PS: Why would you have to re-evaluate if a hard fork was made as to ensure that the network is safe?
I explained at least 3 times, but you fail to understand. "Proof-of-Work" is not a design flaw: it it Bitcoin's defining feature. If we have to resort to hard-forks to mitigate one entity controlling more than half the hash-power, then the "experiment" will have failed. So if SHA-256 is compromised, and the core dev team switch to sha-512 you will "re-evaluate"? Just an example here of a possible scenario that will happen at some point within the next few years. You fail to understand what I am saying. Right now (especially after the GHash 51%) I am having trouble explaining to people that BTC is safe, because really it's not anymore. The reason is simple: We BELIEVE in a trustless protocol yet we have to trust that the one with 51% share of the network rate will behave. Does that sound trustless to you? |
|
|
|
do you really think someone can control 50% of "full nodes" ?
Yes, and for less cost than controlling 51% of the hashpower. If that's true ( i dont know cost behind it so i cant really argue againts it) than you win by this argument. suggests there are under 8000 full Bitcoin nodes. So to get 50% would require adding 8000 nodes, at a cost of ~$160,000 per year. [In practice you could do it much much cheaper than buying them singly!] I'm not going to work out the cost of adding enough hashpower to get 50% of the network, but it is an awful lot more than that. I have learned today in this post more than in last few months reading this whole forum. Thanks for spending time battleing it with me / us. I like to discuss things and am not afraid to admit when someone has better arguments than i do and i'm always open to new facts that can / would chamge my oppinion. After reading rest of posts in this thread i know where real problem is. I will surely get alot more ideas like this one, now ill at least know how to "test" em out in my head before spending mine and others time by writing it on forums  +1 |
|
|
|
People say they want a decentralized Bitcoin, but they're not willing to take any kind of responsibility for it. Like this imbecile S4VV4S. It's up to "someone else" to fix the problem.
Anyone mining on a pool with >30% of the network doesn't believe in decentralization. Simple as that. Govern yourselves accordingly
It's little twats like you that pollute this forum dick snot. This imbecile S4VV4S has been trying hard to get the core dev to listen to him and do something about the problem. All you do is point fingers and accuse people. Well guess what dip shit? I have been more active on the subject than you. And thank got I forgot to hit the ignore btn yesterday so now I can see what a real dickhead you are. EDIT: I do apologize for coming out a bit "strong" but you are a real idiot man. Al you do is point fingers and do nothing to help the REAL problem. |
|
|
|
|
Is it me or is the Dr. gone ever since I asked how many coins and at what price will he be willing to part with them?
|
|
|
|
If you are trying to find a private key that will allow you to spend the bitcoins associated with a particular bitcoin address...
There are 2160 possible addresses.
2160 = 1.46 X 1048
So, the odds of finding such a private key are 1 in 1.46 X 1048
The odds of winning the NY lottery 6 numbers Y times in a row are:
1 in 45,057,474Y
45,057,4746 = 8.37 X 1045
45,057,4747 = 3.77 X 1053
So the odds of finding such a private key are a bit better than winning the NY lottery 7 times in a row.
Math is awesome, thanks!! I wish I was better at it. I thought the odds were actually going to be a lot more distant than that...but then when I thought about it, Those are the odds of a single person buying a single ticket on 7 different drawings and winning every time. That person cannot ever have purchased a ticket in the past, or ever again in the future...Or as you put it, 7 times in a row. This would be why I generally don't bother playing the lottery. People don't realize how much the odds are stacked against them. Winning multiple times on a single ticket each time multiplies those already astonomical odds to dizzying heights. The best description I've heard of for government run lotteries is: "A lottery is a government tax levied on the absence of mathematical skills." Or as my brother puts it "The lottery is a tax on imbeciles." And as true as what you said may be, a lot of people "gamble" on it and quite a few actually become (multi)-millionaires from it.... If your lucky then your lucky..... That being said, I don't gamble. |
|
|
|
Here's an important thing to keep in mind while you're trying to think of a "solution": You aren't looking for a solution that will fix the proof-of-work blockchain. You are looking for a solution that will fix distributed consensus.
The proof-of-work blockchain is currently the best way anyone has ever come up with to handle distributed consensus. Anything you can come up with that can reliably prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power will require one of two things. Either a trusted authority that can determine and control how much hash power each entity contributes, or a method of distributed consensus that allows the entire network to agree on how much hash power each entity contributes. If you discover a solution to distributed consensus, then you no longer need to use it to prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power. Instead, a new (and MUCH better) cryptocurrency can be created (or bitcoin can switch to a new protocol) that implements your newly discovered method of distributed consensus INSTEAD of a proof-of-work blockchain.
I shall keep that in mind. Don't we have enough alts already? No. Most alts are just useless copies of bitcoin with the inflation schedule changed. There are VERY few that implement anything new when it comes to distributed consensus. The only real alternative I've seen to a proof-of-work blockchain is a "proof-of-stake" blockchain. Unfortunately, proof-of-stake has its own >50% problem (50% of historical stake, instead of 50% of current hashpower). Less "coin of the week" clones of bitcoin, and more innovation into entirely new concepts would be great. Can't we just fix the current protocol?
Well, fixing it means changing it, right? And changing it means it is essentially a "new protocol" right? I'm pretty sure I said: "or bitcoin can switch to a new protocol" BTW: are you working on your own coin? If yes, have you found a way to make it safer than BTC - aka ROCK SOLID? I would really like to know if a such thing exists  Nah, I like bitcoin. I'm not too concerned about the GHash.io situation at the moment. Either participants will eventually see that they are damaging their own value and will switch to other pools, or bitcoin will fail as an experiment in distributed consensus. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I don't have any better solutions available. If I did have a better solution, I'd submit code for review to Bitcoin Core to change the distributed consensus system. No I don't mean changing it, PoW is fine - It's the hash rates that worries me because, well, you never know. I ain't worried about GHash either. I am worried about how the general public will respond again to having a pool with 51% hashrate. We have seen what the response was, and to be honest I expected worse.. That is why I said, if this "fear" is gone, then BTC will thrive and become mainstream. I am saying this because every time I am asked about BTC, most of the people look at the possible failures rather than the already available benefits. If this problem is out the window I can most certainly say that BTC will at some point become more or less a global kind of currency. And believe me, I really want that to happen. That is why I am stressing the fact that something has to be done now. Obviously it's not an easy task. |
|
|
|
Can I ask what your profession is?
Computer programmer, and computer systems designer.Danny thanks for your input and advice man.
You seem to have knowledge on the subject yet I don't see you making any suggestions - which is a shame.
I'd make suggestions if I had any that would work. When I come up with an idea, I think it through. I don't think about how I expect it to work, that's the easy part. I take the time to think through all the possible attacks I can come up with, and whether or not they can be prevented. I've been studying the bitcoin system for 29 months. People keep presenting the exact same ideas with the exact same flaws over and over. Here's an important thing to keep in mind while you're trying to think of a "solution": You aren't looking for a solution that will fix the proof-of-work blockchain. You are looking for a solution that will fix distributed consensus. The proof-of-work blockchain is currently the best way anyone has ever come up with to handle distributed consensus. Anything you can come up with that can reliably prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power will require one of two things. Either a trusted authority that can determine and control how much hash power each entity contributes, or a method of distributed consensus that allows the entire network to agree on how much hash power each entity contributes. If you discover a solution to distributed consensus, then you no longer need to use it to prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power. Instead, a new (and MUCH better) cryptocurrency can be created (or bitcoin can switch to a new protocol) that implements your newly discovered method of distributed consensus INSTEAD of a proof-of-work blockchain. I shall keep that in mind. Don't we have enough alts already? Can't we just fix the current protocol? BTW: are you working on your own coin? If yes, have you found a way to make it safer than BTC - aka ROCK SOLID? I would really like to know if a such thing exists |
|
|
|
|
Danny thanks for your input and advice man.
You seem to have knowledge on the subject yet I don't see you making any suggestions - which is a shame.
Can I ask what your profession is?
|
|
|
|
Well I supposed pools could vet miners really carefully like coin base does.
But I don't think miners want to send in id proof of location yada yada yada.
While the solo fork option stops the attack many miners want the steady .12btc a day that 3x 1th machines bring in on a pool.
they don't want to go 6-7 months at a time to hit a block.
I am not liking that so far the only thing to stop a bad luck attack is a solo fork option.
I suppose I could get 5 friends with a total of 3th each we could all solo mine on a fork provided by btcguild or bit minter or eligus it should take the 15th about 6 weeks to hit
a block, but with bad luck that 15th could go 18 weeks easy.
This is why if you offer the solo fork as a pool op you take the risk off the pool and put it on the miner.
I am too small of a miner to really worry. 2th for btc and 25mh for ltc. if the pools offer a fork I put 10% in the fork and still mine merged with 90%. And I hope for the best.
This needs to be solved by some clever pool op or mining will suffer a lot.
So I get you wanting a solo fork for pooled mining. I just can't see the benefit. Is it so the small miners don't need to keep the block chain on their system? I also understand your gambler's analogy. The craps table is my weakness I've set up eloipool on one of my computers to run and mine some to it for that long-shot payoff. Can you elaborate more as to why solo pools vs. private pool/bitcoind? Also, having now caught up on the 6 or 7 pages of reading, is the 'simpleton version' of this that the person was submitting shares that were not real and therefore everyone was getting proportionally lower payouts? And if that's the case, isn't that a flaw in our pool software design? If he was withholding block solved notification, would that matter? Isn't there the risk someone else would solve the block while he waited? For myself that does not seem to have an in depth understanding of all this, there appears to be a lot of finger pointing (and probably rightfully so), but another piece of the puzzle is missing for it to click in place. Simple explanation: miner was submitting real shares; however, shares that would have potentially solved the block were withheld, either due to an innocent coding error in the custom version of cgminer, or a malicious one. In any case, the result is that by withholding block solutions, the miner gets rewarded for the shares they submit, but everyone gets penalized because block solutions are not also submitted. Personally, I don't understand the motivation for such an attack since it affects everyone, including the miner. What benefits does it offer other than to affect the pool's luck statistics?Crashing a pool so yours gets better hash rates maybe? |
|
|
|
I am not an expert here but if each node is assigned a signature then IP doesn't matter does it?
And you can somehow keep a pool from being assigned multiple signatures? Explain. By submitting an application to, and receiving approval from, the Federation of Decentralized Bitcoin Miners, of course.  The irony in the concept of a centralized organization committed to decentralization was intentional.I am guessing you are talking about TBF  Seriously what happened to "decentralization" and NO central authority? No. He's pointing out that the suggestion was that "each node is assigned a signature", with no though about who would be doing the "assigning". In order for there to be an "assigning", there needs to be an "assignor". That "assignor" that people trust. And now you've created a "central authority". Not necessarily bro. There can be a side chain directly connected to the blockchain but this one will be the node chain where ALL nodes agree. Again this is an idea worth looking into and expand. I do not understand why people just say Fuck it, things are fine the way it is when clearly IT'S NOT. We have witnessed a $100+ drop by the incident. And we are still in early stages, even though adoption is growing rapidly. What would happen if this event took place again after 2 years when BTC is mainstream and it's price is $5000? A lot of people will lose a lot of money because the most important thing that keeps BTC and actually defines BTC was NOT protected. the blockchain is like a virgin. We are now allowing anyone who has the biggest dick to stick it to it. Understand that I am all forward seing BTC succeed and I have invested quite a lot on it. But if we (ALL OF US) want to see our investment secure we have to act now. Before it's too late. Maybe you don't like my idea. I can understand that, but ideas and actual solutions to this problem don't just pop up. We need to work and build on ideas to have a working solution. |
|
|
|
I am not an expert here but if each node is assigned a signature then IP doesn't matter does it?
And you can somehow keep a pool from being assigned multiple signatures? Explain. By submitting an application to, and receiving approval from, the Federation of Decentralized Bitcoin Miners, of course. The irony in the concept of a centralized organization committed to decentralization was intentional.I am guessing you are talking about TBF Seriously what happened to "decentralization" and NO central authority? |
|
|
|
I am not an expert here but if each node is assigned a signature then IP doesn't matter does it?
And you can somehow keep a pool from being assigned multiple signatures? Explain. Well this idea can be extended. Add in some kind of "trust" level to nodes that nodes gain working over period of time. New nodes, low trust level, more restrictions (can submit less blocks). Higher trust level, less restrictions (can submit more blocks than low trust ones). Trust is gained by submiting blocks over period of time. That would disable switching form ip to ip.
^^^ there you have it. We are already starting to expand on the idea. Who knows, maybe we can come up with a working solution for this once and for all. If we are going to choose to trust an authority, then we don't need a blockchain. The revolutionary thing about Bitcoin is that it is decentralized, requiring no trust in any single authority.
Go use a bank if you prefer to give trust to an entity.Furthermore, a large pool can just get a new signature for every block. Sure, they'll be limited to a single block since they'll have such low "trust", but that doesn't matter since they can use a brand new signature for the next block. What a lame thing to say Danny. Can't you see that we CAN NOT trust the blockchain coz it can be exploited |
|
|
|
I am not an expert here but if each node is assigned a signature then IP doesn't matter does it?
And you can somehow keep a pool from being assigned multiple signatures? Explain. Bro, like I said, even though I do my own software (which only recently involves BTC) I am not an expert on the matter. It might not have to be a signature but I am sure that if we can track someone by their address then we can keep someone from cheating. Don't you think? |
|
|
|
Well this idea can be extended. Add in some kind of "trust" level to nodes that nodes gain working over period of time. New nodes, low trust level, more restrictions (can submit less blocks). Higher trust level, less restrictions (can submit more blocks than low trust ones). Trust is gained by submiting blocks over period of time. That would disable switching form ip to ip.
Trust is what we are trying to get away from, not move towards it.. sorry, I don't think this will work. There never was trust. It is supposed to be trustless in the manner of one does not have to trust one other to make a transaction. The whole network has to agree. And if all nodes agree that one node is getting a lot of hashing power fast to the point that it is dangerous for the protocol then that node is capped as to allow other nodes to even things out. That will also cause a "decentralized" kind of pool mining as users will have their miners pointed at various pools |
|
|
|
Well this idea can be extended. Add in some kind of "trust" level to nodes that nodes gain working over period of time. New nodes, low trust level, more restrictions (can submit less blocks). Higher trust level, less restrictions (can submit more blocks than low trust ones). Trust is gained by submiting blocks over period of time. That would disable switching form ip to ip.
^^^ there you have it. We are already starting to expand on the idea. Who knows, maybe we can come up with a working solution for this once and for all. |
|
|
|
Nope, if the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start.
How are you going to determine how many blocks a node has submitted? By assigning each node with a personal signature maybe. I am not an expert on the matter. I am just making a suggestion here. |
|
|
|
What do you guys think?
I think you haven't thought this through very well. How are you going to determine how many blocks a node has submitted? I am not an expert here but if each node is assigned a signature then IP doesn't matter does it? |
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't care he's still mining there. He's a small fish, he admits that.
Yes its down to 41% but the fact is that not that his a small fish , its the fact that 1000 small fishes act the same way , then it is a problem and this is whats happening. Every small fish keeps saying I am a small fish bla bla bla... Small fish + 1000 Small fishes = Alot of fucken fishes! And I am surprised this was not seen in the original protocol, it was even said in early posts that large organisations will be mining, how couldn't someone as smart as Satoshi and CO see this coming. I have made a suggestion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=655572.0 (and a couple of posts above yours) |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I just came up with a theory also posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652858.msg7361312#msg7361312If the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start. Hashing power is measured by how many blocks are solved by one pool or miner at the day right? If you can limit that then problem solved. Basically, if the core dev team makes a small change on how blocks are submitted then we will not have 51% attack problems and all pools will grow together as miners will split/point their equipment to various pools at the same time. Thus eliminating the fear of a 51% attack and all pools can grow together yet remain at decent % levels as to not cause panic again. What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
Erm, what?
The protocol needs to change as to allow NO-ONE to grow past 10-15% max.
That's what I want.
LoL. How exactly do you expect them to do that ? Through some system of centralised control ? Nope, if the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start. Hashing power is measured by how many blocks are solved by one pool or miner at the day right? If you can limit that then problem solved. Innit? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
