Topic: 51% can be prevented so long as all nodes agree. - page 3. (Read 2768 times)

How would ANYONE exclude anyone else this way? If my pool is not changing IP it wont loose it's priority and anyone else can gain that priority by simply being steady (not changing ip) and mining. What are you talking about? Anyone would be able to enter from scratch and would gain priority by simply mining....from 0...up to max. Noone could do anything to stop you from getting to max priority if you do not change ip and mine.

It's not that.  It's that these ideas have been debated endlessly for years.  PoW is the only proven system.  


But now you've opened yourself up to a more insidious form of attack.  A cabal of miners can work towards cutting out nodes to decrease their priority levels relative to that of the cabal.  A monopoly forms where the cabal has high-enough priority that they are essentially in control.  

In other words, you are proposing "barriers to entry."  This is exactly what monopolists want to reap profits and control greater than what they would be due in an efficient market.  

Not necessarily bro.
There can be a side chain directly connected to the blockchain but this one will be the node chain where ALL nodes agree.
Again this is an idea worth looking into and expand.

I do not understand why people just say Fuck it, things are fine the way it is when clearly IT'S NOT.

We have witnessed a $100+ drop by the incident.
And we are still in early stages, even though adoption is growing rapidly.

What would happen if this event took place again after 2 years when BTC is mainstream and it's price is $5000?
A lot of people will lose a lot of money because the most important thing that keeps BTC and actually defines BTC was NOT protected.

the blockchain is like a virgin.
We are now allowing anyone who has the biggest dick to stick it to it.

Understand that I am all forward seing BTC succeed and I have invested quite a lot on it.
But if we (ALL OF US) want to see our investment secure we have to act now.
Before it's too late.

Maybe you don't like my idea.
I can understand that, but ideas and actual solutions to this problem don't just pop up.
We need to work and build on ideas to have a working solution.

The point Danny was trying to make is that most of the "proposals" the reduce the risk of a 51% attack are actually ways that make centralization more likely.  Describe  a realization of your idea in specific detail and someone here will explain why it doesn't work.

And if you want a centralized solution, then you have nothing to worry about anyways.  A centralized network is just one that's constantly under 51% attack (the attacker just plays "nice enough" that people don't abandon the currency).  

No.  He's pointing out that the suggestion was that "each node is assigned a signature", with no though about who would be doing the "assigning".  In order for there to be an "assigning", there needs to be an "assignor".  That "assignor" that people trust.  And now you've created a "central authority".

Ok screw this. I have too much "trust" in human intelect. I should have known that barely anyone will read my post with at least half brain turned on, so here it is again, stupid proof and changed so no "trust" is involved:

Well this idea can be extended. Add in some kind of "proirity" level to nodes that nodes gain working over period of time. Priority would be assigned by whole network which is basic idea of BTC....things being decided by whole newtork.
New nodes would have low priority level which would have more restrictions (they could submit less blocks).
Higher priority level nodes would have less restrictions (they could submit more blocks than low priority nodes).

Priority is gained by submiting blocks over period of time. That would disable switching form ip to ip. How?

Her's an example.

(numbers are just figurative)
Pool A = large pool that submits 50 blocks per hour
Poll B = new, small pool that just started working and is submiting 5 block per hour

Pool A has high priority level and can submit up to 100 blocks per hour
Pool A starts growing and gets to 101 blck per hour and starts loosing BTC. They change IP after 100th block is submited to enable themselves to submit that 101th block and they become low priority pool.
Now pool A can submit only 10 blocks per hour and gain 1 extra block every day. While Pool B which is still on same IP is going great, growing slowly and gaining proiroty.

What basicly happened, Pool A shot itself in the foot and is loosing ALOT of BTC because they tried to cheat the system, while new honest pool is growing steady.


Is it now much clearer?

Clearly.  Not only aren't you an expert, but you really aren't even thinking this through.

You want to be able to stop someone with more than 50% of the hashing power from having the power that having more than 50% of the hashing power provides.  Unfortunately wanting something doesn't mean its possible.  Throwing out ideas that haven't been thought through, and that have already been discussed dozens of times, just means that people are going to point out the problems with your idea that have already been discovered (dozens of times).


But, since we don't have an address that we can track someone by, we can't keep them from cheating.  Not unless we give some sort of trust to a centralized authority.

This is a problem that has plagued the idea of a cryptocurrency for decades.  There was no way to maintain an consensus without a centralized authority.  Using a blockchain and a proof-of-work, Satoshi came up with a revolutionary concept for distributed consensus.  The problem with his solution is that if someone can supply the majority of the proof-of-work, then they can control the consensus.  If you can find a way to reach consensus without the proof-of-work, then we don't need proof-of-work mining any more at all.  Instead of using your new system to reach consensus on the block submitted, we can just create a coin that uses your amazing new consensus system to reach consensus on the transactions themselves.

I am guessing you are talking about TBF 

Seriously what happened to "decentralization" and NO central authority?

By submitting an application to, and receiving approval from, the Federation of Decentralized Bitcoin Miners, of course.   

The irony in the concept of a centralized organization committed to decentralization was intentional.

Did you read my post AT ALL? No you did not , as if you did, than you would know that i did not propose to trust "authority" but to "trust" network decision. Blockchain is exactly that. Ledger that we all trust to that is created by network. This would be "trust ledger" created by whole network.

What a lame thing to say Danny.

Can't you see that we CAN NOT trust the blockchain coz it can be exploited

Bro, like I said, even though I do my own software (which only recently involves BTC) I am not an expert on the matter.

It might not have to be a signature but I am sure that if we can track someone by their address then we can keep someone from cheating.

Don't you think?

And you can somehow keep a pool from being assigned multiple signatures?

Explain.


If we are going to choose to trust an authority, then we don't need a blockchain.

The revolutionary thing about Bitcoin is that it is decentralized, requiring no trust in any single authority.

Go use a bank if you prefer to give trust to an entity.

Furthermore, a large pool can just get a new signature for every block.  Sure, they'll be limited to a single block since they'll have such low "trust", but that doesn't matter since they can use a brand new signature for the next block.

There never was trust.
It is supposed to be trustless in the manner of one does not have to trust one other to make a transaction.
The whole network has to agree.

And if all nodes agree that one node is getting a lot of hashing power fast to the point that it is dangerous for the protocol then that node is capped as to allow other nodes to even things out.

That will also cause a "decentralized" kind of pool mining as users will have their miners pointed at various pools

Ehm, "mathematical trust that is calculated by whole network"...not "i trust you" trust...Whole btc newtork is based on calculated trust. It just isnt centralized trust, it's decentralized one. This would be exactly that.

Trust is what we are trying to get away from, not move towards it..

sorry, I don't think this will work.

You got it 100% wrong.
New honest miner and large pool that just changed IP would be at same position, "low trust level". They would have to work and over time they would get more and more trust ie. being able to submit more blocks. Smaller new and honest miner wont loose anything as they can not submit alot of blocks anyway, but large pool that switched would be loosing ALOT of BTC by switching IP, as they coudlnt submit all blocks they mine, so they just wouldnt switch IP as it would hurt em alot.

So a new, honest miner (or a pool whose IP is not static) who publishes a few blocks in a short time period is punished, while large pools just switch to a new IP for every block, if need be. Sorry, this isn't the solution we're looking for.

^^^ there you have it.
We are already starting to expand on the idea.

Who knows, maybe we can come up with a working solution for this once and for all.

Well this idea can be extended. Add in some kind of "trust" level to nodes that nodes gain working over period of time. New nodes, low trust level, more restrictions (can submit less blocks). Higher trust level, less restrictions (can submit more blocks than low trust ones). Trust is gained by submiting blocks over period of time. That would disable switching form ip to ip.