grondilu
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
|
 |
May 14, 2011, 11:08:57 AM |
|
... if it was to happen ... we would have to switch to another hash function, but we would also have to start an other block chain, thus a new currency.
If 50% of the hashing power agreed (which they would), the new block chain would be initialized to include all the transactions from the old block chain prior to the breakage of SHA256. Yeah but is there any way for sure to know when exactly the breakage occured? Anyway, don't bother to answer, as this is extremely unlikey anyway. We might as well discuss about the arrival of aliens on Earth. |
|
|
|
mrb
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1028
|
|
May 15, 2011, 01:24:13 PM |
|
I doubt SHA256 will be broken (and not just one collision found!) any time soon, but if it was to happen, don't underestimate the consequences on bitcoin, as anyone could create a longer block chain "from scratch", thus totally destroy the current one.
No, because there are checkpoints in the current chain (hardcoded blocks). So it would be impossible to rewrite history before the last checkpoint. What a preimage attack on SHA-256 would allow, however, is the ability to grow the chain very quickly, as if one had a lot of computing power. This would allow double-spending, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
k
|
|
May 15, 2011, 08:00:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
sjk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
May 15, 2011, 09:32:12 PM |
|
That link is giving me a 404. I copied the newsletter to tinypaste for those who are interested in reading it: http://tinypaste.com/dec2d |
|
|
|
|
|
k
|
|
May 15, 2011, 09:40:29 PM |
|
That link is giving me a 404. I copied the newsletter to tinypaste for those who are interested in reading it: http://tinypaste.com/dec2dsorry not sure how that happened. try http://launch.is/ and it's the newest story at the moment. Number L019. |
|
|
|
|
xf2_org
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
|
May 16, 2011, 03:38:53 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PseudoCode
|
|
May 16, 2011, 05:02:51 AM |
|
no wonder twits are flying like crazy...
rather appropriate given the intelligence level of the average comment by the uninformed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Longmarch
|
|
May 16, 2011, 07:22:24 AM |
|
This thread is faster than Google Alerts. |
|
|
|
|
N12
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 16, 2011, 01:36:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herodes
|
|
May 16, 2011, 02:23:55 PM |
|
exciting times.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
dstanchfield
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
May 16, 2011, 06:50:48 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
|
|
May 16, 2011, 07:37:32 PM |
|
The intention of Jason Calacanis is to praise bitcoin. However, he didn't qualify what dangerous actually mean in its context. |
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
|
|
May 16, 2011, 07:48:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
matonis
|
|
May 16, 2011, 08:32:42 PM |
|
The intention of Jason Calacanis is to praise bitcoin. However, he didn't qualify what dangerous actually mean in its context. Chris, I liked your response to @Jason. Even though he wanted to praise the effort of bitcoin, he still believes that it will become patently illegal and that the combined international forces of OECD/FATF will be brought to bear upon bitcoin. I think he enjoys the disruptive part of bitcoin but only as a spectator. The liberation of individual private value transfer is what should be stressed. Laws against bitcoin will be largely unenforceable at the p2p level anyway and it is far better to move forward in making the laws irrelevant than it is to predict legality in certain jurisdictions. If bitcoin were not 'dangerous' to some in the monetary hierarchy, then it would not be disruptive enough. |
|
|
|
chrissignnow
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
|
|
May 17, 2011, 02:04:41 PM |
|
Do you think he was trying to praise bitcoin? I re-read it several times to see if that was the case. I also put in a disclaimer. The fact that so many could be so confused means that at least he was unclear about his intentions. Saying things that approximate to this is the most dangerous thing we've ever seen unless government puts a stop to it, is not the right way to say its disruptive. I saw major flaws in his discussion.
1) No mention of the lack of a central bank (and subsequent negative effects)
I cannot fathom having a reasonable discussion about bitcoin without talking about this. To me its like saying the advantage of Linux is the cute penguin logo and ignoring the fact that its free.
2) He focuses heavily on the drug and prostitution angle
I do not know his exact political beliefs, but I can tell you he does not come off as a libertarian in his podcast. Focus on this means he is lacks vision.
I hope that he is supporting it. If so, I hope he clarifies his point soon, because his post is dangerous against P2P currency.
|
|
|
|
|
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1060
|
|
May 17, 2011, 02:11:00 PM |
|
I hope that he is supporting it.
Of course he's supporting Bitcoin. He means that the project is dangerous to governments and central banks. |
|
|
|
|
N12
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 17, 2011, 03:27:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
