|
ajareselde
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin
|
|
June 13, 2014, 10:29:44 AM |
|
like i allready said somewhere, ghash.io just needs to place another server, to reduce the load, and everything will be fine. they can also keep the hashrate, it doesnt matter if they have it spread out across their servers.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4382
Merit: 4752
|
|
June 13, 2014, 11:08:07 AM |
|
like i allready said somewhere, ghash.io just needs to place another server, to reduce the load, and everything will be fine. they can also keep the hashrate, it doesnt matter if they have it spread out across their servers. that wont work because they still have their same code. even spread over 1000000 servers if all servers have code that says reward=200btc. and it gets mined. due to the fact that 51% of miners combined say that 200 coins is acceptable. then it gets accepted. i said months ago, you dont ned to spend multiple millions to buy enough ASICS to get 51% of the network. you just need either to own a pool and have atleast 51% of the community join you. or bribe several pools/servers which would equate to 51% to agree to use your code
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
ljudotina
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1029
|
|
June 13, 2014, 11:11:04 AM |
|
like i allready said somewhere, ghash.io just needs to place another server, to reduce the load, and everything will be fine. they can also keep the hashrate, it doesnt matter if they have it spread out across their servers. that wont work because they still have their same code. even spread over 1000000 servers if all servers have code that says reward=200btc. and it gets mined. due to the fact that 51% of miners combined say that 200 coins is acceptable. then it gets accepted. i said months ago, you dont ned to spend multiple millions to buy enough ASICS to get 51% of the network. you just need either to own a pool and have atleast 51% of the community join you. or bribe several pools/servers which would equate to 51% to agree to use your code Pools mean rats ass if there are no miners in them. If change is not good for miners too, they will just leave that pool and join another.
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
|
|
June 13, 2014, 12:45:24 PM |
|
that wont work
because they still have their same code. even spread over 1000000 servers if all servers have code that says reward=200btc. and it gets mined. due to the fact that 51% of miners combined say that 200 coins is acceptable. then it gets accepted.
Accepted by whom? Why would anybody's client accept such a block? How is it any different than if they do the same thing with 10% of the mining power (or 90%)?
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
June 13, 2014, 12:47:36 PM |
|
because they still have their same code. even spread over 1000000 servers if all servers have code that says reward=200btc. and it gets mined. due to the fact that 51% of miners combined say that 200 coins is acceptable. then it gets accepted.
An invalid block is still invalid no matter who mined it. Bitcoin clients follow the longest VALID chain.
|
|
|
|
Marlo Stanfield (OP)
|
|
June 13, 2014, 04:32:33 PM |
|
I'm not sure how these replies relate to the theft of shares from the link I posted. How does Ghash have anything to do with it (other than me throwing my speculative question related to their involvement)?
The 51% thing is a big deal but I wanted to talk about the fact that there seems to be a critical flaw with the way mining pools currently work that people can exploit(not >50% attacks, read my original link). The 200-300 BTC that the pool lost is a lot. What really makes me worry is that people can do it on p2pool and no one can stop them as far as I can tell. And we want people using p2pool but no one is going to want to if it's being exploited.
|
|
|
|
gweedo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 13, 2014, 04:33:33 PM |
|
This is only a big deal to the mining pools because it is someone robbing them and there users of money.
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
June 13, 2014, 04:48:58 PM |
|
I'm not sure how these replies relate to the theft of shares from the link I posted. How does Ghash have anything to do with it (other than me throwing my speculative question related to their involvement)?
The 51% thing is a big deal but I wanted to talk about the fact that there seems to be a critical flaw with the way mining pools currently work that people can exploit(not >50% attacks, read my original link). The 200-300 BTC that the pool lost is a lot. What really makes me worry is that people can do it on p2pool and no one can stop them as far as I can tell. And we want people using p2pool but no one is going to want to if it's being exploited.
This is not a sensible attack on p2pool, the only way to do it would be to withhold a p2pool share that would currently solve a block, the withholding party would NOT get the block reward, but neither would the pool, on p2pool it would essentially just be throwing away the block solution and no one would benefit...
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
June 13, 2014, 05:01:38 PM |
|
I'm not sure how these replies relate to the theft of shares from the link I posted. How does Ghash have anything to do with it (other than me throwing my speculative question related to their involvement)?
The 51% thing is a big deal but I wanted to talk about the fact that there seems to be a critical flaw with the way mining pools currently work that people can exploit(not >50% attacks, read my original link). The 200-300 BTC that the pool lost is a lot. What really makes me worry is that people can do it on p2pool and no one can stop them as far as I can tell. And we want people using p2pool but no one is going to want to if it's being exploited.
This is not a sensible attack on p2pool, the only way to do it would be to withhold a p2pool share that would currently solve a block, the withholding party would NOT get the block reward, but neither would the pool, on p2pool it would essentially just be throwing away the block solution and no one would benefit... That is no different than any other pool. The point of the attack is to pay a little to hurt the pool more. If an attacker makes up 10% of the pool they can take a 10% reduction in mining income to make the pool look horrible (consistent 10% or worse "bad luck"). This would drive miners into "luckier" pools and possibly kill the pool off completely. So rhetorical question, who directly benefits if a smaller pool (to include p2pool) is wiped out?
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
June 13, 2014, 05:13:39 PM |
|
I'm not sure how these replies relate to the theft of shares from the link I posted. How does Ghash have anything to do with it (other than me throwing my speculative question related to their involvement)?
The 51% thing is a big deal but I wanted to talk about the fact that there seems to be a critical flaw with the way mining pools currently work that people can exploit(not >50% attacks, read my original link). The 200-300 BTC that the pool lost is a lot. What really makes me worry is that people can do it on p2pool and no one can stop them as far as I can tell. And we want people using p2pool but no one is going to want to if it's being exploited.
This is not a sensible attack on p2pool, the only way to do it would be to withhold a p2pool share that would currently solve a block, the withholding party would NOT get the block reward, but neither would the pool, on p2pool it would essentially just be throwing away the block solution and no one would benefit... That is no different than any other pool. The point of the attack is to pay a little to hurt the pool more. If an attacker makes up 10% of the pool they can take a 10% reduction in mining income to make the pool look horrible (consistent 10% or worse "bad luck"). This would drive miners into "luckier" pools and possibly kill the pool off completely. So rhetorical question, who directly benefits if a smaller pool (to include p2pool) is wiped out? At least with Ghash they can't really gain much any longer from people moving to their pool at this point since they've already breached 50%. I mean they could, but at this point I have to assume they're not stupid enough to continue pushing their numbers in to the 50s. At least publicly. Perhaps they did this before and it has paid off for them in the form of more people going to their pool. And now we're seeing these record numbers partially as a result of this attack? Maybe it worked too well?
|
|
|
|
jjc326
|
|
June 13, 2014, 07:40:03 PM |
|
like i allready said somewhere, ghash.io just needs to place another server, to reduce the load, and everything will be fine. they can also keep the hashrate, it doesnt matter if they have it spread out across their servers. that wont work because they still have their same code. even spread over 1000000 servers if all servers have code that says reward=200btc. and it gets mined. due to the fact that 51% of miners combined say that 200 coins is acceptable. then it gets accepted. i said months ago, you dont ned to spend multiple millions to buy enough ASICS to get 51% of the network. you just need either to own a pool and have atleast 51% of the community join you. or bribe several pools/servers which would equate to 51% to agree to use your code Exactly. I totally agree. I think Bitcoin could get taken down fairly easily for a small amount of money. That is the reason this needs to be addressed if we really want Bitcoin to become widely accepted. I mean, a terrorist organization would easily pay $100 million to take downt he US financial system (if it was Bitcoin mean)
|
|
|
|
Jason
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
|
|
June 13, 2014, 11:16:26 PM |
|
At least with Ghash they can't really gain much any longer from people moving to their pool at this point since they've already breached 50%. I mean they could, but at this point I have to assume they're not stupid enough to continue pushing their numbers in to the 50s. At least publicly.
Perhaps they did this before and it has paid off for them in the form of more people going to their pool. And now we're seeing these record numbers partially as a result of this attack? Maybe it worked too well?
What about something like this: Here's another potentially likely GHash scenario: - GHash sells most of its available bitcoins for fiat
- GHash achieves 51+% on purpose knowing it will trigger a selloff
- GHash buys back the bitcoins at a greatly reduced price
- GHash points its miners to other pools to alleviate the threat
- Bitcoin price rises again and GHash realizes a large profit from market manipulation
This seems like a low-risk strategy, generates a tidy profit for GHash, and can probably be done several times before the community catches on so long as they wait long enough between runups. If you believe that they are so beneficent that they would never try anything like this, then perhaps you'd like to buy some shares I have in the Golden Gate bridge for sale? In fact, when they point their own miners at other pools, they could (as you suggest) even be employing block withholding attacks to induce miners there to switch pools when the miners notice the luck is running below average or to force the pool operators to raise their rates in the case of PPS pools.
|
BM-2D7sazxZugpTgqm3M2MCi5C1t8Du8BN11f
|
|
|
millsdmb
|
|
June 14, 2014, 03:22:19 AM |
|
Check out this too. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282z7a/im_selfish_mining_at_ghashio/Hello, I control somewhere between 50 TH/s and 2 PH/s(can't be too specific for security reasons) of hashing power. Today, I have been pointing some of this at Ghash.IO, and selfish mining to hinder their profits. I withhold blocks I find, and do not send them. I encourage others to do the same(towards Ghash.IO), to destroy this pool that is deliberately trying to harm Bitcoin. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Marlo Stanfield (OP)
|
|
June 14, 2014, 06:06:31 AM |
|
At least with Ghash they can't really gain much any longer from people moving to their pool at this point since they've already breached 50%. I mean they could, but at this point I have to assume they're not stupid enough to continue pushing their numbers in to the 50s. At least publicly.
Perhaps they did this before and it has paid off for them in the form of more people going to their pool. And now we're seeing these record numbers partially as a result of this attack? Maybe it worked too well?
What about something like this: Here's another potentially likely GHash scenario: - GHash sells most of its available bitcoins for fiat
- GHash achieves 51+% on purpose knowing it will trigger a selloff
- GHash buys back the bitcoins at a greatly reduced price
- GHash points its miners to other pools to alleviate the threat
- Bitcoin price rises again and GHash realizes a large profit from market manipulation
This seems like a low-risk strategy, generates a tidy profit for GHash, and can probably be done several times before the community catches on so long as they wait long enough between runups. If you believe that they are so beneficent that they would never try anything like this, then perhaps you'd like to buy some shares I have in the Golden Gate bridge for sale? In fact, when they point their own miners at other pools, they could (as you suggest) even be employing block withholding attacks to induce miners there to switch pools when the miners notice the luck is running below average or to force the pool operators to raise their rates in the case of PPS pools. They definitely could be doing this. Then when they buy back they make a big public statement saying how they're committed to bitcoin ect and they lower their hashrate down to the low 30s and everyone is happy.
|
|
|
|
bluemeanie1
|
|
June 14, 2014, 05:03:49 PM |
|
something bizarre is going on that is certain.
-bm
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
June 14, 2014, 05:43:13 PM |
|
something bizarre is going on that is certain.
-bm
I'm guessing there's no way to ever prove who is behind all of this. I guess we can just ask ourselves, who benefits?
|
|
|
|
Jason
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
|
|
June 14, 2014, 06:22:00 PM |
|
Someone over on Reddit posted a patch to Luke's latest BFGminer which provides a command line option to turn on block withholding attacks. The post is in the "I'm selfish mining at ghashio" thread. Here's the link they posted for convenience: http://pastebin.com/d1ptqDFvI can think of several incentives to use such an attack: - To prevent a pool like GHash from cornering the mining market (and thus causing prices to fall) by negatively impacting their luck. This should providing incentive for miners to switch to another pool
- To attack pools other than one's own in order to entice their users to come to your own pool
The second incentive seems like it would only work for individuals/groups in direct control of a large amount of hashing power -- such as GHash/CEX. Perhaps this will turn out to be just the sort of tool the Bitcoin community needs to keep mining pools from gaining too much market share? Or perhaps it will usher in a new stage of mining wars. Either way, it seems like it has the potential to alter the balance of power by giving the mining community some power to punish misbehaving pools.
|
BM-2D7sazxZugpTgqm3M2MCi5C1t8Du8BN11f
|
|
|
Marlo Stanfield (OP)
|
|
June 14, 2014, 09:05:50 PM |
|
Someone over on Reddit posted a patch to Luke's latest BFGminer which provides a command line option to turn on block withholding attacks. The post is in the "I'm selfish mining at ghashio" thread. Here's the link they posted for convenience: http://pastebin.com/d1ptqDFvI can think of several incentives to use such an attack: - To prevent a pool like GHash from cornering the mining market (and thus causing prices to fall) by negatively impacting their luck. This should providing incentive for miners to switch to another pool
- To attack pools other than one's own in order to entice their users to come to your own pool
The second incentive seems like it would only work for individuals/groups in direct control of a large amount of hashing power -- such as GHash/CEX. Perhaps this will turn out to be just the sort of tool the Bitcoin community needs to keep mining pools from gaining too much market share? Or perhaps it will usher in a new stage of mining wars. Either way, it seems like it has the potential to alter the balance of power by giving the mining community some power to punish misbehaving pools. Wow, things just got even more interesting!
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 14, 2014, 09:12:48 PM |
|
Perhaps this will turn out to be just the sort of tool the Bitcoin community needs to keep mining pools from gaining too much market share? Or perhaps it will usher in a new stage of mining wars. Either way, it seems like it has the potential to alter the balance of power by giving the mining community some power to punish misbehaving pools. If a situation arises where it's no longer safe to accept hashing power from random members, then pools would have to restrict themselves to only working with trusted participants. Presumably that would make pools a lot smaller, and there'd be more of them.
|
|
|
|
|