no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct? Technically, no. Because the difficulty adjusts itself with a certain latency. Right now the difficulty is 1.7M and the hash rate is 12 Thash/s. So you need 12 Thash/s right now to perform a majority attack. But if tomorrow the hash rate drops to 6 Thash/s for whatever reason, then you only need 6 Thash/s, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M. OK I can see that happening in the face of a sudden dramatic drop in network hash power, which at this point I find unlikely. Taking your example further, we could say that for a diff of 1.7m, a drop to 3Th/s would need only 3 more Th/s to 51%, however it would be extremely boring because the network would be functioning at half speed and everything would take twice as long to occur. |
|
|
|
Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really.
A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again.
Huh? A 51% attack could also be called a 51% takeover, and happens when 1 person owns 51% of the hashing power, and takes control of the entire network (rewrites the blockchain). The larger the network is, the harder for 1 person to own 51%. It's a LOT harder to gain 51% of a 200TH/s network than it is a 2TH/s network, for example. A larger network is inherently more resilient to a 51% takeover, you see? A larger difficulty is just a side effect of that larger network. The difficulty of that 200TH/s network will be 100x that of the 2TH/s network, right? The difficulty itself doesn't actually protect against an attack (or takeover), but the factors that caused the difficulty to raise are what protect us. Exactly, that's what I was saying. no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power. The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct? Therefore, for a network speed of (say) 12Th/s, you would need just over 12 MORE Th/s in order to be 51% of the network. However, if the difficulty was set for a network speed of 120Th/s, you would then need to have more than 120Th/s of hash power in order to be 51%. The difference between a 12Th/s network and a 120Th/s network is directly related to the difficulty. If the difficulty were set for a 12Th/s network, and someone showed up with 120Th/s, he would have far more than 51% and the difficulty would rise to meet the hash power he is bringing online. In contrast, if someone threw 12Th/s at a network that was running at 120Th/s, he would be unable to do anything more than get a lot of coins, because he cannot overcome the difficulty to achieve 51%. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. The network becomes more difficult to attack, directly as a result of how much power gets put up against it. |
|
|
|
So if I bet 1 BTC on true and one other user bets 100 BTC on false I will win 95 BTC (in case of true)  That doesn't seem fair. That's how wagers work, and he needs a cut to keep the service running. Can't do it all for free. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand either, but from what I gather, 2112 is saying that I am a credit risk because I perform many transactions per month, or something. I'm not sure how it is relevant, especially given my stellar credit, but Ah, a land-less and family-less youngster whith a post-secondary education (or while obtaining a post-secondary degree) with "stellar" debt-slave score. I just hope that you aren't black, because my pot-shot was all equal-opportunity, non-discriminatory and race-blind. I'll tell you the story. Years ago I went to the bookstore to pick up a special order. Due to mistakes the book I was handed was something like "Proceedings of a TRW conference on numerical modeling in consumer finance {or some such}". It was raining so I spent couple of hours flipping through it, but I now still regret not buying it. There was a ton of super-interesting nuggets in it, but I particularly remember the "behavioral modeling" chapter. There was a matrix of data from MBNA who used to run credit cards affiliated with professional associations. In most of the upper bands of income the most profitable (for MBNA) card was ADA (American Dental Association) and the worst performing was AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). Not surprisingly dentists had higher credit scores than accountans, normalized for all other factors. The moral of this story? The "credit score" isn't meant to measure the likelihood of you repaying the debt. It is meant to measure how profitable of a customer you are going to become for the credit grantor. There exist people who wouldn't consider "high credit score" to be something to be proud of. Interesting. I wasn't necessarily referring to a score as such, I simply stated credit in general. Although I have made use of the 3 free reports per year to ascertain my creditworthiness, since they are free after all. I'll also give you some interesting tidbits so that you may continue to draw conclusions. For instance, I make heavy use of electronic transactions (ACH, credit/debit cards, etc.) because they are convenient and because I am not charged anything to do so. Indeed, I am paid to do so in some cases, particularly in the example of credit cards with "reward points" and such. You could say that that is my effort to leach off of a failed system, but we all know that the ones footing the bill are the merchants and the ones that pay the sky-high percentages and fees when they dare to use their credit beyond where they are able to repay. That is one of the reasons I discovered and embraced Bitcoin - it allows me the convenience of online payments without enriching an existing infrastructure. And guesses as to my age by others here have been all over the map, ranging from really low to really high, so perhaps I am obtuse enough to be confusing. |
|
|
|
- Use bitcoinbuilder.com
Cool, but it needs to have automatic SSL redirection. It asks for a password even if SSL isn't enabled. |
|
|
|
How about this for a conspiracy theory - Members of BFL worked in R&D for crypto chips used by NSA for cracking. After Gavin's talk at the CIA, a plan was devised to secretly build an ASIC mining cluster that could take over the network, just in case bitcoin ever became a viable competitor to the fiat currencies of the world as they slowly crumbled. BFL was set up as a front company and the vanilla sha256 bitstreams and chip designs they had already developed were modified for bitcoin mining. The FPGA chips from an outdated NSA cracking cluster were re-purposed for the initial BFL singles and the serial numbers were removed to reduce the chance that they could ever be linked back to the government contract in which they were purchased. The existing ASIC fabs were redesigned for the "SC" and a slew of moles posing as miners and bitcoin businesses orchestrated a plan to project the illusion of a large market of miners who trusted BFL and received their products as promised. This was done to lure any potentially serious investors away from competing ASIC efforts and into their honeypot, thereby allowing them to dominate the entire market. This included fabricated botnet stories to cover for the incremental ramp-up of the NSA hashing cluster, which actually already controls over %60 of the hashrate while running only a small fraction of total capacity. Now the US government has a bitcoin "takeover switch" that they can turn on at any time to control all transactions in the network. Nobody will question BFLs questionable business practices because they have a govt. contract. They will slowly sell a trickle of ASICs to the public to recoup some of the redevelopment costs and all the ex-TIA guys in the back room at the pentagon get a fat raise and a retirement gift cigar from Howard Schmidt.  Nice theory, I lol'd a little bit. Maybe the NSA has figured out how to pwn a box running any given OS via the USB port and trick cgminer into reporting the correct hash rate etc, while silently taking over the network and forwarding hashes to a rendezvous point where a 51% chain that reverts all the way back to the genesis block is being built. |
|
|
|
I think the VirtualBox versions after 4.0 require an expansion pack to use USB passthrough. Versions prior to 4.0 had USB passthrough only available on the non-OSE (non-open source) editions. Reference: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand either, but from what I gather, 2112 is saying that I am a credit risk because I perform many transactions per month, or something. I'm not sure how it is relevant, especially given my stellar credit, but |
|
|
|
Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really.
A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again.
Huh? A 51% attack could also be called a 51% takeover, and happens when 1 person owns 51% of the hashing power, and takes control of the entire network (rewrites the blockchain). The larger the network is, the harder for 1 person to own 51%. It's a LOT harder to gain 51% of a 200TH/s network than it is a 2TH/s network, for example. A larger network is inherently more resilient to a 51% takeover, you see? A larger difficulty is just a side effect of that larger network. The difficulty of that 200TH/s network will be 100x that of the 2TH/s network, right? The difficulty itself doesn't actually protect against an attack (or takeover), but the factors that caused the difficulty to raise are what protect us. Exactly, that's what I was saying. |
|
|
|
|
Cool, so even those with only one BFL Single have enough hash to be accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
Come to the united states, we have cookies! Also, lots of debt and a promise to pay backed by a fucking massive mercenary army.
Oh- you wanted to send some cash back to the homeland? Sorry, fuck you, you are a terrorist.
|
|
|
|
please STFU about the police, what do you want them to do? magically fixing the database, so that everyone can get there money? shoot genjix?
they can do absolutely nothing in this case, except messing things more up. so please STFU.
I'll tell you what they can do. They can provide to a court that a report was filed, even if nothing happened with it for any reason. It somewhat shifts the onus onto the cops. This gives much weight when the court has some preponderance of evidence when they decide to file suit. But I guess if they aren't going to file suit even when they know who was responsible, then who gives a flying fuck. |
|
|
|
What about the sudden implementation of withdrawal limits on savings accounts? Apparently, more than 6 withdrawals from savings per month is some kind of federal reporting trigger, and the bank can and will close your account for exceeding that. I don't recall any such limitation until recently, although I am not sure what law was passed to make that effective. They insist that you use a checking account for frequent transfers instead.
This limitation was there since forever. The root of it is in the costs of insuring and maintaining the account. I'm kinda thinking that "sudden" probably means "first time in my life that I read the account disclosure booklet. I used to simply throw it away." One thing that US banking system has figured out exceedingly well is the default and fraud risk on personal accounts. There are so many flags that signal imminent personal bankruptcy, one of them is lack of normal monthly or biweekly budget planning. It manifests itself by too frequent too small withdrawals. The limits are on the quantity of individual withdrawals, not on the total amount withdrawn. Railing against those limits is akin to railing against higher car insurance rates for unmarried men less than 25 years old. It leads nowhere because it has no wider social support. Well in that case, I've decided to set off all the alarms by never using a savings account again. Mainly because my checking account pays more interest than the savings. |
|
|
|
From what I understand, the difficulty adjusts based on network speed, and the whole point of difficulty is to stop a single node from having too much power over the network ?
Question: Will the ASIC still work once all coins have been generated ?
the whole point of difficulty is to make sure the time it takes to find a block is consistent. it has nothing to do with the 51% attack. Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really. A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again. |
|
|
|
sounds like you should stick with usd. bitcoin at this point in time is not ready for Gavin's grandma but when it is perhaps you will be ready to use it.
welcome to the real world, mi amigo. yes there is greed all around us. I argue, however, that wallstreet has more greed than bitcoiners.
Why are you speaking to me in Spanish? I'm not Hispanic. and please refrain from "welcoming" me anywhere. You are nobody besides a poster on a Bitcoin forum. What authority do you have to welcome me anywhere? and yea, argue all you want. I'm not arguing anything just stated how I feel. If my opinions offend you... well maybe you're the one who needs a reality check. Opinions are all around us. Speaking of grandmothers, my grandmother is more tolerant than some of you. You don't wish to be welcomed? OK. Get the fuck out, asshole. Was that mean enough?  |
|
|
|
What about the sudden implementation of withdrawal limits on savings accounts? Apparently, more than 6 withdrawals from savings per month is some kind of federal reporting trigger, and the bank can and will close your account for exceeding that. I don't recall any such limitation until recently, although I am not sure what law was passed to make that effective. They insist that you use a checking account for frequent transfers instead.
I wonder if there is some backdoor law that allows them to snoop on checking accounts but not savings accounts, and so they decided to make savings accounts less useful. It's strange.
You wanted change, you got it! Oh shut up, Reg D has been around long before Obama http://www.bankersonline.com/compliance/guru2010/gurus_comp051710a.htmlStrange that it is being enforced only recently? I haven't had issues years ago. |
|
|
|
plan,
|
|
|
|
That's outrageous. £262 for 20g! Oh, and the death penalty part. It's injustices like that that make me wish some cop would snap and shoot up the judge and everyone that agreed with him. |
|
|
|
man,
|
|
|
|
|
What about the sudden implementation of withdrawal limits on savings accounts? Apparently, more than 6 withdrawals from savings per month is some kind of federal reporting trigger, and the bank can and will close your account for exceeding that. I don't recall any such limitation until recently, although I am not sure what law was passed to make that effective. They insist that you use a checking account for frequent transfers instead.
I wonder if there is some backdoor law that allows them to snoop on checking accounts but not savings accounts, and so they decided to make savings accounts less useful. It's strange.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
