The "you cant kill Bitcoin argument"

[DonCrypto]

As long as there is money to be made off of it, it will always be around.

[BitMos]

because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives

It's the most idiotic statement I never read on the internet... astonishing, could you please elaborate on what are the alternatives (I guess centralized) and what do you understand by the term "cost of supporting decentralized technology" vs "cost of supporting alternatives"? And if it's not to much what does cost mean for you ($ term I guess)?

Thx a lot.

[vancsj]

because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives

It's the most idiotic statement I never read on the internet... astonishing, could you please elaborate on what are the alternatives (I guess centralized) and what do you understand by the term "cost of supporting decentralized technology" vs "cost of supporting alternatives"? And if it's not to much what does cost mean for you ($ term I guess)?

Thx a lot.

There is lot of such statements with little knowledge about bitcoin.

[BitMos]

What is more impressive than the falsehood of the dude, is how sure of himself, he seems to be... Amazing!

[Billbags]

BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.

There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.

[btchris]

BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.

There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

[Billbags]

BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.

There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=1

Gavin: "The code already has a notion of (bitcoin priority) that it uses to prevent transaction spam (sending gazillions of tiny transactions to yourself, just to make everybody else do the work of validating and storing them); extending that to influence the chain-fork-selection code wouldn't be hard....something like....ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)” would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they’d pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people’s transactions or have their chain rejected".

In Andresen’s post, he notes that such a solution would be “Not To Be Used Except In Case of Emergency”.

[btchris]

BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.

There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=1

That refers to a specific stop-all-or-nearly-all-the-transactions attack, however a stop-some-but-not-all-transactions attack, or enough double-spend attacks would probably work just as well in crashing the market if it went on for long enough.

Edited to add: He also mentioned in that same blog post that someone willing to spend enough money could continue to pull off a stop-all-or-nearly-all-the-transactions attack even with the countermeasure in place.

[Billbags]

^The other two systems I like are:


This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/


This one's good:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281180.0

[btchris]

^The other two systems I like are:


This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/


This one's good:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281180.0

No arguments here when it comes to being able to mine in a pool without having to sell your vote, that's definitely a topic that doesn't get the attention it deserves.

[Billbags]

^ I just caught the Star Wars quote That's a really good one!

[btchris]

^ I just caught the Star Wars quote That's a really good one!

Yeah, sorry if it seemed too harsh, I really should have added a smiley... I hope you don't find my lack of smileys disturbing.

[cryptocoiner]

It's possible using DPI equipment at ISP.
For example China right now can ban bitcoin in their country if they would want to. Same way as they banned tor and i2p.

[btchris]

It's possible using DPI equipment at ISP.
For example China right now can ban bitcoin in their country if they would want to. Same way as they banned tor and i2p.

They attempt to block Tor, but that doesn't mean they're successful. See obfsproxy.

[Honeypot]

They may or may not be able to kill bitcoin.

But they definitely can do something about people and groups using them.

What good is a tech if no one can use it? Ultimately the one using their fists or guns or knives will have a say in who does what.

[vancsj]

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=1

Gavin: "The code already has a notion of (bitcoin priority) that it uses to prevent transaction spam (sending gazillions of tiny transactions to yourself, just to make everybody else do the work of validating and storing them); extending that to influence the chain-fork-selection code wouldn't be hard....something like....ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)” would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they’d pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people’s transactions or have their chain rejected".

In Andresen’s post, he notes that such a solution would be “Not To Be Used Except In Case of Emergency”.

As btchris says, it just prevents a specific kind of attack, not all 51% attacks.

For me, 51% attack is both the basis and the weakness of Bitcoin. The hashing power is the projection of people's wealth outside of Bitcoin, it's important for the hashing power to be in proportion to the wealth they have if you want them to accept Bitcoin.

[ElysianBaws]

They can only scare people off and the price will drop, but you cant kill a free currency can yoU?

[vancsj]

Surely you can....why suppose people always kill Bitcoin for profit?

[Orangina]

It may be a newbie question but ...
I mean Bitcoin is P2P ? Right ? can't ISP just block ports ? just like for torrent 

[Kimowa]

Surely you can....why suppose people always kill Bitcoin for profit?

I believe there is no profit if someone kill bitcoin. So the only one that would want to kill it is government.