Ethereum Classic Second Attack $1.68M Out

[Eddyc]

It's very strange to think that for a cryptocurrency to be successful it needs to suffer a hackers attack and looking back to the past, major projects have suffered this type of attack. The system security vulnerability is the main gateway and why don't developers focus on security? The question is how to invest in a project with a security breach?

You misunderstand the nature of 51% attack, it's not a security bug, it's how decentralized coins operate. They need to grow big enough to reduce the risk of 51% to a minimum, and those that don't grow can be considered shitcoins just because they are vulnerable to 51% attack. By having many coins with the same alrorithm, a natural selection will take place, because the equipment of the majority coin can be used to attack the smaller coins. This is what happened with ETH Classic and Ethereum, as Ethereum holds nearly all ETHash hashpower.

I'ts not a security bug? I fully understand your point of view but we must separate the technical point of view and the point of view for application. In this case we have two options that would be an error or a natural historical fault that always damages the project. The theory is complex and this should be considered a security bug because how will the project value with the possibility of an attack? I just analyze the story.

[Eddyc]

It's very strange to think that for a cryptocurrency to be successful it needs to suffer a hackers attack and looking back to the past, major projects have suffered this type of attack. The system security vulnerability is the main gateway and why don't developers focus on security? The question is how to invest in a project with a security breach?

Wrong, Bitcoin has one time was vulnerable to 51% attack, but the mining pool didn't take advantage of it. It really depends on how miners are security ETC's network, but it seems that the percentage of bad miners is obviously greater because they were able to put this off again in a week.

And remember that ETC is just a fork coin, so it is really vulnerable just like the other forks on Bitcoin. Investors doesn't care, as long as they are making money, they will simply get inside and then exited when they have a good returns.

So we are in a historical discussion because we are observing that a project depends completely on miners? From an energy point of view this is correct but does it affect the point of view of security? It's showing that yes. As I mentioned in the comment above, it's a complex topic to be analyzed because we must analyze the chain completely and it has been a while since I observed this type of situation that it seems to be a pattern that for all successful projects is under attack.

From an economic point of view I agree with you.

[sayulita]

For the second attack ETC team need to take responsibility, how can second attack happens with almost the same attack tactics, the funny thing about it is the team employing legal team to look into it. This is my advice to all these small POW network, change to POS it is not a crime, safety first

It isn't the fault of the ETC team, the fault is of the low hashpower of the ETC network due to which the cost of an 51% attack is pretty low and that's the reason why ETC saw the 2nd attack in a span of 5 days. As you said ETC should upgrade their protocol to POS and then these 51% attacks could be solved but if the mining protocol still remains POW then we can see another attack in a few days again. This hurts the community and also the reputation of the coin if these attacks aren't stopped in the beginning by the team.

[Yudhisthir]

For the second attack ETC team need to take responsibility, how can second attack happens with almost the same attack tactics, the funny thing about it is the team employing legal team to look into it. This is my advice to all these small POW network, change to POS it is not a crime, safety first

It isn't the fault of the ETC team, the fault is of the low hashpower of the ETC network due to which the cost of an 51% attack is pretty low and that's the reason why ETC saw the 2nd attack in a span of 5 days. As you said ETC should upgrade their protocol to POS and then these 51% attacks could be solved but if the mining protocol still remains POW then we can see another attack in a few days again. This hurts the community and also the reputation of the coin if these attacks aren't stopped in the beginning by the team.

This explains why POW is not good for small or medium sized coin. And with so much with ETH, it would be better to let it go. There are quite a lot coins that could complement for ETC and the use of energy just for the sake of keeping a coin alive is unjustifiable. Even though it came out of it, we cant be sure the attack wont happen again. As the ETH changes to POS, a lot of miners and mining equipment would be free.

[bitgolden]

I feel like ETC needs to recover from this a lot more marginally than the last time, they have lived through this once before and people already said that they are out of ETC and will never invest to it by bulks and whoever left right now will have a lot more people who will get out as well.

These days being a project like ETC is difficult because there is no owners, there is no team behind it in the way that ICO's have, they are not funded by the project and that means there will be less work done on it. However, if they do not work on it and get it done and make it in a way that it could NEVER have any more 51% attack no matter who or how they work, even with a quantum computer if it is even possible, they have to do it now, if they do not do it they will be gone.