51% attack on Zencash and Bitcoin Gold, punishing the resistance?

[aliashraf]

The War is getting dirtier ever and ever. While yellow crypto media and venal writers here and there are announcing it over already, Bitmain is busy punishing communities who dare to resist.

After the shameful event of announcing z9 as Bitmain's latest ASIC crack against a PoW algorithm, two equihash based coins that happened to be the ones who officially had announced their intention to resist the ASIC crack by managing for a hard fork, Bitcoin Gold and Zencash, experienced a 50%+1 attack.

It is how it works in the 'real world' when it comes to money, we all know, but there is something else that we know too: Cryptocurrency is about changing this reality instead of giving it a hug.

I'm sure, devs in both camps will do what they should, and Bitmain's evil strategy will fail but here I'm not talking about alternate currencies, instead, I'm willing to discuss Bitcoin situation, being seized by a company like Bitmain, praying for its majesty to play fair, desperately.

This company is dreaming of taking over the whole crypto ecosystem and I think it should be even kicked out of Bitcoin.

Very opposite agendas in a ridiculous distribution of power and resources, they have everything and I'm on my own, I see but I have something they can't even dream of: a plan!

Firstly, the depth of emptiness of Bitmain's strategy should be understood. Taking over a decentralized system is an impossible mission. This company is deemed to failure the question is whether it goes down alone or pulls Bitcoin down with itself.

My plan:

I think eliminating ASICs is a very urgent necessity and it is absolutely feasible, both techically and socioeconomically. For coins that has not been overtaken by Bitmain (yet) it is more convenient, obviously, but in the case of infected ecosystems like Bitcoin, for which my plan is, it gets a bit more complicated. I'm thinking of 3 major projects:

1- Specific enhancements can be made to bitcoin mining protocol that discourage pool operations and help decentralized mining. I call it de-pool project.
Running such a fork would prevent Bitmain from using its Antpool leverage in the first place and brings back mining power to the actual ASIC owners.
The technical challenges involved are not that hard and I have some proposals for it in my turn.


2- A Dag based algorithm can be implemented with very acceptable resistance against ASIC attacks, despite what venal cryptographers and writers say. I call it de-ASIC project.
An enhanced version of Dagger Hashimoto can resist ASIC attempts very well. Bitmain's E3 is a misleading propaganda announcement, a joke and not a true ASIC crack.


2- A smart solution can be devised to let a smooth migration from ASIC to gpu mining within few epochs that can take place in like 2 years. It is ASIC Break project.
This project is based on a multi-algorithm, multi difficulty approach and smoothly will retire ASICs in a 2-3 year period.


Each of the projects needs a seperate thread to discuss but the whole picture deserves one as well.

You are welcome to discuss the feasibility of each project and share your ideas, but please, keep your 'ASIC is not that bad' shit out of this topic. Here I'm inviting people committed to ASIC resistance, not the ones who (being payed or not) write in favor of the enemy. Of course you can write what you want but it will be my right to call you a venal writer. This is how I think, "anybody who writes in favor of Bitmain, is payed by Bitmain" and you know what? I don't feel bad being such an enthusiast this one time.

[actuallytwolamas]

Could you please explain how eliminating ASICS eliminates 51% attacks, I just don't get it from what I read. All cryptos which runs on GPU/CPU mining, will wanish from crypto space because of 51% attacks, because it's so damn easy to make those attacks when we have Nicehash.

[DooMAD]

I think eliminating ASICs is a very urgent necessity and it is absolutely feasible, both techically and socioeconomically.

More ideology over practicality, then?  Whatever ideas, schemes or plans you come up with, they won't be compatible with Bitcoin.  I suggest you go play in the altcoins subforum if you're that desperate to have your ASICectomy coin.  You're more of a threat to the security of the chain than any manufacturer could ever hope to be.  You'd happily sacrifice everything to vanquish your chosen foe, even if that meant putting the chain in danger.

[Carlton Banks]

Whatever ideas, schemes or plans you come up with, they won't be compatible with Bitcoin. 

DooMAD (to me): "Don't you try to tell people what's Bitcoin should or shouldn't be, let them decide!"

DooMAD (recently): "Bcash shills can't tell people what Bitcoin is, I proclaim that Bitcoin is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash!"


And today, DooMAD tells us what Bitcoin is (and isn't), again. Your #1 principle seems to be that everyone must adhere to your principles, even when your principles change to suit your argument. Frequently.

[DooMAD]

Whatever ideas, schemes or plans you come up with, they won't be compatible with Bitcoin.  

DooMAD (to me): "Don't you try to tell people what's Bitcoin should or shouldn't be, let them decide!"

DooMAD (recently): "Bcash shills can't tell people what Bitcoin is, I proclaim that Bitcoin is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash!"


And today, DooMAD tells us what Bitcoin is (and isn't), again. Your #1 principle seems to be that everyone must adhere to your principles, even when your principles change to suit your argument. Frequently.

I'm sorry it's so difficult for you to follow, Carlton, but it hasn't changed.

If there is noticeable support for a proposed fork, someone had coded something and a reasonable number of people appear to be behind the idea, there's literally no choice but to let the market decide.  No devs are "in control" or "own" the entire network.  Any dev can submit code.  Everyone runs what they want.  That's how it always has worked, that's how it always will work.

After a fork has occurred, the minority chain doesn't get to steal the name from the majority.  That's just going to further confuse the uninitiated, who may find it complicated enough to climb what's already a fairly steep learning curve to begin with.  There's nothing stopping them from trying to steal the name, perhaps, but the majority are going to make their presence felt and inevitably deny them.

This doesn't fall into either of those categories.  If you're a lone wolf with an incompatible, barely conceived idea that goes completely against the permissionless ethos of Bitcoin, like kicking people off the network for example, then it's pretty obvious you need to go create your permissioned chain somewhere else.  But sure, if you want to set the precedent that we're suddenly okay with banning companies we might disagree with from Bitcoin, you go right ahead.  Why not add some blacklisting and a new supply limit while we're at it?   

[Carlton Banks]

Any dev can submit code... except people with ideas you don't like, like this guy

Okay Stay consistent

[DooMAD]

Any dev can submit code... except people with ideas you don't like, like this guy

Okay Stay consistent

You first.  Unless aliashraf is a Core dev, you now have to accuse him of trying to steal Core's property by forking code that only belongs to Core and no one else.  Or has your stance changed now?  

Be honest for once, would you actually support this idea?  Kicking a company off the network?  Actually, never mind.  What's the point in asking?  You're worse than a politician.  You never answer the question.  You probably don't even care and this is just you attempting to score a point after losing so many each time we cross paths.  

Kicking people off the network isn't how we do stuff here.  I don't think I'm a bad person for pointing that out.  I'd be surprised and more than a little disappointed if the community were okay with this so-called "plan".  I did suggest he make an altcoin.  If he wants to code this and find out for sure that it's a terrible idea, diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles we generally subscribe to here, he's more than welcome to.

[KingScorpio]

Get used to thus I think pow will lose and pos will remain

2 merit for op since I like and support this topic

Next will be zcash

[vit05]

@LukeDashjr

PSA: if someone has a full >50% hashrate for your cryptocurrency, there is NO NUMBER of blocks where confirmation is safe. Once you get beyond 50%, you can reverse an unlimited number of blocks!

(What happened to BGold, CAN be done to BCH or maybe Bitcoin if Bitmain wants to...)

[MISERICORDAE PROJECT]

The War is getting dirtier ever and ever. While yellow crypto media and venal writers here and there are announcing it over already, Bitmain is busy punishing communities who dare to resist.

After the shameful event of announcing z9 as Bitmain's latest ASIC crack against a PoW algorithm, two equihash based coins that happened to be the ones who officially had announced their intention to resist the ASIC crack by managing for a hard fork, Bitcoin Gold and Zencash, experienced a 50%+1 attack.

It is how it works in the 'real world' when it comes to money, we all know, but there is something else that we know too: Cryptocurrency is about changing this reality instead of giving it a hug.

I'm sure, devs in both camps will do what they should, and Bitmain's evil strategy will fail but here I'm not talking about alternate currencies, instead, I'm willing to discuss Bitcoin situation, being seized by a company like Bitmain, praying for its majesty to play fair, desperately.

This company is dreaming of taking over the whole crypto ecosystem and I think it should be even kicked out of Bitcoin.

Very opposite agendas in a ridiculous distribution of power and resources, they have everything and I'm on my own, I see but I have something they can't even dream of: a plan!

Firstly, the depth of emptiness of Bitmain's strategy should be understood. Taking over a decentralized system is an impossible mission. This company is deemed to failure the question is whether it goes down alone or pulls Bitcoin down with itself.

My plan:

I think eliminating ASICs is a very urgent necessity and it is absolutely feasible, both techically and socioeconomically. For coins that has not been overtaken by Bitmain (yet) it is more convenient, obviously, but in the case of infected ecosystems like Bitcoin, for which my plan is, it gets a bit more complicated. I'm thinking of 3 major projects:

1- Specific enhancements can be made to bitcoin mining protocol that discourage pool operations and help decentralized mining. I call it de-pool project.
Running such a fork would prevent Bitmain from using its Antpool leverage in the first place and brings back mining power to the actual ASIC owners.
The technical challenges involved are not that hard and I have some proposals for it in my turn.


2- A Dag based algorithm can be implemented with very acceptable resistance against ASIC attacks, despite what venal cryptographers and writers say. I call it de-ASIC project.
An enhanced version of Dagger Hashimoto can resist ASIC attempts very well. Bitmain's E3 is a misleading propaganda announcement, a joke and not a true ASIC crack.


2- A smart solution can be devised to let a smooth migration from ASIC to gpu mining within few epochs that can take place in like 2 years. It is ASIC Break project.
This project is based on a multi-algorithm, multi difficulty approach and smoothly will retire ASICs in a 2-3 year period.


Each of the projects needs a seperate thread to discuss but the whole picture deserves one as well.

You are welcome to discuss the feasibility of each project and share your ideas, but please, keep your 'ASIC is not that bad' shit out of this topic. Here I'm inviting people committed to ASIC resistance, not the ones who (being payed or not) write in favor of the enemy. Of course you can write what you want but it will be my right to call you a venal writer. This is how I think, "anybody who writes in favor of Bitmain, is payed by Bitmain" and you know what? I don't feel bad being such an enthusiast this one time.

In Misericordae's whitepaper (to be released soon), this issue was analysed.  Yes indeed, there is a bitter war going on already about ASIC. Is it the best solution to BAN ASIC in the cryptocurrency ecosystem? From hardware engineering point of view, Bitmain succeeded on an innovation path that was not conceived to be possible some years back.  These ASIC machines  have other advanced applications apart from using them to mine cryptocurrency. Bitmain should be encouraged to focus more in further development of ASICs, like they have currently supported the creation of a new Algorithm that bridges cryptocurrency mining with Artificial Intelligence.  On the other hand, Bitmain should be discouraged from producing ASIC for specific algorithms without an initial active discussion with the developers.  Such an active collaboration between hardware manufacturers and software producers will be very positive for growth and use of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in general.

Is there a possibility of 51% attack on Bitcoin? Of course! This can be effectively carried out if desired either by the manufacturer of ASICs  like Bitmain or by mining farms. If Bitmain has integrated backdoors in the miners, it will easily conduct any form of attack on Bitcoin Blockchain, any form including 51%. The possibility of such a backdoor cannot be ruled out, intentional or unintentional, as today we are still unravelling backdoors/flaws in our personal computers. But how about mining farms? It is also highly possible that owners of mining farms could find companionship in an effort to conduct an attack on the network.

What are the ways forward?
First and foremost, bitterness in the young ecosystem is unhealthy for everyone.  Secondly, Politics, Regional, and National Interests must be removed from the blockchain ecosystem. You cannot rule out issues of Chinese and Western powers in this episode. Thirdly, both hardware and software developers must learn to have discussion, very transparently, and should ask the question about where we will be in the next ten years with the 'dirtiness' that is already creeping into the young ecosystem. Lastly, Bitmain has earned a reputation as an unhealthy competitor and a potential bad actor. However, all must see through the efforts of Bitmain to correct its past mistakes and they should be helped through more open communications and thought-through advice.

Bitmain sees it that they succeeded in an innovation and they definitely want to stay at the top among their manufacturing peers. As a manufacturer, Bitmain asks itself this question: "if we don't manufacture ASIC for this Algorithm, our competing peers will do it". If Blockchain developers understand this logic in the mind of Bitmain, then a transparent dialogue/agreement that makes both sides happy will be reached. Peace and Working together is so much needed in the baby blockchain ecosystem. There are much larger challenges that are yet to come.  DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE!

[mr-anonymous]

Solution is not to build ANTI-ASIC algorithm, but building ASIC algorithm and a coin that can support it or make it compatible with existing one (I am not supporting ASIC by the way).

[Foxpup]

Shitcoins with low hashrate are easily 51% attacked. So-called "ASIC-resistant" ones doubly so, since "ASIC-resistant" really means "botnet friendly". Don't pretend to be surprised.

[btj]

Top cryptocurrencies must learn and invest in the security of their coin and protect the community from such attacks.

[aliashraf]

Whatever ideas, schemes or plans you come up with, they won't be compatible with Bitcoin.  

DooMAD (to me): "Don't you try to tell people what's Bitcoin should or shouldn't be, let them decide!"

DooMAD (recently): "Bcash shills can't tell people what Bitcoin is, I proclaim that Bitcoin is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash!"


And today, DooMAD tells us what Bitcoin is (and isn't), again. Your #1 principle seems to be that everyone must adhere to your principles, even when your principles change to suit your argument. Frequently.

I'm sorry it's so difficult for you to follow, Carlton, but it hasn't changed.

If there is noticeable support for a proposed fork, someone had coded something and a reasonable number of people appear to be behind the idea, there's literally no choice but to let the market decide.  No devs are "in control" or "own" the entire network.  Any dev can submit code.  Everyone runs what they want.  That's how it always has worked, that's how it always will work.

After a fork has occurred, the minority chain doesn't get to steal the name from the majority.  That's just going to further confuse the uninitiated, who may find it complicated enough to climb what's already a fairly steep learning curve to begin with.  There's nothing stopping them from trying to steal the name, perhaps, but the majority are going to make their presence felt and inevitably deny them.

This doesn't fall into either of those categories.  If you're a lone wolf with an incompatible, barely conceived idea that goes completely against the permissionless ethos of Bitcoin, like kicking people off the network for example, then it's pretty obvious you need to go create your permissioned chain somewhere else.  But sure, if you want to set the precedent that we're suddenly okay with banning companies we might disagree with from Bitcoin, you go right ahead.  Why not add some blacklisting and a new supply limit while we're at it?    

Now this guy is a fan of permissionless systems! Congrats dude, you are making progress ... so, is Bitcoin a permissionless network right now? Sure? You mean people can freely choose to take a crucial role like mining blocks without buying hardware (acquiring permission) from Btmain?
 
We have to admit, Bitcoin is no longer a permissionless system neither an alternate monetary system, it is just a treasure, an asset kept safe by Bitmain hardware and AntPool. This is it! Be honest and face the truth!

I'm sick of this 'Bitcoin is Bitcoin' discourse, I'm sick of the artificial block size debate.

I think these guys, Core devs have been fooled by Bitmain to forget about the most urgent and important event ever, ASIC crack against SHA256, and the single huge mistake of Satoshi, choosing a PoW algorithm with such a small memory footprint.

Bitmain was building its empire when they were fooling around with SW, now they have to reconsider everything with a sense of regret, imo.

And guys like you @Doomad, you act like any venal writer, you write for Bitmain, you are concerned about Bitmain not to be banned, actually you are accusing me of trying to ban Bitmain!

This is hypocrisy in a naive form. Asking for resistance against a company that has monopolized the entire ecosystem by cracking its consensus algorithm, is not a call for banning a company.

I have suggested a plan to set bitcoin free from ASIC, it is practical and deserves to be discussed, you are in love with Bitmain and enjoy current situation Doomad? Just don't participate in this thread. Wait for the result and when it comes to vote for change, vote against it.

[aliashraf]

The War is getting dirtier ever and ever. While yellow crypto media and venal writers here and there are announcing it over already, Bitmain is busy punishing communities who dare to resist.

In Misericordae's whitepaper (to be released soon), this issue was analysed.  Yes indeed, there is a bitter war going on already about ASIC. ...
...
.... Peace and Working together is so much needed in the baby blockchain ecosystem. There are much larger challenges that are yet to come.  DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE! DIALOGUE!

I just have to say thank you for the comment and send some merits, it was so freshening, your reply.

Looking forward for more 'dialogue' with you 

[aliashraf]

Shitcoins with low hashrate are easily 51% attacked. So-called "ASIC-resistant" ones doubly so, since "ASIC-resistant" really means "botnet friendly". Don't pretend to be surprised.

So, you think Satoshi was a fool and the crackers in Bitmain who cracked SHA256 with their ASIC saved bitcoin from botnets?

Of course, low hashrate networks are subject to 51% attack but theoretically it is mitigated by the attack cost/benefits analysis. When a network is suspected to be in such a danger, exchanges, wallets have to increase their confirmation numbers requirements for that network (proportional to the value of the transaction, I suggest).

Satoshi was aware of this threat and didn't hesitated to launch the white paper and the bitcoin blockchain subsequently. His words:

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth

See? Acquiring 'more CPU power' was a known problem from the first beginning. Not a big deal, tho  

The latest 51% attacks on Zencash and Bitcoin Gold belong to a new category of attacks, though, Bitmain is punishing the resistance against its new miner Z9, those coins are preparing to fork against the evil.  

Bitcoin Core devs should be accounted, while they were playing with artificial toys like the foolish block size debate, and their 'brilliant' alternative, Segregated Witness (a junior hacker way of solving problems), Bitmain was accumulating enough resources to become what it is now, a threat to everything and everyone!

[bbc.reporter]

This is the danger of having a mining algorithm that uses GPUs because they can be used to mine different cryptocoins. The chains that have low hashrate will be open to attack.

Bitcoin Gold and Zencash are Equihash coins. I predict the next attack will be on Bitcoin Private which also use Equihash.

[Vispilio]

I agree ASIC resistance is very important and promoting decentralized and even individual mining operations is totally in line with the liberating spirit of Crypto Currencies.

Having said that, no project should expect to be taken seriously if they haven't figured out a way to defend themselves definitively from a 51 % attack.

Such a hacking risk has been known since the first inception of crypto currencies.

[bbc.reporter]

@Vispilio. ASICs are really important because they add to the game theory mechanics. Bitmain will not be stupid to attack bitcoin because it might make their ASIC miners worthless.

Also there are other ASIC manufacturers that would try to protect their interests by adding more hash power in case of an attack on bitcoin. The real danger is really on the minority chain, bitcoin cash.

[aliashraf]

@Vispilio. ASICs are really important because they add to the game theory mechanics. Bitmain will not be stupid to attack bitcoin because it might make their ASIC miners worthless.

Also there are other ASIC manufacturers that would try to protect their interests by adding more hash power in case of an attack on bitcoin. The real danger is really on the minority chain, bitcoin cash.

I'm not against any kind of innovation and even saying weird things like this, claiming that ASICs are important and the manufacturer will take care of the network because of game theory, ... actually this is a very common discourse in bitcoin community, but there IS a serious problem with this kind of reasoning: It lacks an established paper work and theory base.

Cryptocurrency, begun with Satoshi's white paper has a very solid framework: Are you speaking of a decentralized, public, permissionless, trustless cash transfer protocol, implemented in a network that is maintained collaboratively again in a decentralized, permissionless, public, trustless fashion?

If the answer is YES, congratulations you passed, welcome to crypto world, otherwise you have two choices: improve and try again or establish a new theoretical framework for a new technology (say, ASIC currency, whatever).

My problem with people like you and others who dare come here and cover the mess with ASICs is not their ideas, it is about their moralities, their lack of courage to take the responsibility and 'fork' theoretically from crypto currency discourse.

This is hypocrisy, imo. The network you are talking about is neither permissionless nor trustless and is highly centralized.

Game theory won't help here, you can not say things like that, it is like saying monarchs won't do anything bad because they are committed to their common interests, according to game theory!

Guys like you remind me of my mom 
She always asks me to be humble and tolerant with the government.
She argues like this : Don't they prefer to rule over a better country or aren't they that clever to understand their best interests?

Thanks god, she is not a mathematician like you and has not a clue about game theory(!) otherwise she would have convinced me not to do anything about my country's ridiculously corrupted political situation.