delete

[TiagoTiago]

I meant to ask.... as a result of the "attack" I noticed the following:

1) There was a single 1 min stumble on block generation.
2) A different trusted node started producing the even blocks (or is it odd?).

What else?

Am I missing something?

Sorry, too lazy to read the whole thread here :-)

The point of the attack was to prove Solidcoin is not attack proof, it was a minor annoyance only. The chain did slow for a few minutes only but that node was down for over 40 minutes till they switched IP and Names.

Finally, It's not that you're too lazy to read the whole thread, it's that you're too stupid to think past what Coinhunter spoon feeds you. You're a Solidcoin "enthusiast", I know exactly who you are.

Yes I am, bitcoin too, so what? and don't bother telling me what I am/do.... I already know.

I now wonder that if were typical that it took 40 mins to bring a secure node back up (sounds fair) then you'd have to sequentially find 9 more nodes and successfully take them down in under 40 mins.

I'm just trying to work out if you've proven to the world shock horror a public service can be took down.... or that the 51% measures taken are successful.

Comments?

Why sequencialy? Why not find them all, in parallel or otherwise, beforehand and then go at them all at once? (possibly also taking the time to map the possible backup ones that are gonna be brought online  beforehand as well, to be ready to get them too if they show up)

[1713860916]

1713860916

[1713860916]

1713860916

[DeathAndTaxes]

By the glorious leader of course.

[stryker]

You'll probably find they are not all kept live at once.... hence you have to track them down sequentially, hence you've got to find and kill 9 of them before the first one is replaced/restored..... dipshit.

[Bitcoin Oz]

You'll probably find they are not all kept live at once.... hence you have to track them down sequentially, hence you've got to find and kill 9 of them before the first one is replaced/restored..... dipshit.

Then you make sure your node is the one that replaces it (if you have 1 million coins of course)

[DeathAndTaxes]

You'll probably find they are not all kept live at once.... hence you have to track them down sequentially, hence you've got to find and kill 9 of them before the first one is replaced/restored..... dipshit.

Then you make sure your node is the one that replaces it (if you have 1 million coins of course)

The nice thing is you can use your "bad trust node" to reduce the hashing power needed to attack the network by reducing the effectiveness of the "good nodes".  With a normal block chain network you can build a "bad chain" in private and only publish it once you have longer chain than the good chain.  Since every hash has equal chance of finding the solution you can overcome the network with 51% of hashing power.  Eventually the good network's luck will break and your bad chain will be longer and thus trusted by clients.  This is the conventional "51% attack".

Now here is the super cool part.   With solid coin the good network can't start another odd block until the prior even block is signed by a trusted node. When not attacked the even blocks are signed within seconds because they are always 1 difficulty.   One doesn't need to keep the good trusted nodes offline forever; they just need to be slowed down.   If the average even block signing time goes from few seconds to say 60 seconds then that degrades the good network effective hashing power because they need the hash of the prior even block (which is now taking longer) in the header of the next odd block.  In otherwords they have been handicapped 58 seconds in a race towards the next block.

If you have a "bad trusted node" you can sign your bad chain blocks in a few second and thus your bad network can start to work on the next odd block right away gaining a headstart on each block.  Thus with a bad trusted node and rotating DDOS attack on other trusted nodes you could theoretically gain control of the block chain with <51% of network hashing power.  How much less?  Well that depends on how much you can delay/slow the good trusted node blocks (even blocks) in the long run.

Currently even blocks take on average 2 seconds and odd blocks on average 120 seconds to sign the block for a combined time of 122 seconds for each pair. If by attacking trusted nodes you slow down the average signing of even blocks by say 30 seconds then average total time for a pair of blocks is now 152 seconds.  However the bad network signed their even block in 2 seconds giving them 150 seconds to sign the odds block vs 122 seconds for the "good" network.  In that handicapped race the bad network will eventually have the longest chain with only 44% of network hashing power.  

The longer the trusted nodes can be delayed (on average) the more the bad network can handicap the race.  Since bad network can build chain in private you don't need to slow down each even block of the good chain just slow down the average even block signing time. 

[BitterTea]

2)  Inflation rate is not exponential

Bitcoin's inflation rate is not exponential, it tends toward zero.

With rise and fall of difficulty, as difficulty goes up so does the coin generation rate

So as technology improves and hash rates increase, so will the rate of coin generation? Sounds pretty exponential to me...

[BitterTea]

I never said Bitcoin was exponential, not sure how you inferred this.

When contrasting SolidCoin to Bitcoin you said of SolidCoin "inflation is not exponential". I assumed this to mean that you were saying that Bitcoin's inflation rate is exponential.

Every year SC will be inflated by X Coins +/- Y fixed variance of Coins .... This is not exponential.

Which of X or Y is increased by higher difficulty?

technological innovation is a never ending exponential rate of growth (which it's not)

Really? That's quite a claim. Moore's law has held true for about 50 years, and by the time we are no longer able to place more transistors into a 2D space we'll probably be ready to go 3D. So this is a very naive assumption. If difficulty is related to mining technology, and the inflation rate is related to difficulty, then inflation will be exponential.

[stryker]

viper... save your breath m8... the likes of taxes and BCX have no idea that someone can like the two most original digital crypto chains ever...... because given the evidence I've been shown they are kiddie-fiddling winde up merchants..... and for their sad-shit followers... well not really worth the mention really ;-)

[DeathAndTaxes]

Now with concrete historical examples .... are you going to argue that one of the following will never happen:  1)  Innovation moves away from computing technology and moves to a new focus... say Energy hypothetically making way for the "Energy Age"  OR 2)  Mass economic collapse ushers a new dark age in which technology is set back in certain places for several hundred years?

Are these inconceivable to you?  Both examples I gave are actually very likely, notably a shifting of focus to energy instead of computing as global energy prices rise and fossil fuels increase in scarcity.

Inconveivable or improbable.  

Computing power per unit of cost has been doubling roughly every 2 years for last 4 decades.  That is a million fold increase in last 40 years.  Pretty much the definition of exponential.  The likekilhood of any of your insane scenarios happening in near term (say 1-2 decades) is highly improbable.  What is probable is that Moore's Law will continue for another two decades and continue to see exponential growth in computing power (at least in the near term).

2 decades of doubling every 2 years = 2^10 = 1000x fold increase in computing power.

[BitterTea]

if limited to Silicon chips we could be hitting a technology breakthrough barrier sooner than you might imagine since Silicon chips have physical electrical properties that limit how far they can take us.

You must not be aware of the development of three dimensional transistors. They look to bridge the gap to the next major paradigm quite nicely. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/05/intel-re-invents-the-microchip.ars

[DeathAndTaxes]

Wow... that's way off base.  So I assume your from the fairy brigade that doesn't realize that history repeats itself time and time again?  My ideas are insane only if that is your belief... however even in your own post you semi-agreed you just qualified my statement with your own time frame.

Exactly.  I think in the near term those scenarios are highly unlikely.  Nothing is impossible.  An undetected long orbit asteroid could hit Earth tomorrow and wipe out all life but that is rather IMPROBABLE.  So while growth may not be expontential  forever it seems probable that will continue in the near term.

The advent of Gallium Arsinide chips that can be produced cost effectively will likely keep this law alive for some time, but if limited to Silicon chips we could be hitting a technology breakthrough barrier sooner than you might imagine since Silicon chips have physical electrical properties that limit how far they can take us.

We have at least 4 die shrinks before that happens.  That combined with other efficiency improvements (die reorganizations, yield improvements, production effciency gains, etc) means computing power likely will continue to increase exponentially for at least next two decades.   Moore's law has been declared dead many times in the past and yet it still remains



So as I originally stated I think the most PROBABLE scenario is that we continue to have exponential growth for near term.  Any economic model should be based on the most probable scenario dot the possible but improbable chance that we see the end of civilization as we know it.

[BitterTea]

And to give a broader perspective:

[DeathAndTaxes]

So as I originally stated I think the most PROBABLE scenario is that we continue to have exponential growth for near term.  Any economic model should be based on the most probable scenario don't the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So my assumptions about your beliefs are wrong but the reality is even worse... you are only planning on the now and current and not something viable for hundreds of years and hopefully longer....  I don't let the short term now greed and impulse factor cloud my judgement that the world needs something better that will last well beyond my lifetime.  Making a buck now is great but giving something that gives my great great grand children a better chance at a good economic future and freedom is far greater.

Unless you assumptions about long term 1000+ future blind you to the reality in short term and the system never lives beyond the short term.   Hate to break it to you but if we go into a technological dark age your ScamCoins aren't going to do your grandkids any good.   Good farming land, a deep well, firearms, and enough muscle to ensure nobody takes it would be worth a lot more.

[DeathAndTaxes]

*sigh* it's sad I am forced to state this but apparently it's necessary.  Going into a technological dark age != the absence of all technology. 

Who said anything about loss of all technology but crypto currencies are built on top of a pinnacle of increasingly complex technology.

Electrical power -> microprocessors -> personal computers -> global communication networks -> near istantaneous wireless data delivery

The idea that this complex and fragile "tech chain" would survive a technological dark age is dubious even on face value.  Hardened, independent, easily repaired technologies would be the ones which survive.    A catapult didn't require a massive global network of specialized industries to support it.

Global technological dark age = no crypto currencies.

[Lolcust]

So as I originally stated I think the most PROBABLE scenario is that we continue to have exponential growth for near term.  Any economic model should be based on the most probable scenario don't the collapse of civilization as we know it.

So my assumptions about your beliefs are wrong but the reality is even worse... you are only planning on the now and current and not something viable for hundreds of years and hopefully longer....  I don't let the short term now greed and impulse factor cloud my judgement that the world needs something better that will last well beyond my lifetime.  Making a buck now is great but giving something that gives my great great grand children a better chance at a good economic future and freedom is far greater.

With all due respect, planning thirty years ahead is problematic to the point of intractability.

Planning for hundreds of years ahead borders on  delusional - consider the world of 1911, and you will realize that our not so ancient past is more alien to us that most "alien civilizations" contrived by science-fiction authors (even good authors), and this process is accelerating.

It is not unlikely that our grandchildren will be almost incapable of relating to us and our concerns due to changes in lifestyle and psychology (the inverse will also be true)

[BitterTea]

I have a hard time doing something on this scale without a Carl Sagan ish view of the future and leaving something realistic from which they can grow from.

Do you believe that we will have as much technological progress from now until 2111 as we did from 1911 until now?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I have a hard time doing something on this scale without a Carl Sagan ish view of the future and leaving something realistic from which they can grow from.

Do you believe that we will have as much technological progress from now until 2111 as we did from 1911 until now?

I know it was directed at lemonade man but given technological progress is increasing we should have far more progress in the next century than in the prior one.  A large component of that is the free flow of informations.  From printing press -> mass printing -> digital records -> computer networks the ease at which information can be shared is continually increases.  Social changes like the rise of open source and distributed projects fits into that too.  There is less re-inventing of the wheel, more forward progress. 

Personally I think we are at the Commodore 64 stage in the rise of bio-engineering.  100 years from now people will look back and consider our understanding of bio-chemistry to be so primitive.  I mean look at Pharmacueticals today.  We try a bunch of compounds, most do nothing, some work but not well, others are dangerous maybe 1 in 10,000 is useful and safe enough to market.   The reason why is our understanding of how various compounds affects the body is very limited so it is more a "poke it and see what happens" model of research. 

[BitterTea]

the world will enter a new age where human resources are directed at a new frontier, not straight up computing horse power

Really? You think at some point we're just going to say "naaaah, computers are fast enough, let's not bother making them better"?

lol

[FlipPro]

the world will enter a new age where human resources are directed at a new frontier, not straight up computing horse power

Really? You think at some point we're just going to say "naaaah, computers are fast enough, let's not bother making them better"?

lol

I think there will be a point where computers will be "infinitely fast".
Or so I have read .

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yeah utter foolishness.  

The modern world is only possible because computers have gotten 1 MILLION times faster than 8080 microprocessor built my Intel 40 years ago.  Entire tech trees have opened up in every possible field because of that explosion in computations power.  The fact that he considers it is "the frivolity of buying the latest and greatest computer tech" is a luddite point of view.

Those "alternate forms of science" are already ongoing.  Massivelly parallel computing power has lead to better understanding of human brain, mapping the human genome, better understanding of our planets, decoding data from radio telescopes.  Those are just the "grand projects".

My life is improved because I have a Tivo and don't need to time my day around a TV schedule.  Without a million fold increase in computational power even if someone had theorized the idea of a Tivo it would never have been practical or feasible.

The idea that we will STOP DOING THAT COMPUTER THING and concentrate on other stuff is stupid.  Sorry can't think of an nice word.  We have made breakthroughs at an astonsihing rate BECAUSE OF COMPUTING POWER and more (hopefully millions or a billions times more) computing power in the future will enable faster not slower rate of discovery.