delete

[BitcoinEXpress]

delete

[1714966938]

1714966938

[1714966938]

1714966938

[1714966938]

1714966938

[passerby]

If your system is decentralized, you go where crowd goes.

In PoW-schemes available resources is synonymous with "crowd", so in decentralized PoW-driven schemes you go where the participant(s) with biggest pile of resources (hashrate) go.

If you don't like going where crowd goes (51-attack), you need centralization in some form or another (like here http://www.links.org/files/distributed-currency.pdf )

Trying to make a 51-proof fully-decentralized system is an exercise in futility since it would go against the very nature of "crowd-centric" design.
 

[k9quaint]

I want to keep this this thread strictly on topic, there are plenty of open threads to flame in. I encourage everyone to click report if this thread gets off topic.


Both goals of the "attack" were accomplished.

1) To focus you guys on central point to build hash rate to harden LTC against an obvious evolving 51% attack

2) To demonstrate that a hard coded solution is needed as hash rate alone is not enough.


Hard coding a 51% protection is simple really, but how do you engineer it so that it won't be abused?

Thoughts?

Actually, the code in question requires that people adopt the new client with the hard coded checkpoint. Otherwise, you have a network split. Once again, it is just voting via client. A cartel of LTC miners (including an exchange) with 51% of the hash power behind a different fork would not adopt this checkpoint. This scenario would leave two competing Litecoin chains in operation.

[passerby]

That's the paradox that needs to solved or a system to prevent abuse. Solidcoin's 51% attack schema worked, trust me I tried a dozen times from every angle I could. Unfortunately I think it was the wrong approach or better said, the wrong execution of the right idea.

I don't think you can "solve" it.

I think you can reach a certain set of design tradeoffs between radical decentralization (bitcoin) and radical centralization (paypal, soiledcoin).

To put it a bit metaphorically, both US government and North Korea government are, in a formal sense, centralized systems.
But one is significantly less centralized and generally more preferable.

I think that a less noxious (compared to soiledcoin) form of centralization can be found. One with some kind of publicly verifiable checks and balances.

[NASDAQEnema]

BCX, if you honestly were trying to just rattle ppl to come together you gotta work on your approach. Question is whether you were tho.

I think the fact that Coblee knew and has verified he knew a head of time supports that was my intention. maybe a little too dramatic, but it worked. Any ideas on the original topic?

Our working theory is that creating a fork by harrassing the network (as opposed to updating clients as a vote) is too dangerous for a blockchain.
So we're writing a cryptocoin model (old chains can be grandfathered in) where a 51% attack creates a new universe. A new chain with no fixed parameters, no history, and a separate address space.
The parameters are trained during a training period (like with voice recognition) where the users simulate or engage in the transactions that they like, want, need, or choose.
This allows new chains to skip the bullshit "paranoid warm up" stage and inventing the wheel and be sent to school instead.

[NASDAQEnema]

Single node training is pointless. The whole idea is to use the system for transactions and do as they say a burn in with real people sending mining at different levels then freeze the values that it creates. Anyways, "expect us" to put out a prototype soon.

[NASDAQEnema]

We're experimenting with putting together a few coders, making some code, giving it to the community, and disbanding.

Hive to operation and back to hive. More code less drama.

[coblee]

I want to keep this this thread strictly on topic, there are plenty of open threads to flame in. I encourage everyone to click report if this thread gets off topic.


Both goals of the "attack" were accomplished.

1) To focus you guys on central point to build hash rate to harden LTC against an obvious evolving 51% attack

2) To demonstrate that a hard coded solution is needed as hash rate alone is not enough.


Hard coding a 51% protection is simple really, but how do you engineer it so that it won't be abused?

Thoughts?

If this is a serious thread, let's try to keep it on topic. Trolls, please troll in one of the many troll threads. There are so many to choose from.

Ok, so here are my thoughts. I think SolidCoin had the right idea with trying to do something about the 51% attack but had the wrong solution and execution. 10 or more trusted nodes is not the right approach. But the idea to let people who have a million solidcoins become trusted nodes is an interesting idea. Basically, people who have a lot of coins invested are less likely to attack the chain. I think this idea is worth exploring.

What if we can make it such that people with the most coins decide which transactions are to be included in each block? I know there are lots of problems with this idea. But let's brainstorm and see if we can come up with something better.

[NASDAQEnema]

If this is a serious thread, let's try to keep it on topic. Trolls, please troll in one of the many troll threads. There are so many to choose from.

Ok, so here are my thoughts. I think SolidCoin had the right idea with trying to do something about the 51% attack but had the wrong solution and execution. 10 or more trusted nodes is not the right approach. But the idea to let people who have a million solidcoins become trusted nodes is an interesting idea. Basically, people who have a lot of coins invested are less likely to attack the chain. I think this idea is worth exploring.

What if we can make it such that people with the most coins decide which transactions are to be included in each block? I know there are lots of problems with this idea. But let's brainstorm and see if we can come up with something better.

Nah. The people with the most coins are also the ones who are most against alt chains, any emergency features (not that they are necessary), any ideas that would challenge their position.
The people with the most coins are not building nor investing.
They have no interest in serving the needs of people who need to acquire and spend coins much more frequently.
Hell no. All they care about is "GET OFF MY LAWN!" and their bunkers.

If you really want trusted nodes, they may not be as necessary as ppl think:
1. half the problem can be solved by the network having a warning system regarding suddenly high difficulty, suddenly low hashrates, suddenly high invalids/rejects, suddenly low completed miner to pool interactions.
2. there can be a rotating set of trusted nodes that have a limited time to fight off a threat.
3. the trusted nodes would convene during a disaster and disband when no longer necessary.
4. defining one's node as a supernode (rather than trusted) would be a better way.

What you would do is have pools or groups of nodes come together and put collateral in an address that cannot be reorganized as long as any super nodes are live. Then when the threat is over, that address releases the coins. This way any people can be super nodes including the peasants. Also this means unbalanced power is never permanent.

Look at the way the United States was organized under the Articles of Confederation versus the later Federalist model which has become corrupt and fights wars at our expense. A digital version of the same thing would self-destruct much faster.

Specifically to #2, the United States has behaved as if it under threat of immediate attack for 80 years. We cannot go down that road.

An even better idea is not having one massive blob of a network always ready to combust.

Operation Reactor is exploring crytocoin cities or something like virtual cantons: http://freenation.org/a/f23l3.html

[NASDAQEnema]

Even better:

During a 51% attack (after alarms are triggered) you would have a battle for people to try to grab the chain.
In other words multiple nodes or teams trying to fork the chain or the original chain trying to reassert control.

So the solution is to have partial blocks which would allow competition between the two or three attackers.
And only the longest block with the consistently longest partial blocks will overtake the main one.

Now it becomes a 75% attack.

[Litecoin]

I want to keep this this thread strictly on topic, there are plenty of open threads to flame in. I encourage everyone to click report if this thread gets off topic.


Both goals of the "attack" were accomplished.

1) To focus you guys on central point to build hash rate to harden LTC against an obvious evolving 51% attack

2) To demonstrate that a hard coded solution is needed as hash rate alone is not enough.


Hard coding a 51% protection is simple really, but how do you engineer it so that it won't be abused?

Thoughts?

If this is a serious thread, let's try to keep it on topic. Trolls, please troll in one of the many troll threads. There are so many to choose from.

Ok, so here are my thoughts. I think SolidCoin had the right idea with trying to do something about the 51% attack but had the wrong solution and execution. 10 or more trusted nodes is not the right approach. But the idea to let people who have a million solidcoins become trusted nodes is an interesting idea. Basically, people who have a lot of coins invested are less likely to attack the chain. I think this idea is worth exploring.

What if we can make it such that people with the most coins decide which transactions are to be included in each block? I know there are lots of problems with this idea. But let's brainstorm and see if we can come up with something better.

I like the idea to let people who have lots of coins become trusted nodes. Of course those people could get rid of their coins and become corrupt but if we had ~25 trusted nodes it's hard to believe that they would screw the coin they invested in.

[NASDAQEnema]

They would just screw the peasants with fewer coins and even gang up on them.
Economics is never separated completely from politics because the economics is designed to serbe some political creature a person, an institution, a dogma, or a corporation like a business or a bank (or a govt).

Anyways, I'll keep brainstorming in this thread, but I have updated the 51% killer (75% one) here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96365.0

[NASDAQEnema]

They would just screw the peasants with fewer coins and even gang up on them.
Economics is never separated completely from politics because the economics is designed to serbe some political creature a person, an institution, a dogma, or a corporation like a business or a bank (or a govt).

Anyways, I'll keep brainstorming in this thread, but I have updated the 51% killer (75% one) here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96365.0

You realize you're just attempting to create an alternate SWIFT system, right? You are simply replacing the assigned BIC with “trusted nodes.” Why don’t you just go get a Visa card and trust the ACH system? It’s worked pretty well so far.

1. The trusted node bit is further toward the beginning of the thread.
2. I replaced trusted nodes with supernodes.
3. Then I threw that out for partial blocks where you allow attackers to race and as such cancel out their power.
4. Fiat (VISA) is controlled by people who think we're all extra baggage (much like Bitcoin zealots hate altchains).

[Bitcoin Oz]

What if you had a trust chain that needed to sign blocks on the main chain. Say the 25 "richest" nodes at any one time are allowed to mine this trust chain and the one that wins a trust block gets to sign the main chain block ?

So you not only need lots of coins on the trust chain you also need to contribute through proof of work. The attacker would need both lots of coin and lots of mining power.

[tgsrge]

i dont think we should be trading 51% attacks for centralization/supernodes/trusted nodes/shifts in the trust model.

this goes against everything bitcoin (the only succesful cryptocurrency ever so far) was designed for.

if "fixing" the 51% attacks means the above, i would rather it not be fixed.

also:
hard coding things in instead of relying on the blockchain/the cryptography/math/algorithms will only bring a false sense of security and more potential counter intuitive attacks in. because of this, hard coding things in is NOT the fix we are looking for.

[VelvetLeaf]

i dont think we should be trading 51% attacks for centralization/supernodes/trusted nodes/shifts in the trust model.

this goes against everything bitcoin (the only succesful cryptocurrency ever so far) was designed for.

if "fixing" the 51% attacks means the above, i would rather it not be fixed.

This "trusted" node can be undone after Litecoin has enough hash rate any time.

[tgsrge]

i dont think we should be trading 51% attacks for centralization/supernodes/trusted nodes/shifts in the trust model.

this goes against everything bitcoin (the only succesful cryptocurrency ever so far) was designed for.

if "fixing" the 51% attacks means the above, i would rather it not be fixed.

This "trusted" node can be undone after Litecoin has enough hash rate any time.

power corrupts. would the trusted nodes want to give away their power after they see the benefits?i dont think so.

IMO everything propposed here so far goes against everything a cryptocurrency stands for, i am all ears for a decent trade off that doesnt break the principles cryptocurrencies stand for though.

[VelvetLeaf]

power corrupts. would the trusted nodes want to give away their power after they see the benefits?i dont think so.

Everyone update their litecoind / litecoin-Qt and the trusted node will lose all its power, it's as simple as that.

[markm]

Part of the problem is that security costs, and your whole objective seems to be to make mining not cost anything.

As long as you make mining so easy anyone can do it, it will be so easy anyone with as much computer power (or money, whatever your powerbase is) as all those cheap old obsolete machines your miners use can attack it.

To stop attackers you need mining to be so hard that even for the professional miners mining legitimately it is very hard just to keep up with the state of the art.

-MarkM-

[tgsrge]

Is the point to move closer to centralization and put the power in the hands of the wealthy? We already have that system. It’s global.

this