delete

[markm]

Damn I really want this FUD to keep going on to scoop up the cheap coins. But your uselessness is way too evident. And it's wasting everyone's time to pay you any attention

1. There was no fork due to 51% attack. Fork at 5400 was planned since weeks
2. Time warp attack was solved as it was there in the Litecoin as well. That fix is incorporated in Auroracoin source too

Here's the diff for that https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/b1be77210970a6ceb3680412cc3d2f0dd4ca8fb9

This is as low as I will go to name calling. But you all (the one's claiming attacks) are clearly losers.

That so called fix of the timewarp is the ancient one, right? The one that this attack is not prevented by? The one litecoin never bothered to update to fix this attack because litecoin's hash rate seemed massive enough that the attack would take an inordinate amount of hashing power?

Litecoin is protected against this current proposed / planned / maybe-in-progress attack by its hashing power, as are most of the SHA256 merged mined coins that also do not have a better "fix" than that ancient "fix" that this current version of timewarp is not prevented by.

haven't you been following the thread(s) about this timewarp attack? All this was already explained, including BCX's assurance that most of the SHA256 merged mined coins have so much hashing power that (s)he cannot effectively use this attack against them despite their code being just as unfixed with regard to this variant of timewarp that the ancient fix you mention litecoin having deployed is no defense against this variant.

Basically coins like bitcoin and litecoin and, we are recently assured, even some of the SHA256 secondary chains, have so much hashing power they do not need a fix in code against this attack.

Nonetheless once you puny low hash power chains do come up with a code fix for it, it would probably make sense for even the high hash power chains to adopt the fix, even if doing so means waiting until their next schedule hard-fork in order to implement it.

It is possible, maybe even likely, that a need for a hard fork to implement such fixes might be a large part of why chains with enough hash power to deter attackers from trying this variant of timewarp have not yet implemented a fix for this variant of timewarp.

-MarkM-

[1714791679]

1714791679

[1714791679]

1714791679

[1714791679]

1714791679

[flipme]

Damn I really want this FUD to keep going on to scoop up the cheap coins. But your uselessness is way too evident. And it's wasting everyone's time to pay you any attention

1. There was no fork due to 51% attack. Fork at 5400 was planned since weeks
2. Time warp attack was solved as it was there in the Litecoin as well. That fix is incorporated in Auroracoin source too

Here's the diff for that https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/b1be77210970a6ceb3680412cc3d2f0dd4ca8fb9

This is as low as I will go to name calling. But you all (the one's claiming attacks) are clearly losers.

They are very desperate, because they see their ASIC investments going down the drain.
They didn't expect any resistance in their plan. Let's prove them wrong.

It's so obvious. Any coin about to make a real market, to become a full cycle working currency, a real success, is under attack by them.

[markm]

It's so obvious. Any coin about to make a real market, to become a full cycle working currency, a real success, is under attack by them.

That is bullshit.

Scams that try to pretend that patheticly insecure amounts of hash power suffice to secure a chain are what is being attacked.

If the scam has any chance of scamming lots of money out of people then that jsut makes it all the more important to put a stop to it before lots of people lose lots of money.

Your claim basically seems to be that the bigger the scam the more important it is NOT to prevent it, because big scams are successful scams so should be permitted or even encouraged.

These scams are deliberately trying to prevent blockchains from being secured. They refuse to enable merged mining even. They are designed not only to scam their own users but also to weaken all the other blockchains that also are trying to fool people into thinking that some puny tiny amount of hash power, so puny even a stupid meme can come up with more hash power, is enough to secure a blockchain.

Basically they are trying to make scrypt untenable as a way of securing a blockchain by totally fragmenting the world's available scrypt hash power so that no chain has enough to be secure.

-MarkM-

[flipme]

It's so obvious. Any coin about to make a real market, to become a full cycle working currency, a real success, is under attack by them.

That is bullshit.

Scams that try to pretend that patheticly insecure amounts of hash power suffice to secure a chain are what is being attacked.

If the scam has any chance of scamming lots of money out of people then that jsut makes it all the more important to put a stop to it before lots of people lose lots of money.

Your claim basically seems to be that the bigger the scam the more important it is NOT to prevent it, because big scams are successful scams so should be permitted or even encouraged.

These scams are deliberately trying to prevent blockchains from being secured. They refuse to enable merged mining even. They are designed not only to scam their own users but also to weaken all the other blockchains that also are trying to fool people into thinking that some puny tiny amount of hash power, so puny even a stupid meme can come up with more hash power, is enough to secure a blockchain.

Basically they are trying to make scrypt untenable as a way of securing a blockchain by totally fragmenting the world's available scrypt hash power so that no chain has enough to be secure.

-MarkM-

Yadda yadda scam, yadda yadda bullshit....
It isn't a scam. Why you call it a scam?
YOU are the scam part of the game, YOU are the scammers.

[_noname_]

That so called fix of the timewarp is the ancient one, right? The one that this attack is not prevented by? The one litecoin never bothered to update to fix this attack because litecoin's hash rate seemed massive enough that the attack would take an inordinate amount of hashing power?

-MarkM-

What are you even talking about? Do you even know what a time warp attack it. You or BCX explain to me in layman terms, what is it and how it can be carried out. If all you can say is hash this, hash that. Then no, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are like those anon script kiddies which ddos anything major for five minutes and claim victory. Good on you.

[markm]

Well I guess we won't know unless BCX's attack does in fact take place and does in fact work.

So we are reduced to awaiting the empirical evidence.

I guess we have to hope that BCX was not bullshitting but is in fact doing the attack and does in fact have enough hashpower to make it work.

-MarkM-

[BohemianStalker]

Well I guess we won't know unless BCX's attack does in fact take place and does in fact work.

So we are reduced to awaiting the empirical evidence.

I guess we have to hope that BCX was not bullshitting but is in fact doing the attack and does in fact have enough hashpower to make it work.

-MarkM-

Why should we hope someone will be able to carry out a cyber crime? I for one, am not.

I hope auracoin will be fine because it gathered lot of attention from iceland, sweden, norway etc, basically rich northern countries that can invest to bitcoin.

To hope Aurora will be destroyed is to fundamentally not understand the nature why are we here on this forum.

[_noname_]

My question still stands. But let me tell you what message you are sending out. You are telling people on the street that cryptos are not safe. That only big corporations should be able to do this. You in your feeble money driven minds are completely missing the big picture and making way for private blockchains.

[thaaanos]

So, better some blackhats fuck you up and force you to fix your weak spots than some gov does it when it really thinks it has to.

Sorry but I don't believe in this logic. You can't go before a court of law and declare, "Your honor, I am entitled to this stolen property because John Doe left their front door unlocked", it doesn't excuse the criminal behavior in itself.

As an investor I wonder what you think of speculators?

[dewon]

Sorry I don't have enough time to read through the whole thread.
Is it real that AUR got multiple forked?
Is it dying?

[_noname_]

Sorry I don't have enough time to read through the whole thread.
Is it real that AUR got multiple forked?
Is it dying?

No, just read 5-10 posts back. I have posted link and logic to invalidate all the claims. This is FUD.

[dewon]

To BCX:

Are you developing a new 2nd gen coin BCX as eightspaces post ?

Is it serious or just a April fool joke?

[markm]

Proof of work blockchains are INSANELY EXPENSIVE to secure.

The only reason they are even remotely viable is bitcoin's massive massive investment in SHA256 hashing power combined with the support for merged mining that lets other chains piggyback on that hashing power so that more than one chain can maybe feasibly be secured.

To attempt to produce enough scrypt hashing power to make the family of merged mined coins that are mined using scrypt similarly potentially powerful enough to be possibly secured is going to cost a similarly vast amount of money.

It is only even remotely reasonable because so much is invested into bitcoin's hashing power that any backup in case SHA256 itself turns out to be fatally flawed ought to be similarly powerful so maybe, just maybe, the cost could be justified as a backup alternative hashing algorithm bitcoin can switch to if SHA256 turns out to be a fatally broken system.

Combined, the cost is so insanely huge that only even-more-insane things like the cost of vaults and paper money printing and regiments of government and banking clerks and armoured cars and endless inflationary printing of money and so on and so on and so on make it not totally batshit insane.

Compared to those it is actually hopefully a savings.

-MarkM-

[_noname_]

@MarkM You again talking about hashing power? If that was the case, any new coin would have faced massive attacks. As kids like to break things. It is so completely evident neither you nor BCX has either skills or understanding to carry out any kind of meaningful attack. This thread is linked from multiple sources and forums. I want you guys to come clean about this. Enough misinformation. You are hurting the crypto scene in general.

[markm]

I do not know if BCX can actually pull off the attack as I do not know exactly what code (s)he intends to execute nor with how much hashing power behind it.

Basically until we see it done it is obvious that scammers will go on pretending that pathetically vulnerable blockchains are actually fine.

All you need to do to launch a coin with a decent amount of hashing power is pre-arrange with several, or maybe even just a few if large enough, merged mining pools to add your coin to their merge at launch. There is no need to con people into imagining that a blockchain without massive hashpower is anywhere near secure enough to actually trade on/with.

Any new coin does face potential attacks.

Most seemingly were not worth bothering to attack.

But continued failure to attack has caused proliferation of so many scams so egregious that it is clear people need to actually see such an attack before they will even believe such things are possible.

I am pretty sure we did see a timewarp attack in action in the past. Maybe more than once? But people's memories and/or understanding are/is short plus scammers keep trying to convince newbies who do not know any better that their scam is different, their scam is fine and dandy, their scam is secure and so on.

-MarkM-

[molecular]

Well I guess we won't know unless BCX's attack does in fact take place and does in fact work.

So we are reduced to awaiting the empirical evidence.

I guess we have to hope that BCX was not bullshitting but is in fact doing the attack and does in fact have enough hashpower to make it work.

-MarkM-

I'm genuinely interested. Has BCX or someone else explained the variant of the attack somewhere? I remember him writing about, but not in detail. I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

[toknormal]

@MarkM You again talking about hashing power? If that was the case, any new coin would have faced massive attacks. As kids like to break things. It is so completely evident neither you nor BCX has either skills or understanding to carry out any kind of meaningful attack.

+1

[flipme]

I think MarcM is a bot. Spreading the same FUD on every thread. Blunt fear mongering.
It's all so obvious. Just another Agent Smith.
Agents can only act within the boundaries of the Matrix, and as a result, they must obey the laws set within the world of the Matrix.

Here they are: ElDude, MarcM, BCX.

[markm]

Well I guess we won't know unless BCX's attack does in fact take place and does in fact work.

So we are reduced to awaiting the empirical evidence.

I guess we have to hope that BCX was not bullshitting but is in fact doing the attack and does in fact have enough hashpower to make it work.

-MarkM-

I'm genuinely interested. Has BCX or someone else explained the variant of the attack somewhere? I remember him writing about, but not in detail. I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

Maybe if the attack works that might generate enough interest and credibility that (s)he will display the code used to do it?

Meanwhile, maybe ask for more info?

Such attacks have been done before, BCX has orchestrated or perpetrated successful attacks in the past apparently, or if not then was permitted by who-ever did so to claim the credit in this forum.

The post above this one makes clear yet again that it is necessary to actually perform the attack, and successfully, in order for the claims that these scams are vulnerable to it to be believed.

Maybe though the original discussion of the ancient attempted fix against timewarp contains explications of how the fix fails. Presumably after the fixers had already scheduled their fix and maybe not until bitcoin and litecoin had enough hashing power that it was no longer believed feasible for anyone to muster enough hashing power to succeed with the modified attack against those major hashpower chains?

That the perpetrators of new coins lacking that much hash power have not continued research and pursued it to a real fix before deploying their scams simply adds more weight to the claim they were not intending to create secure blockchains, merely to make quick and easy make-a-fast-buck scams.

They even actually go out of their way to ensure their chain cannot be secured, as if maybe planning ahead to the crash of their chain when they move on to the next so they can buy up all the coins of it at firesale prices then potentially some day go back to it, maybe when they run out of feasible names for new scams or something.

-MarkM-

[flipme]

Well I guess we won't know unless BCX's attack does in fact take place and does in fact work.

So we are reduced to awaiting the empirical evidence.

I guess we have to hope that BCX was not bullshitting but is in fact doing the attack and does in fact have enough hashpower to make it work.

-MarkM-

I'm genuinely interested. Has BCX or someone else explained the variant of the attack somewhere? I remember him writing about, but not in detail. I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

Maybe if the attack works that might generate enough interest and credibility that (s)he will display the code used to do it?

Meanwhile, maybe ask for more info?

Such attacks have been done before, BCX has orchestrated or perpetrated successful attacks in the past apparently, or if not then was permitted by who-ever did so to claim the credit in this forum.

The post above this one makes clear yet again that it is necessary to actually perform the attack, and successfully, in order for the claims that these scams are vulnerable to it to be believed.

Maybe though the original discussion of the ancient attempted fix against timewarp contains explications of how the fix fails. Presumably after the fixers had already scheduled their fix and maybe not until bitcoin and litecoin had enough hashing power that it was no longer believed feasible for anyone to muster enough hashing power to succeed with the modified attack against those major hashpower chains?

That the perpetrators of new coins lacking that much hash power have not continued research and pursued it to a real fix before deploying their scams simply adds more weight to the claim they were not intending to create secure blockchains, merely to make quick and easy make-a-fast-buck scams.

They even actually go out of their way to ensure their chain cannot be secured, as if maybe planning ahead to the crash of their chain when they move on to the next so they can buy up all the coins of it at firesale prices then potentially some day go back to it, maybe when they run out of feasible names for new scams or something.

-MarkM-

Hey wanker, have a look at this thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549592.0
Makes you shudder much?

We are the Litecoin X11 hardfork team.