Is it too late to "break" bitcoin?

[MF Doom]

I've wondered if the attacks on this site/ the blockchain and coming from gvt's/central banks who are scared of btc cutting into their monopolies on currency/payments.

Is there any possible way they could successfully "break" bitcoin or the blockchain with so many users now?  (Besides a 51% attack)

[OmegaStarScream]

How would they do that on the first place , for this website is for Bitcoiners and even if Bitcointalk goes down there is some other places like Reddit and if there isn't people will create them . and for what comes to the 51% attack isn't that impossible now since Mining farms have to sign contracts  that they will never do it ? beside that I don't see how they could do anything to Bitcoin to break it

[pedrog]

That's definitely a possibility, the Snowden Leaks and other leaks and hacked document dumps from intelligence or other shaddy agencies show they do this kind of stuff, for experimenting, for fun, for some other reason, maybe someone got bored...

[LiteCoinGuy]

it is always possible that we find a major flaw but it is highly unlikely at this stage that this would kill BTC.

[RodeoX]

I don't think there will ever be a zero percent chance of a catastrophic event. But the fact that it has held so long is a good sign.

[lottery248]

i guess if someone gianed 51% of the hashpower, that would be able to attack; because bitcoin security depends on hashpower.

[mezmerizer9]

it is always possible that we find a major flaw but it is highly unlikely at this stage that this would kill BTC.

It may happen in the future! No one knows at the moment! I believe Bitcoin's network is so strong! It is difficulty for any party to break it! As it is adopted by more ppl, its ecosystem is becoming complete and strong!

[MF Doom]

That's definitely a possibility, the Snowden Leaks and other leaks and hacked document dumps from intelligence or other shaddy agencies show they do this kind of stuff, for experimenting, for fun, for some other reason, maybe someone got bored...

I agree, they tend to use infiltration and subversion as a way to break up things they dont like.  I just was wondering if the fact that so many people are running the blockchain software makes it impossible to stop people from using btc.  Although the NSA seems to have backdoors to everything...

[LiteCoinGuy]

I don't think there will ever be a zero percent chance of a catastrophic event. But the fact that it has held so long is a good sign.

Zero? lets say 0,1% at least  

[achow101]

With the current number of users, it is unlikely that they could break Bitcoin besides major cryptography flaws or a 51% attack. If any agency was behind the spam attack, they can't keep it up indefinitely. Even if they could, the community would find new solutions to mitigate and reduce the effects of the spam. Right now one solution is to add a little extra fee, or to configure full nodes to not relay certain transactions. Currently, I think it would be difficult to kill Bitcoin.

[MF Doom]

With the current number of users, it is unlikely that they could break Bitcoin besides major cryptography flaws or a 51% attack. If any agency was behind the spam attack, they can't keep it up indefinitely. Even if they could, the community would find new solutions to mitigate and reduce the effects of the spam. Right now one solution is to add a little extra fee, or to configure full nodes to not relay certain transactions. Currently, I think it would be difficult to kill Bitcoin.

It seems like the more likely thing govt's would do is impose laws or regulations making it tough to legally use btc.  It still would probably be just as easy to physically use it, but there would be risk of prosecution involved.  That may be what more govts do if btc use continues to grow.  Right now I think the big banks are keeping a VERY close eye on things but probably dont feel threatened enough to make the gvt act...yet

[BillyBobZorton]

A bored billonaire could buy the entire market, and spend billions on mining to centralize it, I guess that would be pretty bad for Bitcoin, yet I don't see it happening, it's too farfetched. I also don't think a fatal flaw in the code can happen at this point.

[ransomer]

With the current number of users, it is unlikely that they could break Bitcoin besides major cryptography flaws or a 51% attack. If any agency was behind the spam attack, they can't keep it up indefinitely. Even if they could, the community would find new solutions to mitigate and reduce the effects of the spam. Right now one solution is to add a little extra fee, or to configure full nodes to not relay certain transactions. Currently, I think it would be difficult to kill Bitcoin.

It seems like the more likely thing govt's would do is impose laws or regulations making it tough to legally use btc.  It still would probably be just as easy to physically use it, but there would be risk of prosecution involved.  That may be what more govts do if btc use continues to grow.  Right now I think the big banks are keeping a VERY close eye on things but probably dont feel threatened enough to make the gvt act...yet

To be honest, I don't think any major western country is ever going to ban bitcoin. For one thing, imagien the law suits. The Winklevos twins for example might hope to be the world's first trillionaires.... they might believe they are on their way. Imagine the lawsuits they and a million other people will launch. Sure, China and some other countries can basically do what they want but I think we have come way too far for governments simply to ban bitcoins at this stage.

I also don't think they even want that. Just like they leave the Internet surprisingly alone (despite some attempts to control it) I think bitcoin will be left more or less alone, and the banks will try to exploit the #¤%& out of blockchain technology... which is ok.

[Amph]

even if they can it could always recover, remember that bitcoin started from zero, and it will never reach it again, because i'll buy a tons if it will ever approach 1 

besides this, destroying the tech behind it, is impossible, without having a better technology...

[aso118]

even if they can it could always recover, remember that bitcoin started from zero, and it will never reach it again, because i'll buy a tons if it will ever approach 1 

Breaking bitcoin is not just about price. It could be about making people lose confidence (51% attack) or blocking transactions through the current spam attack. If this attack continues for long, people could get tired of trying to send bitcoins.

[MF Doom]

even if they can it could always recover, remember that bitcoin started from zero, and it will never reach it again, because i'll buy a tons if it will ever approach 1 

Breaking bitcoin is not just about price. It could be about making people lose confidence (51% attack) or blocking transactions through the current spam attack. If this attack continues for long, people could get tired of trying to send bitcoins.

I guess thats a concern also.  The NSA most definitely has enough manpower/technology to launch an "attack" on the system.  Thats more what I meant by breaking btc.  They can (maybe not indefinitely) make btc tough to transact with. 

[ransomer]

Just make another Mt Gox. A lot of wealth in bitcoin will flow out, meaning that others will divest as they see the value tumble, and soon people will fall over each other to get out. And the people who got burnt on their savings will be very hesitant to ever try again. Bitcoin will likely be dead apart from the die-hards with their paper wallets... containing by now more or less worthless coins.

Which is why.... we need no mass adoption at this stage until we get better and easier to be personally safe so we do not get another Mt Gox.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Just make another Mt Gox. A lot of wealth in bitcoin will flow out, meaning that others will divest as they see the value tumble, and soon people will fall over each other to get out. And the people who got burnt on their savings will be very hesitant to ever try again. Bitcoin will likely be dead apart from the die-hards with their paper wallets... containing by now more or less worthless coins.

Which is why.... we need no mass adoption at this stage until we get better and easier to be personally safe so we do not get another Mt Gox.

another stupid and incompetence exchange will not kill bitcoin dude. maybe there will be an even bigger scandal than mtshit in the future with some chinese exchange.

[ransomer]

Just make another Mt Gox. A lot of wealth in bitcoin will flow out, meaning that others will divest as they see the value tumble, and soon people will fall over each other to get out. And the people who got burnt on their savings will be very hesitant to ever try again. Bitcoin will likely be dead apart from the die-hards with their paper wallets... containing by now more or less worthless coins.

Which is why.... we need no mass adoption at this stage until we get better and easier to be personally safe so we do not get another Mt Gox.

another stupid and incompetence exchange will not kill bitcoin dude. maybe there will be an even bigger scandal than mtshit in the future with some chinese exchange.

True, in the sense that it will not kill or do anything at all to the technology or code behind bitcoin... but it might be the final nail in the coffin for consumer trust in bitcoin. A trust that has already suffered many blows from Mt Gox, and people getting hacked.

And after all bitcoin does not exist if there is no consumer trust..... or..it does, but would be utterly irrelevant.

[d4n13]

No, I don't think a spam attach would do it, this is is far far too low volume to be a Gov't.  The attacker / tester has only spent < $20,000 in fees this week.  If I see someone hitting the network willing to blow $20,000,000 in fees, then I'll start point at a Gov't.

If I was going to go all tin-foil-hat, I would look more at ECDSA vulnerabilities (which currently measure 0).

If by some miracle, a bad actor was able to crack ECDSA, all unspent outputs on the blockchain would be vulnerable.  This is why I suspect that the blockchain will eventually support many different OP_SIGCHECK opcodes instead of the one ECDSA used today.

Probably 50 years out before Moore's Law catches up with ECSDA, but I think there will come a day where old outputs will need to be swiped to "re-encrypt" them.