Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.
Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed. I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration. My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin- snip - You clearly haven't been paying attention in this thread, or you'd realize that my response was in reference to S4VV4S claiming that it isn't a problem for pools to have 51%, and then demanding that someone try and fix this problem. If he doesn't believe that there is a problem, then there is no need for him to continue demanding that the protocol be "fixed" (why fix something that isn't broken?). If he feels that the protocol must be "fixed", then he should start admitting that there is a problem. Until he gets over his cognitive dissonance, and chooses one side of the debate or the other, any conversation on this topic with him is useless and unproductive. Every time you tell him that he has the power to vote with his hashpower, he states that he doesn't believe there is a problem that would require him to do so. Then in the same post he talks about how the problem needs to be "fixed". Here we go again.... Danny I have much respect for you man, and I do believe you have a lot of knowledge but I don't think you got my point. I (as in me personally) am not worried about a 51% attack right now. I am worried about what this is doing to BTC (mostly caused by media FUD). The FUD that has been going around is damaging BTC rep and it's slowing down adoption as people tend to see the bad side of things instead of the benefits. I personally am involved in projects that are aimed to promote BTC. And yes I "demand" (as you put it) for this "problem" to be fixed as to get BTC to acquire greater adoption. Seriously man, do you not read the news? NOT everybody has the knowledge to understand that when a pool has 51% it doesn't necessarily mean destruction. We need to get rid of this issue if we want mass adoption. And you cannot expect the average Joe to have the knowledge you have on the subject. If you want BTC to succeed then I advise you (just like you advised me) to put your knowledge and skills on how to get rid of this problem rather than - well basically - go bypassed it. I don't understand why that is so difficult for you to comprehend. Gavin himself stated that he has a "solution" but it's currently not needed (or something along those lines). When will it be needed, when we actually have a 51% attack? |
|
|
|
How is bitcoin a trustless currency when you need to trust mining pools not to attack the system? Look at this article: http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/16/how-a-mining-monopoly-can-attack-bitcoin/Bitcoin could be a trustless currency if there were measured implemented to prevent centralisation of mining power. We know the current situation is not how Satoshi intended it to be. I think if he didn't go away he would have come up with a solution a long time ago. Any suggestions how to go about it? I had some but I was told that they wouldn't work for such and such reason. We need a working solution that doesn't require making major changes to the way the protocol works. And from what I gather, that is not possible. Hehe, there are no solutions even WITH major changes. That's real problem. There are NO long term solutions any way you turn it around...with changes or without em. Hard forks are...well...hard, but they are much better solution than having hole in your system that can be used to kill it any time by whoever. I haven't heard of single proposal that would fix current problem even with hardest fork you can imagine.... It only shows how hard this topic is. True, and by major I mean changing the way the protocol works. And that means it's not Bitcoin anymore. That's why a solution is currently not possible. At least that's what I think. |
|
|
|
How is bitcoin a trustless currency when you need to trust mining pools not to attack the system? Look at this article: http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/16/how-a-mining-monopoly-can-attack-bitcoin/Bitcoin could be a trustless currency if there were measured implemented to prevent centralisation of mining power. We know the current situation is not how Satoshi intended it to be. I think if he didn't go away he would have come up with a solution a long time ago. Any suggestions how to go about it? I had some but I was told that they wouldn't work for such and such reason. We need a working solution that doesn't require making major changes to the way the protocol works. And from what I gather, that is not possible. |
|
|
|
Quite the opposite, you should be pleased.
Bitcoin encodes decentralization and democracy - an issue was noticed in a multi-billion dollar economy, and within hours people had voted with their miners and redistributed a vast amount of hardware resources to stabilize the economy.
To me this is one of the pivotal moments of bitcoin so far, this democratic process implemented with such speed is impossible in almost every other avenue of life, and certainly every avenue which has centralization at it's core.
It was a good day.
Not true. People where still mining at GHash even after they reached 51%. It's the DDoS attack that caused the miners to move. No..Ghash moved part of their own hardware to another pool. Most people care only about one thing....returning their investment into bitcoin miner....and i cant blame them. I think BitFury also withdrew 1PH (I think) from the hashing rates. That being said, why didn't they do it before it got to that? It is a serious question. Why didn't they start backing down when they were at 45% let's say? |
|
|
|
Quite the opposite, you should be pleased.
Bitcoin encodes decentralization and democracy - an issue was noticed in a multi-billion dollar economy, and within hours people had voted with their miners and redistributed a vast amount of hardware resources to stabilize the economy.
To me this is one of the pivotal moments of bitcoin so far, this democratic process implemented with such speed is impossible in almost every other avenue of life, and certainly every avenue which has centralization at it's core.
It was a good day.
Not true. People where still mining at GHash even after they reached 51%. It's the DDoS attack that caused the miners to move. DDoS or not, it was resolved democratically by the community. If some members took an action which prompted a resolution so be it, it worked - what I said still holds, this is a major situation resolved remarkably quicker than any other issue in any billion dollar company/org/economy we've ever seen in history. True, can't argue with that. I was just making a correction  |
|
|
|
He got fed up with his pet project being swarmed by lunatic AnCaps and left in disgust
Hi, But he was very active until this date 12 12 2010 and then suddenly gone forever  Check out his profile also : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3As I am seeing he was replying a lot to newbies and people who had interest in BTC. BR I will repeat myself: Satoshi is gone because he didn't like people asking questions about him By people I mean the CIA  |
|
|
|
Quite the opposite, you should be pleased.
Bitcoin encodes decentralization and democracy - an issue was noticed in a multi-billion dollar economy, and within hours people had voted with their miners and redistributed a vast amount of hardware resources to stabilize the economy.
To me this is one of the pivotal moments of bitcoin so far, this democratic process implemented with such speed is impossible in almost every other avenue of life, and certainly every avenue which has centralization at it's core.
It was a good day.
Not true. People where still mining at GHash even after they reached 51%. It's the DDoS attack that caused the miners to move. |
|
|
|
Satoshi is gone because he didn't like people asking questions about him |
|
|
|
BTC is open source too.
Do you have any control over the protocol other than switching pools?
I might not have good knowledge on p2pool ( I admit that) but what I do know is that we are screaming like girls whenever someone reaches high hashrates and create threads like this one instead of trying to pledge for a PERMANENT solution.
However, it has recently come to my understanding that a permanent solution is not in the plans of the core-dev team for various (and some of them valid) reasons.
Making changes to the protocol at this point will be difficult.
However Gavin himself said he has a "solutoin" should it be needed.
Well, it's needed.
that's what I am trying to say though, p2pool is a permanent solution. There are options to allow parent and child nodes also. We just need some dev work to add those new features.You really should read up on it as it's some pretty cool stuff. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Poolhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.0You said it. If decentralized mining is added to the protocol itself, problem solved, no need for switching pools. I don't know how that can be done, but if it is, WE ARE OFF TO THE MOON!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
That depends on p2pool owners/moderators.
They can easily manipulate users hash rate just like any other pool.
lol you need to read a little about p2pool I have heard quite a bit about it. It still doesn't change the fact that the software behind it is controlled by an entity or group. Much like BTC. And I will repeat myself. We can go on forever switching pools or we can solve this once and for all and make BTC mainstream. Switching pools is a temporary solution.The code is open source and if its been modified then peers wont connect to it or allow it to connect, much like the bitcoin core itself. Please explain how you feel p2pool can be modified to trick miners in any way. BTC is open source too. Do you have any control over the protocol other than switching pools? I might not have good knowledge on p2pool ( I admit that) but what I do know is that we are screaming like girls whenever someone reaches high hashrates and create threads like this one instead of trying to pledge for a PERMANENT solution. However, it has recently come to my understanding that a permanent solution is not in the plans of the core-dev team for various (and some of them valid) reasons. Making changes to the protocol at this point will be difficult. However Gavin himself said he has a "solutoin" should it be needed. Well, it's needed. |
|
|
|
That depends on p2pool owners/moderators.
They can easily manipulate users hash rate just like any other pool.
lol you need to read a little about p2pool I have heard quite a bit about it. It still doesn't change the fact that the software behind it is controlled by an entity or group. Much like BTC. And I will repeat myself. We can go on forever switching pools or we can solve this once and for all and make BTC mainstream. Switching pools is a temporary solution. |
|
|
|
Personally I would say that you should not worry about a 51% attack. That would be more destructing to the one performing it than beneficial. You should be more worried about the "media" (as you can see) and peoples reaction to it (as you have witnessed with the price drop). |
|
|
|
Let's point to a p2pool node and keep it truly decentralised!
That's what we actually need. We need to grab more miners. Seems like many are shy or lazy to post. I started on p2pool with only 30gh/s and I got some good payouts. variation can be a killer but in the end you get as much or more on p2pool. I have three nodes set up, one in Sydney and a BTC and LTC node/s in Singapore. If we use p2pool as the preferred method of pooled mining then it can never be a 51% pool. (i.e. even if p2pool were 100% it would be distributed and no node could hold the majority).What is needed is for miners to understand that and for some devs to dig deep and see how they can enhance p2pool to be a little more efficient with larger miners. That depends on p2pool owners/moderators. They can easily manipulate users hash rate just like any other pool. Switching pools will not solve the problem. The problem has been there from the start and has yet to be solved..... |
|
|
|
We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.
So if I understand correctly CEX/GHash has came up with a solution to the problem? |
|
|
|
Actually I use VirWoX as I can cash out to Paypal
My fear is somebody pays me in BTC, I send the physical goods (not BTC) then they do a chargeback and I get fucked.
But if the sites have 3D secure I should be Safe(er)?
Thanks
There are NO chargebacks when it comes to BTC. If you get the BTC then it's yours. |
|
|
|
Hi
I have been advised that Exchanges don't use VBV/Secure by Mastercard.
Is this Correct?
I am not sure I understand what you mean but Virwox accepts VISA |
|
|
|
Not just.... They can implement things in windows Windows wallet, etc.... although i hate bloatware. having the last 5 years blockchain already installed were it may only require 5-6 month * left to download could be seen as advantageous. * time from manufacture -> distribution centre -> retailerbut, now that microsoft is on the list.. any other dominant companies? im thinking corn/wheat/farmers which will chain react onto pizza companies, cerial companies, and ultimately merchants last i checked, and this was a long time ago (like a year), the blockchain was something like 12GB.. i wouldn't be surprised if it has reached 16GB by now. no way you can fit that in an installation disk, so it would be a problem. i guess windows could package it in a flash drive, but they can do that with every piece of software. it's too big and too much work. It's Microsoft bro, they will "cloud" it. |
|
|
|
It sure as hell worries me about a high increase in difficulty
Tell me about it.... I will have to switch off my miners soon since they will become obsolete  |
|
|
|
atfirst thought i was thinking: microsoft as a supplier? most people buy PC's with microsoft already included, or torrent it.. so microsoft is not a big name id waste my time on to help merchants.. but then, the chain reaction as your first sentance pointed out: although it would help hardware suppliers such as but dell, lenovo, HP, to get onboard as they can buy OEM licences using the bitcoins they get to then start selling PC's at wholesale retailers in bitcoin so i agree microsoft would 'help' push the PC manufacturersNot just.... They can implement things in windows Windows wallet, etc.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
