Possible 51% Attack on fairbrix (fbx)

[superfastkyle]

I'll say that again. A known thief has most of the FBX in existence and most of the hashing power too. That is plenty to control markets (if one is ever created for FBX) and mess with the network. If these new coins were created because Lolcust might do something wrong, how can we support them when we KNOW that something worse has already happened?

This made me laugh. Right now if the reported 1600 blocks "stolen" in the attack is true that is only 26% of the coins in existence now.... Lolcust has over 95% of tenebrix

[1715095509]

1715095509

[Lolcust]

I'll say that again. A known thief has most of the FBX in existence and most of the hashing power too. That is plenty to control markets (if one is ever created for FBX) and mess with the network. If these new coins were created because Lolcust might do something wrong, how can we support them when we KNOW that something worse has already happened?

This made me laugh. Right now if the reported 1600 blocks "stolen" in the attack is true that is only 26% of the coins in existence now.... Lolcust has over 95% of tenebrix

But I didn't steal them from some third party - feel the difference  (since TBX has no upper limit on coin mining, you can't even say I squatted them from future generations of minerdom )

[freequant]

Why are you all considering that forerunning the chain and trigger a reorg = stealing?
It is allowed by the protocol, therefore it is legit.
It happens sometime at a small scale: when two miners find a block at the same time, but one gets a first confirmation quicker, would that be stealing if the miner who is behind catches up and orphans the blocks of the first miner? Why should he resign if protocol allows him to fight back and he knows he has got enough hash power to do that? Tuning his client to continue on the same chain no matter what is a rational strategy knowing that his chain will be the longest at some point in the future.   
Now what if it takes him two blocks to catch up?
What if it takes him three? ten? one thousand?
When does it become stealing?

Let's face it : attacking or locked-mining the same chain when one knows that he has more power is a valid and profitable mining strategy, so it is bound to happen over and over again until it is ruled out by the protocol.

[Matoking]

BitcoinEXpress admitted to doing the attack here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45667.msg558154#msg558154

Makes me wonder if he does anything else than attack alternate block chains.

[Bobnova]

He certainly claimed to have done it.
That doesn't mean he did, though.

[bulanula]

BitcoinEXpress admitted to doing the attack here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45667.msg558154#msg558154

Makes me wonder if he does anything else than attack alternate block chains.

Everybody knows he is an idiot. He attacks Namecoin then SC then Fairbrix BUT why not Tenecrapix !? Because he is artforz which is also known as lolcust and they have interest to not attack tenecrapix !!!

Seriously, somebody should give crapple a call and bait this vandal out.

[EskimoBob]

BitcoinEXpress admitted to doing the attack here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45667.msg558154#msg558154

Makes me wonder if he does anything else than attack alternate block chains.

Everybody knows he is an idiot. He attacks Namecoin then SC then Fairbrix BUT why not Tenecrapix !? Because he is artforz which is also known as lolcust and they have interest to not attack tenecrapix !!!

Seriously, somebody should give crapple a call and bait this vandal out.

No problem, we can start over. You know what, but this little ugly turd of man it is going to be a loser for rest of his shitty life.
He can prance around here and do attacks left and right, but nothing changes. In real life, the one that actually matters, hes is still a human turd.

[bulanula]

BitcoinEXpress admitted to doing the attack here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45667.msg558154#msg558154

Makes me wonder if he does anything else than attack alternate block chains.

Everybody knows he is an idiot. He attacks Namecoin then SC then Fairbrix BUT why not Tenecrapix !? Because he is artforz which is also known as lolcust and they have interest to not attack tenecrapix !!!

Seriously, somebody should give crapple a call and bait this vandal out.

No problem, we can start over. You know what, but this little ugly turd of man it is going to be a loser for rest of his shitty life.
He can prance around here and do attacks left and right, but nothing changes. In real life, the one that actually matters, hes is still a human turd.

Well put. He is a disgraceful and pathetic moron. Why not attack Tenecrapix too, mr apple employee !?

[dust]

Why are you all considering that forerunning the chain and trigger a reorg = stealing?
It is allowed by the protocol, therefore it is legit.
It happens sometime at a small scale: when two miners find a block at the same time, but one gets a first confirmation quicker, would that be stealing if the miner who is behind catches up and orphans the blocks of the first miner? Why should he resign if protocol allows him to fight back and he knows he has got enough hash power to do that? Tuning his client to continue on the same chain no matter what is a rational strategy knowing that his chain will be the longest at some point in the future.   
Now what if it takes him two blocks to catch up?
What if it takes him three? ten? one thousand?
When does it become stealing?

Let's face it : attacking or locked-mining the same chain when one knows that he has more power is a valid and profitable mining strategy, so it is bound to happen over and over again until it is ruled out by the protocol.

It is stealing because it was done with malicious intent.  Small reorgs caused by honest miners are neither intentional nor malicious. 

[phelix]

I'll say that again. A known thief has most of the FBX in existence and most of the hashing power too. That is plenty to control markets (if one is ever created for FBX) and mess with the network. If these new coins were created because Lolcust might do something wrong, how can we support them when we KNOW that something worse has already happened?

This made me laugh. Right now if the reported 1600 blocks "stolen" in the attack is true that is only 26% of the coins in existence now.... Lolcust has over 95% of tenebrix

and most the remaining 5% of tenebrix are probably also concentrated in a few hands. bitcoinexpress, art and a couple more

I wonder how long it will take until someone will hack the tbx faucet...     

[Lolcust]

I'll say that again. A known thief has most of the FBX in existence and most of the hashing power too. That is plenty to control markets (if one is ever created for FBX) and mess with the network. If these new coins were created because Lolcust might do something wrong, how can we support them when we KNOW that something worse has already happened?

This made me laugh. Right now if the reported 1600 blocks "stolen" in the attack is true that is only 26% of the coins in existence now.... Lolcust has over 95% of tenebrix

and most the remaining 5% of tenebrix are probably also concentrated in a few hands. bitcoinexpress, art and a couple more

I wonder how long it will take until someone will hack the tbx faucet...    

1) ya know, there is no such thing as "remaining 5% of tenebrix" since there is no such thing as tenebrix upper limit. Or rather, there is  -136 billions, give or take something.

I'll leave it up to you to calculate how much of "total possible TBX I've squatted.

2) hacking tenebrix faucet's wallet will give you 500 TBX at most - the whole point of fueling it in batches of 500 is to make it less lucrative target for break-ins

3) I've just noticed that your site mildly implies that efficient FPGA implementations of TBX are likely. This is not true, see "scaling questions" thread.

[BitcoinPorn]

Everybody knows he is an idiot. He attacks Namecoin then SC then Fairbrix BUT why not Tenecrapix !? Because he is artforz which is also known as lolcust and they have interest to not attack tenecrapix !!!

I see the Art as Lolcust, but then BitcoinXpress too.   I don't know.

[Lolcust]

I am Satoshi.

I thought it's quite obvious, really.

[phelix]

I'll say that again. A known thief has most of the FBX in existence and most of the hashing power too. That is plenty to control markets (if one is ever created for FBX) and mess with the network. If these new coins were created because Lolcust might do something wrong, how can we support them when we KNOW that something worse has already happened?

This made me laugh. Right now if the reported 1600 blocks "stolen" in the attack is true that is only 26% of the coins in existence now.... Lolcust has over 95% of tenebrix

and most the remaining 5% of tenebrix are probably also concentrated in a few hands. bitcoinexpress, art and a couple more

I wonder how long it will take until someone will hack the tbx faucet...    

1) ya know, there is no such thing as "remaining 5% of tenebrix" since there is no such thing as tenebrix upper limit. Or rather, there is  -136 billions, give or take something.

I'll leave it up to you to calculate how much of "total possible TBX I've squatted.

2) hacking tenebrix faucet's wallet will give you 500 TBX at most - the whole point of fueling it in batches of 500 is to make it less lucrative target for break-ins

3) I've just noticed that your site mildly implies that efficient FPGA implementations of TBX are likely. This is not true, see "scaling questions" thread.

1) how much % of currently mined coins do you have, does the 51% dude have?
2) I knew you would say that. Damn. So let's say your wallet would be stolen. Would TBX be destroyed?
3) check
4) Is the scrypt algorithm secure btw?

Isn't everyone a little bit satoshi? Some should be much more satoshi.