50%

[IlbiStarz]

They hit 51%

[1714188589]

1714188589

[1714188589]

1714188589

[rezin777]

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell and close up shop.

First, it's not about you or I trusting the protocol. It's about the people all over the world who might want to buy some Bitcoins trusting the protocol. Once something is has shown to be vulnerable, it's kind of difficult to regain that trust.

Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be decentralized. CPUs all around the world contributing to the network security. Having so much of the network hashing power in one place just isn't healthy.

When deepbit was DDOSed recently it took the network 50 minutes to solve 2 blocks. Ignoring any >50% attack, that simply isn't a healthy network.

There is no reason we should be reactive to a possible problem, when we can be proactive and prevent it from being possible in the first place.

If you people want to play with fire and tempt fate, so be it. It may never bite you in the ass, but if it does, kiss all this "free money" goodbye.

[grndzero]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell out and close up shop.

But the protocol is insecure once someone gets >50% (or even close). So why would anyone trust it after a failure like that?

The protocol is not insecure. At 50% it is prone to a single type of attack which is most effectively done by an anonymous person, not a very well known figure.

[grndzero]

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell and close up shop.

If you people want to play with fire and tempt fate, so be it. It may never bite you in the ass, but if it does, kiss all this "free money" goodbye.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

[rezin777]

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell and close up shop.

If you people want to play with fire and tempt fate, so be it. It may never bite you in the ass, but if it does, kiss all this "free money" goodbye.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

Could you elaborate?

[KnuttyD]

bitcoins.lc is back up.

[tehcodez]

Deepbit just hit 50%. We are still alive. Now everyone stop whining.

This proves you DON'T GET IT. It's not a "50%..the end" thing...its a

User A: "....some time later...what's this? double-spending? can't be...."

User B: "@twitter...btc chain broken..sell."

Thing.

The possibility of your scenario is so slight that it's not even funny.

In the even that it did happen, the price will drop, mining won't be profitable and everyone that's only in it for the money and they would get out.

The network would recover and rebuild, a little more wiser.

From a new block chain. Thats not a very easy thing to do, now that people can look at the original Bitcoin blockchain and say "Oh, yea, you can double spend in that thing.... Not very secure. Lets NOT use that technology."

The exploit was recognized and explained by the creator. I trust the protocol. If you don't then you should sell out and close up shop.

But the protocol is insecure once someone gets >50% (or even close). So why would anyone trust it after a failure like that?

The protocol is not insecure. At 50% it is prone to a single type of attack which is most effectively done by an anonymous person, not a very well known figure.

Really? ::FACEPALM::

Ooo yeah, I remember in the bitcoin paper it did mention a large scale attacker, but with clear stipulations on that it couldn't be a long term forum poster. Whew...close.

[grndzero]

They hit 51%

It's broke now ... sell your coins while you can. The end is near. Fate is imminent.

lol

[Serge]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

[rezin777]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

[IlbiStarz]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

Nada.

[tehcodez]

An attack is one thing...blind ignorance is another.

You can survive russian roulette too...5 out of 6 games. Better to use the gun when you need it, not on yourself.

[bullox]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

No.

[grndzero]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

Which public? The majority of geeks that are using it? Or the minority of clueless people who don't care about topics like this?

[Serge]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

Depends on amount of lost value and if its recoverable or not.
If network has weaknesses I rather we went through them early in development and learned how to react before whole countries adopt it. Without network's experience and ability in resisting attacks  countries unlikely will ever trust bitcoin in order to adopt it on that scale.

[tehcodez]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

Which public? The majority of geeks that are using it? Or the minority of clueless people who don't care about topics like this?

Maybe the significant majority of liquidity providers who joined....you know, your lost-future buyers. Yeah, their trust, and those in their web, bye-bye. Closed-minded nerds never had any trust to contribute.

[rezin777]

If we cannot withstand an attack, then there is really no point in any of it.

The network can recover. Will the public's trust?

Which public? The majority of geeks that are using it? Or the minority of clueless people who don't care about topics like this?

The public that dumped a million dollars into MtGox yesterday. Oh, I supposed people don't do their homework when they invest large sums of cash. I suppose those with a few extra grand to invest in Bitcoin are "clueless". After all, scraping up a few extra grand to toss at an extremely high risk investment is child's play.

[rezin777]

If network has weaknesses I rather we went through them early in development and learned how to react before whole countries adopt it. Without network's experience and ability in resisting attacks  countries unlikely will ever trust bitcoin in order to adopt it on that scale.

We don't need to react. We can prevent it altogether by distributing the network's hashing power more evenly.

[Serge]

If network has weaknesses I rather we went through them early in development and learned how to react before whole countries adopt it. Without network's experience and ability in resisting attacks  countries unlikely will ever trust bitcoin in order to adopt it on that scale.

We don't need to react. We can prevent it altogether by distributing the network's hashing power more evenly.

You will never be able to control even distribution of hashing power, too many forces out of your reach, lots of funds out of your reach, new technology that comes next could be out of your reach. What will you do then?  when market cap will be in trillions and some unknown hashing entity took over 50% of hashing power?  Is it not a possibility in any given time in the future?

[rezin777]

If network has weaknesses I rather we went through them early in development and learned how to react before whole countries adopt it. Without network's experience and ability in resisting attacks  countries unlikely will ever trust bitcoin in order to adopt it on that scale.

We don't need to react. We can prevent it altogether by distributing the network's hashing power more evenly.

You will never be able to control even distribution of hashing power, too many forces out of your reach, new technology that comes next could be out of your reach. What will you do then?  when market cap will be in trillions and some unknown hashing entity took over 50% of hashing power?  Is it not a possibility in any given time in the future?

Huh? Miners on deepbit can move to other pools. Problem solved. There is no need for "control". Only education. Why would new technology be out of my reach? Just because something might happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it.

I'm along for the ride regardless. I would prefer the network to be healthier, that is all.