|
42
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stealth 51% attack
|
on: January 30, 2012, 12:17:18 PM
|
|
but old enough coins are safe anyway - you can replace a block from the middle or something
the only non safe ones are from the time somebody got 51% and later
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: All The Fees
|
on: January 30, 2012, 12:14:54 PM
|
Here's my point. What's to stop a corrupt authority from extorting btc from citizens to fund mining for the banks? Eventually, governments, banks, and big corporations will own most of the mining power anyway, but why make it easy for them by letting them have that power cheap? It's easier to find a mining pool to extort than have to compete on an even playing field with everyone.
tl;dr - On a theoretical level proof of stake seems great, but it is susceptable to the law of unintended consequences.
You are an idiot. |
|
|
|
|
44
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stealth 51% attack
|
on: January 30, 2012, 12:09:42 PM
|
if anyone can control 51% he will control the bitcoin network
no need to be stealthy about it, they can just not include any transactions in their blocks and reject blocks mined by others
but this wont be profitable
what they can do is set the transaction fee to whatever they want , since only they can add new transactions to the chain
Edit: what lock in points? the longest chain wins.
I think certain block hashes get hardcoded into the client with every new release. This way if the longer blockchain doesn't satisfy these conditions it will get rejected. is till means an attacker can do watever he wants between releases and it would be kinda strange if this was true, any sources for this? to clifford: if somebody gets 51% he can do (almost) whatever he wants from that point and on. edit: but it would be quite hard to get to 51% without being noticed - he will have to take over deepbit and another pool, or create a larger one himself - which will either take a lot of time or a lot of money (probably more than the net worth of bitcoin) |
|
|
|
|
45
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stealth 51% attack
|
on: January 30, 2012, 11:53:55 AM
|
|
if anyone can control 51% he will control the bitcoin network
no need to be stealthy about it, they can just not include any transactions in their blocks and reject blocks mined by others
but this wont be profitable
what they can do is set the transaction fee to whatever they want , since only they can add new transactions to the chain
Edit: what lock in points? the longest chain wins.
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
Other / Meta / Re: Ban SolidCoin
|
on: January 29, 2012, 11:32:15 PM
|
|
It's not just the copyright law itself.
He got the code for free.
People spent a lot of time and effort writing it, and all they asked in return is to copy paste 10-20 lines.
How hard can it be? Even now, instead of arguing about it he could just add that to his license and be done with it.
Not doing that is just being an ungrateful asshole.
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Truth behind BIP 16 and 17 (important read)
|
on: January 29, 2012, 10:44:54 PM
|
(the connecting tree isn't relevant, because you've already validated the transactions for yourself, you don't need to continually prove to yourself that you weren't lying to yourself) it becomes relevant if you add it to the default client. then everyone will remove the inputs, and new clients downloading the blockchain will have trouble finding a record they can validate. (and if a new client cant validate, maybe an attacker will be able to generate a longer chain by manipulating some of the hashes) the way i see it, if you decided to keep the blockchain - you should never prune so it cant be validated. if you don't want to keep it, you can delete all of the blocks right after validation and just keep a signed (by yourself) copy of unspent transactions. |
|
|
|
|
51
|
Economy / Services / Re: GPUMAX | The Bitcoin Mining Marketplace
|
on: January 29, 2012, 10:24:34 PM
|
i just realized i can make a lot of money by sub-leasing my hashing power to other users. if i get paid 140%, i can offer miners 125%, allowing me to pocket 15% difference.
i suspect there's already people doing this. *cough* goat, clipse *cough*
I'm confused though. Who would pay you 140%? someone who wants to sell for 160% pyramid scheme  |
|
|
|
|
52
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Truth behind BIP 16 and 17 (important read)
|
on: January 29, 2012, 10:23:01 PM
|
These BIPs would reduce the size of unspent transactions, no matter how complex, to the lowest safe size. never understood why that would happen, the bips just move the large script from the output to the input unspent blocks have both inputs of unspent transacions can be pruned? (afaik pruning is actually not supported by the client) I thought the merkle tree contained hashes of transaction and not hashes of separate inputs/outputs... |
|
|
|
|
54
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BIP 17
|
on: January 29, 2012, 09:26:57 PM
|
It was a theoretical question about magical pony friendly computers that started from tycho's statement Bitcoin has enough problems as it is (mostly usability\user friendliness) Also, this thread got off-topic  |
|
|
|
|
55
|
Bitcoin / Pools / Re: Why do you mine on deepbit?
|
on: January 29, 2012, 08:18:20 PM
|
There's no good reason to mine on deepbit.It's the pool with the highest fees for proportional AND PPS. Don't like high variance with smaller pools? there are plenty of pps pools with zero fees. That's right folks, zero variance, AND you don't pay fees. crazy, right? inb4 diablo locks this for being off topic. hahaha you are naive that are pools with no fees plz make a deep analysis and see if the pool admins steal from miners using shares or sending block solutions to other daemon on other IP how can you steal on a 100% pps pool with no fees? you can even calculate the pps yourself and see if it is correct. maybe they can set the share difficulty higher than 1, but you can see that as well. |
|
|
|
|
58
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BIP 17
|
on: January 29, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
|
but would it actually matter if you have the public key or not to find the private key from data + encrypted data?
Bitcoin does not use encryption. If you have data + signature, you can already find the public key. that wasn't the question. bitcoin uses ECDSA for the signatures. assuming: 1) you have a strong enough computer to break the ECDSA encryption, 2) you have the data and the sig - which is the encrypted hash of the data IIRC will it help you in any way to know the public key as well. will it simplify the process of finding the private key? |
|
|
|
|
59
|
Other / Meta / Re: Ban SolidCoin
|
on: January 29, 2012, 01:30:06 PM
|
|
it makes it less clear that the code it free for all and does not belong to you like the rest of it - which you allow to be used only for solid coin
and i think it is on purpose
nobody is going to sue you, but it is bad manners. you got the bitcoin code for free, just do what they ask. is it so hard to copy paste it?
|
|
|
|
|
60
|
Other / Meta / Re: Ban SolidCoin
|
on: January 29, 2012, 10:51:26 AM
|
the license is very clear The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software. it doent say you have to mention it in your license , it says you have to include it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
