Bitcoin Forum

I think it would be very easy to kill bitcoin and lose all our money as the currency... :'( :'(

https://i.imgur.com/LwVr4Tg.png

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/bitcoin-currency-destroyed-51-attack-ghash-io

Shh.

The people over at Hacking Distributed have a good discussion of the problem (http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/16/how-a-mining-monopoly-can-attack-bitcoin/) and a  potential solution (http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/18/how-to-disincentivize-large-bitcoin-mining-pools/).

Brings me crazy to think that only a few people associate with bad intentions can destroy all confidence in bitcoin

And, if you add the rest of the slices in the pie chart, you'll be at 100%

Certain death.   ;)

I don't really care. Stop spreading FUD.

I worry that 60% of hash power is in the hands of only two ...
Could be hacked and you lose all your money...

Can you explain the sequence of events between those two mining pools getting hacked and all bitcoin users losing their coins?

Do not lose your bitcoin, but the trust would be 0 and the value 0

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other generators from getting any generations
The attacker can't:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him
It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created — any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

Doing a 51% attack is like shooting yourself in the face. You get absolutely nothing out of it. If you control enough hashing power to perform that, why destroy the very thing that's making you money?

Hacking?? and if some government hacks ghâsh and discus fish??

Would not be the first time.... The interests of governments may be contrary to our

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/dragonfly-western-energy-companies-under-sabotage-threat?SID=skim26001X849541X429d91cf4e8cb74fefff6e6fc18604b5&API1=100&API2=5635367

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/606b97b4-0057-11e4-8aaf-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F606b97b4-0057-11e4-8aaf-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elotrolado.net%2Fnoticia_un-ciberataque-al-sector-energetico-abre-via-a-sabotajes-del-suministro-electrico-en-espana_24493

It is a very real possibility and the community will be warned.

Jesus man, the ghash panic was all ready over the top. Why are we looking for things to scare ourselves with? Just stop all ready.

You are currently trusting all of your dollars (assuming US) to just a few people meeting behind closed doors, who are currently using extraordinary measures to prop up a struggling financial system.  Their interests are not always aligned with your interests.

The pools do not own the hashing power.  At the slightest hint of impropriety, the hashing power will be yanked.

We have two pools, who do not own anywhere near 51% of the actual hashing power, and who would have to collude to together to destroy their own businesses, just doesn't seem like much of a risk.   Their interests are aligned with ours.

My life can be ended instantly by any of thousands of vehicles every day if they choose to cross two painted parallel yellow lines.  Because it isn't in their interest to cross those two lines, I trust my life every day that they'll stay on their side of the road. 

A few facts:
1. If a pool, or even an individual has 100% of the hashing power, you do not lose your bitcoin unless they choose to 'cross the yellow lines' and act suicidally against their self interest.
2. You do not lose your bitcoins even if they do act against their self interest.  Your bitcoins will be safe - except possibly a few that you receive during the timeframe of a malicious attack which will be very short lived.  There are just too many people watching the blockchain.
3. If attack of this sort happens, which is possible, but very, very unlikely, the miners will pull their hashing power from the pool, and the attack ends.  And, very likely the pool ends as well.

I'm all for distributing the hashing power, but the problem is being overstated.

In theory if the two pools were hacked and the hackers executed an attack on the blockchain then the confidence in bitcoin could be eroded to the amount that bitcoin price would crash.

In reality this will not happen as when evidence of an actual attack against the network by specific pool(s) miners would pretty much instantly pull their hashpower from those pools to prevent the attacks from continuing. IMO the very large miners with significant amounts of money invested in miners would likely be monitoring a number of sources (forums, MSM, the blockchain) for potential evidence of an attack on the network by the pool they are mining on and would react accordingly 

This just seems kind of silly. Since the 51% "threat" ended with the biggest pool we have to add pools together now and fret over it? I think some people just want something to complain about.

a 51% attack and hacking were never really my concern as these have been shown to be mainly self defeating and therefore less likely. However monopoly of blocks is a concern as this would drive the smaller pools and miners out of btc. as I have said in a previous post there are still 9 miliion btc to be mined -do you feel safe and in a decentralized system if they all belong to ghash.io

Gotta love all these constant new accounts with 11 posts, posting apocalyptic mumbo-jumbo FUD.

Well hackers could in theory hack two (or more pools), essentially control 51% of the network, spend massive amounts of coins on some good/service and then reverse the payment after the goods/services are received. The problem with this is that if the amounts were great enough then the price of bitcoin would likely fall more then 50%, making the attack unprofitable.

Hey man...gotta keep the FUDsicles fresh dude!  :p

SHHHHHHHHHH

welcome noob  :)

By denying every other miner any profits you can almost double the bitcoin income. This will make other miners give up, and then you can gradually turn off some of the miners and save cost. The risk for this is already very high but it doesn't seem to influenced the price. It's hard to tell if this is because the majority is in denial about it or just doesn't care. If it's the latter it means it would be very profitable.

Yet Theymos decided to remove restrictions.  :D

In other words, you would collapse the market and earn $00.  ;)

OP, welcome to last month. You missed the drama about this, is that why you bring it up again?

I agree that those are completely different words, with a completely different meaning from what I said.

What people are afraid of is that an attacker would have something other then a financial motivation to launch an attack. 

Very few facts in the Guardian article

UPPPP

I don't think the reporters at the guardian truly understand bitcoin at this level to be able to accurately report it in a way that the average person could understand