|
Title: delete Post by: BitcoinEXpress on June 10, 2013, 07:39:55 AM delete Title: Re: delete Post by: mullick on June 10, 2013, 07:53:59 AM Hmmm. Interesting theory. Researching now
Title: Re: delete Post by: BrewCrewFan on June 10, 2013, 08:04:11 AM SO exactly what do you gain from this? An epen? Messing around with peoples money? Your kids must be so proud.
Title: Re: delete Post by: forsetifox on June 10, 2013, 08:05:43 AM I was there back then. Fun times. ;D
I'd also like to mention when mining LTC, SC1 and SC2 at the debut you actually GOT SOME unlike every alt coin released now. Title: Re: delete Post by: baka on June 10, 2013, 08:06:40 AM ~600 Mhash to 51% FTC
~9 Ghash to 51% LTC Still can't rule it out but not very likely to happen, unless they manage to DDOS the pools, in which case they wouldn't need ASICs to achieve the attack. Title: Re: delete Post by: mullick on June 10, 2013, 08:08:53 AM Would they not still have to control 51% of the currency?
Title: Re: delete Post by: Boxman90 on June 10, 2013, 08:09:48 AM "Keep in mind, any attack that works on FTC will work on LTC."
I do not quite agree with this, as the hashrate of Feathercoin is many many times less than the Litecoin network. Title: Re: delete Post by: spoid on June 10, 2013, 08:10:08 AM as many people as possible setting up solo mining as a backup pool should help, no?
Title: Re: delete Post by: mullick on June 10, 2013, 08:15:49 AM Would they not still have to control 51% of the currency? A 51% attack has zero to do with the amount of currency you hold, it is the hashrate. ~BCX~ I thought so. I had just read someone say that in another thread. Title: Re: delete Post by: torbank on June 10, 2013, 08:23:01 AM Thanks for the heads up.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Protagonus on June 10, 2013, 08:26:05 AM ..... If you will notice there has been a recent large surge of hashing power on the LTC network categorized as anonymous coming on about the same time as the FTC attack. It's no coincidence. This is very similar to events that occurred in late 2011 early 2012 with the advent of the GPU miners for scrypt that *ALL* the *EXPERTS* in the know said would never work. You know, the same way all the "experts" today keep saying ASIC's for Litecoin is an impossibility... and I mean the exact same people. ...... ~BCX~ Yes I've noticed this recently at interesting times. -Directly after, the difficulty before last; there was a spike in the Unknown from 3.5Gh/s - 6.6Gh/s. This lasted appx 3 hours and was 20% total hash. -Directly after, the last difficulty; there was a spike again in the Unknown from 5Gh/s - 6.6Gh/s This lasted appx 2-3 hours and hit 23% total hash at maximum -Today, during /after FTC attack. Coinotron goes down; dropping total net. Unknown shows up from 6.6-7.2Gh/s. Yet again lasting for 2-3 hours and hit 33% total hash. In all cases it slowly dies off 5-3.5-2.6-1.5 -0 in about 30 minutes at the end of these spikes. Also I've seen it randomly pop-up a couple times "mid-difficulty" in the 3-4 GH/s range. (I always check that all pools are reporting correctly to ensure there was no active showing on the network distribution) (E.G- today even connecting miners to coinotron to verify it was down and not part of "unknown" hash) May be something to it I suppose. I know I'll be watching the patterns Title: Re: delete Post by: SRoulette on June 10, 2013, 08:29:55 AM I sure hope litecoin weathers the storm :)
Its been a good coin to us over the last year. Title: Re: delete Post by: manywelps on June 10, 2013, 08:39:52 AM Trying to 51% LTC would:
1) cause all auto-miners to autoswitch onto LTC (same as FTC). 2) cause anyone with LTC to divert all possible power onto the LTC network to counter the attack. 3) There's a true p2pool for LTC, everyone should have it as a failover for their main LTC pools. 4) Note that wemineltc is very heavily ddos protected, due to the massive attacks near the beginning of the LTC spike. Note they are not stupid. Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 08:43:54 AM The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners. Now that FTC net hash is over 2GH/s it's much harder to do than when it was down at a few hundred MH/s earlier on.
They could easily smash CNC, Nibble, GLD and a number of direct LTC clones with low net hash rates. Title: Re: delete Post by: hl5460 on June 10, 2013, 08:48:52 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs.
Title: Re: delete Post by: manywelps on June 10, 2013, 08:49:08 AM The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners. I doubt it, you could probably detect it by looking at which LTC pool had bad luck that was outside of several standard deviations during the attack.Title: Re: delete Post by: digitalindustry on June 10, 2013, 09:00:47 AM The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners. Now that FTC net hash is over 2GH/s it's much harder to do than when it was down at a few hundred MH/s earlier on. They could easily smash CNC, Nibble, GLD and a number of direct LTC clones with low net hash rates. By the way i 100% know this - but by doing that all they will do is drive all the currencies out of thier control - That is to say their information control vector - They will end up hunting for currencies here and there - for example the official LTC forum is considering right now opening an "Alternative Currency" section that has the two simple sub boards [ANN] and [Trading] - that would not be implemented here, it was my advice to them . Do they really want the entry point of all Cryptocurrency to be the hub of the place that has many of the people frequenting it that want to destroy Cryptocurrency {as futile as that is, for a goal} - hey guys I supported you against communism , now you are the communists obviously. you guys have had a taste of my innovative ideas, an that is it , i'll save the rest for when we are out of your reach. Title: Re: delete Post by: Starlightbreaker on June 10, 2013, 09:02:20 AM i'm getting my popcorn ready.
next week will be an interesting week. more coins will join the altcoin graveyard. Title: Re: delete Post by: ondratra on June 10, 2013, 09:32:37 AM ASIC's are surely possible for scrypt mining - because ASIC means that you build circuit for specific think - and when you have specific needs there is no problem to put memory scrypt needs. Memory these days is very cheap so ASIC could be designed + build for reasonable price
Title: Re: delete Post by: Ludicrous on June 10, 2013, 09:48:41 AM One of the largest pool, give-me-ltc, has some very strange miners (e.g hedon, hendo420, besultc, etc...) that have been finding multiple blocks despite the odds and their 'unknown' hash rates vs the top users.
Could it be just a bug in the pool software? If not, there are some good theories ;) Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 09:52:01 AM There is a new version of the FTC client released today with checkpoints added.
Version 0.6.4.1 make sure you grab it especially if you are a pool operator. Title: Re: delete Post by: kelsey on June 10, 2013, 10:10:04 AM How does all of this relate to FTC and LTC in 2013? The very same people that truly despised everything LTC back then that created the Scrypt GPU Miner to kill LTC are still around. Well yes they are, but most have warmed to LTC especially compared to the current swarm of alt coin. This attack on FTC is a simple warm up for LTC. ~BCX~ Not at all, they'd not need a warmup and would have gone for LTC first. LTC legitimised iteslef somewhat by surviving earlier attacks, and not having been premined etc. and I'm no fan of LTC. FTC is just a pretend coin trying living off LTC success. Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 10:20:41 AM Not at all, they'd not need a warmup and would have gone for LTC first. LTC legitimised iteslef somewhat by surviving earlier attacks, and not having been premined etc. and I'm no fan of LTC. FTC is just a pretend coin trying living off LTC success. You could say LTC was a pretend coin trying to live off the BTC success. That's how inheritance works, each spinoff makes little changes. LTC and BTC would die if they suddenly lost a substantial part of their net hash rate. Imagine what would happen to BTC if ASICMINER went bust and shut their mining operation. FTC and several other coins have proved this, FTC made changes to compensate, which LTC and BTC have not done so, they are the high risk coins, only increasing mining activity keeps them from failure. Title: Re: delete Post by: kelsey on June 10, 2013, 10:32:05 AM Not at all, they'd not need a warmup and would have gone for LTC first. LTC legitimised iteslef somewhat by surviving earlier attacks, and not having been premined etc. and I'm no fan of LTC. FTC is just a pretend coin trying living off LTC success. You could say LTC was a pretend coin trying to live off the BTC success. That's how inheritance works, each spinoff makes little changes. LTC and BTC would die if they suddenly lost a substantial part of their net hash rate. Imagine what would happen to BTC if ASICMINER went bust and shut their mining operation. FTC and several other coins have proved this, FTC made changes to compensate, which LTC and BTC have not done so, they are the high risk coins, only increasing mining activity keeps them from failure. Yeah but LTC was done honestly and fairly and to work side by side with BTC....and its time out there legitimised it. FTC is equal to so many other alt coins out there just the dev try and pretend to the public its designed to work under LTC...which is bs. FTC made changes to compensate lol.....mmm yeah sure dude it'll be lucky to survive the week. Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 10:39:29 AM Yeah but LTC was done honestly and fairly and to work side by side with BTC....and its time out there legitimised it. FTC is equal to so many other alt coins out there just the dev try and pretend to the public its designed to work under LTC...which is bs. FTC made changes to compensate lol.....mmm yeah sure dude it'll be lucky to survive the week. Honestly and fairly, what cloy patriotic nonsense. It is open source, all is fair as long as you stick within the copyright. Title: Re: delete Post by: BladeRunner on June 10, 2013, 10:47:48 AM ASIC's are surely possible for scrypt mining - because ASIC means that you build circuit for specific think - and when you have specific needs there is no problem to put memory scrypt needs. Memory these days is very cheap so ASIC could be designed + build for reasonable price I might further add, that the first ones you see will not be ASIC, they will be FPGA's with some external ram to hash the 128K block. The theory is that cgminer is being ported to VHDL to burn into some FPGA's. Once thats done it becomes quite easy to contract a chip designer to make it in stone (asics). In fact. there is NO encryption hash that cannot be done in an ASIC. FPGA's might be the wave of future miners. they may take a bit more power and might be a little more expensive than ASIC's, but they are reconfigurable and can be changed to hash anything at a later date. Title: Re: delete Post by: digitalindustry on June 10, 2013, 10:57:36 AM Not at all, they'd not need a warmup and would have gone for LTC first. LTC legitimised iteslef somewhat by surviving earlier attacks, and not having been premined etc. and I'm no fan of LTC. FTC is just a pretend coin trying living off LTC success. You could say LTC was a pretend coin trying to live off the BTC success. That's how inheritance works, each spinoff makes little changes. LTC and BTC would die if they suddenly lost a substantial part of their net hash rate. Imagine what would happen to BTC if ASICMINER went bust and shut their mining operation. FTC and several other coins have proved this, FTC made changes to compensate, which LTC and BTC have not done so, they are the high risk coins, only increasing mining activity keeps them from failure. +1 i have a large pile of popcorn for that one - although sCRypt is much more durable - and power intensive with relation to the RAM bandwidth - Title: Re: delete Post by: YipYip on June 10, 2013, 11:06:50 AM As someone who has killed an Alt Coin or two or five with 51% attacks I can see what's happening with FTC and why the LTC community should be very concerned. For all you newbies, the attacks I'm talking about were 2011 early 2012, nothing recent because the current generation of shit coins aren't worth the effort to reconfigure a pool to 51% them. If you will notice there has been a recent large surge of hashing power on the LTC network categorized as anonymous coming on about the same time as the FTC attack. It's no coincidence. This is very similar to events that occurred in late 2011 early 2012 with the advent of the GPU miners for scrypt that *ALL* the *EXPERTS* in the know said would never work. You know, the same way all the "experts" today keep saying ASIC's for Litecoin is an impossibility... and I mean the exact same people. Previously during the same time all the experts back then were calling GPU miners for scrypt "nothing but FUD", ArtForz and the Solidcoin guys were building them independently. I actually got a version of AF's scrypt miner very early on. It was rough and very unstable, basically it didn't work and I couldn't get it fixed before the Solidcoin guys released their "reaper". So I had no advantage early on in LTC, but it wasn't for lack of trying ;) How does all of this relate to FTC and LTC in 2013? The very same people that truly despised everything LTC back then that created the Scrypt GPU Miner to kill LTC are still around. They've been quietly working on Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash and an ASIC Miner to do to LTC what the GPU Miner failed to do and that was clear the path for the relaunch of Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash. I believe they may indeed have a beta working. This attack on FTC is a simple warm up for LTC. Keep in mind, any attack that works on FTC will work on LTC. Buckle up people, it's going to be a wild ride for LTC in the coming weeks. ~BCX~ Yawn .... your a loser..good luck trying to 51% 20 gig network ... this has been tried many many times Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 10, 2013, 11:18:00 AM As someone who has killed an Alt Coin or two or five with 51% attacks I can see what's happening with FTC and why the LTC community should be very concerned. For all you newbies, the attacks I'm talking about were 2011 early 2012, nothing recent because the current generation of shit coins aren't worth the effort to reconfigure a pool to 51% them. If you will notice there has been a recent large surge of hashing power on the LTC network categorized as anonymous coming on about the same time as the FTC attack. It's no coincidence. This is very similar to events that occurred in late 2011 early 2012 with the advent of the GPU miners for scrypt that *ALL* the *EXPERTS* in the know said would never work. You know, the same way all the "experts" today keep saying ASIC's for Litecoin is an impossibility... and I mean the exact same people. Previously during the same time all the experts back then were calling GPU miners for scrypt "nothing but FUD", ArtForz and the Solidcoin guys were building them independently. I actually got a version of AF's scrypt miner very early on. It was rough and very unstable, basically it didn't work and I couldn't get it fixed before the Solidcoin guys released their "reaper". So I had no advantage early on in LTC, but it wasn't for lack of trying ;) How does all of this relate to FTC and LTC in 2013? The very same people that truly despised everything LTC back then that created the Scrypt GPU Miner to kill LTC are still around. They've been quietly working on Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash and an ASIC Miner to do to LTC what the GPU Miner failed to do and that was clear the path for the relaunch of Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash. I believe they may indeed have a beta working. This attack on FTC is a simple warm up for LTC. Keep in mind, any attack that works on FTC will work on LTC. Buckle up people, it's going to be a wild ride for LTC in the coming weeks. ~BCX~ Yawn .... your a loser..good luck trying to 51% 20 gig network ... this has been tried many many times +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 11:25:06 AM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 10, 2013, 11:28:59 AM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? Title: Re: delete Post by: zackclark70 on June 10, 2013, 11:29:23 AM One of the largest pool, give-me-ltc, has some very strange miners (e.g hedon, hendo420, besultc, etc...) that have been finding multiple blocks despite the odds and their 'unknown' hash rates vs the top users. Could it be just a bug in the pool software? If not, there are some good theories ;) a bug i would think it says i found 10 blocks with 2000kh in a week Title: Re: delete Post by: zackclark70 on June 10, 2013, 11:33:13 AM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? with bitcoin thay would be beter off hijacking some of the big mining farms im sure you will find that 50% of te bitcoin network is less than 250 farms it dosent take to much to hack a bunch of unprotected computers Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 11:53:25 AM BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? There are no alt coins below LTC, they are all beside LTC, one does not depend on the others existence, it's not merge mining. Title: Re: delete Post by: kelsey on June 10, 2013, 12:00:43 PM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? +1 wow I agree with hydro on something. Title: Re: delete Post by: kelsey on June 10, 2013, 12:02:20 PM BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? There are no alt coins below LTC, they are all beside LTC, one does not depend on the others existence, it's not merge mining. seriously they're all below LTC....if LTC fell the rest would be easy picking for whoever was bored enough. Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 10, 2013, 12:03:59 PM BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? There are no alt coins below LTC, they are all beside LTC, one does not depend on the others existence, it's not merge mining. I'm talking in terms of hashpower, and acceptance. LTC is the ruler of the Alt world. Crypto in general, is dependant on reliability, trust. Title: Re: delete Post by: josiasrdz on June 10, 2013, 12:08:20 PM BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? There are no alt coins below LTC, they are all beside LTC, one does not depend on the others existence, it's not merge mining. Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 10, 2013, 12:13:04 PM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? with bitcoin thay would be beter off hijacking some of the big mining farms im sure you will find that 50% of te bitcoin network is less than 250 farms it dosent take to much to hack a bunch of unprotected computers Yeah, I'm not sure you fully understand the hashing power of BTC...It's like 85 TH/s...With a "T", with more and more being added each day...An attacker would have to match that, and beat it by an extra 1%...And then, he'd have to increase his hashing power, each day, to maintain the attack...We are talking millions of dollars here... Title: Re: delete Post by: crazy_rabbit on June 10, 2013, 12:19:47 PM As someone who has killed an Alt Coin or two or five with 51% attacks I can see what's happening with FTC and why the LTC community should be very concerned. For all you newbies, the attacks I'm talking about were 2011 early 2012, nothing recent because the current generation of shit coins aren't worth the effort to reconfigure a pool to 51% them. If you will notice there has been a recent large surge of hashing power on the LTC network categorized as anonymous coming on about the same time as the FTC attack. It's no coincidence. This is very similar to events that occurred in late 2011 early 2012 with the advent of the GPU miners for scrypt that *ALL* the *EXPERTS* in the know said would never work. You know, the same way all the "experts" today keep saying ASIC's for Litecoin is an impossibility... and I mean the exact same people. Previously during the same time all the experts back then were calling GPU miners for scrypt "nothing but FUD", ArtForz and the Solidcoin guys were building them independently. I actually got a version of AF's scrypt miner very early on. It was rough and very unstable, basically it didn't work and I couldn't get it fixed before the Solidcoin guys released their "reaper". So I had no advantage early on in LTC, but it wasn't for lack of trying ;) How does all of this relate to FTC and LTC in 2013? The very same people that truly despised everything LTC back then that created the Scrypt GPU Miner to kill LTC are still around. They've been quietly working on Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash and an ASIC Miner to do to LTC what the GPU Miner failed to do and that was clear the path for the relaunch of Solidcoin 3 aka Microcash. I believe they may indeed have a beta working. This attack on FTC is a simple warm up for LTC. Keep in mind, any attack that works on FTC will work on LTC. Buckle up people, it's going to be a wild ride for LTC in the coming weeks. ~BCX~ God I love drama. Title: Re: delete Post by: mr_random on June 10, 2013, 12:23:59 PM I've always wondered something about 51% attacks. Take Litecoin as an example - 18gh network hash at present.
Does one need 9gh to 51% attack it or 18gh? The reason being, if an entity attacks with 9gh, that makes the total network hash 27gh and of course 9 is no longer half of 27. So does an entity need 9gh to attack with success, or is it 18gh? Title: Re: delete Post by: worldinacoin on June 10, 2013, 12:25:55 PM Bitcoinexpress, do you mind me asking, what is your hashing power? Seen you battling Solidcoin etc. Without a substantial hashing power there is no way.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 10, 2013, 12:27:44 PM I've always wondered something about 51% attacks. Take Litecoin as an example - 18gh network hash at present. Does one need 9gh to 51% attack it or 18gh? The reason being, if an entity attacks with 9gh, that makes the total network hash 27gh and of course 9 is no longer half of 27. So does an entity need 9gh to attack with success, or is it 18gh? You need to have 18GH/s, + a little more, to get 51%. Match and beat, current hashrate, control 51% of the total hashing power Title: Re: delete Post by: rbdrbd on June 10, 2013, 12:50:44 PM Would they not still have to control 51% of the currency? A 51% attack has zero to do with the amount of currency you hold, it is the hashrate. ~BCX~ I thought so. I had just read someone say that in another thread. You may be confusing LTC/FTC with other coins that are POW+POS hybrids. Amount of coins held to secure the network with coins that have Proof of Stake minting, such as PPCoin, NovaCoin, BitBar, and YACoin. FC and LTC don't have POS features. Title: Re: delete Post by: Eastwind on June 10, 2013, 01:38:41 PM I've always wondered something about 51% attacks. Take Litecoin as an example - 18gh network hash at present. Does one need 9gh to 51% attack it or 18gh? The reason being, if an entity attacks with 9gh, that makes the total network hash 27gh and of course 9 is no longer half of 27. So does an entity need 9gh to attack with success, or is it 18gh? You need to have 18GH/s, + a little more, to get 51%. Match and beat, current hashrate, control 51% of the total hashing power If they can take out a few pools, then they need less than 18GH/s. My mining are in several pools just in case some of them are down. Title: Re: delete Post by: 12gaFacelift on June 10, 2013, 01:44:09 PM its always good to have p2pool in backup...never know what happen when you sleep :P
Title: Re: delete Post by: Prelude on June 10, 2013, 01:49:24 PM Title: Re: delete Post by: seleme on June 10, 2013, 02:22:41 PM I doubt there are asics out there but some fpgas are most probably already in action.
Title: Re: delete Post by: FiiNALiZE on June 10, 2013, 02:28:47 PM Please don't say BTC can't get 51%, of course it could.
If the government or some really rich person dropped a few million into ASIC's, Bitcoin would be done. Title: Re: delete Post by: mebezac on June 10, 2013, 02:33:05 PM I doubt there are asics out there but some fpgas are most probably already in action. I agree, I think fpgas will come before ASICs, and are probably already out there in the wild. Also, if anyone has scrypt ASICs, it would obviously be Trucoin lol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222962.0 Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 10, 2013, 02:34:54 PM Please don't say BTC can't get 51%, of course it could. And the public would cry that it was an act of terrorism.If the government or some really rich person dropped a few million into ASIC's, Bitcoin would be done. I think if any authorities or students looking for a PhD paper idea, are reading this thread they should consider as an exorcise to investigate the attack on FTC, and develop the tools and techniques for tracking down the offender just in case your country decides to adopt a crypto currency down the track. Title: Re: delete Post by: mebezac on June 10, 2013, 02:38:30 PM Please don't say BTC can't get 51%, of course it could. And the public would cry that it was an act of terrorism.If the government or some really rich person dropped a few million into ASIC's, Bitcoin would be done. And the government would blame it on *Insert Country Name Here* and subsequently declare war on them. Also, they would subpoena the phone and computer records of all Bitcoin users. Title: Re: delete Post by: smoothie on June 11, 2013, 01:48:29 AM Do your research guys. The OP is the same guy who faked LTC attacks in fall of 2012 then got exposed, then doxxed, outted for his bullshit lies, then ran away.
Anyone who was around then can attest to this. ;D ;D ;D Title: Re: delete Post by: litejar on June 11, 2013, 01:57:34 AM TruCoin's gold bar usb asic's must be shipping?
Title: Re: delete Post by: Hydroponica on June 11, 2013, 02:02:15 AM Please don't say BTC can't get 51%, of course it could. If the government or some really rich person dropped a few million into ASIC's, Bitcoin would be done. Government, sure. Some rich guy? Pretty sure, they don't give a fuck about bitcoin...Because they are rich ::) Not to mention, you'd need 1000's of high end ASIC's....If you know where to buy 1000's of high end ASICS, please, let me know. I want one. Title: Re: delete Post by: craslovell on June 11, 2013, 02:26:37 AM Do your research guys. The OP is the same guy who faked LTC attacks in fall of 2012 then got exposed, then doxxed, outted for his bullshit lies, then ran away. Anyone who was around then can attest to this. ;D ;D ;D Researched and verified. Title: Re: delete Post by: YipYip on June 11, 2013, 02:45:26 AM Do your research guys. The OP is the same guy who faked LTC attacks in fall of 2012 then got exposed, then doxxed, outted for his bullshit lies, then ran away. Anyone who was around then can attest to this. ;D ;D ;D Researched and verified. Verified what exactly, that with Coblee's knowledge ahead of the "attack", that it was for the sole purpose of rallying LTC miners and it worked brilliantly I might add... Total different situation and for an entirely different reason. With FTC I am posting an opinion and nothing more. I hold a lot of both, FTC and LTC so I don't want to see either destroyed. ~BCX~ Yawn....u r full of it Title: Re: delete Post by: smoothie on June 11, 2013, 02:51:11 AM Do your research guys. The OP is the same guy who faked LTC attacks in fall of 2012 then got exposed, then doxxed, outted for his bullshit lies, then ran away. Anyone who was around then can attest to this. ;D ;D ;D Researched and verified. :) Title: Re: delete Post by: smoothie on June 11, 2013, 02:52:33 AM Do your research guys. The OP is the same guy who faked LTC attacks in fall of 2012 then got exposed, then doxxed, outted for his bullshit lies, then ran away. Anyone who was around then can attest to this. ;D ;D ;D Researched and verified. Verified what exactly, Coblee's knew full well ahead of the "attack" it was a bluff, that it was for the sole purpose of rallying LTC miners and it worked brilliantly I might add... Total different situation and for an entirely different reason. With FTC I am posting an opinion only and nothing more. I hold a lot of both, FTC and LTC so I don't want to see either destroyed. ~BCX~ He verified that you were outted for your bullshit claims of an attack. Whether Coblee knew or not is irrelevant and is your way of deflecting attention away from what you did. Or didn't do as you claimed you were. Title: Re: delete Post by: Wilderness on June 11, 2013, 02:54:14 AM read the comments on the last Mtgox facebook update .....
if LTC ever makes it to Gox then it's just the next big pump and dump. A lot of people have the big dream they'll be rich from LTC when it hits but will there actually be buyers? There will certainly be plenty of sellers. Title: Re: delete Post by: smoothie on June 11, 2013, 02:54:39 AM @BCX,
I've been here the entire time. Look at my post count and look at the front stats page. Numbers don't lie that I've been around. Dude, perhaps if you actually apologized publicly for your behavior some of us would be inclined to forgive and forget the past. To date I really haven't seen such a thing. Title: Re: delete Post by: Tomatocage on June 11, 2013, 02:56:54 AM I remember Maddox's attempt to crawfish his way out of getting doxxed (MADDOXXED!) by claiming it was some guy who had stalked him for years LOLOL That was comedy.
Title: Re: delete Post by: smoothie on June 11, 2013, 02:58:50 AM I remember Maddox's attempt to crawfish his way out of getting doxxed (MADDOXXED!) by claiming it was some guy who had stalked him for years LOLOL That was comedy. Who could forget. :D Title: Re: delete Post by: Tomatocage on June 11, 2013, 03:06:27 AM I did apologize several times I had the wrong execution of the right idea, but the "attack" did work great in rallying LTC miners and getting some much needed work done in a hurry. Now to be very clear, Coblee did not take part in this other than simply knowing it was a bluff. All I did was post an opinion and I still think that FTC is not out of the woods yet and this may spill over to LTC. That's all I am saying. Yeah, I remember that, and it sounds plausible enough. You're still a dick though, but you're OG so I can roll it. And I think your theory re:FTC is kind of weak. IMHO it's being orchestrated by the same people who threw a hissy fit when NVC debuted -- but now they have some hashing power. Title: Re: delete Post by: Deprived on June 11, 2013, 03:09:02 AM I remember Maddox's attempt to crawfish his way out of getting doxxed (MADDOXXED!) by claiming it was some guy who had stalked him for years LOLOL That was comedy. Who could forget. :D Yeah - I was around then as well and remember him having to crawl off and hide after pretending to be a female that was being stalked AND also pretending to be someone who had suffered identity theft from the stalker. Turned out all were him of course - and there was no female OR stalker OR identity theft. Just one delusional attention-seeker. Until then he'd been a huge attention whore - claiming or implying responsibility for anything that happened but always AFTER the event. The one time he claimed in advance it, of course, never happened. Title: Re: delete Post by: xan_The_Dragon on June 11, 2013, 04:15:33 AM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? with bitcoin thay would be beter off hijacking some of the big mining farms im sure you will find that 50% of te bitcoin network is less than 250 farms it dosent take to much to hack a bunch of unprotected computers Yeah, I'm not sure you fully understand the hashing power of BTC...It's like 85 TH/s...With a "T", with more and more being added each day...An attacker would have to match that, and beat it by an extra 1%...And then, he'd have to increase his hashing power, each day, to maintain the attack...We are talking millions of dollars here... Title: Re: delete Post by: crazynoggin on June 11, 2013, 04:26:20 AM Seems like a government would have no problem attacking a cryptocoin then.
Title: Re: delete Post by: lazydna on June 11, 2013, 04:28:05 AM +1 As well, if needed, there are many more GH/sec, pointed at other Alt coins right now, that, I'm sure, most miners would divert in a heart beat, to protect LTC. Afterall, LTC falls, they all fall... I don't understand what you mean, LTC is not THE important coin, BTC is. If LTC failed the other coins would go on. BTC, is pretty much impossible to 51% attack. Would take too much $$, to attack it in the first place, and to keep 51% up for any length of time, would cost even more $$ LTC, is the strongest Alt coin, with the most support. It is THE alt coin. If LTC fell, it wouldn't effect BTC at all, but it would kill every Alt coin below it. If LTC could be taken down so easily, with such a large global hashrate, what hope do the smaller coins have? Who would trust them? with bitcoin thay would be beter off hijacking some of the big mining farms im sure you will find that 50% of te bitcoin network is less than 250 farms it dosent take to much to hack a bunch of unprotected computers Yeah, I'm not sure you fully understand the hashing power of BTC...It's like 85 TH/s...With a "T", with more and more being added each day...An attacker would have to match that, and beat it by an extra 1%...And then, he'd have to increase his hashing power, each day, to maintain the attack...We are talking millions of dollars here... uh, you have 3 extra zero's in that you ought to remove. Title: Re: delete Post by: ranlo on June 11, 2013, 04:44:21 AM Seems like a government would have no problem attacking a cryptocoin then. I've wondered about this myself. It's "safe" because it would require 51% of the hash rate to do anything, but I'd think a company like Microsoft/Apple/etc. would have the power to do that within weeks, with hardware that would blow our top ASIC's out of the water. Title: Re: delete Post by: flound1129 on June 11, 2013, 05:02:02 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. Title: Re: delete Post by: ranlo on June 11, 2013, 05:07:38 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. How can we tell if a site is on the new blockchain yet? Ex. if we want to make a transfer to somewhere, do we have to contact the site owners before we do it? Title: Re: delete Post by: flound1129 on June 11, 2013, 05:18:41 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. How can we tell if a site is on the new blockchain yet? Ex. if we want to make a transfer to somewhere, do we have to contact the site owners before we do it? There's no way to tell, as far as I know. Title: Re: delete Post by: ranlo on June 11, 2013, 05:24:34 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. How can we tell if a site is on the new blockchain yet? Ex. if we want to make a transfer to somewhere, do we have to contact the site owners before we do it? There's no way to tell, as far as I know. Alright, thanks! They should have set up some type of port that's open or something that when you ping it tells the version. Sucks that some sites take days to respond and waiting it out can be a hassle. Title: Re: delete Post by: erk on June 11, 2013, 05:29:40 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. How can we tell if a site is on the new blockchain yet? Ex. if we want to make a transfer to somewhere, do we have to contact the site owners before we do it? Title: Re: delete Post by: ranlo on June 11, 2013, 05:30:45 AM So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs. (my theory): BTC-E has been trading on the old blockchain all day because they didn't update their FTC client (because nobody told them to), they probably have done a bunch of transactions and are now fucked and trying to figure a way out of it. How can we tell if a site is on the new blockchain yet? Ex. if we want to make a transfer to somewhere, do we have to contact the site owners before we do it? Does this mean that any new transfers should go through without any issues? I thought the checkpoints were there because there was a fork and people were following the wrong path. |
