megastacks (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
November 28, 2013, 05:43:22 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
MRKLYE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1003
Designer - Developer
|
|
November 28, 2013, 05:43:58 AM |
|
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.
Algorithm prevents such shit from happening.
|
|
|
|
PenAndPaper
|
|
November 28, 2013, 05:45:26 AM |
|
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.
Because that "key" is different its time.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 05:51:11 AM Last edit: November 29, 2013, 09:45:42 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.
And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.
Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is (this is not exactly correct but for simple exposition) P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.
|
|
|
|
megastacks (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
November 28, 2013, 05:57:35 AM |
|
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.
And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.
Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.
Anony, thanks for the explanation. So if someone has over 50% of the total network hash rate is that something to be concerned about? Do you think it will ever happen?
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:05:03 AM Last edit: November 28, 2013, 06:16:28 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.
And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.
Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.
Anony, thanks for the explanation. So if someone has over 50% of the total network hash rate is that something to be concerned about? Do you think it will ever happen? My pleasure. Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started. 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#msg3745513https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3745458#msg3745458Or another attack which gives up control of the network. Dig, dig, dig into the rabbit hole: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349096.msg3744842#msg3744842https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3745278#msg3745278https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161
|
|
|
|
Palmdetroit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
PHS 50% PoS - Stop mining start minting
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:07:03 AM |
|
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.
For layperson , average joe, pleeb just use Cause Obama
|
|
|
|
btcprice
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:21:01 AM |
|
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.
And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.
Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.
Anony, thanks for the explanation. So if someone has over 50% of the total network hash rate is that something to be concerned about? Do you think it will ever happen? My pleasure. Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started. 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#msg3745513https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3745458#msg3745458Or another attack which gives up control of the network. Dig, dig, dig into the rabbit hole: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349096.msg3744842#msg3744842https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3745278#msg3745278https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161Alt 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.
|
|
|
|
botolo86
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:26:21 AM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:26:57 AM |
|
Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started. That is nonsense. It isn't that other nodes would fork it is that 100% of the nodes would simply reject a chain which violates the rules like create a zillion coins. It doesn't matter if a single miner does it or someone with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of the hashpower. An invalid block is invalid regardless of how much hahpower created it. Miners simply force a consensus when the network is split on the status of transactions. All node (as in every single full node on the network regardless of if they are mining or not) independently verifies all transactions and blocks. An invalid block is simply invalid. Your claim is simply false and shows a lack of basic understanding of the system you are trying to "fix". https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacking_all_users
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
November 28, 2013, 06:29:58 AM |
|
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.
|
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
|
|
November 28, 2013, 07:17:49 AM Last edit: November 28, 2013, 07:28:54 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started. That is nonsense. It isn't that other nodes would fork it is that 100% of the nodes would simply reject a chain which violates the rules like create a zillion coins. 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! You are nonsense. It doesn't matter if a single miner does it or someone with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of the hashpower. An invalid block is invalid regardless of how much hahpower created it. Miners simply force a consensus when the network is split on the status of transactions. All node (as in every single full node on the network regardless of if they are mining or not) independently verifies all transactions and blocks. An invalid block is simply invalid. Your claim is simply false and shows a lack of basic understanding of the system you are trying to "fix". https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacking_all_usersIncorrect. You are Dunning-Kruger ignorant on this issue (I recognize you are reasonably knowledgeable on Bitcoin overall).
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
November 28, 2013, 07:20:11 AM |
|
Please stop quoting AnonyMint. The reason his Ignore link is that color is because we don't want to read his posts.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 07:21:26 AM Last edit: November 28, 2013, 11:27:34 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Please stop quoting AnonyMint. The reason his Ignore link is that color is because we don't want to read his posts.
Butt hurt Bitards of course prefer to remain in a delusion. Oh so maybe 62 gatekeepers out of 10,000 have clicked ignore. Meaningless. Gatekeepers are people who try to suppress truth so the rest remain ignorant. The facts are upthead and stand on their merits.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 07:26:40 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 10:55:46 AM |
|
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.
|
|
|
|
Pente
|
|
November 28, 2013, 11:05:00 AM |
|
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.
I see some people have an ignore with a yellow rectangle around it....but why is your ignore red and blinking?
|
|
|
|
kerogre256
|
|
November 28, 2013, 11:09:28 AM |
|
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.
And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.
Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.
Anony, thanks for the explanation. So if someone has over 50% of the total network hash rate is that something to be concerned about? Do you think it will ever happen? My pleasure. Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started. 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#msg3745513https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3745458#msg3745458Or another attack which gives up control of the network. Dig, dig, dig into the rabbit hole: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349096.msg3744842#msg3744842https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3745278#msg3745278https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 11:13:20 AM |
|
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_powerThe attacker can't:
* Change the number of coins generated per block * Create coins out of thin air
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 28, 2013, 11:28:10 AM Last edit: November 28, 2013, 05:53:42 PM by AnonyMint |
|
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.
I see some people have an ignore with a yellow rectangle around it....but why is your ignore red and blinking? So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly? Just another gatekeeper trying to hoodwink the novices. Actually I have a slight caveat to Etlase2's theory about being able to stop all transactions, Gavin implied a reasonable counter-point that the majority of non-mining nodes would abandon a chain which doesn't process any transactions. Etlase2 fails to note that an attacker probably can't win unless it provides an advantage for non-mining nodes that outweighs any changes to the protocol which might be undesirable to some or most. But gmaxwell is technically wrong when he asserts coins can't be added. And the Bitcoin wiki is incorrect on that point too. The reason is because as I stated upthread, the non-mining nodes don't validate the coinbase transaction, only miners do. And non-mining nodes are not going to join a minority chain in protest, because the attacker can just shift his mining resources to attack the minority chain anew. There is no escape. Sorry blowhard Bitards. I dare gmaxell to come here and debate me on this.
|
|
|
|
|