I'm not 100% sure, but I think they wouldn't leave a security flaw so simple to patch.
On a decentralized network, even if you win the block you don't tell the other nodes "your truth", they make their own and then verify. hence the transaction verification (they come from different nodes), and if the register is not correct, it will be treated as spam.
Sure you can have control of your own node all the time, which means that all the time you will get a defective transaction that wont be accepted by the network. Or at least shouldn't, but in order to infect the network with your defective transactions then you need 51% of processing power on the whole network, so that you can perform (if you are lucky enough) not only the discovery and first verification, but enough verification so that the ones made by the other nodes are the ones treated as spam.
That's correct. I do have the ability to get more than 51% of the hashpower of Dogecoin.If you can pull it off, then it means that there is no real decentralized verification (which is the whole inner working of all crypto currencies) and it should be patched asap. No. The decentralized verification assumes that no attacker has more than 51% of the hashpower. There is no flaw, it's simply that this assumption is easy to break for certain altcoins. That's correct, it is the only flaw of the POW system. I assumed you didn't have that amount of power. As of yesterday, to perform a 51% attack on dogecoin you need: 24.33312 Ghash/s of successful Scrypt verifications. to do that you need 857 x 28.4MHs Scrypt Miners. (the most advanced commercial Scrypt ASIC in the market right now) each one of those are currently priced at $ 2,999.99 It is possible to do a 51% attack on dogecoin but your investment on equipment alone would be around $2 571 000.Sadly for your plan, Dogecoin is no little altcoin. sources: http://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/http://zoomhash.com/collections/asics/products/28-4mhs-scrypt-miner-300w-5-day-door-to-door-shippingHe only needs the power for a few hours (hour). Renting is way cheaper than buying. If 10000$ of doges are created per hour, than it should be possible to rent the network with xxx% over 10000$ Even if he doesn't do it directly, someone will have to. And someone willing to side with him on destroying dogecoin. I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it can be done but it will take a really large investment. The investment can be mitigated by renting, yes, but then there is a huge amount of work only on contracting the miners. Even so, renting a few hours is not enough, he would need to have the control each time he wants a corrupted transaction to pass though without being filtered by the rest. It could have a great impact on the network , but it wont really kill it unless he holds that power until the rest of the network desists from trying and leave it. Also fun fact: You do realize that even combining all the already rented and available machines of both Betarigs and LeaseRig collectively are no where near to the 24GHash/s No, I am actually saying that he doesn't need anyone, but yes, co-working with a big mining farm would help him much. The reason being is, that if he offeres a very good rate lets say on betarigs, many miners will switch their rig from from mining the other stuff. If the deal is good, then most/all X11 miners would switch! (If I am not mistaken, that switch is trivial.) |
|
|
|
I'm not 100% sure, but I think they wouldn't leave a security flaw so simple to patch.
On a decentralized network, even if you win the block you don't tell the other nodes "your truth", they make their own and then verify. hence the transaction verification (they come from different nodes), and if the register is not correct, it will be treated as spam.
Sure you can have control of your own node all the time, which means that all the time you will get a defective transaction that wont be accepted by the network. Or at least shouldn't, but in order to infect the network with your defective transactions then you need 51% of processing power on the whole network, so that you can perform (if you are lucky enough) not only the discovery and first verification, but enough verification so that the ones made by the other nodes are the ones treated as spam.
That's correct. I do have the ability to get more than 51% of the hashpower of Dogecoin.If you can pull it off, then it means that there is no real decentralized verification (which is the whole inner working of all crypto currencies) and it should be patched asap. No. The decentralized verification assumes that no attacker has more than 51% of the hashpower. There is no flaw, it's simply that this assumption is easy to break for certain altcoins. That's correct, it is the only flaw of the POW system. I assumed you didn't have that amount of power. As of yesterday, to perform a 51% attack on dogecoin you need: 24.33312 Ghash/s of successful Scrypt verifications. to do that you need 857 x 28.4MHs Scrypt Miners. (the most advanced commercial Scrypt ASIC in the market right now) each one of those are currently priced at $ 2,999.99 It is possible to do a 51% attack on dogecoin but your investment on equipment alone would be around $2 571 000.Sadly for your plan, Dogecoin is no little altcoin. sources: http://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/http://zoomhash.com/collections/asics/products/28-4mhs-scrypt-miner-300w-5-day-door-to-door-shippingHe only needs the power for a few hours (hour). Renting is way cheaper than buying. If 10000$ of doges are created per hour, than it should be possible to rent the network with xxx% over 10000$ |
|
|
|
Und wenn man keinen Facebook-Account hat?
Schon deshalb ist es mir suspekt...
Verwenden kannst es ja, aber gibt halt keine free coins. Es wird nen BTC airdrop geben, wenn du BTC hast, kannst du stellars claimen. |
|
|
|
|
Luke-jr is constantly killing coins with his hashpower...
|
|
|
|
|
Use the virtual credit card of neteller to buy bitcoins at one of the services that allow bitcoin buys with a huge markup. Maybe you even find a service that accepts Neteller directly.
|
|
|
|
4) 5,000-7000 new bitcoins come into existence every single day.
This is evidence that Bitcoin is doing quite well for its youth. Nearly $4 Million in new bitcoins flood the market *every day* and yet the price is stable. That means demand is meeting supply. That means people are buying $4,000,000 worth in bitcoins every day, doesn't it? When the next halving hits, that supply will be cut in half, and price should go up. ceteris paribus yes, but there is no "should" only probable. Also there will be anticipation for this, so the months before the halving should see a price increase, not the day after. |
|
|
|
you want to make a new defective coin?
because if you do that modification you wont be able to implement it into an existing network. It will basically become spam to the network.
I hope that there are still more white hats than black hats in the bitcoin community.
As a white hat, if you detect a flaw that could disrupt a system, you warn and try to fix it. Exploiting it is despicable.
This isn't about making a coin, but 51% attacking an existing coin as demonstration. There is nothing to implement it onto the network, it's changing our own node behavior (ordering of transactions), which as we will have >50% hashpower, will become the authoritative one. I like the idea of showing how insecure those "shitcoins" really are by exploiting their biggest weakness: Using POW when clearly this is no way to secure the coin properly. Go ahead! |
|
|
|
That is bitter. Thank you for warning us and fuck those asshats  |
|
|
|
700 euro per year for 5 years = spending more than earning? Hm. This might be in the US, but only insane people go live there.  700euros per year for college means people that don't go to college pay for people that do go for college, poor innovation, poor quality, lots of waste, bad administration and a useless degree at the end because too many people will get a degree You lost the money you could have earned in 5years, the skills and connections you would have got as well You just said that any colledge in Austria is bad because it's 700 euros per semester/year (not exactly sure right now anymore) You have no idea what you're talking about.  #### It is quite the opposite, US colleges are way more bloated and inefficient. They increase the cost of tuition way faster than the actual incurred costs for them... Austria is a very small country, still has some top 100 ranked college degree programs (BSC, MA, MBA and MSC) |
|
|
|
You guys realize, that there was NO successful launch hosted on bittrex. MIL was the best example for this.
Bittrex will host EVERY shit if they get a cut. Sad but truth!
Not if it bring them into disrepute enough to take a piece out of their trading volume and commissions. At some point - and I'm sure that point is approaching - the easy BTC will cost more than it's worth. Remember Mintpal! That is the problem. Most exchanges are very shortsighted. Because if they collapes they can just get "hacked" and start over as a new exchange... |
|
|
|
|
You guys realize, that there was NO successful launch hosted on bittrex. MIL was the best example for this.
Bittrex will host EVERY shit if they get a cut. Sad but truth!
|
|
|
|
|
Falls jemand nen account dort macht, man muss 1000 Stellars an jemanden schicken und bekommt dafür 1000 Stellars.
Schickt es bitte an "TwinWinNerD" dann schicke ich euch nen Teil zurück!
BTW: Finde es ned so toll, dass man seinen Facebook account damit verbinden muss!
|
|
|
|
Also, there are "Red Alert" scenarios, that would fix malicious attacks in the shortterm, even 51% attacks, but there is nothing longterm!
Sure there is. If we are being 51% attacked by a miner using SHA256 ASICS we could switch to another hashing algorithm. If we are being 51% attacked by some multi-purpose hardware that can efficiently run many hashing algorithms, then we can replace the POW system with something else. While these kind of changes will be hard to swallow and you may have a hard time convincing people to make these kind of changes, they are always an option. I meant longterm in the sence that we don't change from SHA256. The majority of hashpower will always win there longterm. But that is not an issue but foremost a feature. You are absolutely right, in the end a switch to delegated proof of stake or something similar is a good alternative, though I hope it never get chosen out of a NEED due to an attack! |
|
|
|
the majority overrule hashing power.
you know what i mean? i'm wondering if you guys agree with this or not? Whatever you seem to mean is not true. The hardcoded checkpoints decided by devs overrule overything. say everyone wants to kick off a huge malicious miner off the network, ( it makes no sense for a miner to act maliciously but lets say it happening ), someone with like 30% hashing power start attacking, everyone wants to kick him off, the core is patched to block this miner, everyone upgrades because they wish it, and there you go, majority overruled hashing power. point is hashing is just a way of achieving consensus in an automated way, and can be side swiped given "manual" consensus. There is literally no way this would work. You could block IPs submitting blocks, or find another workaround. BUT if this guy is really malicious, than he is watching everything very carefully and will be proactively changing his IP and setting to something different. Also, there are "Red Alert" scenarios, that would fix malicious attacks in the shortterm, even 51% attacks, but there is nothing longterm! exactly. all i'm trying to say is that, its our network, and we choose how it works in every detail, just because someone has alot of hashing power doesn't give him any real, long term, power over the system, the will of the majority supersede all. Bitcoin could as a last resort become a pure POS coin for a while too. |
|
|
|
the majority overrule hashing power.
you know what i mean? i'm wondering if you guys agree with this or not? Whatever you seem to mean is not true. The hardcoded checkpoints decided by devs overrule overything. say everyone wants to kick off a huge malicious miner off the network, ( it makes no sense for a miner to act maliciously but lets say it happening ), someone with like 30% hashing power start attacking, everyone wants to kick him off, the core is patched to block this miner, everyone upgrades because they wish it, and there you go, majority overruled hashing power. point is hashing is just a way of achieving consensus in an automated way, and can be side swiped given "manual" consensus. There is literally no way this would work. You could block IPs submitting blocks, or find another workaround. BUT if this guy is really malicious, than he is watching everything very carefully and will be proactively changing his IP and setting to something different. Also, there are "Red Alert" scenarios, that would fix malicious attacks in the shortterm, even 51% attacks, but there is nothing longterm! |
|
|
|
|
Bookmarked, I am shocked that I haven't seen this thread before...
|
|
|
|
|
After losing 100s of USD to scammers, that used stolen account and stolen CCs to fund those, I have given up on trading against skrill and Neteller.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
