Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:37:13 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANNOUNCE] SolidCoin - new and improved block chain. Secure from pools  (Read 80089 times)
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 08:49:06 AM
 #701

All this discussion about someone making profit with Solidcoin is with a 51% attack is pointless:

If something like this happens, think of all the SC deposited at bitparking in the period where the attacker was building his alt chain. Would they become invalid or not? If doublec was sleeping at the time the new chain is released and accepted, all those who had deposited in that period would be able to trade non-existing balances, thus buying REAL BTCs with FAKE SC.

Unless bitparking checks the blockexplorer before every transaction (which I don't think it does), that would f**k it up completely.

When doublec (who BTW has been a really hard working guy and his contribution to the SC community is definitely underestimated) wakes up and finds the mess, don't you think he would close the exchange for good, having lost nearly a fortune?

What then would the attacker do with his funny Solidcoins? Sell them to whom? Where?

All in all, a 51% attack as you (or ArtForz originally) have described it would destroy Solidcoin just the same as could happen to Bitcoin with a 51% attack. The difference is of course in the incentive to exploit the network majority for profit. In the case of Solidcoin, I think you understand that this is not possible. In the case of Bitcoin, it certainly makes sense.

I guess doublec if you read this, you might not be sleeping properly.

The plot thickens...

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481143033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481143033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481143033
Reply with quote  #2

1481143033
Report to moderator
1481143033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481143033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481143033
Reply with quote  #2

1481143033
Report to moderator
1481143033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481143033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481143033
Reply with quote  #2

1481143033
Report to moderator
wolftaur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
 #702

If you do (A), that might totally kill solidcoin b/c how can one trust it anymore if you can just rewrite history. So you will probably do (B) and this guys comes away with $1.5 million.

People still trust Mt.Gox, and they rewrote a good amount of history. Just the part that meant MagicalTux would have personally taken a loss for his massive screwup with regards to basic computer security, of course...

"MOOOOOOOM! SOME MYTHICAL WOLFBEAST GUY IS MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE INTERNET!!!!"
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2011, 09:19:48 AM
 #703

Abe v0.6 supports SolidCoin.
It will be possible to take a small % of every transactions, or most of them ( by building a new blockchain ).
After that people ( most of them ) will still have 99% ( example ) of their SolidCoin, and the attacker will have plenty of sc!
As it is easier to make the attack, it will be useful to make it time by time Grin

Quote
People still trust Mt.Gox, and they rewrote a good amount of history
Mt.Gox didn't rewrote any of the bitcoin history, they have only rewrote their database, there is a big difference Wink


Eternity Wall: Messages lasting forever - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
CoinHunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 09:42:13 AM
 #704

Quote
People still trust Mt.Gox, and they rewrote a good amount of history
Mt.Gox didn't rewrote any of the bitcoin history, they have only rewrote their database, there is a big difference Wink

Yep that is true. There is a lot of "misinfo" out in the community about what is an attack, what has happened in the past, etc. It's a complicated subject and doesn't make for easy reading.

That said all existing p2p crypto currencies suffer from the >51% malicious attacker. Until some smart minds solve it , it is something we all need to be wary of and keep an eye on, such as not supporting large pools with great shares of mining power. Easier said than done though I guess. You only need ~15 million (less if you're buying in bulk I guess) to own the bitcoin network with GPUs. And if you have that kind of money to do an attack you probably can also start fabricating your own SHA256 machines which run on minimal power.

Food for thought.

Try SolidCoin or talk with other SolidCoin supporters here SolidCoin Forums
wolftaur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 10:12:00 AM
 #705

Yep that is true. There is a lot of "misinfo" out in the community about what is an attack, what has happened in the past, etc. It's a complicated subject and doesn't make for easy reading.

Apparently there's also a lot of misinfo about whether or not I frequently tell jokes...

At least everyone got the Bitcoin Jesus one. Smiley

"MOOOOOOOM! SOME MYTHICAL WOLFBEAST GUY IS MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE INTERNET!!!!"
doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 10:51:21 AM
 #706

When doublec (who BTW has been a really hard working guy and his contribution to the SC community is definitely underestimated) wakes up and finds the mess, don't you think he would close the exchange for good, having lost nearly a fortune?
I won't lose a fortune since the exchange doesn't keep all the funds online. When it runs out of the 'working set', withdrawals are put on hold until I replenish from the offline wallet. It'd be annoying for sure, but not bank breaking. There isn't anything (that I know of) that can be done about a >51% participant unfortunately.
doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 10:59:42 AM
 #707

I asked this question once with no response so maybe it's just a dumb question.  Couldn't the network monitor for and throttle down any single entity contributing more than some X%? 
It has no way of know which entities are contributing.
wolftaur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
 #708

I asked this question once with no response so maybe it's just a dumb question.  Couldn't the network monitor for and throttle down any single entity contributing more than some X%? 

IN THEORY, yes. However, there would be very easy ways to defeat it, it would require very heavy modification of the way the protocols for mining work now, and it would almost completely destroy the anonymity of miners. Making it harder to defeat would require having all mining be centralized, which right there destroys almost every benefit this type of currency system has in relation to alternatives if you want to treat it as digital cash.

Preserving anonymity and resisting centralization makes it pretty much impossible to have it set up to have the kind of rules we'd need to prevent >51% and similar attacks.

"MOOOOOOOM! SOME MYTHICAL WOLFBEAST GUY IS MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE INTERNET!!!!"
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 11:15:15 AM
 #709

Yep that is true. There is a lot of "misinfo" out in the community about what is an attack, what has happened in the past, etc. It's a complicated subject and doesn't make for easy reading.

Apparently there's also a lot of misinfo about whether or not I frequently tell jokes...

At least everyone got the Bitcoin Jesus one. Smiley
Which is on meh wallpaper btw HEHE I still lolz from that
wolftaur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 11:28:00 AM
 #710

Yep that is true. There is a lot of "misinfo" out in the community about what is an attack, what has happened in the past, etc. It's a complicated subject and doesn't make for easy reading.
Apparently there's also a lot of misinfo about whether or not I frequently tell jokes...

At least everyone got the Bitcoin Jesus one. Smiley
Which is on meh wallpaper btw HEHE I still lolz from that
You should check the VeriSign thread over in the main forum then. I'm on a roll today. Smiley

"MOOOOOOOM! SOME MYTHICAL WOLFBEAST GUY IS MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE INTERNET!!!!"
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 666



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 02:32:24 PM
 #711

So this is all in theory, but it's good to think about it to help keep these coins secure.

Coblee - I think you're wasting your breath.

Satoshi was really very smart and chose the parameters he did very carefully.  Including the free-market based mining fee.

If others cannot see why things were done the way they were, let them find out.  The hard way.  The lessons will be learned better through bitter experience than through endless threads on a message board.

There are good reasons the alternates have not managed to stay much above one or two percent of a BTC.  I don't see that changing any time soon.
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2011, 02:36:03 PM
 #712

@zebedee
I agree, but I already see that people will connect SolidCoin ( or any other bitcoion fork ) fault as a Bitcoin fault Sad

Eternity Wall: Messages lasting forever - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
John Tobey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481



View Profile WWW
August 31, 2011, 06:34:43 PM
 #713

I'll be looking at ways to solve [51% attack] going forward, even though I think the current situation will resolve itself soon.

1. Merged mining.
2. Merged mining.
3. Alert user if nethash drops by c. 50%... oops! this happened already.  See #1.
4. Merged mining.
5. Tighten timestamp accuracy requirement.  Make miners run ntpd.
6. Design a new getwork/pool protocol that gives clients/members control of policy.
7. Alert user if a reorg with many hidden or old blocks occurs.

Pardon me if SC already does any of these.

Can a change to the best-chain criteria protect against 51% to 90+% attacks without a hard fork?
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 06:44:49 PM
 #714

I'll be looking at ways to solve [51% attack] going forward, even though I think the current situation will resolve itself soon.

1. Merged mining.
2. Merged mining.
3. Alert user if nethash drops by c. 50%... oops! this happened already.  See #1.
4. Merged mining.
5. Tighten timestamp accuracy requirement.  Make miners run ntpd.
6. Design a new getwork/pool protocol that gives clients/members control of policy.
7. Alert user if a reorg with many hidden or old blocks occurs.

Pardon me if SC already does any of these.

All merged mining would do is skyrocket solidcoin difficulty above bitcoin difficulty, except taking a long, long time to do so. An increase of supply of that size will also drop sc price below ixcoin or even i0coin price! I do not support merged mining for any cryptocurrency - it simply doubles the chance of disaster.
navigator
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 06:51:56 PM
 #715

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?

CoinMan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
 #716

I'll be looking at ways to solve [51% attack] going forward, even though I think the current situation will resolve itself soon.

1. Merged mining.
2. Merged mining.
3. Alert user if nethash drops by c. 50%... oops! this happened already.  See #1.
4. Merged mining.
5. Tighten timestamp accuracy requirement.  Make miners run ntpd.
6. Design a new getwork/pool protocol that gives clients/members control of policy.
7. Alert user if a reorg with many hidden or old blocks occurs.

Pardon me if SC already does any of these.

All merged mining would do is skyrocket solidcoin difficulty above bitcoin difficulty, except taking a long, long time to do so. An increase of supply of that size will also drop sc price below ixcoin or even i0coin price! I do not support merged mining for any cryptocurrency - it simply doubles the chance of disaster.

+1 Merged mining at this point only makes sense with namecoin to me.

My Bitcoin Identity
Bitcoin: 183DFFQXR4xCyseBXzmh3XWc22izDWE5Dw
jackjack
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:29:08 PM
 #717

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?


The price won't drop to 0 if the coins are useful
So yes you're right, the proce will drop to 0

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:33:21 PM
 #718

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?


The price won't drop to 0 if the coins are useful
So yes you're right, the proce will drop to 0
Bitcoin are also not "useful". If we added 10M bitcoin to the economy today, price WILL drop to zero.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
August 31, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
 #719

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?

*just opinion and speculation* This would essentially make SC and BTC nearly identical at least to an uneducated consumer as this breaks one of the nicer to see features ie. the difficulty algorithm ... from then on it would be a race for adoption (SC's speed enhancement to transactions gives it a plus here and BTC's current level of adoption gives it a plus here) and once the whole "green address" concept takes off it could hurt SC's speed effect but likely both would add the support but SC probably more natively... since that would then be mostly negated it's a race for pure fiat value.  At the moment (But changes tomorrow with Ruxum) to get SC you have to go through BTC but once they are both trading directly to fiat it will be the one that is more ideal to investors/speculators currently with no major mishaps SC is favorable here, but BTC already has a head start and with a few million less total coins SC has a slight value advantage, but this is negated somewhat because SC users have learned from the BTC mishaps that caused thousands if not more coins to be lost or those really early people who were just "playing" with BTC and have just left dead wallets so that advantage may be somewhat negated as well.

Merged mining between these currencies will likely result in a "battle royale" where one will eventually come out on top plummeting the other to nothingness... SC has the advantages of lessons learned, BTC has the advantages of head start so it could be interesting ... on the flip side if one or the other does not participate in merged mining that one would cease to exist rapidly because I can't see a case where miners wouldn't participate in merged mining to maximize profits among the several cryptocurrencies.
The issue with this is that Bitcoin is not affected, but solidcoin is. It's a one-way path:

I find block that only meets BTC difficulty. I get BTC and SC.
I find block that only meets SC difficulty. I only get SC.
More solidcoin are produced than bitcoin - until SC difficulty * 3.333 becomes higher than BTC difficulty
Then, merged miners would produce 3 times more pure-solidcoin blocks than bitcoin-blocks, and then you have the competition

If price remains constant, before the stablization, 30% more coins will be mined preety much constantly (until solidcoin difficulty becomes comparable to bitcoin difficulty), dropping the price by more and more every day. Solidcoin difficulty adjustment CANNOT keep up with a 30% increase in hashing power until difficulty stablizes, causing supply to grow until price decreases. The time it takes to reach near-zero is dependent on the amount of buyers.
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
 #720

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?

*just opinion and speculation* This would essentially make SC and BTC nearly identical at least to an uneducated consumer as this breaks one of the nicer to see features ie. the difficulty algorithm ... from then on it would be a race for adoption (SC's speed enhancement to transactions gives it a plus here and BTC's current level of adoption gives it a plus here) and once the whole "green address" concept takes off it could hurt SC's speed effect but likely both would add the support but SC probably more natively... since that would then be mostly negated it's a race for pure fiat value.  At the moment (But changes tomorrow with Ruxum) to get SC you have to go through BTC but once they are both trading directly to fiat it will be the one that is more ideal to investors/speculators currently with no major mishaps SC is favorable here, but BTC already has a head start and with a few million less total coins SC has a slight value advantage, but this is negated somewhat because SC users have learned from the BTC mishaps that caused thousands if not more coins to be lost or those really early people who were just "playing" with BTC and have just left dead wallets so that advantage may be somewhat negated as well.

Merged mining between these currencies will likely result in a "battle royale" where one will eventually come out on top plummeting the other to nothingness... SC has the advantages of lessons learned, BTC has the advantages of head start so it could be interesting ... on the flip side if one or the other does not participate in merged mining that one would cease to exist rapidly because I can't see a case where miners wouldn't participate in merged mining to maximize profits among the several cryptocurrencies.

You forget that BTC has also learned the lessons. It's not just SC having the advantage of lessons learned. You also are not taking into account the networking effect. All current bitcoin users/investors/merchants have incentives to make bitcoin successful and not adopt another currency. It would be really hard for SC to overcome this network effect. Hard but not impossible. As an example of this networking effect, Google Plus will have a hard time overtaking Facebook. But Facebook has overtaken MySpace because it was drastically better. So if SC is drastically better than BTC, then yes it has a shot. But right now, SC is only marginally better than BTC, if you don't put any value in the new attack that's possible with the new targeting algorithm.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 »
  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!