bter hacked and lost 50m nxt

[Este Nuno]

Now we will see if NXT is decentralized or not


rollback = centralized

This ^.

I think it is so funny how coins like Vericoin and now NXT tout themselves as a "DECENTRALIZED" currency. But when a large hack occurs ... "oops can we just roll back the chain this one time?"

lol

+ 1000

You can say it is decentralized as many as you can type a post, it does't change the fact

Rollback = centralized

There's really no other way to describe it. I'm amazed at what people around here will label "decentralized"

"but they voted, so it's not centralized" GTFO LOL SMH   

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

[madalieninvader]

That actually confirms the decentralised nature of it. Nobody in particular can choose to roll back, that has to be reached through a democratic decision built through a decentralised consensus. It's the very definition of decentralisation. What you are talking about is Laissez-Faire politics, where you just don't care about stopping the thief.

I don't necessarily support rollbacks. But as we've gone over many times in this thread, a group of miners/forgers deciding on what chain to continue on is clearly decentralised. Just because you don't like an idea doesn't mean you can just apply an erroneous label to it.

well in your understanding 
centralized=decision of one person or maybe a few of persons
decentralized= decision of many people, majority wins

in my understanding
decentralized= individual decision of each and every person about their own property within the limit of given rules (code)
centralized= anybody (be it one person or many persons) can make arbitrary decisions about anybody elses's property

the whole purpose of Bitcoin or any other decent crypto as a technical solution is to guarantee that nobody can make arbitrary decisions about anybody else's property. This is why I am ready to call them decentralized solutions. Everybody has to follow the same rules. Majority of hashing power is used as a best way to prevent attacks, best incentive to stick to the code.  But in your undestanding one specific majority can make arbitrary decisions. 

whatever the result of the vote, I have serious misgivings about cryptocurrencies - just an existence of such a vote is bad

This is what I've been trying to say but didn't know how. I'm not technological and economic ninja but I don't think this is insurmountable problem.

I hope it's not an insurmountable problem. If it is maybe we have to choose between lesser of two evils. Have our finances dominated by governments, central banks, and tyrannies of majorities, or dominated by a majority of miners/stakers/forgers with developers having a lot of pull.

[coinsolidation]

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

        // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
        if (block.nVersion < 2 && 
            CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
        {
            return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
                                 REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
        }

[MasterMined710]

question: so if the people who own 51% of nxt decides to rollback they can just do it right?
what if only like 100 people own 51% of nxt. those 100 people can just rollback and no one can stop them?

bitshares x dpos helps solve this problem because 51% of users would have to agree on a rollback not just the richest 51%.

with btc and other pow coins i think you need like 80%+ of users/nodes to agree.

[liondani]

Why did Bter send the other 90 BTC to the hacker after he said the deal was off?!

That was insane.

it depends on the hackers identity...

[Este Nuno]

question: so if the people who own 51% of nxt decides to rollback they can just do it right?
what if only like 100 people own 51% of nxt. those 100 people can just rollback and no one can stop them?

bitshares x dpos helps solve this problem because 51% of users would have to agree on a rollback not just the richest 51%.

with btc and other pow coins i think you need like 80%+ of users/nodes to agree.

Yes, in NXT if the 100 people forge with >50% can.

How does Bitshares enforce individuality? What stops sock puppets? That's interesting I hadn't heard that before.

[Chris001]

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

        // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
        if (block.nVersion < 2 && 
            CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
        {
            return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
                                 REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
        }

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

[madalieninvader]

Thanks for the posts people. Even those I disagree with have helped my understanding. I've got to get out of the ANN pages once in a while. I forgot sensible discussion can take place on bitcointalk.

Later.

[Este Nuno]

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

        // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
        if (block.nVersion < 2 && 
            CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
        {
            return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
                                 REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
        }

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

What would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead.

It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change.

[HinnomTX]

If I have learned anything in the world of crypto. It's just when you think nothing can get worse just when you think everythings at an all time low Mark Karpeles will walk his fat fucking ass into the room and spill a boiling hot frappucino all over your computer. Mark my words thinks are about to get worse.

+1 LMAO!!!

[Nautica]

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

[Este Nuno]

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls.

This is a good quote!

I'll try to remember to link to this when this issue inevitably comes up again.

[Chris001]

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

        // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
        if (block.nVersion < 2 && 
            CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
        {
            return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
                                 REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
        }

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

What would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead.

It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change.

No, you are comparing something, and then jumping to a whole different subject, and then acting like these unrealated things prove an outrageous conclusion.

That was a break in the system. The system broke. It had to be fixed.

That was not voting to change a legitimate transaction. Meaning one that was made without the system breaking down.

Taking the system, and changing it, when the system did not break, is a centralized decision.

Bter was robbed of Nxt. Bter should pay the price. People that trusted that central source, including me and my Nxt, should pay the price.

Why? Because that is what happened, that's why. When there can be a vote made to alter the system, to go back in time and erase something, that calls into question many things about that system.

The system should not have the ability to be altered after the fact. It's a ledger, and we HAVE TO FIND a way for that ledger not to be able to be altered.

That is what we need to do next. This is where we are as a community. We are not doing as good as we think, and we are getting worse.

This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed.

And for you goofs, that think this is an advantage, please log off now, as you are the beginning of the fork we are trying not to go down here, for gods sakes. smh

[MasterMined710]

question: so if the people who own 51% of nxt decides to rollback they can just do it right?
what if only like 100 people own 51% of nxt. those 100 people can just rollback and no one can stop them?

bitshares x dpos helps solve this problem because 51% of users would have to agree on a rollback not just the richest 51%.

with btc and other pow coins i think you need like 80%+ of users/nodes to agree.

Yes, in NXT if the 100 people forge with >50% can.

How does Bitshares enforce individuality? What stops sock puppets? That's interesting I hadn't heard that before.

it cost a very small fee to be a delegate and the users can vote on delegates that don't misbehave. so basically it prevents the rich 50%+ from rollbacks like ppc/nxt pos.

Delegated Proof of Stake - Let's Talk Bitcoin Episode 129
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBpoRLmrbA&list=WL#t=726

[Nautica]

This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed.

This is a classic example of an unsolvable problem.

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

You will have to live with blockchains people can fork or roll back. What the blockchain brought to the table is that you could not modify it to your liking, but there is no way to prevent people from what is basically choosing to go use another alt-coin. Unless you want to try to dictatorially force people to use one and only given blockchain, you'll have to accept this and stop yelling at what is essentially a cloud.

[Chris001]

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

When these forks happen it is an alternate reality, a new coin.

To this day I refer to Vericoin as Vericoin2, because that's what it is.

The real Vercoin had a boatload of it stolen off of Mintpal

The real Nxt had 5% stolen off of Bter.

The issue is getting to a point where HISTORY can't be changed. I don't think that is impossible at all.

[Este Nuno]

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

        // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
        if (block.nVersion < 2 && 
            CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
        {
            return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
                                 REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
        }

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

What would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead.

It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change.

No, you are comparing something, and then jumping to a whole different subject, and then acting like these unrealated things prove an outrageous conclusion.

That was a break in the system. The system broke. It had to be fixed.

That was not voting to change a legitimate transaction. Meaning one that was made without the system breaking down.

Taking the system, and changing it, when the system did not break, is a centralized decision.

Bter was robbed of Nxt. Bter should pay the price. People that trusted that central source, including me and my Nxt, should pay the price.

Why? Because that is what happened, that's why. When there can be a vote made to alter the system, to go back in time and erase something, that calls into question many things about that system.

The system should not have the ability to be altered after the fact. It's a ledger, and we HAVE TO FIND a way for that ledger not to be able to be altered.

That is what we need to do next. This is where we are as a community. We are not doing as good as we think, and we are getting worse.

This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed.

And for you goofs, that think this is an advantage, please log off now, as you are the beginning of the fork we are trying not to go down here, for gods sakes. smh

That's fine that you think it's a flaw. But being able to save the system from exploits like 184 billion BTC one automatically implies the other.

I think it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to figure out a way to invent the system you want. But you never know. There could be some neo-Satoshi out there inventing it now.

[Nautica]

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

When these forks happen it is an alternate reality, a new coin.

To this day I refer to Vericoin as Vericoin2, because that's what it is.

The real Vercoin had a boatload of it stolen off of Mintpal

The real Nxt had 5% stolen off of Bter.

The issue is getting to a point where HISTORY can't be changed. I don't think that is impossible at all.

What you're not realising is that every fork is a separate HISTORY. And like you ask, history can't be changed because of it is cryptographically secured and guaranteed. That's the invention of the blockchain. But I can still copy the history book and start doing my own additions to it on my own version of it. Nothing prevents me from copying a history book, then keep writing it and make my own version of it. It's the nature of data. You copy it, and then you make what you want with it. You are essentially asking to stop file sharing. How is that working out for the lawmakers? There is no way to prevent people from going somewhere else and doing their own thing.

[madalieninvader]

I got sucked back in.

Thing is I don't know if everyone doesn't see this as problem because of differing values and/or goals, or because they just haven't thought it through. I store gold or cash under my matress it's usually going to be there later. It won't disappear because I unknowingly bought it off some guy who hacked an exchange. That's just one scenario I can bring clearly to mind but I'm sure there's a many more.

Also one of the selling points of crypto evangelists has always been there's no chargebacks as compared to credit cards, or outright seizures like PayPal or banks in Cyprus.

[Chris001]

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

When these forks happen it is an alternate reality, a new coin.

To this day I refer to Vericoin as Vericoin2, because that's what it is.

The real Vercoin had a boatload of it stolen off of Mintpal

The real Nxt had 5% stolen off of Bter.

The issue is getting to a point where HISTORY can't be changed. I don't think that is impossible at all.

What you're not realising is that every fork is a separate HISTORY. And like you ask, history can't be changed because of it is cryptographically secured and guaranteed. That's the invention of the blockchain. But I can still copy the history book and start doing my own additions to it on my own version of it. Nothing prevents me from copying a history book, then keep writing it and make my own version of it. It's the nature of data. You copy it, and then you make what you want with it. You are essentially asking to stop file sharing. How is that working out for the lawmakers? There is no way to prevent people from going somewhere else and doing their own thing.

No you are taking this way out there.

No one is saying anything about adding to the history books.

I am talking about someone, or a group of people deciding to go with a chain that is not the correct one, one that is missing, say the 5% theft transaction off of Bter.

Thats what Im talking about. Not the universe or history books that I add things to.

What I'm taking about is stopping the ability of transaction getting erased from a ledger, when EVERYONE KNOWS THE TRANSACTION happened.

I think this is in our future. I hope.