GHash is at 48% WTF

[devphp]

What is the estimate until they get to 51% anyway ?

Are you asking because you want to have a plan for your bitcoins when it happens or just curious?

[adolife]

so come over to my pool to avoid such a happening (p2Pool)

107.170.184.48:9332

greetings,

Joannes Wyckmans

Donations: 13nBLdkL5uPmowcPWNGrR4vBef215zBK6X

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

What is the estimate until they get to 51% anyway ?

you can attack bitcoin even with 30%.
51% just guarantees a success (in an unlimited timeframe and with the assumption that no new hashrate is added)

You are correct but the opposite is true as well. Having 51% does not guarantee an attack, it only makes it possible.

[onemorebtc]

What is the estimate until they get to 51% anyway ?

you can attack bitcoin even with 30%.
51% just guarantees a success (in an unlimited timeframe and with the assumption that no new hashrate is added)

You are correct but the opposite is true as well. Having 51% does not guarantee an attack, it only makes it possible.

i still think they should stop accepting other pool-blocks and build only their chain.
its in their interest: it would result in a lower diff

i am very intersted in the outcome. tradegy-of-the-commons vs bitcoin-doomsday

[jjiimm_64]

i still think they should stop accepting other pool-blocks and build only their chain.
its in their interest: it would result in a lower diff

i am very intersted in the outcome. tradegy-of-the-commons vs bitcoin-doomsday

are you nuts?  completely fork the chain.. apparently you dont have much to lose..

[onemorebtc]

i still think they should stop accepting other pool-blocks and build only their chain.
its in their interest: it would result in a lower diff

i am very intersted in the outcome. tradegy-of-the-commons vs bitcoin-doomsday

are you nuts?  completely fork the chain.. apparently you dont have much to lose..

whats the difference?
they have the ability now to exclude transactions as they like (by ignoring any block which contains it). nothing would change if they do it - it would even be more hones

btw: it was meant a little ironic... i've heard this discussion way to often and nothing changes. i'm a little frustrated you know and like to see a permanent solution: either way

[nwfella]

What is the estimate until they get to 51% anyway ?

you can attack bitcoin even with 30%.
51% just guarantees a success (in an unlimited timeframe and with the assumption that no new hashrate is added)

You are correct but the opposite is true as well. Having 51% does not guarantee an attack, it only makes it possible.

i still think they should stop accepting other pool-blocks and build only their chain.
its in their interest: it would result in a lower diff

i am very intersted in the outcome. tradegy-of-the-commons vs bitcoin-doomsday

/facepalm

*I sure hope you where being sarcastic!

[xstr8guy]

Would a moderator please merge all of these GHash threads? It's redundant and difficult to follow the discussion with so many threads all discussing the exact same topic.

[kingscrown]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/ made interview with CIO of ghash.

[niothor]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/ made interview with CIO of ghash.

And where is the question...:

"What do you plan to do for real this time to prevent another wave of FUD around the 51& attack issue ?

[tbearhere]

This is fucking serious people get off GHash the consequences for 51% are huge. It could be detrimental for bitcoin going forward. Once people realize that the Achilles heel in bitcoin is real, they'll permanently mark it with a negative stigma.

seriously i dont understand why 51% or more makes a difference. can someone explain please. ty

[QuestionAuthority]

This is fucking serious people get off GHash the consequences for 51% are huge. It could be detrimental for bitcoin going forward. Once people realize that the Achilles heel in bitcoin is real, they'll permanently mark it with a negative stigma.

seriously i dont understand why 51% or more makes a difference. can someone explain please. ty

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him
With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

[tbearhere]

This is fucking serious people get off GHash the consequences for 51% are huge. It could be detrimental for bitcoin going forward. Once people realize that the Achilles heel in bitcoin is real, they'll permanently mark it with a negative stigma.

seriously i dont understand why 51% or more makes a difference. can someone explain please. ty

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him
With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

thank you, now i understand why   

[kingscrown]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

[QuestionAuthority]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.

Wow, I feel much better now. I can't wait for the pool operators to become the dirty dozen and begin "imposing solutions" on Bitcoin. Time to go all in. o_O

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.

Wow, I feel much better now. I can't wait for the pool operators to become the dirty dozen and begin "imposing solutions" on Bitcoin. Time to go all in. o_O

I don't see your quote in that article.

[QuestionAuthority]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.

Wow, I feel much better now. I can't wait for the pool operators to become the dirty dozen and begin "imposing solutions" on Bitcoin. Time to go all in. o_O

I don't see your quote in that article.

Go all the way to the bottom. It's the very last thing he said.

[niothor]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.

Wow, I feel much better now. I can't wait for the pool operators to become the dirty dozen and begin "imposing solutions" on Bitcoin. Time to go all in. o_O

Even worse:

We would also like to state that stopping sign ups and other actions of this type would only be a temporary solution, and there would be no guarantees that later on some other pool would get the percentage close to 51%, and their intentions would not be so true and assuring as ours.

We don't care for a temporary solution , let's all think a few years about another one.

[QuestionAuthority]

http://fuk.io/cexio-ghashio-jeffrey-smith-interview-exclusive/
INTERVIEW UPDATED WITH 51% ATTACK QUESTION

We STRONGLY agree that no Bitcoin user should fully trust a single entity that they will not harm and manipulate users’ funds and assets, and we will soon present a valid solution to the “Achilles heel “ problem of Bitcoin, and will start an open dialogue with other pool owners to impose this solution.

Wow, I feel much better now. I can't wait for the pool operators to become the dirty dozen and begin "imposing solutions" on Bitcoin. Time to go all in. o_O

Even worse:

We would also like to state that stopping sign ups and other actions of this type would only be a temporary solution, and there would be no guarantees that later on some other pool would get the percentage close to 51%, and their intentions would not be so true and assuring as ours.

We don't care for a temporary solution , let's all think a few years about another one.

Yeah, I know. That whole article did anything but reassure me. What it actually did was convince me that they are going to do whatever they want to do and their isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it and they know it.

[niothor]

Ghash is currently at 32%. This out be so reassuring for some people here if Unknown wouldn't have hit 29%.

Pretty obvious move to calm the waters for a few months.

Yeah, I know. That whole article did anything but reassure me. What it actually did was convince me that they are going to do whatever they want to do and their isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it and they know it.

What is even more annoying is that we did this. By 'we" I understand miners that in search for profit funded this company and their overpriced ghash.

And yes , I did mine at ghash for a few months also , but never bought at cex