Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[kurious]

^just thought you'd be interested
~
~
https://gobitcoin.io/tools/cost-51-attack/ $7,076,517,081
shitcoins: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/05/30/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-launch-a-51-attack-on-pow-cryptocurrencies/ sixpence ha'penny

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way, it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos

[1714213301]

1714213301

[1714213301]

1714213301

[1714213301]

1714213301

[1714213301]

1714213301

[1714213301]

1714213301

[bitcoincidence]

^just thought you'd be interested
~
~
https://gobitcoin.io/tools/cost-51-attack/ $7,076,517,081
shitcoins: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/05/30/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-launch-a-51-attack-on-pow-cryptocurrencies/ sixpence ha'penny

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos

Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

[gentlemand]

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it. 

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned, as is in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely received that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

I wonder if there's anything in Nicehash's terms about using their equipment for nefarious ends.

If you go after BTC you're going to get a ton of idle mining thrown at you rather like the end of Ready Player One plus killing a shitcoin means nothing. Attacking the foundation of it all would be very suicidal/ballsy.

[jojo69]

I would never use a wallet that has the potential to jump an air gap.

fucking BINGO

[kurious]

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned, as is in a Darwinian way it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely received that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

I wonder if there's anything in Nicehash's terms about using their equipment for nefarious ends.

If you go after BTC you're going to get a ton of idle mining thrown at you rather like the end of Ready Player One plus killing a shitcoin means nothing. Attacking the foundation of it all would be very suicidal/ballsy.

In all honesty, I hope I am over-reacting.  NiceHash can't rent you enough for 51% on most coins (and certainly not BTC) and an hour wouldn't work, i would need to be sutained.  So it could just be the smaller shitcoins unable to respond (and lacking nodes) that are vulnerable...  Bigger coins can presumably rent or mobilse fan-hash to defend themselves, or adapt POW algos, too.

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.

[gentlemand]

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.

If it's possible and there's money to be made, or grudges or perversions to be serviced, then someone somewhere will do it.

[kurious]

But big coins need to not fail - you can imagine the media scrum and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the wires of the scammed.

If it's possible and there's money to be made, or grudges or perversions to be serviced, then someone somewhere will do it.

Yep, almost certainly.  The 'short and attack' might work profitably on rumour alone.

[Last of the V8s]

Terminate them all with extreme prejudice.
Please and thank you.

[jojo69]

fucking hell

it's like a merit bukkake in here

[kurious]

Terminate them all with extreme prejudice.
Please and thank you.

I think a cull is needed to pull resources towards the best projects, but that a gradual extermination of minor coins and a slower death for middling ones would be better than a general sudden carnage.

Too many pissy, crap coins is obviously an issue, but a feeding frenzy of bad, large rogue actors getting richer and bigger in a slaughter-fest might not be pretty.  

Or maybe I just need my medicine.  Nurse...?

[kurious]

^just thought you'd be interested
~
~
https://gobitcoin.io/tools/cost-51-attack/ $7,076,517,081
shitcoins: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/05/30/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-launch-a-51-attack-on-pow-cryptocurrencies/ sixpence ha'penny

Well NiceHash attacks could well (should, even?) increase. It might not be too pretty, either - especially as it's POW coins that will take the brunt of it.  

OK, I was wondering how shitcoins might be pruned as, in a Darwinian way, it seems sort of inevitable when there are obviously way too many with no real use case, or any likely long-term value.  But the minimal money to wreck some fairly big name coins, rattles me a tad. It will not exactly be good news if it is widely perceived that POW itself is not safe.

I know BTC is a way bigger deal to attack and almost impossible, but...

EDIT: typos

Yeah, a 51% attack is already feared so much in the community, if random coins keep falling and makes big news plenty of fools will think the entire POW system is easily attacked including Bitcoin.

I'd certainly prefer it if it was tokens, POS coins etc. under threat.  But hopefully it will end up with stronger POW ('that which does not kill me...' so to speak) and NOT certain token systems basking smugly in the sunshine as V8 noted.

[dogebearman]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Don’t be fools and BUY @2019
Don’t ADD anymore years as many n00bs do

Into HODLsleep as well

Goodnight WO’s

#HODL

Don't buy Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZ8zDpX2Mg

[jbreher]

https://i.imgur.com/Wpnnssp.png
https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Fully-validating non-mining clients got segwit shoved through, albeit indirectly.

I will grant that one way at looking at that situation was that miners looked at statements by all those sybillable non-mining fully-validating clients, and interpreted them as a valid measure of economic support. But we'll likely never know. Regardless, the battle was never fought. Which, while being the ultimate form of victory, leaves the 'what if' question as an unsettled matter.

Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more 'nodes', that the above described attack could not have happened?

[jbreher]

Bitcoin can be the dominant crypto in the entire world and handle the world at large without a first layer privacy solution.

<edit> barring some breakthough in life extension technology, </edit> You'll be dead before BTC -- augmented with LN -- can onboard the world at large. At least in a trustless, permissionless manner, which is kind of central to the Bitcoin vision. FACT.

How does that bit of news FEEL to you?

Makes me FEEL that you suffer from deluded ingroup confirmation bias.

But I know nothing I say will affect your iron will. Carry on.

But you FEEL that some BCash variant can do what Bitcoin^TM, in your opinion, cannot? And you call me deluded jbreher?

Fuck off dude. Carry on with your delusion. BCash and all it's forks are already zombie shit. Nobody cares.

Deflection away from actually addressing my counterpoint is duly noted.

[jbreher]

https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

no disingenous dumbass. not stopping the attack. raising the alarms in good time. knowing what's happening to your money.

So... non-mining fully-validating clients provide no protective role. Got it.

And I guess 'in good time' is only in retrospect.

I never indicated that those who care to monitor things for themselves should be prevented from running their own monitoring client. I reiterate: I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact.

you disingenuous dumbass 

[jbreher]

https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

no disingenous dumbass. not stopping the attack. raising the alarms in good time. knowing what's happening to your money.

Or you know, useful and beneficial things like stopping the miners arbitrarily increasing the monetary supply. 

Utterly powerless to do so. All they have the ability to do is fork themselves off the chain the miners are creating.

If instead you are speaking of the users abandoning the chain, that is another matter altogether, wholly unrelated to anything a fully-validating non mining client can do.

[infofront]

https://i.imgur.com/Wpnnssp.png
https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Fully-validating non-mining clients got segwit shoved through, albeit indirectly.

I will grant that one way at looking at that situation was that miners looked at statements by all those sybillable non-mining fully-validating clients, and interpreted them as a valid measure of economic support. But we'll likely never know. Regardless, the battle was never fought. Which, while being the ultimate form of victory, leaves the 'what if' question as an unsettled matter.

Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more 'nodes', that the above described attack could not have happened?

No. I was addressing:

I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Which makes me wonder why you bother running the clients.

[Hueristic]

https://twitter.com/eth_classic

https://twitter.com/etherchain_org/status/1082329360948969472

ETC is likely to have undergone a 51% attack.

I'm accepting donations to Barry Silbert via my usual address.

Well, that escalated quickly

Wow, just wow. In a prior crypto life (like just a few years ago), it was reasoned that the coin holders would consider a successful 51% attack as a full-out compromise of the chain, and dump everything, never to return.

Now they just keep holding the coin, and the devs keep shilling. They even mentioned successful double spends!

What a fucked up crypto world we live in now. I guess you can't fix stupid.    

Case in point VERGE.

[infofront]

As an aside, I wonder if the 51% attack will negatively affect confidence (and price) in other IOHK projects, like Cardano.

[Hueristic]

I would never use a wallet that has the potential to jump an air gap.

fucking BINGO

I guess you really do read every post in here.

I read 'em all

I try but its not possible for me.