cryptocoinsnews (OP)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 06:50:33 PM |
|
A recent post from Reddit made me aware of that Bitcoin’s biggest flaw and threat which could crash the entire system, including the Bitcoin price, is now more current than ever. The threat is becoming even more real after months with Bitfury ASIC mining pool GHash.io gaining more and more hashing power. Now let me explain what is going on. Read the full story here: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2013/12/26/biggest-flaw-bitcoin-crash-entire-system/What do you think of the threat that GHash.io is for the Bitcoin community?
|
/David Parker, Director of CCN
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 06:59:02 PM |
|
51%...
|
|
|
|
Tomatocage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1222
brb keeping up with the Kardashians
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 06:59:43 PM |
|
It's like the DeepBit threads all over again...
|
|
|
|
nestor
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 07:26:28 PM |
|
Don't worry about it. There is enough autopoietic-system beauty within bitcoin to self regulate this problems away!
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Gabi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 07:45:32 PM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption...
|
|
|
|
t1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 08:08:53 PM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption... An attacker can rewrite the blockchain up to the last checkpoint. The severity of the threat depends on how high above 51% of the hashrate the attacker has. At 51% it can win all block conflict contests. It can also ignore blocks from others on the network, and while doing that it can hash blocks according to its own set of rules like paying itself more reward per block, causing a fork.
|
Did you find my posts helpful? Did I say say something nice? Your generosity is much appreciate. BTC: 1G7chBLoYqGfdyfkrox53yDn6sS65PgFYk LTC: LiYeFdbv5oxin9S3Wmn4v84LuGZ9nsE4XZ
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 11:47:54 PM |
|
CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.
|
|
|
|
rarkenin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 11:50:51 PM |
|
What if the incentive to mine in pools in the first place was lost? What if people could generate coins in small amounts using low-difficulty hashes, and then redeem those coins through a special txn inserted into a block (created by someone that met the high hash difficulty)? It wouldn't create too much more txn spam as mining pools already send coins out to small miners in small denominations.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4340
Merit: 4676
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 26, 2013, 11:57:02 PM Last edit: December 27, 2013, 12:14:24 AM by franky1 |
|
anyone that attempts a 51% attack knows they can mess up the chain and cause all their hard work to become useless(meaning devalue bitcoin to a point their hard work is not even worth the cost) so its never in the benefit, no matter how tempting it is.
it is also noted that most of the big ASIC farms actually use more then 1 pool to spread their hashrate and to atleast get the most bitcoins from every block so big farms like ghash.io will spread out their hash power once they become to independently dominant on the network
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
eternaluniverse
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:13:05 AM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption... An attacker can rewrite the blockchain up to the last checkpoint. The severity of the threat depends on how high above 51% of the hashrate the attacker has. At 51% it can win all block conflict contests. It can also ignore blocks from others on the network, and while doing that it can hash blocks according to its own set of rules like paying itself more reward per block, causing a fork. How would ghash benefit from controlling ALL of the bitcoins? They wouldn't be able to transfer them into cash as everyone wouldn't want to deal with them. If they decide to use the 51% attack to siphon btc from ppl (satoshis amount of btc that has been stationary would be a good target) people would notice this and move to stop it. I don't think the 51% attack is as dangerous as people think.
|
|
|
|
jongameson
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:15:32 AM |
|
What if the incentive to mine in pools in the first place was lost? What if people could generate coins in small amounts using low-difficulty hashes, and then redeem those coins through a special txn inserted into a block (created by someone that met the high hash difficulty)? It wouldn't create too much more txn spam as mining pools already send coins out to small miners in small denominations.
that would take the whole fun out of bitcoin believe me, i refuse to operate with pools anymore, period. it just isn't fun!
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:21:39 AM |
|
I don't think the 51% attack is as dangerous as people think.
Because you don't think.
|
|
|
|
drewster
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:21:49 AM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption... First, we could easily be at 51 percent today if two big pools chose to combine. Second, while rewriting the whole block chain would obviously bring serious devaluation, adding "small transactions" from long-idle wallets would be more efficient, no? Is that possible, theoretically?
|
BTC: 1CvoqpVjmy7ByCqqkxYqGXuB17wrgR2VKf "The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. Hey. The good things don't always soften the bad things, but vice-versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things and make them unimportant."
|
|
|
lemfuture
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:23:26 AM |
|
CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.
music to my ears ha. since ive missed the sha 256 wagon
|
1ADLcfwTofFXb95pKhebpeRkJ4WTWsvQXB
|
|
|
zimmah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:49:11 AM |
|
This has been said so many times, but if you worry that much about it, why don't you start a pool that's as attractive to miners as GHASH.io? Ghash is so popular as a pool mostly because the reward for miners is extremely good, specifically: - Clear user interface
- low pool fees (actualy 0% IIRC)
- pays transaction fees (which EVERY pool should do, but not every pool does)
- merged mining of 3 different coins for extra benefit (also every pool should do this, there's no loss at all and it's just pure extra profit even if it's small)
- on top of all that they offer cloud mining, although it's pretty expensive, but people still use it
there's not a single pool that comes even close.
|
|
|
|
zimmah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 12:50:21 AM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption... First, we could easily be at 51 percent today if two big pools chose to combine. Second, while rewriting the whole block chain would obviously bring serious devaluation, adding "small transactions" from long-idle wallets would be more efficient, no? Is that possible, theoretically? possible? yes going to happen? no, because it's theft.
|
|
|
|
BitThink
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 01:19:43 AM |
|
The attacker can’t:
Reverse other people’s transactions Send coins that never belonged to him
Actually YES HE CAN. He can rewrite the whole blockchain so 1)He can delete other transactions, it will be like they never existed 2)He can go back in the blockchain and make it that the coins were mined by him. Thus he has these coins, not other people, so yes he can now send these coins to who he want, or just keep them. Oh and yes if you mined that coins/received them you lose them. A 51% attack is catastrophic. Sure, if used in a such obvious way the bitcoin value will just plummet to 0. But it can be used in a more insidious way, just modify some transactions because someone 'paid' you for that... corruption... What do you mean? 51% hashing power or 51% of all nodes? The OP is talking about the former, which cannot change the history at all. You are talking about the latter, which is much harder to achieve.
|
|
|
|
IsaacGoldbourne
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
Looking to start various enterprises
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 01:48:05 AM |
|
CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.
Why not suggest something possible? For example on reddit it was suggested that we have 3 algos which are used seperately dependent on block # So 1/3 blocks scrypt, 1/3 aes and 1/3 sha. That means it would only be feasible to have 33%. And that means dominating an entire algo!
|
Vote for me for CEO/CNO of MemoryCoin! CEO: MVTEceoa86dYRsxc2rWCexBMjJmaawMkHZ CNO: MVTEcno2tbsJWj7AQEyEjgk72j94hbPHFm
|
|
|
Siegfried
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 02:00:07 AM |
|
CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.
So when can we expect that to appear?
|
|
|
|
t1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 27, 2013, 02:06:41 AM |
|
CPU-only mining that is botnet resistant and also limits the sizes of pools is very much needed.
Why not suggest something possible? For example on reddit it was suggested that we have 3 algos which are used seperately dependent on block # So 1/3 blocks scrypt, 1/3 aes and 1/3 sha. That means it would only be feasible to have 33%. And that means dominating an entire algo! RuCoin kind of tried that.
|
Did you find my posts helpful? Did I say say something nice? Your generosity is much appreciate. BTC: 1G7chBLoYqGfdyfkrox53yDn6sS65PgFYk LTC: LiYeFdbv5oxin9S3Wmn4v84LuGZ9nsE4XZ
|
|
|
|