Its not been attacked yet, and if it does get successfully attacked, it will just fall apart.
People have been successfully reversed and respent— many times in the case of unconfirmed transactions, but also in the cases of incidental reorgs and other events. Reports of bitcoin's demise may be exaggerated.
|
|
|
The new firmware works fantastically on P2Pool BTW. The cpu load is still strangely high, but its no longer adversely increasing the mining latency.
|
|
|
I described a notion in #bitcoin-wizards a while back that I called "fail inflationary":
<@gmaxwell> So cryptocurrencies which "fail inflationary"... which is a property that things like USD has, if you print really good fake USD .. well everyone takes the cost. Not the person that accepted the fake USD, at least not if its sufficiently good. <@gmaxwell> It would be totally plausable to make it so that if you get tricked by a recentl valid looking bitcoin fork, that both parties get paid. Thus moving the cost of such an attack to everyone holding bitcoin and not just the guy accepting it.
You could obviously do things like limit the amount of inflation created this way— perhaps in a first come first server exponentially declining way so that the ability to get compensated never runs out but is still finite...
The tricky part is how this could be constructed in a way where miners wouldn't just intentionally create forks in order to collect inflated coins.
|
|
|
If the parties immediately before and after you in the loop are conspiring (or sibyls) then they can always tell which inputs/outputs you added, so this is less private than some of the schemes proposed, in which N-2 malicious parties in an N way join cannot tell the 2 honest parties apart, for all N>2 (assuming you have underlying anonymous communication).
Your protocol sounds somewhat similar to a reencryption mix, except a reencryption mix doesn't need the chaff because the values are encrypted. A problem with using them for CJ is that protocols to prove faithful operation (e.g. to catch a party trying to break it) are computation and bandwidth intensive. One of their upsides (also— somewhat the case for yours) is that they are not so dependent on an underlying anonymity network (also the case for a MPC sort).
I think another potential issue in your protocol is that someone can just keep changing inputs/outputs forever to jam it, and you can't tell who is doing it (well, not anymore than you can tell who is who absent a jammer).
|
|
|
Interesting, it appears to me to be edited from the original version.
|
|
|
where did you heard such a idiotic thing.
Please do try to be polite. An ignorant question is by far not the worst thing someone could post here— save the hate for malware and scams. Besides, ignorance is curable.
|
|
|
That coin has been spent, getrawtransaction only returns on txn which are not entirely spent unless you run with txindex=1.
|
|
|
The recent posts list is pretty useless to me because it's always full of altcoins and newbies threads that I'm not interested in... Any thoughts on being able to filter it? (or— like usual— does this functionality already exist?)
|
|
|
Don't be so sure. What if someone gains 51% of the hash-power and steals all the top-100 wallets.
This isn't how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin is first and foremost a trustless system predicated on autonomous validation. We presume our peers are _evil_ and we verify the rules for ourselves independently from what our peers claim. After all, if we can't trust central banks and democratic governments to manage their fiat how could we possible trust a bunch of sketchy, anonymous, self-selecting miners? Unfortunately, there is no way to autonomously validate _order_ in a decentralized system, so we use mining to decide on an order, but thats all. Ordering control is powerful, but no majority of miners— no matter how large— can just randomly rob wallets. A miner that produces rule violating blocks is equivalent to a miner that has shut down: their blocks are nearly costlessly ignored by all nodes. Strictly limiting the behavior of miners is part of what keeps their incentives aligned. As you note— if they could just selectively rob a few people, they might well get away with it. But fortunately the system can be— and is— built so that those sorts of attacks are simply not available to miners. FWIW, the cited article falsely claims the quoted text was removed from the weaknesses page— it wasn't. I really suggest ignoring "cryptocurrency news" it's a really spammy outfit.
|
|
|
I said nothing about GPU's. I was referring to anecdotes I have heard that mining with ASIC's on P2Pool was not optimal vs other pools. Thanks for the LOL. Helpful and classy.
You've been misinformed. The GPU comment was a "what the heck do you _think_ is mining on P2Pool", and yes, I was laughing at people's capacity to buy into FUD and misinformation. Don't take it too personally.
|
|
|
Stuff in this space has been proposed many times before, but inevitably the proposals end up drastically increasing the size of transactions (and thus the blockchain). The most technically interesting tool for compensating transaction relayers that I've seen is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=290971.0. But I don't know that any such scheme would be interesting, at it would just encourage miners to run huge numbers of sybil ingress nodes.
|
|
|
and P2Pool is not optimal for ASICs IIRC :|
LOL. You think P2Pool has 150 TH/s of ... GPUs? P2Pool works absolutely fantastically on most asics. My avlons are at about 115% PPS on P2pool (both from reviving fees and because p2pool appears to do better than expected, potentially because of the faster block relaying giving it an advantage over other pools). Sadly, the little CPUs on the antminers combined with their old cgminer version is absolutely taxed beyond belief, and they don't work fantastically on P2Pool right now— stale rate roughly 5x the avalons. I've been nagging them to post their firmware sources since they started shipping products so I could fix it and I guess they've been too busy.
|
|
|
Those who bought the first batch without proof of a tapeout knew they were buying into hot air, but greed overwhelmed any rational consideration of doing business on reasonable terms.
Nah, run the numbers on what return was expected even if everything had gone according to plan. No one who can multiply bought in here because of an abundance of greed, it was never _that_ attractive an offer. The deal needed sweeteners like MPP, refund in BTC, in person meetings, and a partnership with an experienced design house before it sounded attractive.
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting that people overclock this or any chip. But we all know - some people do overclock. Let's not pretend they don't. Uhhh. If they don't ship with a firmware that enables this, very, very few people will perform the low level hacking to do so.
|
|
|
A slightly OT example: For those following along at home who don't get why HF batch 1 customers are so unhappy about their "october" batch 1 units, compare: Instead of paying 55 BTC months ago for a 400GH HF batch 1 unit with uncertain delivery they could have sat comfortably on their coin and today ordered 3.1 TH/s of antminer for immediate delivery for the same price (or just got 360GH/s for 6.3 BTC). Even figuring it in terms of USD, the little antminer devices are lower cost per GH/s than hashfast batch 1 devices which are still not shipping.
|
|
|
Man, I was about to yell at y'all for being offtopic and not talking about trolls... until I noticed they'd renamed the thread. I've fixed the name back. Next time the OP abuses their ability to edit the thread title for a long established thread to change it to something unrelated, please report it to the moderators.
|
|
|
Begging other people to hit ignore too is kinda ineffective. But I appreciate the comment about Reddit being a circle jerk greatly. I'd rather have more noise than turn out like reddit.
|
|
|
Do not ask altcoin questions, they will be moved to the altcoin subforum.
|
|
|
plenty of scoundrels in business.. where ya been?
Incompetence and malice are often darn hard to distinguish. Keep in mind I'm responding to someone who was suggesting that hashfast was actually going to ship a box of rocks.
|
|
|
I've invited Mr. BREAKER to identify himself. Sometimes I've wondered— when we've had really extreme over the top "shills", like in this case— if they really weren't double-secret shills pretending to shill just to make their love-object look repulsive. I guess intrigue seldom goes that deep in reality, but its something to consider. Irritating in any case.
|
|
|
|