Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:05:11 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Fairbrix fiasco  (Read 3066 times)
dayfall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
 #21

One of these altcurrencies needs to attempt to implement a forked chain detection algorithm.
1481191511
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191511

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191511
Reply with quote  #2

1481191511
Report to moderator
1481191511
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191511

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191511
Reply with quote  #2

1481191511
Report to moderator
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
thirdlight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 281



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 03:38:18 PM
 #22

I have a connect of 3, 2300 blocks but doesn't seem to increase further.  Is it normal or is there any issues?  I have opened the port.
That was the old version. Count is now 2303. Someone somewhere is still mining...
michaelmclees
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 629


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 03:50:16 PM
 #23

I don't know why anyone would mine that.  For all I know, it's still producing blocks with 0 coins.

If you wish to mine Fairbrix, https://github.com/coblee/Fairbrix is the one to use.
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 04:08:07 PM
 #24

Why don't you add in a rolling block lock. Say locking blocks 1 hour old. That would limit any CPU attack to the ability to only erase transactions less than an hour old.

I know about the chicken and egg problem. How do anonymous peers know which block to lock? But in this case there is one known "non-anonymous" peer that is implicitly trusted. It is owned and operated by "michaelmclees".

When you reach critical mass and add an exchange to the fairbrix network. That adds a second non-anonymous peer. Though no one will "implicitly" trust the exchange, if miners go with a fork unsupported by the exchange there will be no place to reap their rewards.

If an exchange changes forks, it would result in brix they sold to customers for dollars disappearing. Since the exchange is non-anonymous actual police are likely to show up and arrest them for fraud. I presume exchanges will be monitoring any chain swap attacks closely.
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 04:28:53 PM
 #25

Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
 #26

Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)

Just curious, what mechanisms to the mechanisms to the exchanges currently use?
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
 #27

Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)

Just curious, what mechanisms to the mechanisms to the exchanges currently use?


Basically, they watch out for reorgs that affect more than their "confirmation horizon" and shut trades down. Recent fairly cunning i0coin run-in managed to get around that, though (don't recall the details) so those mechanisms might need some refining.

For all practical intents and purposes that is "kinda lock-in"

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 04:47:52 PM
 #28

For all practical intents and purposes that is "kinda lock-in"

Yes, I completely agree. I've been away from the *coin world for about a year. Just trying to get the lay of the land.

I always thought the original bitcoin philosophy, of defending everyone's shared history based on the implausibility of >51% CPU power attacks, died when coders put in the first hard coded block lock. Since then the question has been, "How much history can we leave at risk?" What you call a "confirmation horizon" is exactly what I am suggesting. Otherwise, the definition of "confirmed" becomes non-sensical.

I figured exchanged must have long ago solved this problem. It simply doesn't make any sense for multiple exchanges to trade on different branches. The notion of, "Everyone stop trading, while we (exchanges) discuss this among ourselves." makes perfect sense.
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
 #29

It's not so much "discuss among ourselves" as "A girl in Brazil is reorging the blockchain! SHUT ! DOWN ! EVERYTHING !!!"


Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 06:19:28 PM
 #30

LOL!  New meme for me. Woot!
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 06:51:51 PM
 #31

Basically, they watch out for reorgs that affect more than their "confirmation horizon" and shut trades down. Recent fairly cunning i0coin run-in managed to get around that, though
well, first the guy got the bitcoins and THEN revealed his longer chain that invalidated the older spends

so it doesn't help

doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:27:51 PM
 #32

well, first the guy got the bitcoins and THEN revealed his longer chain that invalidated the older spends
so it doesn't help
Right, this is what happened. If you want to centralize around the exchange one thought I posted in another thread is have the exchange broadcast to the network the checkpoint for blocks when it confirms a deposit to the exchange database. Nodes then accept this message as a 'lockin' checkpoint. Expanding this to multiple exchanges might be wanted but in the 'one true exchange' case it'd work.
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:36:57 PM
 #33

I am far from being a Real Programmer, but I have a sort of hunch that various "dynamic lockins" (be they timestamp-based or "magical transaction" based) could open a rather large can of net-scale DoS worms.

Just a bellyfeel, unsupported with code or evidence.

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:52:18 PM
 #34

I am far from being a Real Programmer, but I have a sort of hunch that various "dynamic lockins" (be they timestamp-based or "magical transaction" based) could open a rather large can of net-scale DoS worms.
I don't see how an exchange sending out a signed transaction containing a checkpoint to nodes is any different from a coin creator regularly updating the client with a checkpoint and asking for clients to upgrade. The advantage with the former is it's automatic and nodes upgrade automatically.
OneMINER
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 12:45:34 AM
 #35

I think that is a very bad idea. Why should I trust exchange operators? Because they are in business and hold coins? That doesn't qualify them to control an aspect of a crypto coin. Which exchange operators would we trust? What if the exchange got hacked and the key stolen? A thief would know who to target to get the key and exchanges are already juicy targets. What if an exchange is sold? Then the buyer(s) gets to do what they want with the chain?

No thank you sir.

I mean no offence by this.
doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 12:55:39 AM
 #36

I think that is a very bad idea. Why should I trust exchange operators? Because they are in business and hold coins? That doesn't qualify them to control an aspect of a crypto coin. Which exchange operators would we trust? What if the exchange got hacked and the key stolen? A thief would know who to target to get the key and exchanges are already juicy targets. What if an exchange is sold? Then the buyer(s) gets to do what they want with the chain?
Right, there are problems to resolve. But this is for the specific case of low hash rate chains. It's trust the central authority to provide lockins or have coins stolen by block chain rewriters.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 01:05:33 AM
 #37

Which exchange operators would we trust? What if the exchange got hacked and the key stolen?
It would need to work like the current "certificate storage" in the web browsers. You would put the "public key" for the exchange that holds your coins into your client. If they get hacked you could read about it in the news and remove the key manually, without having to wait for the developer to change anything.

The main obstracle is that this would be a rather complex piece of software, with nontrivial effort required to develop it. But I think this will need to be developed sooner or later, probably as an offshot of libbitcoin.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
OneMINER
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 01:08:12 AM
 #38

I'd like to see merged mining in both GPU and CPU chains. You don't have to trust anybody and your hash rate goes through the roof. It will mess with the exchange rates but that will get ironed out in the end.

I really see merged mining as a win win.
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 04:00:48 PM
 #39

Why should I trust exchange operators?

Which exchange operators would we trust?

What if the exchange got hacked and the key stolen?

Understandably, from the point of view of *coins as crypto-anarchist currencies, this would seem initially distasteful.

However, it is important to note that it *never* makes sense for two different exchanges to trade on different forks. They will always have to take a break from trading to determine which is the correct fork to continue trading on.

Otherwise, forking effectively doubles the number of coins in existence. Bitcoin hoarders pray for that to happen. It never will. Imagine if the chain forked and Euros traded on one branch and Dollars on the other. I could sell my pre-fork coins once for Dollars and again for Euros. Woot!

Not going to happen.

So the reality is, if you chose to continue the fork without the exchanges. You are in the same boat. You have just create a new currency pre-distributed to everyone who also owned *coins before the fork. That is just bad business. You would deserve what you get.

If an exchange got hacked and tried to fork the chain, all the other exchanges would notice, stop, and gather together to repeat the above exercise. Most likely the hacked exchange would be forced back to the consensus branch and be required to repair any client damage. Otherwise they would be bankrupted and sued.

It is an ironic fact, that even in crypto-anarchist currencies, there is a center of the universe. For Fairbrix at this moment, it is michaelmclees. Later it will be the exchanges.
michaelmclees
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 629


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 04:19:34 PM
 #40

I am not the center of the Fairbrix universe in any way that I'm aware of.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!