A 51% attack would NOT necessarily mean everyone would switch to litecoin.
Instead, miners would just leave those corrupted pools and
join new ones not under the control of the dark lord of the sith.
And bitcoin lives on.
Topic: 51% attack - page 4. (Read 5169 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
can you say in a short way what is in this video about?
Oh no, hope it doesn't happen
[quoting Satoshi] An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent"
The problem is that we won't know which transactions are theirs, so every transaction becomes suspect even if only a small number of transactions are directly affected. money he recently spent"
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Where can one find this?I think he means the original paper by Satoshi https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
However I can't find any explicit mentioning of the 51% attack in it.
Under "Calculations" section of bitcoin.pdf
quote:
-"We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such
as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are
not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block
containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent"
end quote.
To generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain would mean that the attacker would have 51% or greater control of network. How else would someone generate a chain faster than the main chain?
Quote
We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain.
chain.
P2Pool create already this system ... but have "only" 160TH/s.
and the overhead, CPU, stale and Dead-On-Arrival ... is high, too.
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Where can one find this?I think he means the original paper by Satoshi https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
However I can't find any explicit mentioning of the 51% attack in it.
Under "Calculations" section of bitcoin.pdf
quote:
-"We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such
as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are
not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block
containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent"
end quote.
To generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain would mean that the attacker would have 51% or greater control of network. How else would someone generate a chain faster than the main chain?
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Where can one find this?I think he means the original paper by Satoshi https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
However I can't find any explicit mentioning of the 51% attack in it.
Would this just only fork the chain which would leave the rest of us happy bitcoiners bitcoining as usual after the temporary disruption?
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Yes, and people seem to forget that these attack blocks still have to be accepted and propagated by regular Bitcoin nodes throughout the network. There are 2 possibilities:1) The attack blocks violate the Bitcoin protocol. In this case they will not be relayed by regular nodes and they will immediately orphan out
2) The attack blocks do not violate the Bitcoin protocol. In this case they will be relayed by regular nodes and make their way through the network. However, because the protocol is obeyed the scope of the attack would be restricted. E.g. the exclusion of certain transactions from the block.
In any case, although transactions would likely be lost the disruption would be temporary. Miners will eventually leave the compromised pool and things will go back to normal.
Not doable in my opinion
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Where can one find this?I think he means the original paper by Satoshi https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
However I can't find any explicit mentioning of the 51% attack in it.
Hope it dosent happen. 
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
Where can one find this?
According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.
To prevent 51% attack, someone has to mass produce low power asic at low cost.
So when every bitcoin user are solomining, we can easily achieve a crazy hashrate deterring 51% attacks.
But the current problem is most people's mindset. They always think mining = profiting.
We have to remind them the fact that mining is to secure the network instead.
But we need low power asics just because using computer hardware to mine consumes too much power and slowing the pc so people definitely don't want that.
Each asic don't need to have the hashrate that is comparable with those profit-based farms, I believe we will have more users than the farms have asics.
So when every bitcoin user are solomining, we can easily achieve a crazy hashrate deterring 51% attacks.
But the current problem is most people's mindset. They always think mining = profiting.
We have to remind them the fact that mining is to secure the network instead.
But we need low power asics just because using computer hardware to mine consumes too much power and slowing the pc so people definitely don't want that.
Each asic don't need to have the hashrate that is comparable with those profit-based farms, I believe we will have more users than the farms have asics.
It a lot harder than u think. Plus anyone spending that amount on mining hardware would make some btc rather than attack it
I think the video was very clear on exactly how hard/easy it would be. The point was not to use the 51% of the hashing power to make money - but to gain an advantage over other people and destroy bitcoins.
What about the previously discussed argument of just threatening/bribing the largest pool owners?
And what if the goal is not to make money but just kill the system? I could think of many reasons for (some) governments to do this.
And what if the goal is not to make money but just kill the system? I could think of many reasons for (some) governments to do this.
It a lot harder than u think. Plus anyone spending that amount on mining hardware would make some btc rather than attack it
If you're replying at the last message, there's no need to quote the previous message.
I could think of many reasons, one being money and greed because people could benefit greatly from a 51% attack.
Also don't forget governments.
I could think of many reasons, one being money and greed because people could benefit greatly from a 51% attack.
Also don't forget governments.
Jump to: