...
You lose the technical arguments and now you try to argue for victory on a technicality when you know damn well why I am pissed off.
Grow some people skills. Treat people like shit and waste their time and attack in droves and you will not be liked. Period.
Now that you 3 guys have wasted several hours of my day. May I bill you $500 for my lost time? Of course not. But I hope you understand how wasteful this is.
No one dare speak up about Monero, lest they lose their entire income due to endless attacks.
Again another unsubstantiated claim. Dude I posted the links of proof on the prior page of this thread. And I am saving the slam dunk for last. Monero's hashrate will plummet as the block reward declines.
And the transaction fees not only won't scale up because Monero has no adoption use case, but they can't scale up because Monero didn't solve the block size bandwidth problem (as neither did Bitcoin).
So smooth's points are slam dunk refuted.Stop the whining shit please. And be nice. So others can be nice to you. Everyone can see clearly that there is no unsubstantiated claim. It is quite clear what happened here. Just read the thread. I can't help it if you didn't understand what the discussion was about and started to write gibberish. And then somehow you expect me to be nice after you three gang up on me. And especially when all 3 of you are incorrect on the technical issue. I try to be nice and friendly with others. But hopefully you can see this situation was impossible to take. Go read the thread and imagine you are myself. Put yourself in my shoes for once. |
|
|
|
Apparently the attacker feels his goal was accomplished: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-22#1486698mircea_popescu: lmao "smart contracts need state machine". yeah best thing that ever happened to scamcoin is this ragdoll joining up. mircea_popescu: hopefully they mop up the rest of the jizz, make one big ball of... biomass. mircea_popescu: it's not the dao that's fucked. on the battlefield of the future, which is right here, the usg.vc idiots got raped and their bowels strung out to dry on fences, and now the hot core of usgism, mit & cornell and all are fighting for dear life Another tidbit: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-21#1486200mircea_popescu: tfoxbrewster you the forbes guy ?☟ tfoxbrewster: i am mircea_popescu: how goes ? tfoxbrewster: all good. tfoxbrewster: you? mircea_popescu: fine. so did you want to ask some questions ? tfoxbrewster: yes. the Ethereum guys are suggesting that the claim you took the ether - http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/#selection-27.210-27.224 - is untrue. tfoxbrewster: Their comment: "The message claims to contain a cryptographic signature in the last line. ECDSA signatures of the sort used by Ethereum are 65 bytes (130 hexadecimal digits) long, and end with '00' or '01'. The number at the end of his message is the right length, but ends with '20', making it an invalid signature. tfoxbrewster: If the attacker wrote the message, there would be no reason for him not to provide a valid signature. If the message were written by an impostor, on the other hand, they'd be unable to generate a valid signature, and would have reason to make their message more convincing by adding a fraudulent one. tfoxbrewster: For that reason, I'm certain that the message is a fraud, written by someone who wants to stir up trouble in the community." tfoxbrewster: Thoughts on that? mircea_popescu: tfoxbrewster well, you familiar with the satoshi/hoaxtoshi communications this year ? mircea_popescu: because this isn't a single item, it's a third in a trifecta. tfoxbrewster: i am indeed. explain the trifecta/ tfoxbrewster: ? mircea_popescu: well, at first there was http://trilema.com/2015/the-news-in-brief-hearn-is-a-shitstain-mp-is-right-fuck-reddit-love-satoshi/mircea_popescu: now, the usg assets in bitcoin (gavin & all) didn't like this, and whined about the signature. so i said : swear it ain't so. in writing. they... didn't. mircea_popescu: then there was the whole craig whatever incident. where the usg assets in bitcoin (gavin & all) swore as to the authenticity of a gross fake. mircea_popescu: the difference between those two and this third is instructive and important : in those instances, the usg was trying to spin a narrative that'd allow it to claim it's still alive and relevant, in front of proof to the contrary from ~already established accounts~. ie, satoshi. mircea_popescu: here, there's no historical establishment. the guy lives through his deeds not through a lengthy, boring story about "hey listen, back in 1920 carnegie and j p morgan were pretty cool so we should still be getting free petrocheese and chinese plastics for this reason". mircea_popescu: in other words : signatures there were retrospective, attempting to build a historical chain. "this x is that x which you respect so respect this". mircea_popescu: the signature here however is prospective. "this is a signature you don't know what to do with. at some later point, maybe you will." |
|
|
|
I lost .5 btc shorting eth
Eth is the LEAST aggregate market I've ever seen, which is why I never recommend people to short it. The price is controlled by one single guy who runs the bots on Bologniex tied to either the Ethereum developers themselves, or some entity like Goldman Sachs. Ever since Bitcoin started to rise, I watched them absorb something like 5000-10,000 BTC in Eth dumps on Poloniex just trying to prop the price up and prevent it from imploding. The DOA event caused a dumpocalypse on them forcing them to absorb even more losses. This single entity that controls the ETh price is underwater as fuck now and probably desperate to rid himself of some of those scamtokens. I have a feeling the only reason it made it that high of value in the first place is the Eth devs themselves sent a bunch of Eth to Poloniex, then used those coins for collateral to margin long it to the moon while liquidating shoters. Dan Larimer actually talked about attempting doing that himself once in the past when BTS was in the dumpster but he chickened out. Him and Vitalik have been speaking a bit these days and maybe he gave Vitalik the idea. The attacker has commented about that: The only thing I can share on all this is that the science and intrigue of smart contracts is stronger now than ever. This is a great opportunity to emerge as a stronger, better guided, more directioned and principled community bla bla bla blabla blabla blabla blabla blabla blabla blabla blabla bla. By all means, keep inflating the bubble. For one thing, USG.MIT & friends have to bleed every last coin they got before they’ll go the fuck away. For the other thing, rape’s no fun if the meat’s not at the very least squiggling and the etherape’s no different. |
|
|
|
Monero's hash rate is probably >1/1000 of Bitcoin when adjusted to equivalent energy. It is quite secure against 1000x attacks, especially considering they are not entirely effective as they were against some gen 1 alts. Algorithmically it is reasonably secure against 100x difficulty spike attacks (as are most other current alts such as Dash), though somewhat better than those that don't have a variable blocksize (again such as Dash) to absorb a transaction backlog.
That isn't saying much when BitCON is only using 1/1000th of the world's electricity. So Monero uses 1 millionth of the world's electricity. Whoop–de–do. Edit: and downthread even ArticMine admits Monero is likely to lose 1/10th of its hashrate as block rewards decline to the tail emission, so that will be 1/10th of a millionth. And remember you and I were originally the only (vocal) guys who wanted a tail emission and rest of the Monero community didn't and Monero didn't have a tail emission before they realized we were correct. |
|
|
|
...
It is self-evident that Monerotards attack in droves.
If you don't like being associated with that foul mouth, then say so.
You made an allegation that you cannot support. Please do not try to justify it with insults or by repeating the allegation. You lose the technical arguments and now you try to argue for victory on a technicality when you know damn well why I am pissed off. Grow some people skills. Treat people like shit and waste their time and attack in droves and you will not be liked. Period. Now that you 3 guys have wasted several hours of my day. May I bill you $500 for my lost time? Of course not. But I hope you understand how wasteful this is. No one dare speak up about Monero, lest they lose their entire income due to endless attacks. |
|
|
|
...
You send iCEBREAKER here to foam at the mouth. What do you expect?
You three attacking me and not even being coherent on the technical issues.
I did not send anyone to say anything. Again an accusatory allegation with no evidence to support it. It is self-evident that Monerotards attack in droves. If you don't like being associated with that foul mouth, then say so. Otherwise, by self-evident association of how you Monerotards popup together in the same attacks on everyone, I'll presume the self-evident association. How about looking at it from my side? How do you think it feels to be on my side and being attacked? And you not even knowing what the discussion was about. iCEBREAKER not even knowing enough about the tech and just hurling his foul mouth. And smooth pretending that China can't produce 100 - 1000X Monero's hashrate for burst periods of time. I suppose smooth has high security clearance and has access to all the data about the supercomputers that China has. And smooth knows who all the whales are in Bitcoin and what access they have to computing power. Etc... Smooth is omniscient, did you know that! |
|
|
|
Where for example did I say that Monero is secure against an attack with 1000x its hash rate? Or any POW coin for that matter?
So why are you arguing with me then? Didn't you realize that was what this discussion was about since the start. Did you even read the attacker's blog article that made that point which started this entire discussion. 1. You don't even know what the discussion is about. 2. smooth tries to argue that 1000X hashrate doesn't exist. 3. iCEBREAKER swallowed expanding foam. |
|
|
|
You know why I know you lost the argument. One word in your post.
You send iCEBREAKER here to foam at the mouth. What do you expect? You three attacking me and not even being coherent on the technical issues. |
|
|
|
The question in my mind is will this prevent the fork proposed by the devs of Ethereum?
They may still need a soft fork to steal the attacker's 3.5M ETH: This is being heavily debated, so keep in mind this is my opinion only. Roughly speaking, yes. A soft fork with a clever one way whitelisting mechanism + a draconian accounting system (which the Robin group has already mostly done) could recover nearly or up to 100% of the DAO funds (over many, many months of course). That said, a hard fork still stays (IMHO) the simplest, fastest , safest way forward, in the sense that both the soft and hard fork share many of the same attributes (they both require a code upgrade, and the 'hard fork' only affects the relevant transactions). So one wonders the utility of going through all the trouble and risk when the application is nearly identical and it could be all over in the course of a couple of weeks. I reserve the right to change my opinion on this of course, as I said, many different approaches are being debated at the moment  Thus they establish the precedent of whitelists, blacklists and 666 brutality of the majority consensus (which we know is always ultimately a power vacuum controlled by TPTB). Vitalik and Wood both showed their true colors as being against the ideals of decentralization and trustless block chain. Did you see this slide Wood put up denying the importance of decentralization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbT-mKBU6bo#t=444 |
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER, nobody cares what you have to say.
You are irrelevant. You don't code.
Do I need to link you to ArticMine getting schooled by myself the prior day about side-chains, CounterParty, and RootStock. Why should I bother to waste my time on you.
You don't understand that if you hasten the readjustment that enables other modes of attack. No matter which direction you go, the bottom line is that Monero isn't secure against an attacker with 1000X the hashrate. Period. Stop lying.
|
|
|
|
The question in my mind is will this prevent the fork proposed by the devs of Ethereum?
They may still need a soft fork to steal the attacker's 3.5M ETH: This is being heavily debated, so keep in mind this is my opinion only. Roughly speaking, yes. A soft fork with a clever one way whitelisting mechanism + a draconian accounting system (which the Robin group has already mostly done) could recover nearly or up to 100% of the DAO funds (over many, many months of course). That said, a hard fork still stays (IMHO) the simplest, fastest , safest way forward, in the sense that both the soft and hard fork share many of the same attributes (they both require a code upgrade, and the 'hard fork' only affects the relevant transactions). So one wonders the utility of going through all the trouble and risk when the application is nearly identical and it could be all over in the course of a couple of weeks. I reserve the right to change my opinion on this of course, as I said, many different approaches are being debated at the moment Thus they establish the precedent of whitelists, blacklists and 666 brutality of the majority consensus (which we know is always ultimately a power vacuum controlled by TPTB). Vitalik and Wood both showed their true colors as being against the ideals of decentralization and trustless block chain. Did you see this slide Wood put up denying the importance of decentralization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbT-mKBU6bo#t=444 |
|
|
|
I am not wasting any more time on you. What you see is what you get.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
...
There is a huge difference between forking the protocol with 51% hashrate and adhering to the protocol with 100X hashrate (both being ways to set a stratospheric difficulty level).
In the former case, honest miners will ignore the fork. In the latter case, they can't do anything.
ArticMine you are a physicist and I am a programmer for 37 years. I will be more skilled at my field and you will be more expert at yours.
The attacker in the 51% case is mining otherwise perfectly valid blocks but at a higher attack difficulty rather than the correct optimal difficulty in the blocks. There is no actual change in the protocol. The trade-off is that the 51% attack blocks could be easily detected by the network in exchange for a much lower cost of attack. In either case once the attack ends the difficulty starts to fall since time ticks by with no blocks being mined. There is a key difference between Bitcoin or a Bitcoin clone and Monero in that in Bitcoin the difficulty adjustment is discrete approximately every 2 weeks while in Monero it is continuous, This means that by timing the end of the attack correctly the attacker could keep the difficulty constant in Bitcoin for 2 weeks, while in Monero the difficulty starts to fall approximately 2 min after the end of the attack. This is gibberish. It reads like you are drunk. Yes a 51% attacker is mining valid blocks so when he stops mining, the difficulty is not very high, so that is not the same as attacking the network with 1000X the hashrate and driving the difficulty skyhigh. In your prior message, it seemed you proposed to fork the protocol to change the difficulty using only a 51% attack. I explained that honest miners would ignore the fork. Now you seem to imply the attacker can do a 51% attack, but mine with 1000X the hashrate so they don't need to change the protocol. Well then that isn't a 51% attack, it is the 1000X attack. So you've made no point at all. But it is difficult to understand what you mean, because the above just doesn't make any sense. So what the hell are you trying to say here? Please stop wasting my time. Write coherently and correctly at one post. Put your entire point in one post and expend the effort to make your post coherent. This back and forth is very wasteful. On the continuous sliding adjustment window, this doesn't impact anything w.r.t. to this issue. It is just equivalent to a smoothing filter. W.r.t. to detecting attack blocks, this is nonsense. All blocks looks the same. There is no way to identify which blocks are coming from the attacker unless all the honest nodes are colluding. But that defeats the entire point of decentralization and trustless. The attacker could Sybil attack your trust for example. ArcticMine you always drag me into the long nonsense debates and then I win at the end. Please be more respectful of my time. |
|
|
|
...
I asked you Monerotards to stop wasting my time.
...
If you do not want to waste your time may I suggest: 1) Stop proposing attacks that make zero economic sense 2) Stop insulting people. You are a liar (or incredibly ignorant of the technology). And you are insulting me. I asked you to stop being intellectually dishonest and wasting my time. Now you send smooth here to insult me and lie. smooth, ArticMine, and iCEBREAKER ganging up on me and lying. |
|
|
|
Please stop trying to pretend that Monero's measily hashrate is secure! You are both lying. The "attacker" can rent 1000X more botnets than you can. That was the entire point of the "attacker's" blog article.
'NotBack you are going of the deep end a bit here. The difficulty stratosphere attack you've described doesn't work very well against Monero if you work out actual numbers. If you wanted to drive up the difficulty 1000x then you would need something approaching a billion typical (old, insecure, low powered) botnet nodes. If you wanted to use higher performance computers say from cloud computing you'd need 10 million or so, which is good portion of the capacity of the big cloud computing vendors. To rent that you would have to displace most or all of their other paying customers (or in the case of vendors such as Amazon or Google, their own usage). That won't happen. Or a combination of both. Don't say what will happen when China can easily build that computer power if you threaten their Bitcoin mining cartel. If you think the computer power mining Monero is a significant fraction of world computing power, you have a few screws loose in your head. I don't appreciate your insult. Should I return the insult or will you be a little be more circumspect from here on? Now lets say you did manage to, somehow, drive the difficulty up 1000x. You would drive the average block time from 2 minutes to 2000 minutes which is around a day and a half. The chain would not completely stall, it would continue to generate blocks at this slow rate.
Incorrect. The attacker would with a much lower level of hashrate than the initial attack be able to win a block every 2000 minutes and thus block all transactions except his, so he can exit the coin with his mining rewards. With Monero he can even hide his coins, so no one knows! Doubly-fucked because of the anonymity. Those blocks would feed into the difficulty adjustment and after a few days the block time would rapidly begin to come down. It would still be slow for quite a while, but the severity would subside.
Look there are tradeoffs on security when you have the adjustment fast or slow and the attacker can game which ever weakness you enable. If too fast, he can fire up his hashrate again for only a very short period of time to start another period of 2000 minute block periods. Meanwhile, the blocks would be full of high-paying transactions and the block size would increase. The network would hobble along until it self-healed.
Fucking wrong as wrong can be. Please stop fucking with me. I asked you Monerotards to stop wasting my time. |
|
|
|
The reason the ETH price rose is because the attacker fucked up by not entirely draining the DAO when he had the chance, and a white hat attack has instead drained the remaining tokens of the DAO into child split contracts which are controlled by whales who promise to not only perform a refund to DAO investors, but also try to infiltrate the attacker's child split contracts to disrupt his ability to cash out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/
So we can see on the chart in my prior post that the price was about to drop like a rock as expected, but the white attack had started just in time to prevent the price drop.
I support the white hat attack, as it adheres to the code. This is a much better solution than forking.
Unfortunately this incident revealed the true attitudes of Vitalik and Gavid Wood, in that they don't respect decentralization. For Ethereum to be respected again, those two need to be banished from any leadership roles.
Edit: the attacker's website appears to be under attack by someone. |
|
|
|
The reason the ETH price rose is because the attacker fucked up by not entirely draining the DAO when he had the chance, and a white hat attack has instead drained the remaining tokens of the DAO into child split contracts which are controlled by whales who promise to not only perform a refund to DAO investors, but also try to infiltrate the attacker's child split contracts to disrupt his ability to cash out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/
So we can see on the chart in my prior post that the price was about to drop like a rock as expected, but the white attack had started just in time to prevent the price drop.
I support the white hat attack, as it adheres to the code. This is a much better solution than forking.
Unfortunately this incident revealed the true attitudes of Vitalik and Gavid Wood, in that they don't respect decentralization. For Ethereum to be respected again, those two need to be banished from any leadership roles.
Edit: the attacker's website appears to be under attack by someone.
|
|
|
|
...
No you've forgotten smooth's point, because the 51% attack requires ongoing hashrate expended by the attacker indefinitely. The network eventually heals when the attacker stops.
The 100X attack is death star. The chain doesn't heal (even after the attacker has stopped mining) without external intervention of a fork, because the difficulty is in the stratosphere so thus no block is ever created again (or not for a long, long time such as years).
So does the 100x attack since the attacker has to maintain the attack for a period longer than the number to blocks used by the difficulty algorithm to calculate the change in difficulty. So my point is why would the attacker not just fork the coin and set the difficulty to some insane high value? There is a huge difference between forking the protocol with 51% hashrate and adhering to the protocol with 100X hashrate (both being ways to set a stratospheric difficulty level). In the former case, honest miners will ignore the fork. In the latter case, they can't do anything. ArticMine you are a physicist and I am a programmer for 37 years. I will be more skilled at my field and you will be more expert at yours. |
|
|
|
Here is a very good explanation of what I was explaining upthread about how sharding validation of long-running scripts breaks Nash equilibrium and this paper explains that even without sharding, the validation of scripts on Ethereum can break Nash equilibrium: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05917v1.pdf#page=2I found that here: https://chriseth.github.io/notes/talks/truebit/#/1Tangentially, the salient quote of the algorithm from that first white paper: Consensus in Bitcoin, called Nakamoto consensus[13], achieves low commu-
nication complexity in exchange for an extremely high
amount of local work from miners. In the other extreme, <--- Satoshi's design requires every full node to verify every transaction
Byzantine consensus [3] avoids local work, but requires a <--- Byzantine consensus is entirely via message passing
considerable amount of message passing among parties.
Our verification game below requires nontrivial interac-
tion and some local work, but not nearly as much of
either as Byzantine or Nakamoto consensus respectively.
Note that paper can only be applicable to smart contracts which are puzzles that can be validated in parts, which you can see clearly by reviewing the examples such as a challenge and response about the members of an intersection of two sets. That doesn't seem to be applicable to Turing-complete code. Also I had rejected a challenge-response design, because if the assumption that at least one honest node will verify and issue the challenge fails, then the block chain is fucked in some indeterminant state where Nash equilibrium is broken. That is too risky and frankly this is the direction SegWit is headed (and I guess they depend on centralization of mining to protect them  ) But if you think about it, code execution can also be validated in parts. And then there is statistical solution for validation which is as analogously as strong of an assurance of correctness as is the reliance that a 51% attack is improbable. That is my design. Now watch somebody go claim it as their invention after reading this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
