adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:18:36 AM |
|
not sure what you're trying to say quoting this 6month old post. but, free feel to continue to wasting your time talking to a penguin.
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:22:24 AM |
|
You can only double-spend your own coins (second time I told you this) exchanges typically require ass'y least 3 confirmations, which means at 50% you'd essentially need to win 4 coin flips in a row (3 to trick the exchange and the 4th to double-spend the coins) - which means you would only succeed in this attack 6.25 % of the time. Also, if this type of attack became common, exchanges would start to simply wait for 4,5,6 transactions or more...
Yeah, but China has ~75% hashpower, not 50%. winning three bets in a row with 75% odds is a 42% chance, a heluva lot higher than 6.25% and I'm pretty sure the miners who get nationalized keep a good size pile of coins that could be double spent. Even if they don't, The Chicoms could nationalize the Chinese exchanges too and then they have coins up the wazzu to dump. freshly mined coins can't be spent right away. I get that. What I'm saying is that doesn't matter in a well-executed 51% attack, because you can also verify bogus transactions. If I was an evil Chinese Official, I could execute this attack with no more expertise than I now currently hold just by pointing guns at the right people. Ok new bja, since you're so nice and polite: First: you need to win 4 in a row to double spend if the exchange requires 3 confirmations, and even if you succeed once, the exchanges will just start to ask for more confirmations if they are becoming victims of attacks. (I've explained this twice now, it seems you're not even trying) Second: I never mentioned freshly mined coins, everyone knows you need 120 confirmations to spend newly issued coins. Third: you cannot "verify bogus transactions" - any honest node on the network will identify and reject a bogus transaction. Are you a bot? Or just a noob? Go easy, Pal. I'm asking questions. So an exchange can change requirements AFTER an attack has already happened. How much damage can be done before then? Catastrophic damage. Like the Mt.Gox hack of 2011 that sent the price from $32 to $2 and stayed there for a year. Also, there are MILLIONS of coins on Chinese exchanges that the Chicoms can gain the access to anytime they want. This may seem like a different issue, but a coordinated crackdown in China wouldn't leave the exchanges alone. Bitcoin activity in China presents a single point of failure and a security vulnerability. Surely you can see this. Are you suggesting that it WON'T happen or that it CAN'T happen?
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:22:39 AM Last edit: February 21, 2016, 03:52:20 AM by BlindMayorBitcorn |
|
Deadlines don't mean anything to him (this particular Core dev who is unhappy about the new 'consensus'). The old quote is context. It illustrates the consistency of his belief that a HF won't happen until certain other problems/technical challenges are met. Bro
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:24:49 AM |
|
not sure what you're trying to say quoting this 6month old post. but, free feel to continue to wasting your time talking to a penguin. Deadlines don't mean anything to him (this particular Core dev who is unhappy about the new 'consensus'). The old quote is context. It illustrates the consistency of his belief that a HF won't happen until certain other problems/technical challenges are met. Also: Bro how does that make you feel?
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:29:17 AM Last edit: February 21, 2016, 04:00:38 AM by BlindMayorBitcorn |
|
how does that make you feel?
http://imgur.com/nla6W7A
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:49:33 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
shmadz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
@theshmadz
|
|
February 21, 2016, 03:52:07 AM |
|
You can only double-spend your own coins (second time I told you this) exchanges typically require ass'y least 3 confirmations, which means at 50% you'd essentially need to win 4 coin flips in a row (3 to trick the exchange and the 4th to double-spend the coins) - which means you would only succeed in this attack 6.25 % of the time. Also, if this type of attack became common, exchanges would start to simply wait for 4,5,6 transactions or more...
Yeah, but China has ~75% hashpower, not 50%. winning three bets in a row with 75% odds is a 42% chance, a heluva lot higher than 6.25% and I'm pretty sure the miners who get nationalized keep a good size pile of coins that could be double spent. Even if they don't, The Chicoms could nationalize the Chinese exchanges too and then they have coins up the wazzu to dump. freshly mined coins can't be spent right away. I get that. What I'm saying is that doesn't matter in a well-executed 51% attack, because you can also verify bogus transactions. If I was an evil Chinese Official, I could execute this attack with no more expertise than I now currently hold just by pointing guns at the right people. Ok new bja, since you're so nice and polite: First: you need to win 4 in a row to double spend if the exchange requires 3 confirmations, and even if you succeed once, the exchanges will just start to ask for more confirmations if they are becoming victims of attacks. (I've explained this twice now, it seems you're not even trying) Second: I never mentioned freshly mined coins, everyone knows you need 120 confirmations to spend newly issued coins. Third: you cannot "verify bogus transactions" - any honest node on the network will identify and reject a bogus transaction. Are you a bot? Or just a noob? Go easy, Pal. I'm asking questions. So an exchange can change requirements AFTER an attack has already happened. How much damage can be done before then? Catastrophic damage. Like the Mt.Gox hack of 2011 that sent the price from $32 to $2 and stayed there for a year. Also, there are MILLIONS of coins on Chinese exchanges that the Chicoms can gain the access to anytime they want. This may seem like a different issue, but a coordinated crackdown in China wouldn't leave the exchanges alone. Bitcoin activity in China presents a single point of failure and a security vulnerability. Surely you can see this. Are you suggesting that it WON'T happen or that it CAN'T happen? 1: how much damage? I would expect no more than 20 or 30 grand, exchanges have limits, especially on untrusted/unverified accounts and especially when you try to withdraw. Gox was only one incompetent exchange, and no one who was doing their own due diligence should have been affected. Everyone now should understand the risks of trusting your money to a thief party. (LOL, auto-correct gets it right this time 2: from $32 to $2 and stayed there for a year. HA! Now I know you're not bja ... "as low as possible for as long as possible" is my motto. Another 4 years below 500 would be fantastic. 3: there are MILLIONS of coins on Chinese exchanges - really? Are you sure? There are only like 15 million coins total right now. Don't be fooled by volume when there is 0 fee trades available. 4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin. ((Plus, I don't really care too much. My coins are old, they'll spend on both chains after the fork, whichever fork wins. Also, as I've said before: if you're worried about this shit you are simply not diversified enough. Many other projects and assets are doing very well for astute investors and speculators.)) It's been a real pleasure, you're much nicer than the old bja. Welcome to the wall observer.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1802
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
February 21, 2016, 04:00:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
February 21, 2016, 04:09:25 AM |
|
it's going to take a while to sink in fully. did this really happen??? good night bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
|
February 21, 2016, 04:12:34 AM Last edit: February 21, 2016, 04:25:11 AM by BlindMayorBitcorn |
|
Maaku is the bird with the angry word. He seems to want to wait, until things like confidential transactions and other features that need to be hard forked in are ready. Maybe. @shmadz I thought yours were a peace-loving people Ps. Good infoes tho! First: you need to win 4 in a row to double spend if the exchange requires 3 confirmations, and even if you succeed once, the exchanges will just start to ask for more confirmations if they are becoming victims of attacks. (I've explained this twice now, it seems you're not even trying)
Second: I never mentioned freshly mined coins, everyone knows you need 120 confirmations to spend newly issued coins.
Third: you cannot "verify bogus transactions" - any honest node on the network will identify and reject a bogus transaction.
|
|
|
|
shmadz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
@theshmadz
|
|
February 21, 2016, 04:17:07 AM |
|
good night bitcoin!
Good night Adam. (Btw, it's never over)
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1802
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
February 21, 2016, 05:00:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
February 21, 2016, 05:28:22 AM |
|
4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.
If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin. What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1802
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
February 21, 2016, 06:00:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
AZwarel
|
|
February 21, 2016, 06:04:22 AM |
|
who voted no? I haven't checked to verify, but I'd guess MP and the rest of La Serenissima will have their say. Anyone who thinks a hard fork will not be contentious just isn't paying attention. am i the only one that thinks it won't be contentious? No. By definition, it can not be. HF can only happen if 90%+ thinks it is the way to go. Which makes it uncontentious by default.
|
|
|
|
shmadz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
@theshmadz
|
|
February 21, 2016, 06:06:07 AM |
|
4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.
If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin. What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphoneWhat exactly is your agenda, new BJA?
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
February 21, 2016, 06:21:03 AM |
|
4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.
If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin. What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphoneWhat exactly is your agenda, new BJA? The Chinese government is somewhat hostile towards Bitcoin and freedom in general. In China, it is illegal to: buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account trade goods and services for bitcoin They have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade. They have a history of cracking down on freedom movements (Tiananmen Square massacre) They have a history of nationalizing industries They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession They have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap. Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility. There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion. Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable.
|
|
|
|
Chef Ramsay
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
|
|
February 21, 2016, 06:50:05 AM |
|
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye, hmm? Heh, Blinderer, LOL You know you quoted a bitch, now you can be happy about that.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1802
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
February 21, 2016, 07:01:43 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
shmadz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
@theshmadz
|
|
February 21, 2016, 07:11:42 AM |
|
4: I understand that China currently holds a controlling interest in bitcoin. If they do anything crazy that would compromise bitcoin (like proposing an 8mb increase, and then doubling till 8GB) then we can worry, but as you can see with the current debate, it is not easy to co-opt bitcoin.
If China holds controlling interest, then China holds control. Bitcoin isn't a honey badger anymore. It's a panda bear. We can disagree on blocksize or even the vision for Bitcoin's future, but nobody wants hashpower concentrated in one political jurisdiction. Hashpower secures Bitcoin. If the hashpower isn't secure, then neither is Bitcoin. What's worse is that there is no way to fix this without massively increasing mining outside of China, which isn't economically viable without an electricity cost parity or advantage. It is funny, how you fear the Chinese. BTW, Chinese are much more strongly defensive of their right to have paper money. They would never roll over and accept gov't controlled money accounts like they're doing in Europe. As if having the majority of hash power in the country that has the majority of the world population is somehow a problem. And yet the U.S.is actually the most repressive country on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphoneWhat exactly is your agenda, new BJA? The Chinese government is somewhat hostile towards Bitcoin and freedom in general. In China, it is illegal to: buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account trade goods and services for bitcoin They have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade. They have a history of cracking down on freedom movements (Tiananmen Square massacre) They have a history of nationalizing industries They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession They have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap. Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility. There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion. Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable. LOL, ok, now I see what's going on. Ok Mr Billie Joe agent. I've flat out accused you of buying your account 5 times tonight, and you have not denied it once, not even acknowledged that I said anything. It's a little strange, seeing as how you (ahem, the original you) and I have had some rather rude disagreements in the past yet now you are exceptionally polite. Tonight however you have not said a single nasty thing to me, not once. Is that odd? Yeah, I'd say so. Anyways I'll continue to play along, In the state of New York, it is illegal to: buy bitcoin or sell bitcoin with a bank account without a bit-licensetrade goods and services for bitcoin without a bit-licenseThey have strong capital controls which we know Bitcoin can be used to evade. unless you try to be honest and play by the rules and co-operate with the authorities like Charlie ShremThey have a history of cracking down on freedom movements ( Occupy wall street) They have a history of nationalizing industries like banks? LOL http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/They are in the midst of an economic downturn that could easily turn into a recession OH REALLY? http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chartsThey have economic and monetary policies that will be difficult to enforce if bitcoin achieves a substantially higher market cap. LOL, Long story short, there's no way Bitcoin can grow without achieving more Government and PBoC hostility. There's no way bitcoin can grow without more network congestion. Taken together, it means Bitcoin is a suborbital vehicle and the moon is not reachable. -----heh, you said moon. Dude you are so fucking transparent and measurably incompetent, if you don't get fired for this it's just another example of the incompetence in the establishment.Though I must say, you've been rather pleasant throughout this encounter and I wish you a good night.
|
|
|
|
|