Pool Ops are now the Alt Currency Police

[DeathAndTaxes]

In this case, Merged Mining was not a tool, BUT A WEAPON that served the purpose that the Pool Op intended to use it for.....AS HE EXCLAIMED WITH JOY ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, yet posting logs here to prove it would only result in the removal of said logs due to protest by Luke himself.
Go figure....

Why not just post the logs.  I doubt mods would remove it.  If anything it *may* (not that I speak for mods or admins) lead to a scammer tag and/or banning if they prove what you say they prove.

[1714049365]

1714049365

[1714049365]

1714049365

[1714049365]

1714049365

[bitlane]

In this case, Merged Mining was not a tool, BUT A WEAPON that served the purpose that the Pool Op intended to use it for.....AS HE EXCLAIMED WITH JOY ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, yet posting logs here to prove it would only result in the removal of said logs due to protest by Luke himself.
Go figure....

Why not just post the logs.  I doubt mods would remove it.  If anything it *may* (not that I speak for mods or admins) lead to a scammer tag and/or banning if they prove what you say they prove.

Luke already protested previously posted IRC chat logs and had them removed earlier. Any further posting of similar at this point would only serve to entertain the masses while possibly jeopardizing some of our own standings on this forum.
I am actively trying to obtain more chat logs as I write this, for my own amusement, if nothing else.

[markm]

But looking at the listed hash rates of the top ten pools, it seems a very easy 51% to fix?

How?  51% "vulnerability" is inherent in blockchains.

Luke's pool has far less than 51% of the hashing power of the top ten pools combined, and is not even the largest of the top ten pools. There are a number of pools that could all by themself "fix" Luke's attack.


They might not even have to use their member's hashing power without prior consent either; they could openly offer their members the option of merged mining more chains. We haven't yet even discovered how many chains is the practical limit for a pool to merged-mine at once.

-MarkM-

[bitlane]

The funny thing about this all is, it took the power of Luke's pool to pull this off, because without it, he's essentially NOTHING and a threat to nobody.

I've spent enough time at BTC-e Exchange chat, reading his dribble about how Litecoin is also a scam coin, but the sad fact of the matter is, he's powerless to do anything about it, as it's a CPU mined Alt.

With his personal vendetta against CLC, I0X and I0C...he was able to leverage the power of the pool that he admins to do them damage.
He essentially has NOTHING of his own to use in his battle against GPU-mined Scam Coins (as he calls them) that would be even marginally effective and with CPU Alts still thriving, it seems he has even less resources at his disposal to cause any significant disruptions for them.

I would hope that once his pool miners wake up a bit, they all leave his pool in a mass exodus and take their resources elsewhere, to be under the management of another, more HONEST pool Op that will not abuse his/her status, using other's hashing power to fuel their personal ego trips and/or conquests against other Alts in the future.

Absolute power corrupts....absolutely.

[makomk]

Luke's pool has far less than 51% of the hashing power of the top ten pools combined, and is not even the largest of the top ten pools. There are a number of pools that could all by themself "fix" Luke's attack.

Judging from his comments in #bitcoin, I think that Tycho is basically in agreement with Luke's actions here, and since Deepbit makes up 40-50% of the total Bitcoin mining power by itself...

[bulanula]

I congratulate people like gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack ) and Luke-Jr.

Screw the alt chain scammers and their pump and dump schemes. Luke-Jr is morally sound and I am really glad scams like CoiledChain are dead and stop staining the name of Bitcoin with the pump and dumping that goes on.

Well done to you both ! Screw the scammers and pump & dumpers.

Just like he said : All scamchains like SolidCoin, LiteCoin, CoiledCoin are a plot to steal BTC from the fools.

Now CoiledCrap is dead, what will be the next scamchain of the week ? 419coin ?

[terrytibbs]

gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack )

Right!

[Schwede65]

Luke's pool has far less than 51% of the hashing power of the top ten pools combined, and is not even the largest of the top ten pools. There are a number of pools that could all by themself "fix" Luke's attack.

Judging from his comments in #bitcoin, I think that Tycho is basically in agreement with Luke's actions here, and since Deepbit makes up 40-50% of the total Bitcoin mining power by itself...

at the moment deepbit makes ~30 % of btc-mining (3341 of 11714)

this percentage is enough

there have been periods in the past where he had ~ 50 % and a bit more some time...

but the acceptance of destroying alt-coins is not transferable to btc, because the king-coin makes his days!

[casascius]

You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

[Turbor]

Code:

[10:31]	luke-jr	coblee: I didn't orphan anything mature
[10:31]	coblee	luke-jr: oh ok
[10:32]	luke-jr	I intentionally avoided anyone actually losing money
[10:32]	coblee	so just mining, not including transactions, and dumping?
[10:33]	luke-jr	coblee: actually, I decided it was better not to dump
[10:33]	luke-jr	coblee: I've also asked BTC-e to reverse the dumping I did earlier
[10:33]	coblee	how would they reverse the dumping?
[10:33]	gmaxwell	presumably the counterparties would rather have their btc back.
[10:34]	gmaxwell	So they could just undo the trades, luke didn't withdraw the bitcoin he got.
[10:34]	luke-jr	coblee: well, presuming by dumping, we mean "selling"
[10:34]	TuxBlackEdo	what happen?
[10:34]	TuxBlackEdo	and why are we still awake?
[10:35]	coblee	this is pretty funny
[10:35]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: I effectively disabled the latest scamcoin
[10:35]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: a new altcoin showed up out of nowhere.. complete with an exchange and a bunch of eager ponzi pumpers.
[10:35]	_W_	TuxBlackEdo, it's morning here
[10:35]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: and look took charge of the chain.
[10:35]	TuxBlackEdo	coilcoin, right?
[10:35]	luke-jr	Coiled*
[10:36]	gmaxwell	And some people who were planing to make money fast, are none too happy that they can't get any blocks or txn in, and that luke crashed the price on the market.
[10:36]	luke-jr	why is artforz helping them workaround it?
[10:36]	gmaxwell	Awesome. The race is on.
[10:36]	luke-jr	gmaxwell: well, he's just encouraging them to get BTCGuild onboard "next time" -.-
[10:36]	luke-jr	nothing fancy
[10:37]	TuxBlackEdo	instead of crashing the price of a alt chain we should try to somehow make the price of namecoin go through the roof
[10:37]	gmaxwell	oh. meh, well fine. Its true— but since the cost of setting up more merged chains is still high— good luck with that.
[10:37]	coblee	they are bashing you on btc-e luke-jr lol
[10:37]	TuxBlackEdo	that's pretty cool though, props luke-jr
[10:37]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: pfft, you abuse namecoin anyway
[10:38]	gmaxwell	coblee: it's a little beyond bashing. At least earlier is was pretty scarry.
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	how
[10:38]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: you just sell them
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	explain how i "abuse" namecoins?
[10:38]	coblee	scary how?
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	I never sold a namecoin
[10:38]	TuxBlackEdo	actually i do the opposite
[10:39]	TuxBlackEdo	while everyone was selling i was setting up big buy orders
[10:39]	luke-jr	TuxBlackEdo: then why do you want price up?
[10:39]	TuxBlackEdo	i own a ton of namecoins
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	ill move some namecoins right now to prove
[10:40]	gmaxwell	TuxBlackEdo: I'll give you an address to move them to.
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	hehe
[10:40]	TuxBlackEdo	ill move them to
[10:40]	luke-jr	lol
[10:41]	TuxBlackEdo	MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP
[10:41]	TuxBlackEdo	done
[10:42]	TuxBlackEdo	a412edf5e41529582f138cbc4bd3991203150fab4797fc472853dedd730b5ca9
[10:43]	gmaxwell	hahah
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: so what can we say CLC stands for?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: crazy loser coin?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	k65onyx: catastrophic loss of coins?
[10:43]	gmaxwell	artforz: lol
[10:43]	gmaxwell	castonbtce: cunt luke coin
[10:44]	luke-jr	hmm
[10:44]	luke-jr	just in case I accidentally orphaned some non-generation, I just let them all through a few blocks ago
[10:44]	luke-jr	bet they don't notice <.<
[10:45]	doublec	I saw them
[10:45]	gmaxwell	well they were saying that you'd stopped earlier, so who knows.
[10:47]	TuxBlackEdo	how long is namecoin going to take to generate a block...
[10:48]	JFK911	;;bc,stats
[10:48]	gribble	Current Blocks: 160874 | Current Difficulty: 1159929.4972244 | Next Difficulty At Block: 161279 | Next Difficulty In: 405 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1221673.16179828 | Estimated Percent Change: 5.32305323054
[10:51]	luke-jr	reckon I should leave it on overnight?
[10:51]	TuxBlackEdo	luke-jr, http://explorer.dot-bit.org/a/MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP

[jake262144]

...A useful countermeasure would be to replace the static locking time (120 blocks) for new coins w/ a variable one based on block chain length.  Maybe starting out with a lock of 1000 (not much use for alt-coins on day 0 anyways) declining wot 120 blocks based on block length over say the first year.

Precisely. Chain length, recent block generation speed, with some tweaking any algorithmic approach would beat a hard-coded value.

I would love to hear (or read) from a miner at Eligius pool and how THEY feel about having their hashing power used for something they didn't consent to or agree with ?

I'm here
Obviously, I'm not overjoyed about Luke's alleged endeavor. That's a breach of agreement between Luke and his miners.
Surely, my hashing power will be put to better use than shooting up alt-chain currencies, right Luke, old chap?
I'm not moving my miners just yet but a yellow flag has been raised.

I congratulate people like gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack ) and Luke-Jr.
Well done to you both ! Screw the scammers and pump & dumpers.

How about "screw them" by just staying away and never touching their chains?

[bitlane]

So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?

[DeathAndTaxes]

You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

Shutdown and do what?

How do your resolve the fact that some % of the network believes chain A is valid and some % believes chain B is valid.  Never re-org?  If you re-org and the longest chain wins then you are back where you started from.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?

Given they were worthless scam coins?  No you didn't lose anything.

[casascius]

You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

Shutdown and do what?

How do your resolve the fact that some % of the network believes chain A is valid and some % believes chain B is valid.  Never re-org?  If you re-org and the longest chain wins then you are back where you started from.

Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by its owner as "connect to me" and whose chain version they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

[bulanula]

So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?

Given they were worthless scam coins?  No you didn't lose anything.

LOL. Exactly what I was going to say !

You only lost some electricity because you were naive enough to think this typical pump & dump - open exchange in 5 hours after launch scheme was going to work.

Luckily a moral Christian like Luke stopped this BS. I hope he kills crap like DVC, IXC, I0C next etc.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work.  

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing. 


I think there are ways to provide 51% protection but human control isn't something I would ever support.  Human control is fallible.  Humans can be bribed, beaten, extorted, killed, etc.

The block chain protocol could be improved to detect and invalidate a 51% attack (hint: a 51% attack involves a re-org AND doubling of hashpower).  Yeah there may be some side effects but they would be part of the network outside of human control/manipulation.

[casascius]

Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work. 

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing.

It's not centralized. It's democratic.

In the case of Luke's attack, there is no doubt which is the attack chain and which is not. The consensus is unanimous. So if this were bitcoin, we would be check pointing the last good block and moving on with life. In case of a threat of a repeat attack, implementation of an algorithm that performs simple spot checks to detect a bogus chain (discussed in other threads, Gavin contributed a few potential criteria), many bogus attack chains could be auto rejected with no human interaction.

[bulanula]

Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work.  

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing.  


I think there are ways to provide 51% protection but human control isn't something I would ever support.  Human control is fallible.  Humans can be bribed, beaten, extorted, killed, etc.

The block chain protocol could be improved to detect and invalidate a 51% attack (hint: a 51% attack involves a re-org AND doubling of hashpower).  Yeah there may be some side effects but they would be part of the network outside of human control/manipulation.

Yeah just like BTC can't be 51% or economic manipulated with just a couple of millions.

Funny to think that all the BTC value is worth $50 million when just $5 million or even less is needed to kill all this network. SolidScam is no good either.

Until issues like the potential for a 51%, price stability, early adopters having 100 000 of coins for $100 this whole system is a joke.

Arguably, the biggest joke compared to crap like CoiledCoin but still a joke.

If we want BTC to be valid we need to find a technological solution for the 51% problem. No more of this "it will never happen" or "the attacker would gain more by contributing" and other such excuses. BTC is just as vulnerable as CoiledCoin if the miners go away. Don't leave it to chance. Fix it while you can.

[DeathAndTaxes]

It's not centralized. It's democratic.

But it isn't democratic.  How do you vote?  How do you guarantee the vote is fair, accurate, and timely?  How do you ensure the people voting are informed?  How do you make sure the person who has the ACTUAL POWER to make the changes follows the will of "the people".

Even if it was perfectly democratic, humans fail.  The federal reserve is a great idea in theory.  Money supply SHOULD match economic expansion so that pricing power is always the same.  IF the Fed worked in actuality a dollar today would have the same pricing power as 1970s or 1920s or 1800s.  In reality it fails.  Humans fail.    Giving an elite group of humans control of Bitcoin is the day I stop mining forever (or support the alt which doesn't do that).

In the case of Luke's attack, there is no doubt which is the attack chain and which is not. The consensus is unanimous. So if this were bitcoin, we would be check pointing the last good block and moving on with life.

For example say Luke was the one who had the power to write and published the "right chain" patch.  Oops.  You now just guaranteed the attack chain has superiority.

In case of a threat of a repeat attack, implementation of an algorithm that performs simple spot checks to detect a bogus chain (discussed in other threads, Gavin contributed a few potential criteria), many bogus attack chains could be auto rejected with no human interaction.

This I have no problem with.   There are automatic methods which could make the blockchain smarter and more resilient to 51% attack without going down that slippery slope of human manipulation.