I'm with spartacusrex. The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users. Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure.
Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low. So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.
I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late. My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford. Why multi-billion and not multi-million? These chains are already valued in the multi-millions. Also, some of these attacks are free or nearly free, so why not just go ahead and do it (unless of course it can't be done, which I suspect). Again, until someone demonstrates that these attacks are possible and can cause significant f, then POS is deemed sufficiently secure. Hope you did not apply for some op-risk position at any reasonable company with that sentence above. Still waiting................. I'll be waiting to everybody playing with own money or otherones just read & understand page 9 of http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/WhitePapers/Beyond_the_Horizon_White_Paper_Systemic_Risk.ashxand my strongest wish is that those parts there will be adjusted esp for investments into crypto ccys ASAP. Hereunder should go as well all elaborated stuff from this thread and much more,otherwise I fear that crypto ccy will never reach next level of investments and stay nichy by burning small people money that just have NO clue about proper risk management. |
|
|
|
I'm with spartacusrex. The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users. Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure.
Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low. So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.
I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late. My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford. Why multi-billion and not multi-million? These chains are already valued in the multi-millions. Also, some of these attacks are free or nearly free, so why not just go ahead and do it (unless of course it can't be done, which I suspect). Again, until someone demonstrates that these attacks are possible and can cause significant damage, then POS is deemed sufficiently secure. Hope you did not apply for some op-risk position at any reasonable company with that sentence above. |
|
|
|
I'm with spartacusrex. The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users. Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure.
Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low. So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.
I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late. My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford. |
|
|
|
The simplest check, ask someone who is connected to the network already. If you have never connected before, and don't know anyone who is on the network, then it's more complicated..  (although you could say that downloading the software is a risk in itself - is it legit or hacked, and any legit version would include some checkpoints) And if I have a majority of fake nodes broadcasting my fake chain to those who wish to sync, the chances of asking my fake node is greater than 50%, isn't it? The point about checkpoints is that when your protocol depends upon them for security purposes, you might as well just throw the whole thing in the bin and use a 100% centralised service, which will be exactly as secure and a lot faster, cheaper and easier to use. Thanks ! Sounds really monstreous! So everybody feel free to run Multi Billion Contract Solutions on a PoS system.  |
|
|
|
@TPTB_need_war another way to think about why PoS isn't as secure as PoW in general:
PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant.
so with a 51% + selfish mining attack you would be able to unwind all hist tx in PoS? (with minor costs) You can arbitrarily re-write history in PoS with <50%; I can produce a valid candidate chain longer than the canonical chain for a constant cost, whcih I then present to nodes which are syncing with the network who are unable to distinguish this objectively from the canonical chain. edit: Since the cost of providing such information is very small, I can dominate the network with peers containing instances of my fake chain such that any syncing node querying peers at random would find a majority of my fake nodes. Again - this is killing! Nobody wants to argue against ? - So PoS is PoS(hit) = high risk = don't trust ? |
|
|
|
Thanks - in principle I knew - but I'd like to have a really rigid statment from others as well:
If big banks, corps and all those PWCs, Deloittes, R3s,.... would just do tiny risk Analysis (and I fear that's where they're strong) of that above, would they invest in PoS ( they do not control) ?
Conjecture: banks are only interested in blockchains to replace their internal, expensive, legacy settlement systems. They have no interest in anything public or risky - they want total control. Will there be one block chain used by all the banks or several banks will share one block chain and incompatible to others? Who knows ? I strongly believe that a first and much more simpler solution is in a (bank - wide-) shared DB / hyper ledger thingy. |
|
|
|
Thanks - in principle I knew - but I'd like to have a really rigid statment from others as well:
If big banks, corps and all those PWCs, Deloittes, R3s,.... would just do tiny risk Analysis (and I fear that's where they're strong) of that above, would they invest in PoS ( they do not control) ?
Conjecture: banks are only interested in blockchains to replace their internal, expensive, legacy settlement systems. They have no interest in anything public or risky - they want total control. Not quite. Banks would like to see e.g. all their OTCs build into smart contracts.... Further: Would you trust some Slockit-Hotel ? Some self-employed car ... ? |
|
|
|
@TPTB_need_war another way to think about why PoS isn't as secure as PoW in general:
PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant.
so with a 51% + selfish mining attack you would be able to unwind all hist tx in PoS? (with minor costs) You can arbitrarily re-write history in PoS with <50%; I can produce a valid candidate chain longer than the canonical chain for a constant cost, whcih I then present to nodes which are syncing with the network who are unable to distinguish this objectively from the canonical chain. edit: Since the cost of providing such information is very small, I can dominate the network with peers containing instances of my fake chain such that any syncing node querying peers at random would find a majority of my fake nodes. Thanks - in principle I knew - but I'd like to have a really rigid statment from others as well: If big banks, corps and all those PWCs, Deloittes, R3s,.... would just do tiny risk Analysis (and I fear that's where they're strong) of that above, would they invest in PoS ( they do not control) ? |
|
|
|
@TPTB_need_war another way to think about why PoS isn't as secure as PoW in general:
PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant.
so with a 51% + selfish mining attack you would be able to unwind all hist tx in PoS? (with minor costs) |
|
|
|
Eth is a scam! get out before it crashes!!
It might crash. But the price could go up to $15 before it crashes. If there is good development, the price will rise. I'd say 50. Or 50. Or 50/50 .  |
|
|
|
A bitcoin wallet created on an OFFLINE computer with multiple backups, one backup in the cloud and another one in secure hardware (maybe KeepKey) will add to the security of the coins, especially big amounts.
Great - you are hired for that open risk job! First Task: Read full thread.  |
|
|
|
One thing is do one time succesfull 51% attack to doublespend your coins only one or few confirmations back which will not make huge impact on Bitcoin price. But if it was continuous attempt to mine all blocks for yourselves with 51%+ and refusing adding on top of other blocks or double spending often at will any number of confirmations back, then this would crash Bitcoin price a lot - so the attacker will have worthless coins, but I can see why someone could attack Bitcoin for ideological reasons this way especially when he could take control over the mining equipment basically for free like China government.
So yes, if you have few coins stored, consider running one ASIC rig even at financial loss at very small nonChina pool or P2Pool.
The most critical event is if the attacks are combined with a big (short-) selling action. So If anybody here knows proper risk evaluation & modeling processing (not only market-risk !) you'd see what I'm about here. Any risk that you see front up you need to calc & minimize properly -> that combined one is the biggest I see, but looks like one can fix it. I do NOT know how much money you Need in order to do. PS: Everybody here needs to do own risk management. |
|
|
|
Funds cannot be stolen in 51% attacks.
The majority can simply do double-spends, waiting enough confirmations solves this problem.
On a selfish mining + 51% attack you might wait for 'ever'.... |
|
|
|
Since we've seen buddys come 'all' round-tableing together on a real issue (and this is one!), I'd strongly assume - that's gonna hapen exactly in such a case again.
You've just to put on spot & make a big noise - and trust might be gone for all.
So you can simply secure a bunch of money with another bunch - always - nothing new.
I don't understand what are you trying to say. If you want to secure your funds, use a paper wallet, or hold funds on your own computer, disconnected from the internet. Your other stupid ideas are completely bad to be honest. Sorry - I'm not thinking of stealing coins by grabbing your private keys - rather by doing a 51% hashpower attak / selfish mining and modify the block-chain to what you'd like to and steal the coins that way. So the only way I see to get around that is breaking up the existing hashpower concentration by mining yourself, ideally own 50%. That's not really possible so I think 5-10% should be fine and 10 - 20 such big players should do so. I'm not saying that that's not already the case. One of those players could be some Fonds that now can advertise by having their own mining showing that they are looking at securing wealth in BTC. I'd rather invest only in such ones. |
|
|
|
Monitoring your coins with full node to checks if your coins are still yours is easy but you cant do anything when you detect there is transaction which spending your coins, even 5-10% of hashpower can not guarantee such transaction is not added to blockchain.
But running full node or mining is helping Bitcoin security, so wise for any holder to help this way Bitcoin a bit.
Since we've seen buddys come 'all' round-tableing together on a real issue (and this is one!), I'd strongly assume - that's gonna hapen exactly in such a case again. You've just to put on spot & make a big noise - and trust might be gone for all. So you can simply secure a bunch of money with another bunch - always - nothing new. |
|
|
|
Well, well, if you consider that my post today basically points out that scripting on a block chain can never be secure unless the security is centralized (and you trust that centralized manager), then basically the writing is on the wall that China already controls Bitcoin and they also want to control the centralized scripting block chain.
Decentralized crypto currency and block chains are currently dead. We only have centralized. The internet is being destroyed.
China may be mining BTC with free electricity (cost charged to the collective), thus the ETH is essentially free for them at any price. And they can't sell all the BTC they mine without driving the BTC price down.
On the next halving, China's % of the hashrate will increase from the current 65%.
If you read the essay that I posted on ET, you'll see the philosophical argument that we are moving toward centralized systems in all aspects of life--the economy just happens to be one aspect of a larger network. To misquote Woody Allen, "The network wants what the network wants." Replacing capitalism with network just gets at the heart of what's being created. Could youpls post a link? But since (crypto - ccy) trust in in decentralization, there will be always waves (buy into one crypto / out) and cryptos with too much centralisation will head down and be replaced by new ones . I simply just don't buy a BTC if I've to trust 1-2 miners , would you? |
|
|
|
3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.
3. sure. Apparently the insiders can push the price higher and higher buying from themselves because there aren't many people selling. Perhaps only the insiders actually own any now, or a few other fools who don't understand the bag they are holding. This is the greater fool theory in action. They apparently think they are going to be able to dump this on some greater fools at nose bleed prices, if they continue to push the fake price and fake market cap higher. I suppose there is a steady stream of new fools coming into altcoins, so the scams stay active to pilfer their lunch money. I' d rather assume - because of most is traded vs BTC - that chinese BTC pools also want to dominate ETH - and coming up PoS forces them to own much coins ... The good thing with all that is that there is going lot of fiat into crypto that might stay there for very Long time (as long as energy is cheap). |
|
|
|
In my opinion nothing and no one can destroy bitcoin, because bitcoin is a completely decentralized and peer to peer currency, no one have or can control it. It is a decentralized source of payment system and it won't get destroyed.  I agree with you too, there is nothing will destroy bitcoin , because of its completely decentralization and peer to peer currency, and when the time will come, it will solve the problems too. Yeah, that's true and bitcoin is getting more and more powerful, so it is difficult for any one to destroy bitcoin, and now its time for bitcoin to rise and not to die. As days pass by, more people know about bitcoin. And they will use it. This makes it more powerful. Yeah and for that we need that bitcoin should be promoted on a global level, if the promotion is good, it can attract many users towards adopting bitcoins. and then they can all get this email Transaction Confirmation Failed A transaction made through Blockchain.info has been removed from our database because it was taking a long time to be included in a block. Any funds have been returned to your wallet and you can now spend the coins again. Please consider including a larger fee in future transactions. this will be number 4 for me.. :/ i love how it says please include a larger fee.. yet their APP was the one that chose the fee.. edit, HAH so get this.. the stupid blockchain app on my phone just automatically resent the bitcoin again.. and it didnt change the fee.. so its going to fail again.. :/ edit2, so i talked to blockchain and it some other node that is rebroadcasting my tx.. since they assured me they do not rebroadcast failed txs.. so this is what will kill bitcoin.. my tx has been resent now 4 times.. its going around and around and around and i have NO way to stop it and NO way to add more fee... Shit. Send that issue to the helpdesk of the consensus roundtable. |
|
|
|
The resistance is solid as a brick on the 400 dollar range. Not a long ago people was complaining about the price not going above 400 and now we have it, so don't be impatient and the results will come, just keep on stacking up Bitcoin before it becomes mission impossible for us the average guys out there.
I'd expect a touch of around 390, then bounce back up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
