GHash.IO is standing at 51%

[ljudotina]

So, CEX.IO is putting up tweets instead of actually doing something.

https://twitter.com/cex_io/status/477377921234264064

In a free market economy, u cant expect the leader to step down. The competitors should step up.

Or it should be regulated by authority (in this case bitcoin protocol itself). It should be possible to force anyone from amasing hash power like that on protocol side. It's not Ghas that should fix this, devs are ones that need to secure network on protocol level.

You can't just blacklist an entire pool.

You cant blacklist, but u can cease its mining power programmatically with protocol level modification. Please read the proposition => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650778.0

But you talk about leaving it at 49%. That's still way too dangerous.

It can be set to any "max" level...even "only p2p" can be forced on protocol level.
Best and only way to protect network is portocol, not hardware.

[newIndia]

So, CEX.IO is putting up tweets instead of actually doing something.

https://twitter.com/cex_io/status/477377921234264064

In a free market economy, u cant expect the leader to step down. The competitors should step up.

Or it should be regulated by authority (in this case bitcoin protocol itself). It should be possible to force anyone from amasing hash power like that on protocol side. It's not Ghas that should fix this, devs are ones that need to secure network on protocol level.

You can't just blacklist an entire pool.

You cant blacklist, but u can cease its mining power programmatically with protocol level modification. Please read the proposition => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650778.0

But you talk about leaving it at 49%. That's still way too dangerous.

It can be set to any "max" level...even "only p2p" can be forced on protocol level.
Best and only way to protect network is portocol, not hardware.

Exactly and I dont understand why 49% is at risk, though its just a max variable that the community can decide upon. But whether a protocol level modification is possible and be accepted is a bigger question. I believe except for GHash.IO all other miners will accept it. Probably the independent participants at Ghash.IO too.

[Aswan]

This is very bad imo. I don't think people realize what a 51% would do to Bitcoin.

People keep calling it 51% attack which makes the impression that only 51% or more would allow the assciated attacks on the network.
However, it actually is a "more than 50%" attack, which can be done with as little as a consistent 50.00001% of total has power.

[newIndia]

This is very bad imo. I don't think people realize what a 51% would do to Bitcoin.

People keep calling it 51% attack which makes the impression that only 51% or more would allow the assciated attacks on the network.
However, it actually is a "more than 50%" attack, which can be done with as little as a consistent 50.00001% of total has power.

GHash.IO actually crossed 50% today. I saw it in the blockchain.info graph. But, it was below 51%. So it was not shown in digit. Would be interested to know whether any other portal is providing this graph of hash rate distribution ?

[Parazyd]

So, CEX.IO is putting up tweets instead of actually doing something.

https://twitter.com/cex_io/status/477377921234264064

In a free market economy, u cant expect the leader to step down. The competitors should step up.

Or it should be regulated by authority (in this case bitcoin protocol itself). It should be possible to force anyone from amasing hash power like that on protocol side. It's not Ghas that should fix this, devs are ones that need to secure network on protocol level.

You can't just blacklist an entire pool.

You cant blacklist, but u can cease its mining power programmatically with protocol level modification. Please read the proposition => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650778.0

But you talk about leaving it at 49%. That's still way too dangerous.

It can be set to any "max" level...even "only p2p" can be forced on protocol level.
Best and only way to protect network is portocol, not hardware.

Exactly and I dont understand why 49% is at risk, though its just a max variable that the community can decide upon. But whether a protocol level modification is possible and be accepted is a bigger question. I believe except for GHash.IO all other miners will accept it. Probably the independent participants at Ghash.IO too.

51% means that double spending would be at a 100% success rate. You could still endanger Bitcoin in such a way with 49% as well.

I'll again repeat myself and say that Ghash could keep all the hashing power if they were to split to independent pools.

[newIndia]

So, CEX.IO is putting up tweets instead of actually doing something.

https://twitter.com/cex_io/status/477377921234264064

In a free market economy, u cant expect the leader to step down. The competitors should step up.

Or it should be regulated by authority (in this case bitcoin protocol itself). It should be possible to force anyone from amasing hash power like that on protocol side. It's not Ghas that should fix this, devs are ones that need to secure network on protocol level.

You can't just blacklist an entire pool.

You cant blacklist, but u can cease its mining power programmatically with protocol level modification. Please read the proposition => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650778.0

But you talk about leaving it at 49%. That's still way too dangerous.

It can be set to any "max" level...even "only p2p" can be forced on protocol level.
Best and only way to protect network is portocol, not hardware.

Exactly and I dont understand why 49% is at risk, though its just a max variable that the community can decide upon. But whether a protocol level modification is possible and be accepted is a bigger question. I believe except for GHash.IO all other miners will accept it. Probably the independent participants at Ghash.IO too.

51% means that double spending would be at a 100% success rate. You could still endanger Bitcoin in such a way with 49% as well.

I'll again repeat myself and say that Ghash could keep all the hashing power if they were to split to independent pools.

Oops !!! Thats a problem I did not consider. Even a protocol level change cant stop it then. Only market competition can counter them.

[Aswan]

So, CEX.IO is putting up tweets instead of actually doing something.

https://twitter.com/cex_io/status/477377921234264064

In a free market economy, u cant expect the leader to step down. The competitors should step up.

Or it should be regulated by authority (in this case bitcoin protocol itself). It should be possible to force anyone from amasing hash power like that on protocol side. It's not Ghas that should fix this, devs are ones that need to secure network on protocol level.

You can't just blacklist an entire pool.

You cant blacklist, but u can cease its mining power programmatically with protocol level modification. Please read the proposition => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650778.0

But you talk about leaving it at 49%. That's still way too dangerous.

It can be set to any "max" level...even "only p2p" can be forced on protocol level.
Best and only way to protect network is portocol, not hardware.

Exactly and I dont understand why 49% is at risk, though its just a max variable that the community can decide upon. But whether a protocol level modification is possible and be accepted is a bigger question. I believe except for GHash.IO all other miners will accept it. Probably the independent participants at Ghash.IO too.

51% means that double spending would be at a 100% success rate. You could still endanger Bitcoin in such a way with 49% as well.

I'll again repeat myself and say that Ghash could keep all the hashing power if they were to split to independent pools.

It can further be used to lock down addresses by not processing transactions that are made from that address and by refusing all block that include transactions from that address.
Other miners would then be faced with either having to lose their mining reward (because GHash.io ignores their block and just builds a longer chain which will overrule the block with the transaction in question, or having to not include any transactions of addresses GHash.io says they won't build blocks on.
Ofc, with miners often being heavily invested in mining hardware, they would always want their reward and therefore obey GHash.io's rules (in order to at least get something out of their mining investment).
That would lead to the network adapting to rules set by GHash.io rather quickly and therefore making it impossible to switch back even after they lose their has dominance (because who wants to step out and have his blocks refused by the network first?)
It's a dangerous situation and I do not like it =/

[ljudotina]

Or just change diff for any entity that has hash rate above certain percentage of whole network hash rate. Than pools and miners would be forced to split to smaller groups and pools.

[Aswan]

Or just change diff for any entity that has hash rate above certain percentage of whole network hash rate. Than pools and miners would be forced to split to smaller groups and pools.

They can still lock down addresses by not processing the Transactions and not building on top of blocks including said Txs. It they have the same rules it does not matter if they appear to be any amount of pools, their efforts are going to be pooled

[franky1]

[Parazyd]

Have they started double spending yet?

[franky1]

Have they started double spending yet?

you cannot automatically double spend just by holding 51%. you have to have code that allows it, meaning that they have to intentionally change the rules to allow it.

a 51% attack = 51% dominance + intent to attack.

many believe GHASH has no intent to shoot themselves in the foot by doing anything nasty

[Robert Paulson]

so now the future of everyone holding bitcoin depends on some anonymous guy not doing anything nasty?
if they continue holding more than 50% of hashing power for a few more months im personally converting all my btc to gold.

[newIndia]

so now the future of everyone holding bitcoin depends on some anonymous guy not doing anything nasty?
if they continue holding more than 50% of hashing power for a few more months im personally converting all my btc to gold.

I believe, they actually hold more than 50%, but is not using a % of their capacity. But I disagree that the future of Bitcoin holding is in their hand. Even if they hold 100%, the cant sign a transaction. So they cant ever move Satoshi's stash or yours. They merely have the choice to chose Tx to be included in their mined blocks. So, if they include a double spend and can mine 6 blocks consecutively, u may assume that would be permanent in the n/w. But, as soon as they come down below 50%, u can again use coins w/o risk.

Moreover, they are not fully anonymous. Jeffrey Smith is Cex.io’s Chief Information Officer as per http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-pool-ghash-io-is-unapologetic-risk-theoretical-51-attack/2014/06/12

[alani123]

It's too bad that other pools can't compete with Ghash.io

I don't think that it's the people's fault. It's an open market and they're providing a better service. No matter if you like it or not, that's the way it is. Because besides all the bad things being heard about them. It's obvius that there has been much work put into their service.

[elasticband]

they almost had 6 blocks in a row, lucky discuss fish slipped one in there

[ljudotina]

Run to the fucking hills! SELL!!! RUN!!! FIRE!!! SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!

[elasticband]

Have they started double spending yet?

you cannot automatically double spend just by holding 51%. you have to have code that allows it, meaning that they have to intentionally change the rules to allow it.

a 51% attack = 51% dominance + intent to attack.

many believe GHASH has no intent to shoot themselves in the foot by doing anything nasty

So Ghash are just securing/gaurding the network against other malicious attackers

[ljudotina]

Have they started double spending yet?

you cannot automatically double spend just by holding 51%. you have to have code that allows it, meaning that they have to intentionally change the rules to allow it.

a 51% attack = 51% dominance + intent to attack.

many believe GHASH has no intent to shoot themselves in the foot by doing anything nasty

So Ghash are just securing/gaurding the network against other malicious attackers

It sure looks like that 
If bitcoin was about finding central power that secures whole network, ghas would be it.

[alani123]

Have they started double spending yet?

you cannot automatically double spend just by holding 51%. you have to have code that allows it, meaning that they have to intentionally change the rules to allow it.

a 51% attack = 51% dominance + intent to attack.

many believe GHASH has no intent to shoot themselves in the foot by doing anything nasty

So Ghash are just securing/gaurding the network against other malicious attackers

Some suspicious double spend attacks were recorded lately but we can't tell if it was them for sure. But it doesn't really seem like this is causing large scale problems so far.

https://blockchain.info/address/1AF4og9Epgw7Q7hVzNeDf8ZAvzRhJ8pQG
https://blockchain.info/address/1H5NvB7W5hGhf3aPACDZPam7vmy3bYuTDa
https://blockchain.info/address/1BX5YoLwvqzvVwSrdD4dC32vbouHQn2tuF
https://blockchain.info/address/1BwZeHJo7b7M2op7VDfYnsmcpXsUYEcVHm
https://blockchain.info/address/1A73ExsM2doRwTLp82rv5U36QHbBFmHD1X