so you decided to expose this vulnerability which effects all chains by taking down the solidcoin network?
That's pretty dickish and probably illegal. Its one thing to prove it exists, it is another to enact on it.
I wonder if anyone has contacted the authorities, at least we have the perp admitting it in the forums.
Oh, you're referring to ArtForz? I thought you were talking about CoinHunter. CoinHunter is the one that actually killed the network by putting out a bad "manditory" update. |
|
|
|
I think it's hilarious reading these comments of people talking crap about this "vulnerability" , when the SAME EXACT THING can happen on the Bitcoin network... Only difference is that the Bitcoin network is "to big to fail" and the SC network is just getting started leaving it vulnerable to spam attacks.
When the cost to spam BTC is 2000x as costly as spamming SC, then I'd say that's not "the SAME EXACT THING". |
|
|
|
|
CoinHunter, did you really just throw a bandaid on the problem by capping all transactions at 4 KB?
|
|
|
|
What if the 7000 series cards have a much better stream processor count?
Just like the 6990 has more stream processors than the 5970? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Does any of us know what the 7000 will bring?
Nope. All we can do is analyze how previous generations progressed, and extrapolate from there. From the 5000 to 6000 brought about...no change in mining capability. It's highly unlikely the 7000 will be any different. AMD designed it long ago, long before Bitcoin was as big as it is now. |
|
|
|
|
10 second blocks will be mayhem.
|
|
|
|
FPGAs are about 5 times as costly as GPUs. That's a long way from affordable. |
|
|
|
|
Where's the on-demand payout button? I need to cash out my 20 iocoins.
|
|
|
|
Regarding rejected shares: This morning I updated to the most recent solidcoind for 64-bit linux. If the stale rates are still high, there's nothing more I can do about it. It's using a mostly stock pushpool configuration, but it was receiving a lot of duplicate work from solidcoind itself.
Still way high. Something is wrong with your SC pool. Overloaded? |
|
|
|
Tawsix, is there a reason that your dividend payments are coming in day(s) late almost every week? This is getting out of hand!
I think he's sick of all you people always hounding him, where's my payment, where's my payment. He's the boss. He'll send out dividends when he feels like it. Leave Tawney alone! |
|
|
|
This is a very good question. Another good question is "Why 2 weeks data is used instead of 3 month or more".
deepceleron already answered that. Including data from multiple difficulty changes complicates things. I don't feel like busting out my stats, but just a visual examination shows difficulty 567269 to look really bad. I think an analysis of that period whould show a significant deviation from expected results. Something happened to BTCGuild between 6/6 and 6/15. |
|
|
|
I just find when people start saying subjective things they usually don't have any substance to whatever they are trying to get across.... that's one of my values. If you find something factual to say I'm all ears.
"subjective"? Like nearly everything you post, including this http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php article? |
|
|
|
Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
Not useful? How about you post the first 13 digits of your 16 digit credit card number. That means I'd have a 1 in 1000 chance (.1%) to guess your credit card number. Care to try me? |
|
|
|
You might be correct that varience has a near-zero effect for lower-confirmation transactions, but still remember that shorter block times give less varience.
Shorter block times means the attacker can make more attempts. So someone with 49% has a near-zero, close enough to zero, chance. The actual probability of getting 7 blocks in a row is less than 0.6% for a 49% holder. The actual probability is smaller, because you aren't rolling an infinite amount of dies.
Think it can't happen? I had to search long and hard to find a real example. I had to go all the way back to...today. Bitcoin network right now: 12.224 Thash/s Deepbit network right now: 5282 Gh/s How many block can deepbit get in a row with 43% hashpower? Blocks 143334 - 143341 are deepbit blocks. Deepbit just solved 8 blocks in a row with only 43% hashpower. I'm sure if someone analyzed the blockchain we'd find even longer runs of deepbit-only blocks. Variance = someone with <51% can successfully attack the blockchain. Faster block target speeds = more chances to attack = weaker security. |
|
|
|
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for ya You seem to misunderstand now cryptocurrencies work. Read over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance and come back when you understand it. |
|
|
|
ITT: people think mining 6 1-minute blocks in a row is as difficult as mining 6 10-hours blocks in a row
Unless I missed something, then that's correct, but only if you interpret it in a certain way. With the same relative hashpower vs. the rest of the network, over the same # of blocks, chances of finding X blocks in a row are the same, doesn't matter if avg. time/block is 10 seconds or 10 days. But... wouldn't a theoretical attacker care more about how much time it takes to get a successful double-spend instead of how many blocks? Yup. Faster blocks mean more attempts can be made, and thus the less secure the chain is. Either way you would have to put together 51% of the hashpower of the network to pull it off, I guess longer blocks could make the attack more inconvenient, but they would probably still do it if they had the capability.
51% just gives you a high probability of succeeding. 50% can succeed. As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have lower chances of succeeding. If someone is intent on double-spending, they will attempt it more than once. Again, the faster the chain, the less secure. |
|
|
|
I'm new to bitcoin and I like everything about it, except for the fact that I wasn't mining coins 1 year ago, which leads to my question; Should I be mining any of the alternative coins?
I do not want to undermine bitcoin, but I do want to "hedge my bet" so to speak, so I am wondering which other coin system should I have alongside bitcoin?
Think of pool-hopping, but now with chains. If you want to maximize profit you should chain-hop. Hop to the chain with the highest BTC profit. Then when it drops, exchange your other coins to BTC and switch to the next chain. |
|
|
|
Is anyone else getting high stale rates??
Totals 2,600.84 MH/s 5768 (727, 11.19%)
Yes, this concerns me. I'm still getting very high stales. |
|
|
|
That generates me 1.0750 btc a day which is 290 a month. At 8.5 cents per kwh (cost for me) it costs 61 per month. Which gives me a profit of 229.
Your electricity costs are significantly below the US average. Many of us are not so lucky. |
|
|
|
raise by a maximum of 10% every 12 hours
So that's wrong too? There's no 12 hour calculation in the difficulty adjustment period at all? It's simply every 240 blocks exactly, no matter how fast or slow those blocks were found? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
