TTAv (Time Travel Attack Vector)

[failed@99%]

TTAv
(Time Travel Attack Vector)

I'll try not to take much of your time with this Idea:

Inspiration:
I Play an Old game, called OGame (ironically), for 20 years now,
and I developed and attack there called TTA...

Introduction:
BTC and Blockchain are two interesting concepts...
But I think BTC is in fact a trap...
And Blockchain is the main player here!

So:
Let's say, we've been mining BTC for what? 15 years... and now we have (A LOT) more performance then when we started...
What's stopping us NOW, from re-riting the Blockchain from the genesis block, with 'new' valid blocks?
and come up with a longer valid chain?

Let me Explain:
Say you have COIN1, that has been capped on performance untill now...
But NOW you can go BACK, and re-mine those first blocks at a lower 'performance cost', and still make them valid!
You could create a longer, valid, accepted chain than the one we have now...

I'm assuming all software clients have a preference for the longest valid chain from the Genesis...
I'm also assuming we coud "fake" some information along the way, and still come up with valid Blocks... like:

- Timestamps
- Transactions >> blocksize
- etc...

So my question is:

Is this too far fetched? 
Or do you see this as a problem too?

Take Care,
Yasuke Nakamoto

[1715204244]

1715204244

[1715204244]

1715204244

[1715204244]

1715204244

[1715204244]

1715204244

[digaran]

TTAv
(Time Travel Attack Vector)

I'll try not to take much of your time with this Idea:

Inspiration:
I Play an Old game, called OGame (ironically), for 20 years now,
and I developed and attack there called TTA...

Introduction:
BTC and Blockchain are two interesting concepts...
But I think BTC is in fact a trap...
And Blockchain is the main player here!

So:
Let's say, we've been mining BTC for what? 15 years... and now we have (A LOT) more performance then when we started...
What's stopping us NOW, from re-riting the Blockchain from the genesis block, with 'new' valid blocks?
and come up with a longer valid chain?

Let me Explain:
Say you have COIN1, that has been capped on performance untill now...
But NOW you can go BACK, and re-mine those first blocks at a lower 'performance cost', and still make them valid!
You could create a longer, valid, accepted chain than the one we have now...

I'm assuming all software clients have a preference for the longest valid chain from the Genesis...
I'm also assuming we coud "fake" some information along the way, and still come up with valid Blocks... like:

- Timestamps
- Transactions >> blocksize
- etc...

So my question is:

Is this too far fetched? 
Or do you see this as a problem too?

Take Care,
Yasuke Nakamoto

Oh a Nakamoto but their Yasuke! I think you should go back playing your Ogame and let bitcoin be. It's better for everyone. You just invented something out of thin air, in order to do that, the entire bitcoin community should agree on the new valid chain which would mean the entire bitcoin community are criminals stealing bitcoins and cheating, that doesn't make sense. And if the entire community (consensus) is not on agreement, a fork will happen rendering the new cheating chain a total shitcoin like bch bsv etc.😉

[failed@99%]

Hello @digaran,
thank you for your bitter answer! 

Well,
the thing here is:

Consensus follows RULES, it's not like Trolling!
If this 'new/old' chain, follows the RULES that are already in place... That would need for us to CHANGE the rules.... not the CHAINs!

My point is exactly that!

Are WE prepared to change the RULES in order to stay in the game?
(that is why i reffered tho my OGame past... they've evolved over time....)

(I seriously don't want something like the 'Classic' wars you mentioned...)

[pooya87]

In Bitcoin nodes follow the chain with the most amount of work. That is not necessarily the "longest" chain. You can use a single ASIC to mine the longest chain probably in less than an hour (by manipulating the timestamps, etc.) at difficulty 1 from the genesis block but it won't have the "most amount of work" hence it will not be followed.
If you want to "re-write" history, you need to have most hashrate to perform the most work (14+ years worth of work) which is obviously impossible.

[garlonicon]

I'm also assuming we coud "fake" some information along the way, and still come up with valid Blocks... like:

- Timestamps
- Transactions >> blocksize
- etc...

This assumption is wrong, because you cannot insert blocks in the middle, and reuse other blocks. If you change anything in a block, then all blocks that were created later, are invalid, and you have to change them as well. So, for example, if you mine block 123, then you also need to mine block number 124, 125, and so on, up to the latest block (at the moment of writing, 783849). So, if you want to change anything in block 123, then you need to overwrite the whole chain, from that block, to the latest block, re-mining block 123 alone will be rejected, because each block has a field called "previous block hash", so you have to change the whole chain after that block.

[failed@99%]

Hello pooya87,
thank you for answering too...

This is a more practical and pragmatic answer, so yes!

Here I'll have to bring something new to this:

Have you seen the parallel computing power of a quantum computer now? and the evolution of that area of expertise?
Have you seen what 'KIDS' are able to do now with LLMs lile ChatGPT ? do you see a pattern here? and where I am going...

Yes, we could actually Re-Write the Blockchain in the RIGHT WAY, with a couple more digits on the block hash, just to be sure... and Still do more Work per block anyways...... in Less Time then what we-ve done already....

[failed@99%]

I'm also assuming we coud "fake" some information along the way, and still come up with valid Blocks... like:

- Timestamps
- Transactions >> blocksize
- etc...

This assumption is wrong, because you cannot insert blocks in the middle, and reuse other blocks. If you change anything in a block, then all blocks that were created later, are invalid, and you have to change them as well. So, for example, if you mine block 123, then you also need to mine block number 124, 125, and so on, up to the latest block (at the moment of writing, 783849). So, if you want to change anything in block 123, then you need to overwrite the whole chain, from that block, to the latest block, re-mining block 123 alone will be rejected, because each block has a field called "previous block hash", so you have to change the whole chain after that block.

I AM talking about a FULL re-write from Genesis.... not Insertion.... this is a whole new Unicorn Here

[failed@99%]

If you guys want...

I would be happy to try something like a proof of concept... on a private Testnet or something.......

will take me some time, and I'd have to reactivate my old OpenAI account, but I want to try this..........

 

[pooya87]

Have you seen the parallel computing power of a quantum computer now? and the evolution of that area of expertise?
Have you seen what 'KIDS' are able to do now with LLMs lile ChatGPT ? do you see a pattern here? and where I am going...

Yes I see you are using buzzwords. A quantum computer is not going to magically be able to come up with enough hashrate to attack bitcoin, you still have to be able to compute 10¹⁹ hashes per second to come close which is not yet possible.
And AI is not even applicable here, even with most advanced alien technology level AI you still need computing power to compute hashes!

[digaran]

Have you seen what 'KIDS' are able to do now with LLMs lile ChatGPT ?

Such as? I'd like to see the technological advancements achieved through using a stupid apologetic AI talking model!

[failed@99%]

In Bitcoin nodes follow the chain with the most amount of work. That is not necessarily the "longest" chain. You can use a single ASIC to mine the longest chain probably in less than an hour (by manipulating the timestamps, etc.) at difficulty 1 from the genesis block but it won't have the "most amount of work" hence it will not be followed.
If you want to "re-write" history, you need to have most hashrate to perform the most work (14+ years worth of work) which is obviously impossible.

14+ years "worth" of work....?

oh......... can't you see what I meant?

If you take TODAY's hardware and put them to work BACK....
from start.....
and ADD all that new work


buddy....
witch chain would have more work in terms of Difficulty ?


PS - guys, I can't answer that fast.... the site Is slowing me dow because of this new account...


____________

Have you seen the parallel computing power of a quantum computer now? and the evolution of that area of expertise?
Have you seen what 'KIDS' are able to do now with LLMs lile ChatGPT ? do you see a pattern here? and where I am going...

Yes I see you are using buzzwords. A quantum computer is not going to magically be able to come up with enough hashrate to attack bitcoin, you still have to be able to compute 10¹⁹ hashes per second to come close which is not yet possible.
And AI is not even applicable here, even with most advanced alien technology level AI you still need computing power to compute hashes!

Ok, let's keep it terrestrial here... LOL
I will try to 'magically' come up with a PoC on this...


______________

Have you seen what 'KIDS' are able to do now with LLMs lile ChatGPT ?

Such as? I'd like to see the technological advancements achieved through using a stupid apologetic AI talking model!

It is not STUPID...
It uses a Language Model I helped to Train....
It is as good as the person using it,
and even better If that person actually learns something new!

But are here to talk Bitcoin ! not AI...
So I'll 'try' to make something that proves this...
Or I'll throw the towel!

[failed@99%]

So this is my proposal   :

1 - I'll make a proto-blockchain, that actually uses PoW to validate Blocks of information!
2 - I'll set the Fundamental Rules on the First Block... similar to BTC...
3 - I'll use like 4-5 Cell Phones to mine SHA256 during like 48h on a *FIRST NETWORK*.
4 - I'll use like 4-5 GPUs(A2000) to mine SHA256 on a *SEPARATE NETWORK*, during the last 24h portion of those 48h from the first Network... but starting from the start...
5 - I'll just expose those 2 Network to each other.... like in the last hour or so, and see what Happens...
6 - By the en of those 48h, we will have a result!

Potential Results:

Case A - If the Chains Remain Seperate, and we can actually say there's a FORK, to choose One Good and One Bad Apple... OK, I Lost, and made you lose your time here!

Case B - If the Chains Re-arrange into ONE chain, and It's the OLD Chain... OK, I Lost, and made you lose your time here! (but we still have kinda of a problem here...)

Case C - If the Chains Re-arrange into ONE chain, and It's the NEW Chain... I WOULD BE RIGHT!!! And you guys would have to listten to me further on this!

Deal?

[ymgve2]

You are also missing the human element. Ignoring all other safeguards*, if a chain "better" than the current one appeared suddenly, a lot of people would notice, and nobody would believe the new chain to be the correct one. Bitcoin Core would quickly be updated to blacklist the new chain.

* Bitcoin Core currently has several checkpoints for blocks it expects in the current chain. The last checkpoint is from 2022, so if you want to fool the latest Bitcoin Core, you have to start your work from that point.

[failed@99%]

You are also missing the human element. Ignoring all other safeguards*, if a chain "better" than the current one appeared suddenly, a lot of people would notice, and nobody would believe the new chain to be the correct one. Bitcoin Core would quickly be updated to blacklist the new chain.

* Bitcoin Core currently has several checkpoints for blocks it expects in the current chain. The last checkpoint is from 2022, so if you want to fool the latest Bitcoin Core, you have to start your work from that point.

Yes, this IS the type of answer I was looking for... Thank you....
One would have to actually colide the hash from those Checkpoints!

This saves me a lot of work now... I will think of a way to go against the check points, and that requires me more thoughts on this!
(If even possible...)

Thank You again! @ymgve2

[NotATether]

TTAv
(Time Travel Attack Vector)

~

Let me Explain:
Say you have COIN1, that has been capped on performance untill now...
But NOW you can go BACK, and re-mine those first blocks at a lower 'performance cost', and still make them valid!
You could create a longer, valid, accepted chain than the one we have now...

My goodness, is this straight out of a Time Heist mission? 

Seriously though:

In BTC, how on earth are you going to remine those old blocks without mining everything else that came after it? You can't just reuse block hashes of later blocks because they include the hash of the block you want to replace.

And thus, though a combination of technology and selfish game theory, Bitcoin is secured from everyone who would like to alter past transactions.

[ymgve2]

Ah, then I misunderstood the purpose of https://github.com/CryptAxe/info/blob/master/AssumeValid.md

There are still checkpoints in the blockchain parameters, but the last is from around block 300000. My first point is still the most important one - you are unable to sneak in a replacement chain without everyone noticing.

[digaran]

Changing the blockchain requires more nodes than the entire node network currently active.
Re-mining the whole blockchain with the old transactions? Would you change anything in the blocks? Whatever you will go against the rules of the network, making it an invalid chain, maybe you need to rethink the concept of consensus in place to see what you want to do will never work. Rewriting everything will give you a new coin, it will not be accepted as BTC.

[failed@99%]

Please stop pretending you don't see this as a Potential Thread to BTC and the Community we've all built!

If you didn't, why would you even post a Reply...

I lack the time/patience to try to explain this further, sorry...

[BlackHatCoiner]

What's stopping us NOW, from re-riting the Blockchain from the genesis block, with 'new' valid blocks?

Economics and math. You need stupidly large amounts of energy to do that, and there are immeasurably small chances to accomplish it otherwise.

I would be happy to try something like a proof of concept... on a private Testnet or something.......

Try writing more about it in detail. You have either forgotten something or you lack fundamental knowledge.

Changing the blockchain requires more nodes than the entire node network currently active.

Changing the blockchain requires just one attacker, running just one node.

[garlonicon]

Case C - If the Chains Re-arrange into ONE chain, and It's the NEW Chain... I WOULD BE RIGHT!!! And you guys would have to listten to me further on this!

Note that the current chainwork, as of block 784058, is equal to 000000000000000000000000000000000000000044aeb6f75667470177d11bc3. That means you need something around 21256197793736101712865860547 hashes to overwrite the whole chain, so even if theoretically possible, practically you will fail at that.