1) Make the nonce long enough that the extraNonce field is no longer needed in the coinbase transaction.
All ASIC will be broken so basically no one will follow this hardfork. This could be accomplished by the aux-block softfork I proposed earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 |
|
|
|
That is an accurate headline. Bitcoin is fundamentally broken per these findings, and significant exploitation of these findings (which given human nature and financial incentives is inevitable) Bitcoin will collapse. Bitcoiners can issue all the press releases attempting to debunk this reality as they like, it won't change a damn thing. The only question is how quickly this exploitation happens, and how rapidly it poisons the whole network
Your view assumes Bitcoin is a static thing; Bitcoin can be changed in response to this attack What the Bitcoin Foundation should be doing is releasing a press release welcoming the Cornell researchers competent analysis of the flaws in the system, while pointing out that one of the strengths of Bitcoin is that flaws can be corrected if a clear majority of Bitcoin users choose to change the software they run. We only need a majority of miners to change. Any fix would be completely transparent to users. Selfish-mining won't be successful without a low latency connection and/or Sybil attack. Low latency connection itself is expensive, and we can nullify its advantage by relaying unverified block headers. People will always assume a block header is valid unless it is proven otherwise, and always mine on top of the first seen header. (I think creating invalid block header is very expensive and no one is trying to do this. Any stats for this?) On the other hand, we can make a Sybil attack expensive: non-p2p alternative block broadcasting channels, certified nodes and miners, full nodes on TPM, restricting number of peers from the same ip range or the same country With all these optimizations, I don't think selfish-mining is profitable |
|
|
|
My ELI5 explanation that I posed to bitcoin-development might help people understand the attack:
Alice is a miner with some amount of hashing power. She has the ability to detect new blocks on the network extremely effectively because she has controls a lot of nodes with low-latency, high-bandwidth connections; in short she has unusually good knowledge of the state of the network. She is also very good at publishing her blocks and getting them to the majority of hashing power in very little time; she has unusually good connectivity to all miners. (again low-latency and high bandwidth)
She's so good at this that when she finds a new block, she keeps it a secret! She can get away with this because she knows that the moment any other miner, like Bob, finds a block, she can immediately broadcast it to the rest of the network before the other block propagates. Instead of building on Bob's blocks, almost everyone builds on Alice's block, having seen it first, depriving Bob of the revenue. Gradually Alice gets more and more miners because all the other pools don't pay out as much as Alice's pool does. This eventually leads to Alice having a majority of hashing power, or if not that due to social pressure, a majority of the mining revenue.
"low-latency and high bandwidth" is not free. Unless the extra revenue can cover the cost, it is still economically prohibitive to do this |
|
|
|
214.19 now. We should take to #1 today  |
|
|
|
I didn't read the maths carefully but I think I read something similar before. I don't think it works in a very effective way as the reason stated in section 6.1. The sybil attack described is also not effective if there are many honest full-nodes. Also, I assume that big pools are connected directly to minimize the stale rate so again such sybil attack won't work. There are also other solutions, such as forwarding unverified full difficulty block headers, or even partial difficulty headers. |
|
|
|
Fascinating...reading still right now...but if I get this correct - the concept is that you're mining on something big like btcguild, and copying the entire block header onto your own private pool of work; at the same time, your miner is accepting work and not submitting valid shares to btcguild yet it submits them to the private duplicated pool. Anytime a Valid Share is found to have met minimum difficulty and discovers a block, it submits this from the private pool and broadcasts to the network? Network accepts this and the private pool is fed the newly minted coins instead of btcguild? No, completely wrong. The article is talking something else, and at the same time your strategy does not work at all. This is a very common noob misconception. Simply speaking, a "share" is bound to the destination of the reward so you can't direct the reward to other address. |
|
|
|
What's QQ?
Exciting news that bitcoins are making it into real estate. That'll certainly help if people can pay for their main expense (shelter) using bitcoin.
QQ is Tencent Holdings Limited (0700.HK) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=0700.HK . Market cap about 100billion USD. It's like China's MSN. |
|
|
|
|
Well, the exchange rate is 1BTC=1000CNY, while one can get 1270CNY at btcchina at this moment. No one will really pay with bitcoin unless they offer a fairer rate
|
|
|
|
Big 3 volume is 15k so far today that is 32 to 1 ratio http://btckan.com/priceChBTC 1264.7 207.659 1264.7 207.659 1265 207.708 1255.8 206.197 1270 208.529 508062.96 0 /0.2 Dividend There appears to be a disconnect between blockchain stats and china market stats http://blockchain.info/statsCan anyone explain? Does blockchain not include China transactions? That's fake volume. People are selling into their own bid to obtain share of the exchange. If you see "Dividend" at the "Fee" column, the volume is unreliable. |
|
|
|
its really hard to say who will get the majority of volume...
Stamps, BTCchina or some other new foreign market!? BTCChina is not the largest bitcoin exchange in China by volume. Look at ChBTC: http://btckan.com/priceForget it. The volume of chbtc is kind of fake. People are trading there to obtain share of the exchange |
|
|
|
本篇文章所提供信息并不代表正确性 這句倒是不錯. 那是7小時和30小時線 |
|
|
|
中央台 《晚间新闻》 报导了这个案子。
我估计 GBL 的人应该马上跑路了，如果他们象大家猜测的那样是何应钦的老乡。
至于那个经纪人青云，比较麻烦，因为挣的钱跑路到美国加拿大应该还不够，只能去缅甸啊。
那是天津台, 不是中央台 |
|
|
|
Change your defamatory topic  |
|
|
|
First thought: broken ECDSA would spell the end of BTC despite the very cute hidden public key. Funds are likely to migrate to a secure DSA.
unless we manage to diversify between different digital signature algos; besides ECDSA, there is at least the old fashion RSA and the DSA. it is not even that one could diversify his savings between different algos. giving the scripting language that is already in the protocol, one could protect an unspent output using several different signing algos at the same time, one after another. and it is very unlikely that all of them would get broken. but this requires a hard fork and having in mind that the satoshi client has a mining monopoly these days, we won't introduce a new signing method without an active support from the dev team. No. You can change pretty much anything in the protocol with soft-fork. Adding new DSAs and Hash algorithms are certainly soft-forks. Imagine to have a script protected by 3 different DSAs and 5 Hash algorithms..... |
|
|
|
You can find the transcript in the OP |
|
|
|
With the soft-fork, any old-style transactions without a SPV proof are simply invalid.
Pretty sure that invalidating the de facto transaction is a hard fork. No. Invalidating a valid transaction is soft-fork by definition. |
|
|
|
How much do want to invest?
If you want to invest triple digits in fiat go all in.
If you want to invest quadruple digits and up, then buy some now set limit buy orders all the way down ~165$ and go all in if we break 260$ on bitstamp.
That's what I would do if I was out of the market.
It's relative. Double digits could be a lot for some people, while quadruple digits could be nothing for some other people |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
