Cracking the Code

[kerogre256]

As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air

Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

[AnonyMint]

As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air

Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners and honest non-mining nodes could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If the honest miners try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

[seriouscoin]

As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air

Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If you try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,

[AnonyMint]

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,

Yeah that is precisely my point retard. You still don't get it.

[seriouscoin]

To all the newbies, here is a quote from bitcoin wiki, you have to understand how bitcoin miners are rewarded

The incentive to put forth this time and electricity is that the person who manages to produce a block gets a reward. This reward is two-fold. First, the block producer gets a bounty of some number of bitcoins, which is agreed-upon by the network. (Currently this bounty is 25 bitcoins; this value will halve every 210,000 blocks.) Second, any transaction fees that may be present in the transactions included in the block, get claimed by the block producer.

Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean you have >50% network.

The reward has to be agreed upon the network.

In short, dont listen to the retard Anony, there is a reason why hes ignored.


Here is what he said

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The only thing the attacker control is transactions which are put into the blocks. Not the reward of finding blocks.

[AnonyMint]

To all the newbies, here is a quote from bitcoin wiki, you have to understand how bitcoin miners are rewarded

The incentive to put forth this time and electricity is that the person who manages to produce a block gets a reward. This reward is two-fold. First, the block producer gets a bounty of some number of bitcoins, which is agreed-upon by the network. (Currently this bounty is 25 bitcoins; this value will halve every 210,000 blocks.) Second, any transaction fees that may be present in the transactions included in the block, get claimed by the block producer.

Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean you have >50% network.

The reward has to be agreed upon the network.

In short, dont listen to the retard Anony, there is a reason why hes ignored.


Here is what he said

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The only thing the attacker control is transactions which are put into the blocks. Not the reward of finding blocks.

Listen up Dunning-Kruger novice.

The miner who finds the block, decides what to put in the coinbase transaction in that block.

The honest miners and honest non-mining nodes will reject it if it doesn't follow the agreed upon schedule for coin rewards.

However if the attacker controls > 50% of the hash rate, then the attacker's miners will accept the block.

I already explained upthread what the options of the non-mining nodes are at that point (they must fork because longest chain must be valid else the entire double-spend protection is gone, but the attacker can attack the fork, there is no escape). And they don't really have any option but to accept the new coins. Go read what I wrote at the top of this page.

Now STFU because you don't know what you are talking about. I do. You are misinterpreting what the wiki says. No where does the wiki say what you are trying to assert.

The incorrect claim in the wiki that I have quoted upthread, is because who ever wrote the wiki is listening to gmaxell, but gmaxell is wrong.

Eat humble pie.

[tinytiger]

Could someone explain in layperson terms why it is not possible to figure out a key to solve all future hashes or blocks and create bitcoins at will?

Also, and I hope to be in topic, why do we need to try millions of hashes before finding the right one? Isn't there a way to create a mathematical way to just get the right hash on the first try?

If there is, nobody has found it yet (afawk). And there is a LOT of interest in cracking hashing algorithms because they are used in many sensitive applications. Quantum computing is one thing to keep an eye on though because quantum computers, who make use of the fact that electrons can be in several different states at the same time, for computing could be able to crack any hash within milliseconds. But then Bitcoin could move to other hashing algorithms that can not be cracked by quantum computers.

[wachtwoord]

So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly?

Only ignores by members above a certain level count

[AnonyMint]

Could someone explain in layperson terms why it is not possible to figure out a key to solve all future hashes or blocks and create bitcoins at will?

Also, and I hope to be in topic, why do we need to try millions of hashes before finding the right one? Isn't there a way to create a mathematical way to just get the right hash on the first try?

If there is, nobody has found it yet (afawk). And there is a LOT of interest in cracking hashing algorithms because they are used in many sensitive applications. Quantum computing is one thing to keep an eye on though because quantum computers, who make use of the fact that electrons can be in several different states at the same time, for computing could be able to crack any hash within milliseconds. But then Bitcoin could move to other hashing algorithms that can not be cracked by quantum computers.

Older hashes have been broken. Typically the longer a hash is around, the more attacks on the hash are found. However, Bitcoin could change the hash in that case, so that really isn't a problem.

[AnonyMint]

So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly?

Only ignores by members above a certain level count

Yeah I know but how do we know that (mostly) only the gatekeepers are not the ones trying to control the reputation of people who stomp on their early adopter gains?

I don't see many newbies telling me they've put me on ignore. In fact, none that I remember.

[AnonyMint]

Now to recap, not only is a > 50% attack very destructive as I've successfully argued and defended above, but don't forget that my first point was also that Bitcoin will be relatively easy to 50% attack once the coin rewards decline, because there is a problem with transaction fees:

In my (opinionated) analysis it is very likely to happen (when coin rewards diminish near to 0) with Bitcoin, because of a flaw in the design (transaction fees should be zero instead).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=344154.msg3745513#msg3745513

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3745458#msg3745458

[jzcjca00]

Could someone explain in layperson terms why it is not possible to figure out a key to solve all future hashes or blocks and create bitcoins at will?

Not sure if I phrased my question correctly but hopefully you know what I mean.

I'm not a math genius, but my understanding is that the hash operation is a one-way calculation.  The best mathematical minds in the world have tried to find ways to reverse the calculation, but they all came up empty.  The consensus among mathematicians is that the problem can probably never be solved.  If they are all wrong, and someone comes up with a solution one day, it would break a whole lot more than just Bitcoin.  We would basically lose all Internet security!

How are you at advanced mathematics?  Enormous awards await the person who solves the problem that the best minds in the world say is impossible to solve!

[kerogre256]

As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air

Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If you try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,

Ok  you have control > 50%  you add 1000 bitcoin to new address and release the block you won race now how network will react to new chain whit additional 1000 bitcoin in only your chain ?

[seriouscoin]

LOL all i see this is this dumb ass keeps making 3 posts in a row. Happy all i see is "ignored"

The dumb ass has a delusional that 51% attack can create zillions coins....  

While all it does is to stall/halt blockchains when the network nodes reject the attackers blocks.

Then what? ...

Simple, we can change the rule that include some sort of proof of stake (so this requires the attacker hold the majority of old bitcoins in circulation). The attacker will then troll the forums like Anony ....

[corebob]

Also, and I hope to be in topic, why do we need to try millions of hashes before finding the right one? Isn't there a way to create a mathematical way to just get the right hash on the first try?

The hashing operation basically produces a very long random number.  The entire network is looking for the first random number that has a certain number of zeros in it.

It is totally random who "wins" - that is, gets the first random number with the proper number of zeros.

You make it sound as if you can just generate a random hash with a certain number of zeros in it, but this is where the nonce value comes in isn't it?

[BadBear]

Ok  you have control > 50%  you add 1000 bitcoin to new address and release the block you won race now how network will react to new chain whit additional 1000 bitcoin in only your chain ?

It will be rejected since it doesn't follow the protocols of the bitcoin network. The attacker has effectively forked the chain and created an altcoin at that point.

You can ignore Anonymint, he's a troll spreading FUD in order to pump his own altcoin.

[seriouscoin]

As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air

Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If you try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,

Ok  you have control > 50%  you add 1000 bitcoin to new address and release the block you won race now how network will react to new chain whit additional 1000 bitcoin in only your chain ?

The network will reject the attackers block. If the attackers keep his hashing power, it would halt the network. However a new rule can be made in one day that nullify his attacking power.

[seriouscoin]

Ok  you have control > 50%  you add 1000 bitcoin to new address and release the block you won race now how network will react to new chain whit additional 1000 bitcoin in only your chain ?

It will be rejected since it doesn't follow the protocols of the bitcoin network. The attacker has effectively forked the chain and created an altcoin at that point.

You can ignore Anonymint, he's a troll spreading FUD in order to pump his own altcoin.

He could just be a retard..... Like the journalist in Contagious movie.... spreading FUD to make 12,000 ppl not to take vaccines.

[Bitlend]

What timeframe would you give for the >50%attack to occur from this point in time?

Do you believe there is an altcoin that does not have these concerns or could one be developed?

Lastly, although u seem to have a high number of ignores, I do prefer to listen to those that can backup their arguments, and although the conversations can somewhat deteriorate at times, it seems to be more so than frustration than inability to understand other points of view.

personally commend you for providing not only various probable weaknesses within the bitcoin DNA but also back that up with what seems to be competent evidence with merit.

I'm sure mr satoshi when completing his white paper did not allow for human greed and power!

When contemplating whether you are full of shit or have valid argument, one only has to understand that to be the minnow on one side of the battle is honourees in itself, win or lose, so should be given credence.

Appreciate your efforts and personally enjoy your posts, although with your obvious strength in economics and also coding, it is certainly at time hard to understand the various Swazi language, but guess we all have our s and w.

Cheers

[niothor]

Ok  you have control > 50%  you add 1000 bitcoin to new address and release the block you won race now how network will react to new chain whit additional 1000 bitcoin in only your chain ?

It will be rejected since it doesn't follow the protocols of the bitcoin network. The attacker has effectively forked the chain and created an altcoin at that point.

You can ignore Anonymint, he's a troll spreading FUD in order to pump his own altcoin.

Hey , what???
He does have an altcoin?
I thought he was just trolling how bitcoin will fail. Not that he has a better "idea" !