delete

[BitcoinEXpress]

delete

[1715361954]

1715361954

[1715361954]

1715361954

[1715361954]

1715361954

[1715361954]

1715361954

[mullick]

Hmmm. Interesting theory. Researching now

[BrewCrewFan]

SO exactly what do you gain from this? An epen? Messing around with peoples money? Your kids must be so proud.

[forsetifox]

I was there back then. Fun times. 

I'd also like to mention when mining LTC, SC1 and SC2 at the debut you actually GOT SOME unlike every alt coin released now.

[baka]

~600 Mhash to 51% FTC
~9 Ghash to 51% LTC

Still can't rule it out but not very likely to happen, unless they manage to DDOS the pools, in which case they wouldn't need ASICs to achieve the attack.

[mullick]

Would they not still have to control 51% of the currency?

[Boxman90]

"Keep in mind, any attack that works on FTC will work on LTC."

I do not quite agree with this, as the hashrate of Feathercoin is many many times less than the Litecoin network.

[spoid]

as many people as possible setting up solo mining as a backup pool should help, no?

[mullick]

Would they not still have to control 51% of the currency?

A 51% attack has zero to do with the amount of currency you hold, it is the hashrate.


~BCX~

I thought so. I had just read someone say that in another thread.

[torbank]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Protagonus]

.....
If you will notice there has been a recent large surge of hashing power on the LTC network categorized as anonymous coming on about the same time as the FTC attack. It's no coincidence. This is very similar to events that occurred in late 2011 early 2012 with the advent of the GPU miners for scrypt that *ALL* the *EXPERTS* in the know said would never work. You know, the same way all the "experts" today keep saying ASIC's for Litecoin is an impossibility... and I mean the exact same people.
......
~BCX~

Yes I've noticed this recently at interesting times. 
-Directly after, the difficulty before last;  there was a spike in the Unknown from 3.5Gh/s - 6.6Gh/s.  This lasted appx 3 hours and was 20% total hash.
-Directly after, the last difficulty;  there was a spike again in the Unknown from 5Gh/s - 6.6Gh/s  This lasted appx 2-3 hours and hit 23% total hash at maximum
-Today, during /after FTC attack.  Coinotron goes down; dropping total net.  Unknown shows up from 6.6-7.2Gh/s.  Yet again lasting for 2-3 hours and hit 33% total hash.

In all cases it slowly dies off 5-3.5-2.6-1.5 -0 in about 30 minutes at the end of these spikes.  Also I've seen it randomly pop-up a couple times "mid-difficulty" in the 3-4 GH/s range.

(I always check that all pools are reporting correctly to ensure there was no active showing on the network distribution) (E.G- today even connecting miners to coinotron to verify it was down and not part of "unknown" hash)

May be something to it I suppose.  I know I'll be watching the patterns

[SRoulette]

I sure hope litecoin weathers the storm

Its been a good coin to us over the last year.

[manywelps]

Trying to 51% LTC would:

1) cause all auto-miners to autoswitch onto LTC (same as FTC).

2) cause anyone with LTC to divert all possible power onto the LTC network to counter the attack.

3) There's a true p2pool for LTC, everyone should have it as a failover for their main LTC pools.

4) Note that wemineltc is very heavily ddos protected, due to the massive attacks near the beginning of the LTC spike.  Note they are not stupid.

[erk]

The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners. Now that FTC net hash is over 2GH/s it's much harder to do than when it was down at a few hundred MH/s earlier on.

They could easily smash CNC, Nibble, GLD and a number of direct LTC clones with low net hash rates.

[hl5460]

So FTC has already been 51%ed? Because I saw people complaining about the FTC deposit to BTCE has not been confirmed even after 24 hrs.

[manywelps]

The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners.

I doubt it, you could probably detect it by looking at which LTC pool had bad luck that was outside of several standard deviations during the attack.

[digitalindustry]

The FTC attack was probably conducted by one of the big LTC pools, as that's the only way to suddenly redirect hundreds of MH/s of scrypt miners. Now that FTC net hash is over 2GH/s it's much harder to do than when it was down at a few hundred MH/s earlier on.

They could easily smash CNC, Nibble, GLD and a number of direct LTC clones with low net hash rates.

By the way i 100% know this -

but by doing that all they will do is drive all the currencies out of thier control -

That is to say their information control vector -

They will end up hunting for currencies here and there - for example the official LTC forum is considering right now opening an "Alternative Currency" section that has the two simple sub boards [ANN] and [Trading] - that would not be implemented here, it was my advice to them .

Do they really want the entry point of all Cryptocurrency to be the hub of the place that has many of the people frequenting it that want to destroy Cryptocurrency {as futile as that is, for a goal} - hey guys I supported you against communism , now you are the communists obviously. 

you guys have had a taste of my innovative ideas, an that is it , i'll save the rest for when we are out of your reach.

[Starlightbreaker]

i'm getting my popcorn ready.

next week will be an interesting week.

more coins will join the altcoin graveyard.

[ondratra]

ASIC's are surely possible for scrypt mining - because ASIC means that you build circuit for specific think - and when you have specific needs there is no problem to put memory scrypt needs. Memory these days is very cheap so ASIC could be designed + build for reasonable price

[Ludicrous]

One of the largest pool, give-me-ltc, has some very strange miners (e.g hedon, hendo420, besultc, etc...) that have been finding multiple blocks despite the odds and their 'unknown' hash rates vs the top users.

Could it be just a bug in the pool software?  If not, there are some good theories