delete

[BitcoinEXpress]

delete

[1714146607]

1714146607

[1714146607]

1714146607

[1714146607]

1714146607

[tacotime]

go for it

[amazingrando]

[sigh]  Can't tell if they are just talking shit or actually making a plan to execute.  Regardless, it's further demonstration of why any reasonable people should stay as far away from RS/CH and SolidCoin as possible.  To them it's all just a game.  No amount of deflating or trying to 51% competitors is going to make people take a heavily manipulated closed-source crytocurrency seriously.  In fact it should be a giant blinking warning sign that there is nothing democratic, trustworthy, or valuable about SolidCoin.  Participation in such a currency is asking to be exploited for the fun and enrichment of those behind the currency.

Hopefully RS/CH and his disciples will realize the futility of such efforts and start to act maturely.  But I'm definitely not holding my breath.

[johnj]

Hmm, first they talk about attacking it, but now...



That's a Grade A endorsement right there!

[DeathAndTaxes]

Just read this transcript and the only mention of them doing an attack is the title of this post.  Wish I hadn't unignored BCX to read this garbage, should have expected more lies :-(

Found this for you.

<@Ten98> but yeah, if u pay amazon money, it cost u $700 per hour to 51% LTC
...
[15:52] <@RealSolid> Ten98: right, pretty cheap to end a coin

You can pay me a dollar for finding those.  Don't worry if you keep mining ScamCoins for a week or so you might have enough (assumming the price doesn't go lower)  .

If you don't/know/understand what 51% is a reference to then I recommend you just uninstall your miner and delete the ScamCoin code now.  

[Bobnova]

Taking the time to calculate it shows some interest, if not specific intent.

[Raoul Duke]

So what? The only criminals that can perform 51% attacks around here are douchebagexpress and artforz, is that it?
Oh wait, that would be artforz only, because everybody knows that douchebagexpress is full of shit and the only thing he 51% attacked on his life was his moms' wallet...

[localhost]

If you don't/know/understand what 51% is a reference to then I recommend you just uninstall your miner and delete the ScamCoin code now.  

You are the height of dumb.... saying something costs X amount of money to achieve indicates a planned attack?  Were you dropped on your head as a child?  About a dozen or so times?

Actually, the TaxCoin fanboy has a point there. This transcript just reflects the nursery school maturity level of some discussions on the SC IRC, not a real attack intent.

[Spacy]

If you don't/know/understand what 51% is a reference to then I recommend you just uninstall your miner and delete the ScamCoin code now.  

You are the height of dumb.... saying something costs X amount of money to achieve indicates a planned attack?  Were you dropped on your head as a child?  About a dozen or so times?

Actually, the TaxCoin fanboy has a point there. This transcript just reflects the nursery school maturity level of some discussions on the SC IRC, not a real attack intent.

And what is the actual maturity level then if someone actually DID multiple 51% attacks?

[MSAvenger]

The point is: are they right? Is 51% attack so cheap? Litecoin's hashrate have pumped up significantly last few hours due to Solidcoin's so-called "economic change". If 51% attack is indeed so easy and cheap, it is very hard to trust Litecoin...

[DeathAndTaxes]

The point is: are they right? Is 51% attack so cheap? Litecoin's hashrate have pumped up significantly last few hours due to Solidcoin's so-called "economic change". If 51% attack is indeed so easy and cheap, it is very hard to trust Litecoin...

The dangers of CPU based chains.  Renting CPU is very very very cheap.  There is no cost effective method of renting GPUs.  In an attack you don't need hardware over the course of years you just need it over the course of a dozen blocks or so.  Renting gives you a huge multiplier.

Instead of buying 1 CPU and running it for a year.  You can rent 300 CPU for an hour at the same price.  That muliplier effect is what makes CPU based chains vulnerable and likely futile in the long run.

The only way I see "cpu chain" working is a blockchain which has the option of using one of two algorithms.  They algorithms are selected to provide roughly comparable benefit on CPU or GPU.  Even that may be not worth the complexity but a straight "GPU-hostile" chain is critically flawed in my opinon.  It is the specalized hardware (GPU) that have pushed Bitcoin out of the reach of "cheap" 51% attacks.

[localhost]

The dangers of CPU based chains.  Renting CPU is very very very cheap. 
[...]
The only way I see "cpu chain" working is a blockchain which has the option of using one of two algorithms.  They algorithms are selected to provide roughly comparable benefit on CPU or GPU.

Doesn't work: CPU remains efficient and cheap, only we can expect to have maybe twice the hashing power because people will mine both with CPU and GPU. That is, supposing they're willing to drop BTC mining in favor of this new chain where GPU doesn't have an advantage over CPU.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The dangers of CPU based chains.  Renting CPU is very very very cheap. 
[...]
The only way I see "cpu chain" working is a blockchain which has the option of using one of two algorithms.  They algorithms are selected to provide roughly comparable benefit on CPU or GPU.

Doesn't work: CPU remains efficient and cheap, only we can expect to have maybe twice the hashing power because people will mine both with CPU and GPU. That is, supposing they're willing to drop BTC mining in favor of this new chain where GPU doesn't have an advantage over CPU.

Well no because most people would use massive GPU farms.  For example if Bitcoin had an "alternate" hash algorithm that got say 100MH from a top of the line CPU.  There would be a lot more CPU mining BUT GPU mining would still have an advantage.  You can fairly easily add 8 GPU to a rig.  8 socket servers aren't economical. Now I don't think CPU mining is needed AT ALL.  I think it is a fad.  A case of "not fair he has all those GPU toys, well I am going to come over here and play w/ my CPU toys - no GPU allowed".

Still a hyrbrid chain would at least gain the hashing power necessary to present at least a challenge to CPU based attackers.  Granted it wouldn't be as strong as an "open chain" which doesn't attempt to exclude CPU/GPU/FPGA/ASICS.  The funny thing is restricting hardware is simply reactionary.   Mining is getting to be a lower profit enterprise.  Soon economics will force the move to FPGA.  Eventually it will move from FPGA to Structured ASICS (like Altera Hardcopy) and finally to fully custom ASICS (if crypto currency lives long enough).  Even the move to custom chips isn't the end of the road.  Those designs will increase in complexity and density.  They will go from single chip module to multichip boards to finally massive parallel clusters. 

Like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Board300.jpg/572px-Board300.jpg

This is a board from EFF "Deep Crack" a custom built DES cracking array (to prove DES is insecure).  Each board is doublesided and has 64 custom built ASICS optimized to do nothing but crack DES.  5 boards of 64 ASICS ea were installed into each rack chassis.  The entire system was 6 chassis connected together.  A single off the shelf PC controlled the array of 1856 ASICS.

You can't stop technology.  It will always be pushing forward.  This is a good thing.  Custom built hashing arrays could achieve higher throughput, higher density, and lower cost per hash than less customized systems.  This means the attacker has a reverse multiplier.  The attacker is using less efficiency equipment which means it takes more attackers to equal the power of one "good guy".

[localhost]

Well no because most people would use massive GPU farms.  For example if Bitcoin had an "alternate" hash algorithm that got say 100MH from a top of the line CPU.  There would be a lot more CPU mining BUT GPU mining would still have an advantage.

Well, in this case okay, but what you describe here isn't a "comparable benefit" between GPU and CPU (top of the range GPU=somewhere around 800MH, not 100).

Nice DES cracking board, btw

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well, in this case okay, but what you describe here isn't a "comparable benefit" between GPU and CPU (top of the range GPU=somewhere around 800MH, not 100).

Yeah I was loose and fast with the numbers.  It would make sense to let each algorithm float on its own (independent difficulty) as a result they both would achieve similar economic benefits (i.e. value of blocks over cost of hardware & electrical costs).  Still I don't think that system would be wise because while it would be better than a "GPU-hostile" chain it is still inferior to an "open chain" in terms of making the network as difficult.  It is really just a half step to be more "fair" (a dubious reason IMHO).  

Why are GPU used over CPU?  Simple they are more efficient.  If a person is only concerned about the security of the network (not their personal gain) then you want the most efficient hardware possible protecting the network.  Sadly I think in 5 or so years the rise of APUs mean that botnets will represent a greater danger to Bitcoin because it closes the multiplier (difference in hashing power between average attacker node and defender node).  All of AMD APU have modest hashing performance (~60MH/s) and AMD default drivers enable OpenCL now so as time increases we should expect greater performance from zombie computers.

So what is the solution? Not reggressive nonsense like "GPU hostile" alt-chains.  The solution is EVEN GREATER efficiency.  It is an arms race.  Granted that likely will result in a second wave of "not fair" and probably a spwan of "GPU friendly alt chains" because now FPGA and other exotic hardware will be considered the "not fair enemy".  Hopefully by the time APU make botnets more dangerous a significant fraction of Bitcoin hashing power will be from devices with even greater efficiency keeping that vital multiplier between defender hashing power and attacker hashing power high.

Trying to criple efficient hardware is a deathblow to security of any blockchain.  You are simply bringing defenders down to the same level as the botnets.  The bad news is botnets win in that crippled race by pure numerical superiority.

Nice DES cracking board, btw

Yeah it is pretty sweet.  I am glad they built it.  EFF said that DES was "broken" but most people dismissed it as "theoretical attack".  So they collected some donations (include some from me) and built one.  It only took 18 months and about $250K.  It could crack any DES password in 4-5 days (max time 10 days).  That lead to acceleration in adopting stronger hashes (albeit with the interim step of the fugly Triple-DES).

[MSAvenger]

(...) Trying to criple efficient hardware is a deathblow to security of any blockchain.  You are simply bringing defenders down to the same level as the botnets.  The bad news is botnets win in that crippled race by pure numerical superiority.

Well, I agree but it isn't that simple. Bitcoin's mining algorithm cripples any hardware other than Radeons HD5000 & 6000. Of course not intentionally but still. There are efficent hashing algorithms out there that runs better on Nvidia hardware or runs similarly od HD4000 and HD5000 hardware (with the same number of SPUs). Bitcoin's doesn't.

[Clipse]

We miss you in the solidcoin channel BitcoinEXpress.

[DeathAndTaxes]

True but as you state it wasn't intentional.  There is no guarantee SHA-256 will be efficient on the new 79xx series card which use a new architecutre.  Nvidia has indicated they intend to improve GPGPU integer performance so future cards may close the performance gap.  There is no way to know how well algorithms will work on future FPGA or Structured ASIC designs.

IMHO one shouldn't try to optimize the algorithm.  I doubt Satoshi did.  SHA-256 is an industry standard hashing algorithm with public and documented crypto-analysis.  It is currently secure and has been extensively tested.  That is more important than trying to find a "fair" algorithm.  NVidia GPU tend to perform poorly on most block ciphers not just SHA-256.  I imagine market forces will demand NVidia improve integer performance in future generations.

[MSAvenger]

True, I didn't mean completely different hashing algorithms but different SHA-2 implementations. Sisoft Sandra benchmark also uses SHA256 and the performance is completely different:
http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_vs_gpu_crypto

Even old SHA-1 can be extensively optimized:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/improving-the-performance-of-the-secure-hash-algorithm-1/

[DeathAndTaxes]

True, I didn't mean completely different hashing algorithms but different SHA-2 implementations. Sisoft Sandra benchmark also uses SHA256 and the performance is completely different:
http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_vs_gpu_crypto

Even old SHA-1 can be extensively optimized:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/improving-the-performance-of-the-secure-hash-algorithm-1/

If it is just an issue of implementation then one could simply make a better CUDA miner.  The reality is that Nvidia has critical "flaws" (or maybe design decisions is better way to say it) that limit throughput on their existing hardware.

Bitcoin doesn't require any specific implementation.  Any method that produces valid SHA-256 hash is fine.

sisoft throughput is horrible which would indicate a non-optimized solution (likely masking inferiority of Nvidia GPU).

For example: HD 6970 3649 MB/s
3649 MB/s *8 = 29192 Mbps
29192 / 512 = 51.6 MH/s (512 bits in SHA-256 hash)

Bitcoin MH is actually SHA-256(SHA-256(block header))
51.6MH/s /2 = 25.8 Bitcoin MH/s

There has been a lot of work in optimizing bitcoin hashing performance.  Things like vectors, workgroup sizes, BFI, etc.  Sisoft may have simply decided on an implementation and stuck with it to provide comparable performance but their results don't indicate the peak of what AMD cards can do.