50%

[bcpokey]

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Very well, my apologies for creating such an insinuation, at the time it occured you did not know how it happened and I must have missed it had you shared the information later.

But it still stands to reason that no one is proof against hacking and it's still a potential risk as was my original point.

[[Tycho]]

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Hey [Tycho] what's the [Bounty] on the Block Chain Monitor?

As it says in the forum thread, my part and those two who added their messages.

It's just a strawman, and Tycho knows it.
There is no technical way to find orphaned block chains without everyone running bitcoind to update their software to a specific version that would report orphaned blocks to a central authority.  And the authority would need to be agreed upon.  The client, as it stands, simply abandons them.

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

[Maxxx]

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Very well, my apologies for creating such an insinuation, at the time it occured you did not know how it happened and I must have missed it had you shared the information later.

But it still stands to reason that no one is proof against hacking and it's still a potential risk as was my original point.

You are definitely correct regardless, about it being a threat. Tycho himself is likely a target as well. His personal home network, work network, etc. It is the online atmosphere in which he is becoming wealthy from. A serious business like that requires serious security.

[Genrobo]

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Hey [Tycho] what's the [Bounty] on the Block Chain Monitor?

As it says in the forum thread, my part and those two who added their messages.

It's just a strawman, and Tycho knows it.
There is no technical way to find orphaned block chains without everyone running bitcoind to update their software to a specific version that would report orphaned blocks to a central authority.  And the authority would need to be agreed upon.  The client, as it stands, simply abandons them.

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...
:|
Or let's say, they always assume the smaller portion of the network was correct...
THAT WOULD MAKE A FORK IN THE BLOCK CHAIN EVEN EASIER TO DO.

Your logging at different points in the network idea is not sound.

[Hawkix]

This is how it will end soon:

[bcpokey]

This is how it will end soon:

I like that, I'm stealing it for the other thread.

[grndzero]

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Hey [Tycho] what's the [Bounty] on the Block Chain Monitor?

As it says in the forum thread, my part and those two who added their messages.

It's just a strawman, and Tycho knows it.
There is no technical way to find orphaned block chains without everyone running bitcoind to update their software to a specific version that would report orphaned blocks to a central authority.  And the authority would need to be agreed upon.  The client, as it stands, simply abandons them.

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...
:|
Or let's say, they always assume the smaller portion of the network was correct...
THAT WOULD MAKE A FORK IN THE BLOCK CHAIN EVEN EASIER TO DO.

Your logging at different points in the network idea is not sound.

If there is difference detected then it would be cause for inspection and alert people that something might be wrong. i would have achieved what it was set out to do and the people who really understand the protocol better would look at it and see if there was a problem. It's an early warning system, not a prevention method.

It would also be a good thing to have in place in the future so that it can be adapted if any new exploits are discovered.

[[Tycho]]

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...

Looks like you don't get the idea.
That's the whole point of the service - to detect presence of the other set.

[Genrobo]

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...

Looks like you don't get the idea.
That's the whole point of the service - to detect presence of the other set.

Detection is not a solution.

Prevention is.

Think of it like AIDS
By the time you 'detect' it
It's DEFINITELY too late.

[kidgorgeous]

So [Tycho], clearly you getting 50% of the hashing power has ruffled some feathers and even has me slightly concerned. What do you think is the best route to ensure individuals confidence? Would you be opposed to instituting a lock on new user registration on your pool until other pools increase their network share?

[[Tycho]]

So [Tycho], clearly you getting 50% of the hashing power has ruffled some feathers and even has me slightly concerned. What do you think is the best route to ensure individuals confidence? Would you be opposed to instituting a lock on new user registration on your pool until other pools increase their network share?

Already answered on this in my thread.
Actually I don't see other pools doing something to get more hashrate. Panic is not a solution.

Recent USD/BTC rate jump may be followed by immense influx of new miners - that's their opportunity.

[grndzero]

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...

Looks like you don't get the idea.
That's the whole point of the service - to detect presence of the other set.

Detection is not a solution.

Prevention is.

Think of it like AIDS
By the time you 'detect' it
It's DEFINITELY too late.

Just because an attack is implemented doesn't mean it will succeed. Just because someone introduces a modified block chain doesn't mean that will get accepted. Knowing nuclear missiles are coming at you gives you time to get to an underground bunker.

[bullox]

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...

Looks like you don't get the idea.
That's the whole point of the service - to detect presence of the other set.

Detection is not a solution.

Prevention is.

Think of it like AIDS
By the time you 'detect' it
It's DEFINITELY too late.

Just because an attack is implemented doesn't mean it will succeed. Just because someone introduces a modified block chain doesn't mean that will get accepted. Knowing nuclear missiles are coming at you gives you time to get to an underground bunker.

Yep, it gives you ~10min to sell your BTC off en masse before the collapse occurs

[grndzero]

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...

Looks like you don't get the idea.
That's the whole point of the service - to detect presence of the other set.

Detection is not a solution.

Prevention is.

Think of it like AIDS
By the time you 'detect' it
It's DEFINITELY too late.

Just because an attack is implemented doesn't mean it will succeed. Just because someone introduces a modified block chain doesn't mean that will get accepted. Knowing nuclear missiles are coming at you gives you time to get to an underground bunker.

Yep, it gives you ~10min to sell your BTC off en masse before the collapse occurs

The price of bitcoin can collapse without any security issues on the network. There should be something to prevent this too.

We need regulation on this free market thing.

[grndzero]

Bump because there's not enough deepbit threads on the main page.

[rezin777]

The price of bitcoin can collapse without any security issues on the network. There should be something to prevent this too.

What kind of argument is this? 

The price of Bitcoin can collapse for thousands of unknown reasons. Not much we can do.

The price of Bitcoin can collapse if people lose trust in the networks ability to secure transactions. We can promote a healthy network.

None of this requires regulation... just a group of well informed, willing miners.