agree Devin.
It's not about stopping at 51% attack...its about limiting
the damage one can do.
Double spends and big pools aren't the real threats.
Mining monopolies , transaction exclusions, and tearing
down the blockchain is what needs to be prevented.
Topic: .. - page 2. (Read 2997 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Nobody gives a fuck about 51% attacks anymore.
Stop harping on about it.
Increasing centralization of mining pools is a concern.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Lol @ all the FUD.
Can't wait for the day when we all look back on the 51% "issue" and laugh at how freaked out everyone got.
Can't wait for the day when we all look back on the 51% "issue" and laugh at how freaked out everyone got.
we'll it is still a shadow that looms....as is over regulation... Bitcoin is still an experiment.
This threat seems very, very likely at some point. The cost of an attack wouldn't actually be that much to pull off. Even a short term (i.e. much cheaper) attack could completely destabilize the faith people have in Bitcoin.
Are we just waiting for an attack to occur before actually doing anything?
An attacker that isn't motivated by money will eventually attempt an attack. This isn't an "if", it's a "when".
Some billionaire, inherited wealth rich kid could completely devastate Bitcoin for under $50 Million.
Some people love to wreck shit. Rich guys that love to wreck shit? It could get ugly.
Somebody console me. I want to be wrong. What am I overlooking?
Are we just waiting for an attack to occur before actually doing anything?
An attacker that isn't motivated by money will eventually attempt an attack. This isn't an "if", it's a "when".
Some billionaire, inherited wealth rich kid could completely devastate Bitcoin for under $50 Million.
Some people love to wreck shit. Rich guys that love to wreck shit? It could get ugly.
Somebody console me. I want to be wrong. What am I overlooking?
It is not cost effective to attack Bitcoin for economic reasons... $50 million to gain what? Double spend 1 million?
If done for malicious reasons at any price, it could be attacked. The community could then decide
to fork to alternative proof of work hashing algorithm. Yes there would be damage done
and some transactions rolled back but I think Bitcoin would live on.
Of course it would live on, but the problem is that if we fork we might end up like Vericoin, but at a much larger scale, which is bad for everyone. Merchants that got paid and shipped the items would find their payment missing from their wallet, all around the world.
Governments could bribe or take over cex/pool and attack bitcoin, since it's competing and winning their pieces of paper.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
This threat seems very, very likely at some point. The cost of an attack wouldn't actually be that much to pull off. Even a short term (i.e. much cheaper) attack could completely destabilize the faith people have in Bitcoin.
Are we just waiting for an attack to occur before actually doing anything?
An attacker that isn't motivated by money will eventually attempt an attack. This isn't an "if", it's a "when".
Some billionaire, inherited wealth rich kid could completely devastate Bitcoin for under $50 Million.
Some people love to wreck shit. Rich guys that love to wreck shit? It could get ugly.
Somebody console me. I want to be wrong. What am I overlooking?
Are we just waiting for an attack to occur before actually doing anything?
An attacker that isn't motivated by money will eventually attempt an attack. This isn't an "if", it's a "when".
Some billionaire, inherited wealth rich kid could completely devastate Bitcoin for under $50 Million.
Some people love to wreck shit. Rich guys that love to wreck shit? It could get ugly.
Somebody console me. I want to be wrong. What am I overlooking?
It is not cost effective to attack Bitcoin for economic reasons... $50 million to gain what? Double spend 1 million?
If done for malicious reasons at any price, it could be attacked. The community could then decide
to fork to alternative proof of work hashing algorithm. Yes there would be damage done
and some transactions rolled back but I think Bitcoin would live on.
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Ghash won't do a 51% attack even if they could just because they earn money through bitcoins.
By double spending they would decrease the trust people has in bitcoins and their business won't work anymore.
It's true but they have already made their bucks and if for some reason they lose a lot of their money and or get screwed by someone whats stopping them from going AWOL and attacking Bitcoin?
No, they're not, the GHs on the market is GHs already on the market. They're not buying any more, and selling had nothing to do with being reputable.
Stop blabbing nonsense.
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Ghash won't do a 51% attack even if they could just because they earn money through bitcoins.
By double spending they would decrease the trust people has in bitcoins and their business won't work anymore.
It's true but they have already made their bucks and if for some reason they lose a lot of their money and or get screwed by someone whats stopping them from going AWOL and attacking Bitcoin?
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Ghash won't do a 51% attack even if they could just because they earn money through bitcoins.
By double spending they would decrease the trust people has in bitcoins and their business won't work anymore.
It's true but they have already made their bucks and if for some reason they lose a lot of their money and or get screwed by someone whats stopping them from going AWOL and attacking Bitcoin?
Because it would still cost a ton of money to pull off and unless there's a specific pay off with irreversible fiat(is there even?) then it's going to be hard to break even on the attack.
Plus it would be so high profile that they would get charged for sure.
I don't think people who are already millionaires are too interested in going to jail for nothing.
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Ghash won't do a 51% attack even if they could just because they earn money through bitcoins.
By double spending they would decrease the trust people has in bitcoins and their business won't work anymore.
It's true but they have already made their bucks and if for some reason they lose a lot of their money and or get screwed by someone whats stopping them from going AWOL and attacking Bitcoin?
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Ghash won't do a 51% attack even if they could just because they earn money through bitcoins.
By double spending they would decrease the trust people has in bitcoins and their business won't work anymore.
Discussion has been going on for years...and will likely continue for years to come. In the interim, this is one of the better recent topic threads I've read on the issue: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/51-can-be-prevented-so-long-as-all-nodes-agree-655572
Ghash is the closest and they have said that they will be reducing the amount of miners if they get closer which they have been doing which I think is good as they own most of the hashing power right now but even if they didn't do that and had 51% it doesn't mean they could do the actual attack there is still some luck that they would need to perform the attack I honestly believe this attack has no threat to Bitcoin at the moment.
Why does everyone think that anyone could pull this off if they had the sufficient hashrate?
Do you think that there is a walk though that one can follow for pulling off an attack like this?
Do you think that there is a walk though that one can follow for pulling off an attack like this?
Exactly!
Perhaps the reason this wouldn't happen is because there's nothing in wrecking bitcoin for the super rich? 50million to do it maybe, but in destroying bitcoin's credibility, there'll be no value resulting from any dastardly deeds I'm pretty sure.
What if the obvious and financially strong enemies of Bitcoin (Banks, PayPal and likewise) do a 51% attack to save their own ass? They sure have got a hell to win if BTC loses credibility.
Would this not require some serious infiltration on the part of those entities? I'm really not sure how it could ever be orchestrated, let alone with the sheer number of nodes necessary to overpower the network before the others realise what's going on. And even if it does happen, that's some serious money laundering and probably wouldn't go unnoticed in court!
Perhaps the reason this wouldn't happen is because there's nothing in wrecking bitcoin for the super rich? 50million to do it maybe, but in destroying bitcoin's credibility, there'll be no value resulting from any dastardly deeds I'm pretty sure.
What if the obvious and financially strong enemies of Bitcoin (Banks, PayPal and likewise) do a 51% attack to save their own ass? They sure have got a hell to win if BTC loses credibility.
a lot of ASICS are turned on out of nowhere in that same pool pushing the % a lot higher.
Unless the pool has evil intentions, why would this be a problem?
How long do you think the pool could remain above 51% before miners changed to other pools reducing the pool back below 51%.
What attacks could hte pool pull off that wouldn't result in the pool losing 51%?
Are you serious? If the incentives to remain in that pool are high enough, people will want to rather rely on other people to leave the pool? Why should they do that themselves? We've seen that with GHash.IO. It's been above 51% and people didn't do away.
Isn't this some fallacy, or even Crab Mentality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
a lot of ASICS are turned on out of nowhere in that same pool pushing the % a lot higher.
Unless the pool has evil intentions, why would this be a problem?
How long do you think the pool could remain above 51% before miners changed to other pools reducing the pool back below 51%.
What attacks could hte pool pull off that wouldn't result in the pool losing 51%?
Jump to: