backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Aug 23 at 1:03 AM


The latest trojan to hit the block isn't exactly subtle -- it sends your GPU on a roaring hunt for bitcoins.  (Source: Flickr)

Bitcoins could soon contend with spam generation as a botnet profitization scheme of choice.  (Source: Symantec)
Creative virus could make up to $97,000 USD a month if it can infect 100,000 machines, researchers say

File this piece of trojan as an entrant for the title of the world's least subtle malware.  Security researchers at Symantec Corp. (SYMC) have discovered a trojan, which they've dubbed "Trojan.badminer" [database entry], that exhibits a highly unusual attack behavior.

The trojan targets users’ GPUs and CPUs, using them in a botnet scheme.  But rather than simply sending spam, like your average botnet, the attacker uses the infected machines as brute-force tools to mine for Bitcoins.  

Bitcoins, a crypto-currency that's growing in popularity are currently in the process of being "seeded" -- a way of establish an initial amount of circulation.  Miners can set their hardware to work trying to solve difficult cryptographic problems.  Occasionally, if their hardware is powerful enough, they will obtain proof of work for a problem, which leads to a reward of 50 new Bitcoins, according to the current scheme embraced by Bitcoins international proponents.  At today's market value, that's a reward of almost $544 USD.

Symantec researcher Poul Jensen describes how the new Trojan abuses the mining process, writing, "With the advent of Trojan.Badminer and common usage of fast graphics cards, it may well begin to make economic sense to rent botnets in order to carry out distributed Bitcoin mining and run the process on an industrial scale."

Peter Coogan, another Symantec researcher, turned heads in June when he suggested that cyber-criminals could use a Bitcoin botnet of 100,000 machines to make $97,000 USD a month.  At that rate, Bitcoin mining becomes in close contention with other botnet profiteering schemes like spamming.

Just because you don't have a top-of-the-line gaming GPU doesn't mean your home computer is safe from "badminer".  While a GPU can crunch hashes 750 times faster than a CPU, or more, the trojan will put CPUs to work on the task as well.

The malware is the latest setback to Bitcoin, which has recently experienced massive swings in market value and a major security breach at its biggest currency exchange -- Mt. Gox.

As for the new virus, it seems that the threat on the GPU side may be a bit overstated.  Bitcoin clients heavily tax GPUs, meaning that they will be very noisy when the client is running.  So the next time your GPU is inexplicably screaming like a wailing banshee, you might want to do a malware scan -- you may be infected with a Bitcoin trojan.

(Of course CPU infections would likely be more subtle.)



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please
By Smilin on 8/17/2011 5:08:21 PM , Rating: 1
Fine, I'm ignorant. Please help.

WTF is the point of bitcoin? Seriously. Someone sell me.




RE: Please
By kjboughton on 8/17/2011 5:11:49 PM , Rating: 4
Google it yourself, you lazy bastard.


RE: Please
By Smilin on 8/17/2011 6:02:41 PM , Rating: 1
That's genius. Never thought of that.

Now why the heck would anyone bother? It's like a baseball card: only valuable to other collectors.


RE: Please
By Etsp on 8/17/2011 6:53:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
only valuable to other collectors
That's the basis for pretty much all currencies today. The Dollar bill for example. It's worthless. It can't do anything. It doesn't represent anything. (The U.S. Dollar used to be backed by gold, but that is NOT the case anymore.)

However it has value to other people who collect dollars(As in: make money). One of the goals of bitcoin is to interest a large enough number of "collectors" who place value in a bitcoin. Once you've built up that community enough, it becomes a viable currency.

Once they establish that it is considered valuable, it can be traded for other things of equal value. Like food, or DVDs. Like U.S. Dollars can.

That's the theory anyway. As a disclaimer, I don't invest in bitcoin, and have no interest in placing value on it. It is an interesting economic experiment though.


RE: Please
By moneytalks on 8/18/2011 12:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I would not reply in most places but people who look for bitcoin may understand or find this interesting. Most people will not understand this. Spain in the 15-17th century did not "get it" so don't feel bad.

Am I condescending enough for you yet?

> used to be backed by gold.

This may make the currency harder to debase. This comment will please some ... but .....

There is a fallacy at work here. Gold has very little intrinsic value. Wheat does have intrinsic value. Wheat is an older currency than gold becuase we recognize its worth.

People say "backed by gold" but gold is just money, like dollars or bitcoin. It is only worth what collectors will pay for it. It's worth is based on a collective trust or illusion that someone will give you something else will real value for it. Like wheat.

You can call me a nut or you can study history and economics and figure it out for yourself. I studied neither but it seems simple to me.

Dunno, most people don't get it.


RE: Please
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 8/18/2011 1:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
Gold does have intrinsic value. Most attractive women would love to have lots and lots of gold. Gold plates, gold jewelry, gold anything. If it wasn't for women, diamonds would be fifty cents a pound.

Gold has stability over fiat paper currency because governments can't inflate it that quickly without making it obvious that that is what they're doing. When you hold paper money for five pounds of gold, but the next day it will only buy you 2.5 pounds of gold, then the politicians are not going to be around much longer. Unless there was a large necessary war going on the likes of World War II.

Gold has to also be mined in order to increase supply. Bitcoins operate under the same principle. Personally I'd rather have my resources in a digital currency backed by Gold (ie e-Gold).


RE: Please
By cjohnson2136 on 8/18/2011 8:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is any currency has no intrinsic value. It is only valuable if people want it. If no one wanted gold it would be worthless. You could make goat's heart a currency if people really wanted it. The type of currency you use doesn't mean a whole lot the only thing that is important is if other people want it.


RE: Please
By 4745454b on 8/18/2011 9:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
The only way people will figure this out is if/when the world collapses. When that happens having a lot of gold won't matter at all.

Anyone remember that TV "Jericho"? Having gold or millions of dollars in the bank didn't mean Jack. Having gasoline, fertilizer, seeds, wells, etc is what mattered. Gold might mean something now. But if life takes a drastic turn for the worse it won't be worth anything.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/18/2011 4:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only way people will figure this out is if/when the world collapses. When that happens having a lot of gold won't matter at all.
I think the point that people are making here is that first goes the dollar, then goes BTC, and then goes gold. In that order, considering that the theory of BTC is successfully implemented and accepted throughout society.
quote:
Anyone remember that TV "Jericho"? Having gold or millions of dollars in the bank didn't mean Jack. Having gasoline, fertilizer, seeds, wells, etc is what mattered. Gold might mean something now. But if life takes a drastic turn for the worse it won't be worth anything.
Actually in that show having anything is what mattered. Also, had the series progressed further, eventually gold would've been a good thing to have because people would've found out how to use it to rebuild society as it was. It is still something that you have to dig out of the Earth. If I understand how BTC works they actually would've had a viable currency to buy gas, food, etc. with from our Chinese invaders lol. Of course, when the town is rationing things that goes out the window, but assuming that there is plenty of food available it would be a good idea to hold onto the BTC until you find someone that accepts it in China ;-)


RE: Please
By moneytalks on 8/18/2011 2:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Someone has already answered this and you can look on the other bitcoin thread here but there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word intrinsic. English is hard.

Gold does have intrinsic value, mostly in industrial applications. I said it has relatively little intrinsic value.

Women do not love gold for its intrinsic value and you essentially said that in the reference to diamonds. Women love gold and diamonds because they are percieved to have worth. This worth is not instrinsic. Women do not like gold or diamonds becuase they are shiny or sparkle. Those are instrinsic qualities.

Women like gold becuase they are hoping to convert it to something with instrinsic value like wheat. Women are not scavenging gold for its industrial use in printed circuit boards.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/18/2011 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said it has relatively little intrinsic value.
Relative to what? We're comparing it to paper and BTC, no?
If I offered you a piece of paper, a BTC or a gold bar, which would you take?

If you gave me that choice, I'd take the gold bar smack you on the head and take your Newegg gift card or whatever valuables you had on you ;-P

Jokes aside, intrinsically speaking in today's phyical market paper (easy to make) is worthless and BTC (actually useless) are worthless.

And what is $0x1000? $0. So though gold's value (relatively (to paper/trees) rare and difficult to mine) is based on demand and I understand your point but the relative value of gold is high compared to paper or BTC regardless of almost any realistic factors.

And why the condescension? Honestly. I mean, you yourself said that a lot of people don't understand this stuff.


RE: Please
By moneytalks on 8/19/2011 3:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
You are right. Some intrinsic value is much more than no intrinsic value. Gold has relatively little instrinsic value compared to its perceived value.

The condescension is for lazy people. I apologize to the inquisitive.

It's hard to teach simple concepts to people who don't want to learn. I am an optimist. I think most people are smart enough to understand simple things but but the comments here lead me to believe that the writers are lazy.

Any english speaking high school student should be able to understand the word intrinsic. Most people on this thread do not know what it means and are too lazy to look it up.

Newegg cards are no different than money. Neither have intrinsic value. Talking about the value of paper only has metaphorical value. Most money is not even paper. You can't wipe your bum with money. Money is a concept.

Wheat and gold are real. Both have intrinsic value. Gold like diamonds has relatively little intrinsic value compared to what people think its worth.

People value gold per ounce more than wheat because of its monetary value. This is a perceived value and not an intrinsic value.

I am not commenting on the perceived value of BTC, gold or US currency. All have no intrinsic value.

The misconception that most people have is that they think that gold has some real value compared to money. It does but this value is small. Gold has industrial uses.

If people are really interested in this I will explain it without the tone. But this is a simple matter of understanding one word, intrinsic.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/19/2011 1:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Women do not like gold or diamonds becuase they are shiny or sparkle. Those are instrinsic qualities. Women like gold becuase they are hoping to convert it to something with instrinsic value like wheat.

You are unmarried I take it ;-)
quote:
Newegg cards are no different than money.
Sorry, in my question I meant actual paper (like an 8.5x11) and not a fiat currency. The assumption was that that both USD and the giftcard were equally valueable and I didn't mean to imply that they were both worthless in the scenario. I wasn't clear on that and it was the lead up to a weak joke lol.

I think you might have the definition of intrinsic wrong the way you are railing on about it.
quote:
BTC, gold or US currency. All have no intrinsic value.

Let's put it this way:
How much is a $100 Confederate note worth today? $0+collectable value, right? (It is just a little worn piece of paper, essentially worthless.)
How about a solid gold coin worth $10 during the Civil war?
It would be the value of the gold by today's standard+collectable value.

Cancel out the collectable value and you get intrinsic value: value of gold-$0=intrinsic value
Sorry, this isn't a way to calculate what the intrinsic value is but simply an attempt to show what it means.

You make it sound like "since food is needed to survive there will always be a market for it"=intrinsic value. That is incorrect. The fact is that gold has certain properties that make it valuble. Paper notes do not. That is what intrinsic value is.

It is not the fact that gold or diamonds are in fashion that gives them their intrinsic value (which BTW have always been popular). Popularity is an external force on price. The fact that they are shiny or what have you (the actual qualities of the items) is what defines their intrinsic value.


RE: Please
By moneytalks on 8/19/2011 3:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
married :)

Try to give your wife cubic zirconium or fools gold. Both have very similar properties in that they are shiny and sparkle. See how much she likes it once she finds out they are fake.

Intrinsic value is based on the physical properties of an object. To use the example from the other thread, copper is conductive. Copper will always be conductive.

Wheat has instrinsic physical properties but these change over time and hence the intrinsic value of wheat deteriorates. BTW, beer is an attempt to extend the intrinsic value of wheat by storing calories.

Gold has intrinsic value. Gold can be used in manufacturing becuase of its physical properties. This is not why people hoard gold. They hold gold becuase they believe it is rare and that other people will perceive its value to be so high that they will trade it for useful commodities or services.

Perceived value can be based on intrinsic value or it can be completely subjective and change over time but percieved value is not instrinsic.

Diamonds were not considered that valuable even a century ago. The whole idea of a diamond engagement ring is based on a marketing program undertaken by DeBeers. This marketing program and cartel like control of the supply greatly enhanced the perceived value of diamonds. Before this program women did not expect diamonds for an engagement ring.

Women like things like diamonds or cows becuase they figure they have value that will come in handy if the man abandons them. At least this is one hypothesis. The cow may sound funny but not everyone lives in a rich industrial area.

In some cultures the cow is held by the family but considered the womens property. She can sell the milk to earn a living if the man fails to provide.

The cow has instrinsic value. Diamonds have value only as long as someone is willing to give the women a cow for her diamond. Diamonds may have instrinic value for manufacturing if the women can figure out how to use it as a tool to make other things.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/22/2011 11:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it right or relevant. So how does BTC or paper currency have intrinsic value? That is what this is all about. What would you rather have: gold or a dollar bill?

I mean it seems as if you are saying that everything but gold has intrinsic value since people are fools that would be just as happy with pyrite.

And furthermore (to the original topic) do you understand why BTC (theorhetically) is better than paper currency?


RE: Please
By JediJeb on 8/17/2011 6:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I just looked this up, interesting idea. I really like this quote on the Wiki page;

quote:
A common[58][citation needed] criticism is that the initial bitcoin distribution is heavily advantageous towards early-adopters. As stated, bitcoins are distributed ("generated") as an award for the solution to a difficult proof-of-work problem. The drawback is that the amount of work that must be done for one bitcoin is currently over 500,000 times more than the amount of work at which the first bitcoins were going. As more people join, and also because of a reward function that halves the number of rewarded bitcoins every so many blocks, it becomes harder to generate bitcoins over time, using the same computing power.[59][60] Because early adopters now have a disproportionate amount of Bitcoins compared to newcomers and that newcomers will never have a chance to "catch up", the current hype being generated by proponents has also been labeled by critics as a pump and dump scheme by early adopters looking to cash in on their large Bitcoin collections.[61]


So what makes this currency any different for all the other "official" currencies worldwide? If a country goes off the gold standard the first people to cash in their gold for dollars get a better price for their gold. Then as everyone wants dollars instead of gold the price of gold drops. If something like the current economic crash happens people lose faith in the dollar and want to return to gold, which pushes the price up. The stock market works the same way too. Think of how much the first people to purchase MicroSoft stock made from that compared to people who purchase it today.

If this currency actually can go legit, you know every country in the world will be attacking it if it begins to cut into the value of their currency. Right now they only worry because some drug deals may be taking place using it, but let Wal Mart start accepting this and you can bet the Treasury Department will crack down on it because they will not be able to tax it accordingly. Same reason the government tries to crack down on "Barter" networks, where people exchange goods and services among themselves instead of cash. The government hates for you to trade mowing someones lawn for them repairing your roof because they can't easily tax that.


RE: Please
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 8/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By EricMartello on 8/23/2011 1:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
This may be the most moronic post I've stumbled across on DT in ages. Are you seriously mixing "morality" and "law" together as if they are one in the same? We follow reasonable laws...but laws, like the politicians who create them, do not always serve the best interests of the people...and these laws do not need to be followed (nor should they be), and can be challenged.

Taxation exists for FINANCIAL transactions; trading services or goods absent dollars is NOT a taxable transaction even if the government wants you to think it is.


RE: Please
By UNCjigga on 8/17/2011 5:21:08 PM , Rating: 1
People use it to buy illegal drugs online, because it is supposedly difficult to track once bitcoins have been transferred.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/18/2011 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike cash?


RE: Please
By cubby1223 on 8/17/2011 6:19:18 PM , Rating: 1
It's the new way for anti-social anarchist wannabies to "fight the man".

It's just a system to try and remove any tracks when sending payments to another person for typically illegal goods or services.


RE: Please
By cubby1223 on 8/17/2011 6:20:57 PM , Rating: 1
Oh and make millions and millions of dollars for the creators.


RE: Please
By kjboughton on 8/17/2011 6:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
The way you put it make it sound like the Federal Reserve System, although it's not.

If you want to talk about a financial construct intended to enrich it's creators at the expense of all others, then why don't you start there...

...or you could just keep ignorantly supporting the current monetary system that seeks to ensure your enslavement. Either way, your choice.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 8/18/2011 5:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anti- socialist anarchist

I think that is what he meant to say.


Penis Enlargement...
By dark matter on 8/17/2011 5:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
If "Mining" is actually solving real world solutions that 3rd party companies are paying to be solved, then I find this method of "employment" most ingenious.

It's certainly FAR more productive than penis enlargement spam, especially if that 3rd party company is paying for "gene therapy" that actually DOES enlarge your penis.




RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Granseth on 8/17/2011 5:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
It sort of got me thinking that why not lend my computer time to make bitcoins for some sort of charity or organization.

Why not make 97k$/month for someone who needs it?


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By mindless1 on 8/17/2011 5:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
Because of the scale... 100K computers running full tilt for a month will use MORE than $97K worth of extra electricity.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Argon18 on 8/17/2011 6:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
what kind of home personal computer uses nearly a $thousand dollars per month of electricity? you might want to check your math there buddy.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Smilin on 8/17/2011 6:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Bad Math. Valid point.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Solandri on 8/17/2011 8:51:12 PM , Rating: 3
Am I missing something? The article and comment says $97,000/mo for 100,000 computers. Or $0.97/mo per computer. That sounds about right for people who only turn on their computer when they need it. ($0.12 per kWh => 8.1 kWh/mo => 32.4 hours/mo @ 250 W, or a bit more than 1 hour of computer use per day.)


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Natch on 8/18/2011 8:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, feel sorry for you, if you're paying $0.12/kWh for power!

Got to love my state's law that allows us to choose our electricity provider, as I recently signed up for a 2 year agreement to purchase electricity at no more than $0.09/kWh.

Made about a $50 difference on my first bill!


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By TSS on 8/18/2011 10:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
Great thing about bot nets is, they don't have to be near you. quick search for here in holland gives me a 22 cent/kWh (essent.nl), and that's in euro's. Probably not the cheapest you can find it, but sounds about right on average. i doubt it's much different in other europian countries (though we are taxed more then most).

Point is, if it didn't make sense already it probably will very soon to mine bitcoins via botnets. the price to keep the hardware running isn't going to go down while the price to actually find bitcoins is only going to go up.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By kjboughton on 8/17/2011 7:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
The 'Tier 4' and above PG&E electric rate in CA is about $0.34/kWh (depending on exactly where you live and what usage schedule applies to you). It's quite easy to get to this level of energy usage as it starts once you've used just 661 kWhs in your current billing cycle, which is not hard in the least.

See here:
http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/charges/

As an example, you can use ZIP code 94555 if you want to play with it.

So, accordingly, assuming your system is running full time, 24 hours/day for, let's say, 30 days, that would be 720 hours for the month.

At $0.34/kWh, you would need to consume 2,941 kWhs to incur an additional $1,000 charge.

As a result, the math says that the 'system' would need to be consuming about 4 kW at the rate necessary to make this work.

A heavily overclocked system can easily suck down 250 W when working at sustained 100% CPU load. So a farm of 16 systems is your answer. Basically, a small office.

Shocked?


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By kjboughton on 8/17/2011 7:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
And just to drive the point home, if 16 computers (at 250 W each) running full time costs $1,000/month, then 100K computers would cost $6,250,000/month. That's $6.25 million.

This is greater than $97,000.

What exactly where you saying about the math again?


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Amiga500 on 8/18/2011 3:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
WHAT?!?!

250W running 24/7 for 30 days is 180 kWh

Current electricity prices here are around £0.10/kWh (I'd imagine the prices in the US are broadly similar.)

One computer costs around £18 a month to run.

16 computers would cost ~£290 /month to run.

1000 computers would cost £18,000 /month to run. Not £100K. That is nearly an order of magnitude difference, now, unless electricity prices in the states are around $1/kWh then those numbers quoted above are way out.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By Amiga500 on 8/18/2011 3:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
Oops!

18 x 100,000 is indeed £1,800,000 - my apologies.

<stupid>Must learn to read the damn article!!</stupid>


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By mindless1 on 8/19/2011 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
WHAT? No, not $6.25M.

I'll make one reply to address the math for everyone. Since I'm making informed guesses about some figures the total will be only a ballpark figure, but certainly the "average" PC infected is nowhere near capable of 260W, remember the average PC is not an enthusiast class gaming rig, it's an integrated video OEM box or has a low end video card.

100,000 computers running an average of 12 hours a day. 12 hours accounts for some on only when used by owner and some on 24/7. 30 days * 12 hours/day = 360 hours.

Average low load/idle PC consumption is about 90W. It would be lower since most are integrated OEM systems, except it also accounts for aging systems without today's level of power management to downclock, HLT idle, etc., and multicore or gaming systems with higher idle load.

Under load I'm estimating an additional 70W power consumption from both CPU and GPU loading. We don't have to consider the 90W figure above, that's a constant, only the added 70W figure is power that would've otherwise not been used.

US average energy cost is about $0.11/KWH. $0.11/KWH * 360H * 70W = $2.77 addt'l cost per infected system, per month. "Maybe" some people did the math not remembering to divide by 1000 to convert watt-hours to KWH.

$2.77 * 100K PCs = $277,000 additional power consumed.


RE: Penis Enlargement...
By mindless1 on 8/17/2011 5:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
... this method of "stealing" computer time, energy, and wear on equipment.

We can't necessarily assume that just because a company is willing to pay for a solution to a problem, that having the answer benefits anyone other than the company and the botnet thief.

Why enlarge a pen!s? Where does it end, make it 4 feet long and we need a wheelbarrow to haul it around? How about making the other mating part more muscular (tighter) instead, which should help to provide an even safer environment for a fetus too.


Mining pools
By Paulywogstew on 8/17/2011 5:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
The two mining Pools I use BTC Guild and Deepbit have been banning these botnets for a couple months now, them along with poolhoppers really lower the payouts for everyone I am glad to see AV products helping to kill them. More coins for me.




Two months too late
By sleepeeg3 on 8/18/2011 3:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Market crashed two months ago and trojans and botnets have been raging since before then. On the plus side, this story beats the normal alternatives...

For those interested in safeguarding their bitcoins against trojans, create a small wallet and bank wallet: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=17292.0

Current bitcoin news is people getting out of the market due to the gradual decline in bitcoin value and the electricity costs. That includes myself and California's jacked up energy prices, due to absurd mandates like 33% of our energy coming from overpriced solar/wind and forced tariffs.

Anyway, will be interesting to see where bitcoin goes from here. Have already used it to buy and sell several hundred dollar items. There are some supreme technological obstacles to its adoption.




Correction ;-)
By The Raven on 8/18/2011 4:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GPU Roaring? You May Be Infected With a Bitcoin Trojan...Says Symantec




To clarify
By Tony Swash on 8/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: To clarify
By kraeper on 8/17/2011 8:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You mean to tell me that malware coders are targeting 85% of the market instead of 10%? That's a truly staggering insight, thanks so much for sharing!


RE: To clarify
By Tony Swash on 8/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: To clarify
By DeluxeTea on 8/17/2011 10:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, because most Macs don't have the CPU and GPU power needed by the trojan.


RE: To clarify
By Smilin on 8/18/2011 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon you can mine bitcoins on a Sandybridge can't you?? :)


RE: To clarify
By B3an on 8/18/2011 6:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
It will take an eternity to make 1 bitcoin on any CPU. A GPU is literally hundreds of times faster, and only the high-end ones are worth it for mining.

So as usual, Macs are useless.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki