Will the effect the BTC market?

[SkRRJyTC]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113654.0

A test of the 51% attack post GPU age?

[1714641944]

1714641944

[1714641944]

1714641944

[Technomage]

It's very interesting. It's a legitimate organization with no hostile intent though. Bitcoin can only benefit from something like this in the long term.

[Spekulatius]

It's very interesting. It's a legitimate organization with no hostile intent though. Bitcoin can only benefit from something like this in the long term.

I guess you are right, but who knows?

Also, I think if they actually would achieve 51% of hashing power, that would startle alot of people and a flash crash would follow. Probably with quick recovery but still a heavy spike. Other than that I see little effect on price.

[cypherdoc]

really doesn't sound like a 51% attack; more like an exploit in timing btwn block formation.

[Spekulatius]

I dont know whether they mine with full power yet, but its not 51%, its 8.547% actually.


Number of Blocks relayed by 82.130.102.160: 20
First block relayed at Blockheight: 200691
Current Blockheight: 200925
dBlockheight=200925-200691=234 -> they have competed for 234 blocks yet

20/234*100%= 8.547%

They have currently relayed 8.547% of all blocks they have competed for.

[Yuhfhrh]

I'm interested in the hardware they are running to just magically have ~10% of the network lol

[sadpandatech]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113654.0

A test of the 51% attack post GPU age?

No.
Please go read their paper. What they are doing is more than just proving an attack vector. It is to prove a possible shortcoming for the security of fast transaction processing and to offer a possible solution for any issues they can prove with it.

They mis-speak imho when they state they are to prove 'it can be done cheaply', as it would undoubtly cost several millions of dollars for the ~10% of network total hashing power they are utilizing to prove their attack vector. This would be a greatly pohibitive cost for an entity looking to take advantage of a transaction that would likely be for less than $20 in the situations they are seeking to show would rely on fast transactions. None the less, their approach is thorough and their solutions are likely to be quite beneficial to future businesses and transactions carried out in BTC. I'm thinking more along the lines of banks or other entities who have a need to process large volumes of small transactions and to do so quickly.

cheers

[proudhon]

I think this is great news.

[cheat_2_win]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113654.0

A test of the 51% attack post GPU age?

No.
Please go read their paper. What they are doing is more than just proving an attack vector. It is to prove a possible shortcoming for the security of fast transaction processing and to offer a possible solution for any issues they can prove with it.

They mis-speak imho when they state they are to prove 'it can be done cheaply', as it would undoubtly cost several millions of dollars for the ~10% of network total hashing power they are utilizing to prove their attack vector. This would be a greatly pohibitive cost for an entity looking to take advantage of a transaction that would likely be for less than $20 in the situations they are seeking to show would rely on fast transactions. None the less, their approach is thorough and their solutions are likely to be quite beneficial to future businesses and transactions carried out in BTC. I'm thinking more along the lines of banks or other entities who have a need to process large volumes of small transactions and to do so quickly.

cheers

Actually, the setup they propose to perform the double spending attack during 0-confirmation payment is very cheap. You only need a number of machines running standard Bitcoin clients and one attack machine with modified Bitcoin client.

[cypherdoc]

I think this is great news.

hey, you changed it!  that's ok.  thanks for keeping it up so long.  you're a good sport. 

[Spekulatius]

I think this is great news.

What's the new avatar proudhon? Does that somehow symbolize the bitcoin foundation?

[cheat_2_win]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113654.0

A test of the 51% attack post GPU age?

No.
Please go read their paper. What they are doing is more than just proving an attack vector. It is to prove a possible shortcoming for the security of fast transaction processing and to offer a possible solution for any issues they can prove with it.

They mis-speak imho when they state they are to prove 'it can be done cheaply', as it would undoubtly cost several millions of dollars for the ~10% of network total hashing power they are utilizing to prove their attack vector. This would be a greatly pohibitive cost for an entity looking to take advantage of a transaction that would likely be for less than $20 in the situations they are seeking to show would rely on fast transactions. None the less, their approach is thorough and their solutions are likely to be quite beneficial to future businesses and transactions carried out in BTC. I'm thinking more along the lines of banks or other entities who have a need to process large volumes of small transactions and to do so quickly.

cheers

Actually, the setup they propose to perform the double spending attack during 0-confirmation payment is very cheap. You only need a number of machines running standard Bitcoin clients and one attack machine with modified Bitcoin client.

Reading their paper, it seems that their goal is to send coins to one address, but after that confirm a spending of the same coins to their own address by their miners.

One should note that the "Fast Double Spend" paper has already been submitted to,
accepted by, and is due to be presented on the ACM CCS 2012 conference in about two weeks.

So: Whatever they are doing now, it is not related to that specific paper.

My guess is they are somehow trying to exploit the variance in confirmation time by varying the network mining power.

[proudhon]

I think this is great news.

What's the new avatar proudhon? Does that somehow symbolize the bitcoin foundation?

No.  It's this.

[Spekulatius]

I think this is great news.

What's the new avatar proudhon? Does that somehow symbolize the bitcoin foundation?

No.  It's this.

Is it your project? I look forward to some depressing doomsday talk!

[proudhon]

I think this is great news.

What's the new avatar proudhon? Does that somehow symbolize the bitcoin foundation?

No.  It's this.

Is it your project? I look forward to some depressing doomsday talk!

Yes, it is my project.  Had to put it on hold for a while, but I'm picking it up again.  I spur of the moment sort of thought that letting the cat out of the bag would put a fire under my feet to get some content out the door.  The fact of the matter is a pretty large proportion of what I post here is posted as a sort of parody of a lot of the sort of talk that goes on around here and, in weird way, a parody of a lot of my thinking and posting last year.  Embarrassing as it is to admit that, it is what it is and it's something I'd like to start moving away from (though, it's just so temping sometimes).  

This is a round about way of getting to the point that I intend to avoid depressing doomsday talk.  In fact, I'm intent to make market talk and price talk a very, very small part of the podcast, if it features at all.  Rather, my aim is provide discussion of relevant current events and, more prominently, I'd like the podcast to focus on stories.  Specifically, stories from and about notable people involved with bitcoin and stories and discussion about interesting events that have happened in this little universe since 2009.  I hope to offer something informative, entertaining, and well produced; so, yeah, you're going to see a side of me that's more serious and less absurd than my posting history.  I'm even thinking of moving off of Proudhon and to my IRL name...

[Spekulatius]

Wow, sounds really interesting 

I look forward to it! Incidentally Im working on something similar, soon to be announced, maybe I can draw some inspiration from you 

[cypherdoc]

I think this is great news.

What's the new avatar proudhon? Does that somehow symbolize the bitcoin foundation?

No.  It's this.

Is it your project? I look forward to some depressing doomsday talk!

Yes, it is my project.  Had to put it on hold for a while, but I'm picking it up again.  I spur of the moment sort of thought that letting the cat out of the bag would put a fire under my feet to get some content out the door.  The fact of the matter is a pretty large proportion of what I post here is posted as a sort of parody of a lot of the sort of talk that goes on around here and, in weird way, a parody of a lot of my thinking and posting last year.  Embarrassing as it is to admit that, it is what it is and it's something I'd like to start moving away from (though, it's just so temping sometimes).  

This is a round about way of getting to the point that I intend to avoid depressing doomsday talk.  In fact, I'm intent to make market talk and price talk a very, very small part of the podcast, if it features at all.  Rather, my aim is provide discussion of relevant current events and, more prominently, I'd like the podcast to focus on stories.  Specifically, stories from and about notable people involved with bitcoin and stories and discussion about interesting events that have happened in this little universe since 2009.  I hope to offer something informative, entertaining, and well produced; so, yeah, you're going to see a side of me that's more serious and less absurd than my posting history.  I'm even thinking of moving off of Proudhon and to my IRL name...

Holy Cow.  we'll actually get to hear your voice.  throw a few bull snorts in there would you? 

[ElectricMucus]

FUCK
This is bad. Real bad.  

Why? 5 blocks in a row and appearing fully legit.

[elux]

FUCK
This is bad. Real bad.  

Why? 5 blocks in a row and appearing fully legit.

False alarm. See the last post in that thread.

[ElectricMucus]

FUCK
This is bad. Real bad.  

Why? 5 blocks in a row and appearing fully legit.

False alarm. See the last post in that thread.

puh.. thanks.

still this raises the question how they got around to relaying this many blocks. By chance alone that means they are up to something.