Yes, precisely right. Point being, it doesn't account for hash power that went into the solving (and ultimately the relay) or the amount of hashing in the pool, or any of that. It is measured after the fact. Thus preventing pools with "too high hash rate" is not even easily determinable. Also there is what I think of as the "Tusken Raider" attack that GHash.io/CEX/Bitfury is currently doing to hide the amount of hash power in different pools. But then it's also possible that the threat is overestimated by that same logic. Only if we throw out all the snapshot metrics and look at it as video. We saw the large chucks move out of Ghash and into Discus Fish and BTC Guild. They weren't trickles, they were cut-overs. The retail CEX users saw that suddenly there's no problem and by and large stayed. More joined since the problem was swept under the carpet and the cycle continues. I have nothing against Ghash and co. I wish them every success. It is merely a problem of power concentration vs decentralization. |
|
|
|
The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact.
Its done by looking at who solved the blocks. You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of have shes submitted, etc.
I thought it was measured by who relayed the block? Yes, precisely right. Point being, it doesn't account for hash power that went into the solving (and ultimately the relay) or the amount of hashing in the pool, or any of that. It is measured after the fact. Thus preventing pools with "too high hash rate" is not even easily determinable. Also there is what I think of as the "Tusken Raider" attack that GHash.io/CEX/Bitfury is currently doing to hide the amount of hash power in different pools. But then it's also possible that the threat is overestimated by that same logic. Also, I've followed the story behind Bitfury because of his phenomenal success and rise to fame from his garage in Russia. Also because I hash with his units. If there was one rags to riches bitcoin success that wouldn't jeopardize his multi million dollar success story for a cup of coffee double spend attack it would be him. Also, it looks like he will be selling shares on Wall Street soon. Even if 100% righteous, one may still fall to coercion. Of it it is merely money that motivates. There are larger sums available, and at stake, than the market cap of bitcoin. The centralization itself is the problem... Doesn't even matter if rags to riches guys are perfectly honest. They are vulnerable if they love their kids, or parents, or anyone even themselves more than Bitcoin's integrity. Installing centralized banking control over a population has been done with wars and assassinations and all manor of wickedness. A Double spending attack is comparatively benign. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen, or not even that there are folks that think bitcoin isn't good for them and might want to see it fail, or that if there were such folks, that they might have vast resources and the capability to execute complicated plans. But since you asked.... yes it exists as an existential risk to bitcoin. Maybe you give it a pValue of .01 or less. Even so, if it were in play... all the pieces are in the right places for it. |
|
|
|
I found it interesting to read the comments of the ghash owner who said that pulling a double spend is actually quite difficult from an internal technical stand point.
I wonder what he was talking about?
He means that he almost didn't get away with it the last few times.  Seriously though, can you explain to me the mechanics of an attack scenario that is technically and economically viable, repeatable, undetectable and puts cash into his bank account as a result? There are many. Here is a simple one: Lets pretend that there exists some bitcoin gambling sites where you send bitcoin as the mechanism of betting with immediate results knowable. If a losing bet somehow never made it into the block chain, but the winning ones did might that be profitable? If these are hidden within a large amount of betting, but just often enough to skew the odds in your favor so you have both house edge and betting control, all of the assets of such a gambling site could be siphoned out over time repeately. Since the transaction record is the block chain itself for this site, and the individual bets are not preserved for some privacy sensitive reason, you get a scenario such as the one you requested. More complex scenarios would also include being discovered, (rogue employee found a way around internal safeguards?) which then creates a confidence attack on the price. But you knew ahead of time so you have a short position in place. As well as buying lots of cheap LTC ahead of this and holding it as the backup currency with better mining diversity so as folks shift to that for security, you get to sell into the demand. Managing the news cycle so as to create the right panic responses is also a piece of the game. It is a small advantage in the security field to be blessed with an evil mind, and cursed with deep ethics. The world appears broken to us, everywhere we look, but we don't step through the cracks, as they all lead to condemnation of ourselves, and one can never escape one's self. |
|
|
|
The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact.
Its done by looking at who solved the blocks. You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of have shes submitted, etc.
I thought it was measured by who relayed the block? Yes, precisely right. Point being, it doesn't account for hash power that went into the solving (and ultimately the relay) or the amount of hashing in the pool, or any of that. It is measured after the fact. Thus preventing pools with "too high hash rate" is not even easily determinable. Also there is what I think of as the "Tusken Raider" attack that GHash.io/CEX/Bitfury is currently doing to hide the amount of hash power in different pools. |
|
|
|
I found it interesting to read the comments of the ghash owner who said that pulling a double spend is actually quite difficult from an internal technical stand point.
I wonder what he was talking about?
He means that he almost didn't get away with it the last few times. |
|
|
|
The state keeps trying to rationalize why it needs to exist through legislation like this. I think it's mostly irrelevant.
You're not alone, I feel oddly overcome by my apathy at the moment actually. This is the kind of government action I like best. When it kills one of its own more stupid laws and replaces it with nothing. If they spent a year doing only this, they might be able to balance a budget in some future year someday. Also Here is the voting record so you can see that we still have some conflict. There are some in CA governance too stupid to be allowed to remain there, they have voted against their self interest, the common interest and the state interest. It baffles the mind why anyone would want that old law that benefits no one, constrains business and personal freedom. So here you have it: the bad in bold, the worst in red: Date Result Location Ayes Noes NVR Motion 06/23/14 (PASS) Assembly Floor 52 11 16 AB 129 DICKINSON Concurrence in Senate Amendments BTC Ayes: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Hagman, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Olsen, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins Noes: Bigelow, Buchanan, Fox, Gray, Grove, Harkey, Maienschein, Patterson, John A. Pérez, Quirk-Silva, Waldron No Votes Recorded: Bocanegra, Conway, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gordon, Gorell, Hall, Logue, Mansoor, Nestande, Pan, Wagner, Wilk 06/19/14 (PASS) Senate Floor 28 3 9 Assembly 3rd Reading AB129 Dickinson By Hill BTC Ayes: Beall, Berryhill, Cannella, Corbett, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Galgiani, Hancock, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Vidak, Wolk, Wyland Noes: Anderson, Fuller, Morrell No Votes Recorded: Block, Calderon, Correa, Gaines, Hernandez, Jackson, Walters, Wright, Yee 06/04/14 (PASS) Sen Banking and Financial Institutions 7 1 1 Do pass. BTC Ayes: Block, Correa, Evans, Hill, Roth, Torres, Vidak Noes: Morrell No Votes Recorded: Hueso 01/29/14 (PASS) Assembly Floor 75 0 5 AB 129 DICKINSON Assembly Third Reading BTCAyes: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez Noes: No Votes Recorded: Buchanan, Fox, Gordon, Logue, Perea 01/21/14 (PASS) Asm Banking and Finance 10 0 2 Do pass as amended. BTCAyes: Achadjian, Bonta, Chau, Dickinson, Gatto, Linder, Morrell, Perea, Rodriguez, Weber Noes: No Votes Recorded: Harkey, Williams 01/09/14 (PASS) Asm Rules 7 4 0 Be referred to Committee on Banking and Finance. BTCAyes: Brown, Dababneh, Gonzalez, Gordon, Nazarian, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas Noes: Donnelly, Hagman, Waldron, Wilk No Votes Recorded: |
|
|
|
Yay, Moonbean!
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day!
Good. Now if only he could help bring down utility rates that are higher than most parts of Europe. $0.35c/KWh from non-green energy, really? Stupid CPUC. Wow. Those are some insanely high energy prices. Guess there's not many people mining in Cali. Solar power FTW |
|
|
|
|
AB 129 passed, which repealed the prohibition on alternative currencies in California.
This is a good thing. I'm in California, and my legal advisors had advised that I not make too much trouble whilst this is progressing through the political pipeline.
The result is that Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Specie are both lawful money. This is not LEGAL TENDER, which in my opinion is a good thing that it isn't.
The Legal Tender law is the one that FORCES someone to accept a currency in payment for a debt owed. This is what allows someone who accepts a bitcoin payment to refund the money in something else, because of the Legal Tender law.
Lawful Money on the other hand simply means that it is OK to voluntarily trade using that currency. The law can not prevent it. I think that this suits Bitcoin much more as a designation than Legal Tender which uses state power to cram it down throats. The Legal Tender laws were created to give some value to valueless currencies and Bitcoin nor Bitcoin Specie need such a crutch.
So, what does this mean..
It means we are BACK IN BUSINESS.
And that means it is time to have a Sale. Or several of them. Lets get the party going!!!
|
|
|
|
I really think there should be something done to limit pools to a Maximum of 20% - I've no idea how this would work, as I am ignorant of mining..
(i tried it out in the early days, but left it as my GPU wasn't suitable, couldn't afford a good one at the time)
Anyway.. perhaps even some sort of general agreement between the pools, or something in the protocol that won't recognise pools if they go over 25%
They get a warning at 20% and have time to take action to avoid reaching 25%
Or that pools won't accept extra hash if they reach 20%
Would be better for all.. At least i think it would but i'm sure there are issues that i'm not thinking about.
EDIT: There is nothing stopping an organisation having 2 pools at 20% = centralization by a different name, but at least there would be no danger of a 51% attack.
This wouldn't be bitcoin. Maybe an alt coin could do it. We'd need to see it work for a significant amount of time. Counter measures have counter-counter measures. The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact. Its done by looking at who solved the blocks. You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of hashes submitted, etc. |
|
|
|
Bolivia has only banned using bitcoins on its banks national payment system.
Like Visa banning using bitcoins over its credit card network or banks banning the use of bitcoins for wire transfers.
Essentially.
Bolivia has not banned bitcoins!
Would it make the news if the Sahara Desert bans snow? Its not like the central banking network ever had any bitcoin on it, or ever would. We are getting to the point where: Too big to fail becomes To slow to matter. |
|
|
|
actually illegal in many places of the world due to the trading platform and the contracts being deemed securities. This is likely why no one has shown up to complete with them yet.
well then, this should catch up with them too. i'm not recommending anyone doing this but you could report them if you wanted to stop them from doing this. The point being that they are actually being run by a far more powerful entity, one that is capable of breaking these sorts of rules with no repercussions. They may have not started off that way but let's face it, that area of the world is filled with corruption and who wouldn't want to get their paws all over the most powerful global currency ever invented? Normal miner incentives don't affect these sorts of players the same way. you may be right and i'm glad to see that solutions are being worked on as proposed in Hearn's blog post. as long as these solutions stay away from the main core protocol. iirc, Bitfury themselves pulled 1.5 PH/s from ghash during this issue so there are solutions being implemented as we speak. also Petamine voted to move to p2pool. i may in fact move to p2pool as soon as some of the software issues get cleared up. P2pool is a solution. bitfury repointing isnt. Control remains centralized, the repointing can be for as long as desired and then pointed elsewhere. The control remains with the bitfury/cex/ghash Keiretsu Repointing does hide the centralization though. It relaxes folks. Makes people think that all is well, when instead we are on the edge or over it, and can't even tell. It also encourages folks to do nothing or even to join GHash because "look it isn't so bad now and they are protecting us". It makes me wonder if sometimes people can't even hear their own thoughts with any critical review. |
|
|
|
but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?
Sort of, but they are related. The real limit is the 1 MB blocksize limit. 1 MB every 10 minutes is 10^6 bytes / (10 min x 60 sec/min) = 1,667 bytes per second and 1 MB every 8 minutes is 2,084 bytes per second. The "seven transactions per second" concept apparently stems from the scalability wiki. At 1,667 bytes/s, it implicitly assumes that each TX is about 240 bytes (or 300 bytes at 2,084 bytes/s). The average TX in bytes is most certainly larger than both of these figures (although I don't have a reference on hand). Simple 1-input/2-output TXs like this are 226 bytes. Txs that have more inputs or more outputs, or more complex scripts, will be larger. In other words, the network would likely hit the 1 MB/block bandwidth limit at less than seven transactions per second. In any case, the bitcoin community seems to think of the limit as "seven transactions per second." Although this is an approximation, I think it is useful nonetheless. Block interval tends less than 10 minutes, so 7/sec is pretty close to our average limit. |
|
|
|
Not because they think it will facilitate otherwise illicit activity. Not because they think it poses a security risk, or puts citizens' own finances at risk. Their openly stated justification for banning bitcoin is "if we don't ban it, people will use it instead of our money."
Or, in other words, "we can't compete."
They may not have heard the saying that starts "If you can't beat them...."? I don't think it ends with "ban them". |
|
|
|
Gold spiking higher
Has anyone been following the german repatriation (or lack thereof) news? Which probably had a lot to do with the initial spike last thursday. The Fed is beginning to look a lot like Mt Gox. First some shitty excuses and misdirection, and then... Nobody wants to be the one to trigger the collapse of the $USD / Global financial construct Their is a Western -> Eastern power shift that looks to be coming to a head in the Saudi / Qatari vs Russia / Iran energy war. The U.S is caught in the middle holding a very shitty hand of cards. The EU needs to decide what they're going to do. Would be wise to take advantage of this opportunity and drive up the price of gold / balance their balance sheets(gold is a floating asset) so the Euro can get in on some petro action before they get trumped by an eastern currency. Gold as the central bedrock(glue) of the financial system and bitcoin as the efficient payment mechanism to transmit value and have easily movable / verifiable wealth. The two aren't in competition as this thread would make people believe. They'll create a fairer and more efficient global financial system together. The amount of gold to be sent to Germany could probably be loaded onto 2 Boeing 747s. Seven years is a long time on layover waiting for the next flight. |
|
|
|
As far I can see, USA and other countries classifies BTC as an asset for monetary purposes only, they don't say bitcoin IS an asset and there are no other regulations out of the tax and financial aspects;
Diverse US agencies treat it differently. There isn't a "US policy" in toto. As long as I can see, Bolivia adopted a position similar to China and Russia, that is, no one can use BTC to buy things, but sell and buy BTC is not forbidden. Think the same would apply to buy things using gold, salt, stock assets or anything similar, things that are not banned.
Pretty much just the BCB bans it. So banks won't accept it. For what its worth, I can deposit Rubles into my US Bank account and get dollar credit, can't do that with bitcoin, so its more or less the same in the USA too. Except in Bolivia, you may be more likely to lose a banking relationship if you try. You put anual PIB vs total market CAP in same table, they are not comparable. Would be more far use capital cap growing by year, but still misleading I just took and provided the picture. Its a comparison of M1. The data is here: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/bmixClick full data. Zeroblock also puts it on their app. I don't claim originality here, just caught the joke when Bolivia's central Bank made their funny 044/2014 "ban". |
|
|
|
Guys, I will ask again since I didn't get an answer before:
Can't you guys build a "watchdog" like program that will check for this things every 30-60 mins let's say.
You can have it connect to your db, load records,
then
if((sharesSubmitted > xxxxxxx) && (blocksFound < x)){
// notify pool ops to monitor that account
}
just a thought, I don't know if this will work or not but I don't see the reason why not, to at least notify you in such case.
This is another good way to reduce the number of more intrusive checks. Only checking those significantly below the difficultly average. |
|
|
|
And then while thinking about this ... I reread my point 3) above ... that would reduce the pool block find rate, by making big hashers find less blocks ...
You'd wanna hope no pool is doing that and causing their own bad luck ...
Thank you for your careful thinking on it. We started with Linux at the same year. The check need not be on every found block. Spot checking could be sufficient. Also could skip check unless luck is down. If nonce is in a known range unsupported by some hardware, it may be a false positive detection, which would require a second check for that condition. Weigh it against the risk that there is malevolent action decreasing your luck. Maybe it is hard, so was the byzantine general. Maybe not worth discovering, or maybe Bitcoin is worth it or will be some day. Maybe there are unintended consequences that must also be handled. Experimentation will also be needed. Making the detection nonce block indistinguishable from other work is also a challenge, or counterdetection measures may develop. Maybe more thought toward this goal of monitoring for bad actors which is not adequate today, will be even more fruitful. Thank you for your contribution today and for not ignoring what may be an important problem to solve... |
|
|
|
|
Having both a CLI and GUI, everyone could choose.
Why argue against the creation of such a choice, easier to just write it.
|
|
|
|
Someone pointed out to me that "legal tender" means that debt can't be settled with it. Even gold and silver wouldn't necessarily be considered to be legal tender.
It only means debt can't be settled with it against the creditor's will. Unless there is a contract saying it can. Debts can be settled in anything the parties agree on. Yes. Legal Tender laws usually say that you may discharge any debt in the jurisdiction with the money they print. With this law anything a government with such a law does, or owes, can be dispelled with their paper, and you can do the same... with their paper. You can also do it with better things. Those wise to the paper game will likely agree, others might be confused. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
