Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 11:02:17 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Cracking the Code  (Read 7358 times)
seriouscoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 01:08:55 PM
 #41

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" !

He could be the creator of ICoin.....
1513508537
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513508537

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513508537
Reply with quote  #2

1513508537
Report to moderator
1513508537
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513508537

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513508537
Reply with quote  #2

1513508537
Report to moderator
1513508537
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513508537

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513508537
Reply with quote  #2

1513508537
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
 #42

His motives are pretty clear.

If you want efficient distribution of money in an altcoin, do the following:

1.  Use a mining algorithm that doesn't reward specialized equipment, because that makes mining a specialized business that only rich people will do.  

2.  Abandon the idea of a fixed finite amount of eventual coin.  Instead, increase mining rewards by 5% every year.  In the very long run, you can build a very healthy economy with 5% inflation.  Value will fluctuate wildly in the adoption phase, but eventually you get 5% inflation.

3.  Fix it so mining rewards are not so concentrated.  Every block should reward hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people with small awards.  Not by making "pools" but directly.  Make mining reward "near misses."

4.  5% inflation, when finally achieved, progressively devalues any money that is just hoarded.  That includes the highly disproportionate rewards held by the very early adopters.  There's a motive to spend it, possibly to capitalize new businesses.


Now, if you do this, you will *still* get a wealthy elite.  But it'll be a wealthy elite who have to get that way by managing their money and investing wisely, rather than just buying in early.

Why are you telling them our altcoin design? Smiley You agreed to keep it secret until release, or did you forget!

Alt coin users could transfer the value in their bitcoins to a more secure alt coin. The price of bitcoin would plummet but the price of the new coin would rise and we would continue using crypto coins just like we are doing with bitcoin.

That is exactly the plan. Wink


1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793



View Profile
November 28, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
 #43

Hey you forgot that > 50% of the mining nodes will be controlled by the attacker.

If you mean non-mining nodes, they have no protocol interaction with creation of coins. Duh!


This is absolutely 100% false.  Non mining nodes still reject invalid blocks, and would thus only download and validate valid blocks.  The 51%er would thus just do the equivilant of create a hard fork which only he can use, while the smaller sub-network would create valid blocks that user clients would accept.  So all of the non-mining lay users still wouldn't even see the invalid blocks, they'd just notice that confirmation times have slowed.

kerogre256
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 01:44:08 PM
 #44

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

Quote
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.

I get it now you won the race you have 50% bitcoin network power you produce block and inside  block is messag  'I'm with stupid' now you have block chain.  Bitcoin transaction block,Bitcoin transaction block,Bitcoin transaction block,'I'm with stuppid',Bitcoin transaction block,Frank was here,Bitcoin transaction block,Bitcoin transaction block. Longest chain won.   
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 02:37:58 PM
 #45

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?
I was trying to simplify the process in order to answer the question.  Here is the mining process in simple terms:

1) Hash the block
2) Check the hash and if the hash calculated matches the current difficulty (number of zeros) you win!  Transmit the block to the network and collect your 25 BTC.
3) ELSE increment the nonce in the block (and/or change the block in other ways) and go to 1)

This is what is being done quadrillions of time per second 24/7 in order to secure the Bitcoin system.


Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 02:57:31 PM
 #46

Hey you forgot that > 50% of the mining nodes will be controlled by the attacker.

If you mean non-mining nodes, they have no protocol interaction with creation of coins. Duh!


This is absolutely 100% false.  Non mining nodes still reject invalid blocks, and would thus only download and validate valid blocks.  The 51%er would thus just do the equivilant of create a hard fork which only he can use, while the smaller sub-network would create valid blocks that user clients would accept.  So all of the non-mining lay users still wouldn't even see the invalid blocks, they'd just notice that confirmation times have slowed.

You are correct on a narrow point, but it doesn't really help you because the big picture is (more or less) as I have stated upthread.

It is very amusing how you argue that breaking the protocol by following a minority chain is somehow a resistance to an attack. You assume too many factors which you have apparently not thought out. I will explain.

You must consider that if the 50% attack is easy because of the transactions flaw I have explained which severely limits funding for the miners, then 90% attack is probably also relatively easy. For 50% you need 1x the honest miners' hash rate, for 75% you need 3x, for 80% you need 5x, for 90% you need 9x. To pick 50% as an arbitrary limit out of one's ass, isn't really analyzing the potential threat.

So if the clients follow the 10% chain and go for 1-confirmation transactions, they will see their transactions delayed by roughly 20 minutes 90% of the time, 30 minutes 81% of the time, 40 minutes 73% of the time, 50 minutes 66% of the time, 60 minutes 59% of the time, 2 hours 28% of the time, etc..

With the recommended 6-confirmations, that is 2 hours 90% of the time, 3 hours 81% of the time, 4 hours 73% of the time, 5 hours 66% of the time, 6 hours 59% of the time, 12 hours 28% of the time, etc..

So if they follow the 10% chain, Bitcoin is dead, especially with the level of volatility in the price and hour delay is not functional.

Even if you pick the arbitrary limit of 50%, for 1-confirmation that is still transactions delayed 20 minutes 50% of the time, 30 minutes 25% of the time, 40 minutes 13%, etc.. And for standard 6-confirmations that is transactions delayed 2 hours 50% of the time, 3 hours 25% of the time, 4 hours 13%, etc..



Also you are assuming that by the time coin rewards become small around 2033 or 2040, that the masses will get their non-mining node clients from the Bitcoin foundation or an honest party. Thus you assume that 100% of the clients will not collude or prefer to not have their transactions severely delayed to be point of being unusable.

You assume that violating the "longest chain rule" is harmonic in any way, which is is not, because chaos is something you don't control.

It is very likely the attacker can collude with an interested party which controls a significant number of customers access, e.g. Amazon.com

See my Transactions Withholding Attack.

So customers are more likely to say, "fix the problem Amazon". They won't give a flying f$ck about the "protocol". They will only want the damn transaction to complete timely. Even if Amazon was not colluding, they would likely make the decision to go with the 90% chain out of practical necessity.

Also the "idealistic" client nodes that you are thinking save your ass, also are going to get pissed off. They are going to demand the system doesn't take an hour to send a freakin transaction. So someone is going to offer an open source client that offers to adopt the 90% chain. And many your "idealistic" folks are going to realize that a few extra coins in the short-term is not hurting them as much as hour long delays. So they adopt the 90% chain as a stopgap solution in the near-term and look for an altcoin that isn't broken (no transactions flaw which makes the mining underfunded and thus vulnerable to 50 - 95% attack).



So with anything less than (the impossible) 100% perfect top-down control over the non-mining client nodes, the entire double-spend protection is gone, because you will have spends occuring in two chains with clients disagreeing over which chain is the valid one. As I wrote upthread:

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 really I don't think you've refuted my point.

What I said upthread stands as fact. The non-mining nodes are basically helpless. You have not presented a viable nor credible counter-argument.

The Bitards try to diminish the severity of the > 50% attack and claim it is no big deal and they can deal with it. They are in delusion.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
 #47

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" !
Oh yes he does and his 1400+ posts of FUD and his white papers are here to convince us that Bitcoin will fail for various reasons so we should all jump ship and work on his better ideas.  You can read all about all the fatal flaws in Bitcoin here:

http://anonymint.org, http://anonycash.org and http://anonycoin.org

Hey AnnoyMint:  Why waste your time here?  Bitcoin is doomed, right?  We are all just a bunch of total idiot Bitards supporting a totally failed experiment, right?  Go create your better idea and when we all realize that Bitcoin has failed we will all come begging you teach us the correct way to do things, right?

Sorry but I will not see your response.


Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
 #48


Those ideas were abandoned as unworkable in April. I will go take the domains down now. I forgot.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 03:28:24 PM
 #49

His motives are pretty clear.

My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullsh8t that people think it is supposed to preventing.

It is antithesis of what you think it is. I am not going mince my words. I will tell you frankly. I will not stop until we replace Bitcoin with something not so vulnerable.

There was a hypothetical question in my PM which is basically am I going to put all my effort in one altcoin. And my answer is I would support and help any coin that I feel has promise in stopping the bad outcomes I fear. I might even use gains I achieved by investing in one coin to fund development on and invest in other coin. Any one who produces good stuff, I am in. I am trying to incite more quality competition. Systems that have a single point of failure are not resilient, e.g. one crypto-currency for the world.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

Quote
Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 03:38:36 PM
 #50

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 .... Grin

Well now you are talking about changing to a different protocol entirely. You've moved the goalposts. We were talking about Bitcoin and Bitcoin's mining ecosystem. Now you are talking about PPC Peercoin.

You assume you can update all the clients out in the world, then you are naive or insane. You have no experience whatsoever if you are claiming that. We are talking 2033 or 2040 when coin rewards diminish, so we should be talking about a billion clients and all sorts of diversity of how outfits such as Amazon have the client integrated into their website and maybe they have a vested interest to not agree and not to adopt.

See my Transactions Withholding Attack.

It is as if all your arguments boil down to "we the Bitcoin foundation run the Bitcoin top-down and we can control every node and chaos doesn't exist". Bullsh8t. That is not what happens in the real world where competition reigns and everyone is looking for an edge and an arbitrage.

Your limited hangout fantasy delusion. You tots still playing with your trucks in the sandbox in the backyard.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 03:59:28 PM
 #51

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 .... Grin

Well now you are talking about changing to a different protocol entirely. You've moved the goalposts. We were talking about Bitcoin and Bitcoin's mining ecosystem. Now you are talking about PPC Peercoin.

Proof-of-stake can in theory also be attacked:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9336/can-anyone-explain-this-vulnerability-in-ppc

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 04:03:37 PM
 #52


My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.

It is antithesis of what you think it is. I am not going mince my words. I will tell you frankly. I will not stop until we replace Bitcoin with something not so vulnerable.

You don't know shit about what I think Bitcoin is or why I'm here. And you don't care, it's just not what you want it to be, and you're butthurt over it. You think you know what's better for us than we do? And you claim to be a flavor of anarchist? If you have better ideas, fine, great, share them, but stop with spreading lies and bullshit and claiming you're doing it to save us from evil or whatever the fuck, that's exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that landed the world in the place it is now. You're worse than those you claim to be against.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 04:06:18 PM
 #53


My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.

It is antithesis of what you think it is. I am not going mince my words. I will tell you frankly. I will not stop until we replace Bitcoin with something not so vulnerable.

You don't know shit about what I think Bitcoin is or why I'm here. And you don't care, it's just not what you want it to be, and you're butthurt over it. You think you know what's better for us than we do? And you claim to be a flavor of anarchist? If you have better ideas, fine, great, share them, but stop with spreading lies and bullshit and claiming you're doing it to save us from evil or whatever the fuck, that's exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that landed the world in the place it is now. You're worse than those you claim to be against.

What lies did I spread? Name one. You can't. So that makes you the liar.

So enlighten us? Why are you supporting Bitcoin when it has severe vulnerabilities that hand the electronic currency to the government and cartels?

I am not butt hurt over anything. I am explaining to the newbies what you would prefer to sweep under the rug. I will not lose. So why would I be butt hurt? You will lose. I don't mean this argument, because you already lost that. I mean you will lose by supporting Bitcoin.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 04:13:35 PM
 #54

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=350299.msg3753842#msg3753842

Hey OP, you are totalitarian. You don't like free markets. You want Stalin's IronFistTopDownCoin.

Chaos is a natural bitch if you don't design for it to be your friend.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 04:46:26 PM
 #55

My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.
Exactly.

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 04:49:28 PM
 #56

<snipped>

STILL WRONG.

ALLL NODES AS IN ALL 100,000+ ON THE NETWORK REGARDLESS OF IF THEY ARE MINING OR NOT VALIDATE ALL TX AND ALL BLOCKS.  That is the security model of Bitcoin.  No node trusts the output of any other node.  So miner makes a block giving him a single extra Satoshi and relays it to his peers.  Guess what?  Those peers validate the block and the block is invalid.  It is simply dropped.  It never becomes part of any chain.

A BLOCK WITH MORE COINS THAN ALLOWED BY THE PROTOCOL IS INVALID. PERIOD.  1+1 = 3 is still invalid even if it is the longest chain.  Nodes (once again ALL NODE not just miners) use the longest (most work) VALID chain.  A chain which contains blocks which mint extra coins is ALWAYS invalid and thus will NEVER be picked by any node.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 04:58:57 PM
 #57

<snipped>

STILL WRONG.

ALLL NODES AS IN ALL 100,000+ ON THE NETWORK REGARDLESS OF IF THEY ARE MINING OR NOT VALIDATE ALL TX AND ALL BLOCKS.  That is the security model of Bitcoin.  No node trusts the output of any other node.  So miner makes a block giving him a single extra Satoshi and relays it to his peers.  Guess what?  Those peers validate the block and the block is invalid.  It is simply dropped.  It never becomes part of any chain.

Already refuted upthread, c.f. my rebuttal of luv2drnkbr.

A BLOCK WITH MORE COINS THAN ALLOWED BY THE PROTOCOL IS INVALID. PERIOD.  1+1 = 3 is still invalid even if it is the longest chain.  Nodes (once again ALL NODE not just miners) use the longest (most work) VALID chain.  A chain which contains blocks which mint extra coins is ALWAYS invalid and thus will NEVER be picked by any node.

Incorrect. You have a very narrow (myopic) view of the situation, which thus is erroneous. Read my rebuttal of luv2drnkbr. Try to wrap your mind around the reality.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 05:01:56 PM
 #58

No it is correct.  See I actually know how Bitcoin works.

Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain.  Never.  Not once, not ever.   All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes.  That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model.  If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.

As for your rebutal that is also nonsense.  Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation.  They are simply dropped.  What part of dropped don't you understand?  The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.

So if in the time 2016 blocks should be found miners produce 2016 valid blocks and the attacker produces 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks the 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks are simply dropped.  They just cease to exist as far as every node on the network is concerned.  2016 valid blocks were found in the difficulty adjustment period so difficulty remains "low".  Now the bad actor WAS mining valid blocks are started mining invalid blocks it would be no different than simply stop mining.  Blocks would be found slower, difficulty would go down, blocks would be found faster again.
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
 #59

Quote
[Anything and everything AnnoyMint says]

This is just another in a very long string of attempts to find the "fatal flaw" in Bitcoin.  Remember his claim that ASICs would cause the downfall of Bitcoin?  This is just his "fatal flaw" du jour.

Use your ignore button.  His rantings are the reason it is there.

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 05:13:01 PM
 #60

No it is correct.  See I actually know how Bitcoin works.

Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain.  Never.  Not once, not ever.   All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes.  That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model.  If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.

As for your rebutal that is also nonsense.  Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation.  They are simply dropped.  The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.

Dropped by a minority of the mining in this case. So the majority chain will grow longer even faster if the minority chain doesn't include the attacker's blocks in the calculation of the difficulty. Because we can assume the attacker will include the blocks generated by the minority chain in its longer chain.

So you are thinking that transactions will not be slower in the minority chain, but relative only to the expected 10 minute block period. The attacker's chain will be much faster.

So all my arguments to luv2drnkbr still apply. The clients will have an incentive to have faster transactions. Instead of 60 minutes for 6-confirmations in the minority chain, the 90% chain will offer it in only a few minutes.

I am sorry but you are wrong.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!