grants get all the attention since they come with that sweet overhead. I'm sure my dean would appreciate the symbolism of getting the college over
How about insider trading by the NSA? (Score:2)
Compartmentalization and ethics (Score:2)
The abuse of the supercomputer is an extreme case. But there are other less clear-cut areas. For instance:
- What if I bring my own computer to the university and use their electricity to generate bitcoins?
- What if I bring university-owned equipment (that I have control over) home and use it to mine bitcoins on my electricity?
In either case, something that doesn’t really belong to me (even if I’m in charge of it and have the right to relocate) is being used for profit in a way that is (a) most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can be compared in that there are ethical considerations in both cases. As I said, abusing the supercomputer is a much more extreme case. In many ways, my examples are victimless crimes, while the supercomputer case had a far more tangible impact. In a relative moral scale, the supercomuting case was much more severe and would therefore have a more severe penalty. My whole point, I guess, is that even victimless crimes are cases where an ethical person should think twice before taking action.
I do f
Bottom of page 29 (Score:2)
It's at the bottom of page 29 of the report (page 30 of the PDF).
Just FYI
I was there (Score:3)
I was actually at one of these supercomputer facilities a day or two after it happened and found out then. Too bad they didn't release more information so I could talk about it. :-( Someone in our group amusingly noted though that it was probably the first time that supercomputers had been used to directly make money. *snicker*
Re: (Score:2)
He spent $150,000 to make $10,000. What profit?
whose money was spent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see that as a valid complaint. It's the same maths politicians do with your tax money ?.
When politicians spend public funds so that they receive money from third parties for themselves, its called receiving bribes. Most people would complain about it, and it can lead to criminal convictions [wikipedia.org].
The problem is catching them with their hand in the cookie jar. Its hard to use the law to catch these guys when they have the power to change the law.
Re: (Score:3)
He spent 150k of someone else's money to make 10k for himself... Personally he spent 0 to make 10k, plenty of profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has exactly as much intrinsic value as the dollar: None. It has value only because people are willing to trade for it.
Not many people though, which is why the value fluctuates so wildly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is my main problem with bitcoins.
Mining bitcoins is like mining gold (which is naturally I suppose where the term comes from). You are digging up something that is essentially useless in itself other than it has some rarity. But the big difference is that gold does have some use unrelated to its value as a medium of wealth. If we are going to devote time and energy to "mining" a fabricated and virtual object, could it not at least be something that has some other use or value ?
Constructing mea
Re: (Score:2)
You mean where $flavoroftheyearcryptcurrency gains acceptance and has been stable for several years in the public and value has stabilized?
Re: (Score:2)
Another difference is that we are talking about supercomputers [nersc.gov] here.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up: using your spare cycles to mine bitcoins for a good cause.