This is why Ghash sucks and is worse than you think.

[spinf]

Maybe make it such that probability of getting a block doesn't scale linearly with hash power? But then that would have other problems.

Any idea how to do this? sounds interesting but it seems quite difficult to find a mathematical way to do this...

[1714894980]

1714894980

[1714894980]

1714894980

[1714894980]

1714894980

[1714894980]

1714894980

[1714894980]

1714894980

[Deviant1]

Ghash stands for everything that Bitcoin is against.

[Puppet]

Is there any evidence for GHash double spending the coins so far

Yes:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321630.msg3445371#msg3445371

[xDan]

These guys really really want to be the people that discovered a flaw in Bitcoin.

What they seem to ignore is that a pool is a group of willing participants. They deny the social aspect as being a possible solution.

[jbrnt]

Everyone knows it is a threat, some thinks it is more serious than others, but what can we do? The author suggested nothing except this:

The protocol needs hard incentives to keep mining pools from growing too large. Small but critical changes to the cryptographic techniques used in the mining protocol can fix these problems by making public pools unattractive.

What is this "small but critical changes"? Is he talking about PoS?

[knightcoin]

The chance of an outright 51% chance is quite small as it doesn't make economic sense. The bigger worry, IMO, is the ability to decide which transactions to include which in effect means they control Bitcoin.

If, say they decide that they are not going to include Counterparty transactions, the execution time for Counterparty is immediately doubled to 20 mins and with a huge variation. The fact that a supposedly decentralised coin is almost controlled by 1 person/group is very scary

I always do analogy to some networking problems like the one in the news about net neutrality

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/24/net-neutrality

lets say that ghash, btcguld are like verizon, comcast, etc ... also is like when a single politcal party is too powerful ...

 

[seriouscoin]

It doesn't matter if the honest nodes don't want to accept anything from the attacker.
The attacker has enough hashrate to change the rules.

How is the attacker (a miner and node(s)) going to force me to change the software (node) on my computer so he can modify the rules of the protocol?

Easy, he can't.

Seriously, either I didn't get what a 51% ownership of the network is, or you still don't understand the dangers of it.
Don't know which.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate.......

Have you read the wiki which gives a very simple explanation of what an attacker with a lot of hash power can and can not do?

Have you?

Please stop arguing when you dont understand crap.

Having a longest chain doesnt mean they can change the rules. The rules are set by nodes.

In the event of 51%, there will be a folk of blockchains. The network can react by completely ignore blocks from the attacker (updating client required). This is a complete hard fork. Hence we only see this as disruptive attack. Its still a damage to bitcoin.

Now, since GHash is a pool, the second they do this attack, its clients will move their hashrate else where and GHash will have nothing but shot themself in the foot.

The practicality of this attack is close to nil. There is better way of hurting btc for far less the cost.
 

[QuestionAuthority]

It doesn't matter if the honest nodes don't want to accept anything from the attacker.
The attacker has enough hashrate to change the rules.

How is the attacker (a miner and node(s)) going to force me to change the software (node) on my computer so he can modify the rules of the protocol?

Easy, he can't.

Seriously, either I didn't get what a 51% ownership of the network is, or you still don't understand the dangers of it.
Don't know which.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate.......

Have you read the wiki which gives a very simple explanation of what an attacker with a lot of hash power can and can not do?

Have you?

Please stop arguing when you dont understand crap.

Having a longest chain doesnt mean they can change the rules. The rules are set by nodes.

In the event of 51%, there will be a folk of blockchains. The network can react by completely ignore blocks from the attacker (updating client required). This is a complete hard fork. Hence we only see this as disruptive attack. Its still a damage to bitcoin.

Now, since GHash is a pool, the second they do this attack, its clients will move their hashrate else where and GHash will have nothing but shot themself in the foot.

The practicality of this attack is close to nil. There is better way of hurting btc for far less the cost.
 

CoiledCoin used merged mining similar to Namecoin. LukeJr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new CoiledCoin blockchain. The Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl. The same could be done with Bitcoin.

I don't really think Ghash.IO has any intent to do anything but profit from being the largest pool any more than I thought Tycho intended to harm Bitcoin when Deepbit was the front runner. The possibility exists that a government or other entity that wants to harm Bitcoin does not need to invest a fortune in equipment to do damage. They can simply use your equipment to do it. PoW is a flaw that needs to be corrected before Bitcoin exits beta and becomes production software. Many would say Bitcoin is no longer in beta because the market cap says so. If that's true then this problem needs to be solved now before anyone loses any more money to this experiment.

[Cred]

It seems to me that what is required is more pools that are as easy to join and as efficient as GHash. We just need more competition. Once the difference in pool returns is small enough, the incentive for miners to move to a smaller pool to protect BTC overall will overcome the advantages of GHash over any other pool. Basically, BTC Guild and others need to get better. The rest of the community should be subsidizing the underdogs and helping them catch up.

[seriouscoin]

It doesn't matter if the honest nodes don't want to accept anything from the attacker.
The attacker has enough hashrate to change the rules.

How is the attacker (a miner and node(s)) going to force me to change the software (node) on my computer so he can modify the rules of the protocol?

Easy, he can't.

Seriously, either I didn't get what a 51% ownership of the network is, or you still don't understand the dangers of it.
Don't know which.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate.......

Have you read the wiki which gives a very simple explanation of what an attacker with a lot of hash power can and can not do?

Have you?

Please stop arguing when you dont understand crap.

Having a longest chain doesnt mean they can change the rules. The rules are set by nodes.

In the event of 51%, there will be a folk of blockchains. The network can react by completely ignore blocks from the attacker (updating client required). This is a complete hard fork. Hence we only see this as disruptive attack. Its still a damage to bitcoin.

Now, since GHash is a pool, the second they do this attack, its clients will move their hashrate else where and GHash will have nothing but shot themself in the foot.

The practicality of this attack is close to nil. There is better way of hurting btc for far less the cost.
 

CoiledCoin used merged mining similar to Namecoin. LukeJr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new CoiledCoin blockchain. The Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl. The same could be done with Bitcoin.

I don't really think Ghash.IO has any intent to do anything but profit from being the largest pool any more than I thought Tycho intended to harm Bitcoin when Deepbit was the front runner. The possibility exists that a government or other entity that wants to harm Bitcoin does not need to invest a fortune in equipment to do damage. They can simply use your equipment to do it. PoW is a flaw that needs to be corrected before Bitcoin exits beta and becomes production software. Many would say Bitcoin is no longer in beta because the market cap says so. If that's true then this problem needs to be solved now before anyone loses any more money to this experiment.

You're missing a key point is that Eligius miners dont mine or care for scamcoins hence Luke can effectively disrupt the network for a long time ( he becomes a single largest miner in that scamcoin's network).

Another point is the scamcoin's participants are not robust enough to effectively ignore Eligius. Everyone is in it for pump and dump ( get rich quick scheme)

 

[QuestionAuthority]

It doesn't matter if the honest nodes don't want to accept anything from the attacker.
The attacker has enough hashrate to change the rules.

How is the attacker (a miner and node(s)) going to force me to change the software (node) on my computer so he can modify the rules of the protocol?

Easy, he can't.

Seriously, either I didn't get what a 51% ownership of the network is, or you still don't understand the dangers of it.
Don't know which.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate.......

Have you read the wiki which gives a very simple explanation of what an attacker with a lot of hash power can and can not do?

Have you?

Please stop arguing when you dont understand crap.

Having a longest chain doesnt mean they can change the rules. The rules are set by nodes.

In the event of 51%, there will be a folk of blockchains. The network can react by completely ignore blocks from the attacker (updating client required). This is a complete hard fork. Hence we only see this as disruptive attack. Its still a damage to bitcoin.

Now, since GHash is a pool, the second they do this attack, its clients will move their hashrate else where and GHash will have nothing but shot themself in the foot.

The practicality of this attack is close to nil. There is better way of hurting btc for far less the cost.
 

CoiledCoin used merged mining similar to Namecoin. LukeJr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new CoiledCoin blockchain. The Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl. The same could be done with Bitcoin.

I don't really think Ghash.IO has any intent to do anything but profit from being the largest pool any more than I thought Tycho intended to harm Bitcoin when Deepbit was the front runner. The possibility exists that a government or other entity that wants to harm Bitcoin does not need to invest a fortune in equipment to do damage. They can simply use your equipment to do it. PoW is a flaw that needs to be corrected before Bitcoin exits beta and becomes production software. Many would say Bitcoin is no longer in beta because the market cap says so. If that's true then this problem needs to be solved now before anyone loses any more money to this experiment.

You're missing a key point is that Eligius Bitcoin miners dont mine or care for scamcoins about anything but profit hence Luke Ghash can effectively disrupt the network for a long time (he becomes a single largest miner in the Bitcoin that scamcoin's network).

Another point is the remaining miners scamcoin's participants are not robust enough to effectively ignore Ghash.IOEligius. Everyone is in it for pump and dump including many Bitcoiners ( get rich quick scheme)

FIFY

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

It doesn't matter if the honest nodes don't want to accept anything from the attacker.
The attacker has enough hashrate to change the rules.

How is the attacker (a miner and node(s)) going to force me to change the software (node) on my computer so he can modify the rules of the protocol?

Easy, he can't.

Seriously, either I didn't get what a 51% ownership of the network is, or you still don't understand the dangers of it.
Don't know which.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate.......

Have you read the wiki which gives a very simple explanation of what an attacker with a lot of hash power can and can not do?

Have you?

Please stop arguing when you dont understand crap.

Having a longest chain doesnt mean they can change the rules. The rules are set by nodes.

In the event of 51%, there will be a folk of blockchains. The network can react by completely ignore blocks from the attacker (updating client required). This is a complete hard fork. Hence we only see this as disruptive attack. Its still a damage to bitcoin.

Now, since GHash is a pool, the second they do this attack, its clients will move their hashrate else where and GHash will have nothing but shot themself in the foot.

The practicality of this attack is close to nil. There is better way of hurting btc for far less the cost.
 

CoiledCoin used merged mining similar to Namecoin. LukeJr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new CoiledCoin blockchain. The Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl. The same could be done with Bitcoin.

I don't really think Ghash.IO has any intent to do anything but profit from being the largest pool any more than I thought Tycho intended to harm Bitcoin when Deepbit was the front runner. The possibility exists that a government or other entity that wants to harm Bitcoin does not need to invest a fortune in equipment to do damage. They can simply use your equipment to do it. PoW is a flaw that needs to be corrected before Bitcoin exits beta and becomes production software. Many would say Bitcoin is no longer in beta because the market cap says so. If that's true then this problem needs to be solved now before anyone loses any more money to this experiment.

You're missing a key point is that Eligius Bitcoin miners dont mine or care for scamcoins about anything but profit hence Luke Ghash can effectively disrupt the network for a long time (he becomes a single largest miner in the Bitcoin that scamcoin's network).

Another point is the remaining miners scamcoin's participants are not robust enough to effectively ignore Ghash.IOEligius. Everyone is in it for pump and dump including many Bitcoiners ( get rich quick scheme)

FIFY

If ghash were to launch this kind of attack then the value of bitcoin  would decrease, leading ghash miners to have an incentive to leave the pool making it difficult to sustain such an attack.

[QuestionAuthority]

I wonder if they would they notice the decrease in price before it's too late? When I was mining heavily I would go for days without even checking my miners. Pissed me off one time because I found a blown hd5970 and checked my hash rate on Deepbit only to find out that it stopped working 3 days prior.

[QuestionAuthority]

I wonder if they would they notice the decrease in price before it's too late? When I was mining heavily I would go for days without even checking my miners. Pissed me off one time because I found a blown hd5970 and checked my hash rate on Deepbit only to find out that it stopped working 3 days prior.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Good, then I made my point. They wouldn't notice before it's too late. That argument is flawed.

The remedy of a decrease in price if a pool passes a threshold is also ridiculous because they may not be in it for the money. They may be a mini LukeJr clone and just be interested in the destruction.

[QuestionAuthority]

I wonder if they would they notice the decrease in price before it's too late? When I was mining heavily I would go for days without even checking my miners. Pissed me off one time because I found a blown hd5970 and checked my hash rate on Deepbit only to find out that it stopped working 3 days prior.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Good, then I made my point. They wouldn't notice before it's too late. That argument is flawed.

The remedy of a decrease in price if a pool passes a threshold is also ridiculous because they may not be in it for the money. They may be a mini LukeJr clone and just be interested in the destruction.

I don't see the problem. Those who fear a 51% attack will divest themselves of bitcoins, those who do not will not.

This entire thing is build on economic incentives.

In other words, we won't fix this ahead of time any more than we fixed transaction malleability before people lost money so you need to fuck off and take your money out of Bitcoin if you don't want to lose it. Yeah, mass adoption is right around the corner dude. lol

[LAMarcellus]

The solution to this "problem" could not be simpler.
We need more free pools.
Why is Eligius, with its difficult to comprehend CPPSRB payout system the only free alternative to free GHASH??

Simply make a free pool that is simpler to understand than Eligius and BAM...  problem solved.

GHASH interface  is cleaner than Eligius, and its payout scheme is easier to understand than Eligius'.

Shit Eligius pays out 105% NMC because many people can't even sign a transaction to get their share from the pool.

LukeJr and WK are smart and they're not lowering their standards to accommodate anyone.


What really sucks is that people like the OP here are sitting around complaining rather than pro-actively setting up a free pool to compete against GHASH.


Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.
Simply set up a free pool.

[BitsBitsBits]

Yay another 51% attack thread.

I don't think ghash will ever even plan any of that shit, they are profiting way too much already by people buying their gh/s and they get a huge % of their mining.

[QuestionAuthority]

Are you going to pay for it? Free pools aren't free for the operator. You need an ulterior motive to run a free pool.

[Acidyo]

Are you going to pay for it? Free pools aren't free for the operator. You need an ulterior motive to run a free pool.

Spam it with ads or something, people browsing stats can look at ads at the same time and the ads pay for holding the server up? Wouldn't this be the easiest solution?

Servers don't seem that expensive anyway.

[ThomasCrowne]

Bitcoin is supposed to be trust-less. In essence, we are currently putting a LOT of trust in ghash for them to do the right thing. They have so far, but that's not the point - we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

I agree with this fella.  Just because ghash.io hasn't done anything dishonest thus far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.  Plus, having this much hash power in one location should external influences try and take over ghash.io is still an overall threat to the network.