 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
1
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Impact of ASICs on Bitcoin security
|
on: July 02, 2013, 08:18:28 PM
|
Time it takes for BFL to produce and ship 300 500GH/s rigs = 10 months to indefinite
Time it takes for BFL to finish current order chain = 10 months to indefinite
Hashpower increase once order chain is finished = Way more than 300 TH/s
Also, BFL has said that they won't sell enough hardware to 51% attack
So money required to create roughly 50 identities to purchase the 300 500Gh/s rigs? Millions of dollars.
Was just using the pricing from BFL as an example. Obviously you wouldn't be ordering from them. You could very quickly build custom hardware here in China for far less money. |
|
|
|
|
2
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Impact of ASICs on Bitcoin security
|
on: July 02, 2013, 08:03:38 PM
|
|
Although the network hash rate has skyrocketed since ASICs have come online, the security of the Bitcoin network has declined substantially when considering the comparatively low cost of gaining 51% hashing power.
In February, just prior to Avalon making their first shipment, the network hash rate was about 25-30 TH/s. The network was being secured primarily by inefficient and expensive GPUs and it would have been very unlikely for someone to build the infrastructure to attack the network. Perhaps not due to the cost of the hardware, but more likely the energy demands would make it next to impossible.
Cost of attacking the network at 30 TH/s prior to ASICs:
GPUs: 50,000 x 7950 @ $300 each = $15 million (add to this cost of power supplies, motherboards, memory...)
Energy consumption: 10,000,000+ watts
Cost of attacking the network today at 150 TH/s:
ASICs: 300 x BFL 500 GH/s @ $25,000 each = $7.5 million
Energy consumption: ~1,500,000 watts
So today it costs far less than half of what is did in February '13 to 51% the network while consuming only 15% of the energy.
We used to think it was prohibitively expensive for any entity to destroy the network, but nowadays it's very feasible. I'm quite concerned about this.
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Confirmation: PowerCoin was 51% attacked
|
on: June 21, 2013, 12:20:58 PM
|
Not sure to be happy or not right now. Sucks to be one of the people that lost money...
I'm sure it sucks to lose money. However, people dumb enough to invest their time, money, and resources into these insecure copy/paste coins have it coming to them. I've made money on some of the copy-coins, particularly Feathercoin when I dumped my instamine on BTC-e the minute it was listed. I don't hold copy/paste coins for more than 24 hours after mining them but only mine LTC these days anyhow. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Is DGC suffering a 51% attack? What happens?
|
on: June 21, 2013, 11:27:34 AM
|
|
Yes, and reverse all transactions that took place during the 51% attack.
The attacker sends coins to an exchange, waits for 6 confirmations, then reverses the transaction. The coins are now back in the attackers wallet but reflected in the attackers account on the exchange as well because of the way they are set up.
Now he has those coins in his wallet AND on the exchange. He can keep repeating this until he has accrued millions of coins on the exchange, then sell the coin down to 0.00000.
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: BTC or LTC
|
on: June 21, 2013, 11:19:02 AM
|
Mine LTC and convert it to BTC  Isn't that kind of like biting the hand that feeds you? If LTC is becoming the only alternative for GPU miners, shouldn't they be thinking long term and retaining the Litecoin instead of just making ASIC mining that much more profitable? |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Is DGC suffering a 51% attack? What happens?
|
on: June 21, 2013, 10:56:17 AM
|
Networks fine. Just tested it on dgcdice.com  I'm not sure you know how a 51% attack works. The network doesn't just die. In fact, it is highly unlikely that anyone will even notice a 51% attack has occurred until the attacker decides to sell millions of non-existent coins on an exchange. This was clearly demonstrated with Powercoin. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 51% attack on all altcoins since Feathercoin happening.
|
on: June 17, 2013, 04:02:33 PM
|
This could be helpful, so people actually stop investing in (mostly premined) shitcoins.
Why do you people even invest in shitcoins? For me, it was logical that price will be dropping, and it is dropping.
Its not the case at all. People need to wake up and stop fighting against each other. It doesn't matter whether coin X succeeds or coin Y, if ANY single coin fails and it gets any mainstream media attention, you've destroyed any chance for any crypto-currency to ever truly make it. People outside this forum don't care if its scamcoin-X or scamcoin-Y or BTC, they don't understand the differences. They'll see "crypto-currency is unreliable" or "I lost thousands in crypto-currency hack", and they are all sunk. This is so true! The majority of the people who would invest in coins don't know or care about the technical specifics. To them Bitcoin, Litecoin, BBQCoin, etc. are all the same. If one goes down, you are effectively destroying all of them. The only value any coins have is what is perceived by investors. If they aren't comfortable, the prices drop; it's that simple. Which is better? Let people blindly throw their money at crypto's they know nothing about or educate people on the value of choosing a secure vehicle for their investment. I don't think most people don't even know what a 51% attack is and what it can do. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 51% attack on all altcoins since Feathercoin happening.
|
on: June 17, 2013, 03:05:16 PM
|
might be some FUD in the OP's threats You can't just magically create coins out of thin air and you can't change the block chain history. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_powerAn attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to: Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations Prevent some or all other generators from getting any generations The attacker can't: Reverse other people's transactions Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed) Change the number of coins generated per block Create coins out of thin air Send coins that never belonged to him It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint. Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created — any changes the attacker makes might become permanent. It's easy to double your money on each attack. Send to an exchange, reverse transaction, withdraw. Or, send to exchange, trade for bitcoin, reverse the transaction. Edit: By the way, that last paragraph in your post is only true for currencies with significant hash rates. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 51% attack on all altcoins since Feathercoin happening.
|
on: June 17, 2013, 02:55:43 PM
|
There is a point, if he wouldn't (try to) do it publicly, someone else would (try to) do it secretly...
So is PWC dead already?
BTW: Sounds like OP is operating a botnet... ("on a good day i get 200Mh", this indicates variable hashrate, i.e. he's not-GPU mining)
I think it's dead. More than twice the total coins in existence got sold on Cryptsy in the last two days. |
|
|
|
|
