ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 851.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:24:30 PM

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 03:14:50 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money. I'm sure there's many reasons. Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits?
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

You would need to pay more per block than what a miner (AM or another) get in BTC, obviously. Miners (and I bet, AM people too), are seeking BTC success on the long term and could value one BTC much higher than the current price. You would need to pay them *a lot*. And by doing so, they would destroy all their BTC assets value, so you would need to pay them not only for a current block but also for them to give up their whole BTC whealth.
And keep in mind that if you assume miners don't act rationaly anymore, the whole bitcoin system falls appart anyway, AM or not.

Side remark, technically, you don't need to introduce latency to a have a low amount of transactions. Mining uses softwares, we write softwares, they do what we tell them to do, it's not something on which we have no influence

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

maybe I'm a rich asshole with bad strategy, but I could still view taking down Bitcoin as a viable option..,

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:24:30 PM

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 03:14:50 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money. I'm sure there's many reasons. Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits?
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

If you were a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, and you perceived bitcoin as a threat (unlikely) you would become much wealthier embracing the new technology rather than trying to stifle it. But there I go assuming wealthy people know anything about history.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: notme on July 15, 2013, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:20:50 PM

Quote from: notme on July 15, 2013, 03:16:06 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin. It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

I don't see low transaction fees as among it's strongest features. More important are decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance. In fact these features provide the business case for paying more for transactions than with fiat based systems. Lower fees are just a nicety of the current economics.

Oh really? Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers its "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 03:14:50 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money. I'm sure there's many reasons. Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits?
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:20:50 PM

Quote from: notme on July 15, 2013, 03:16:06 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin. It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

I don't see low transaction fees as among it's strongest features. More important are decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance. In fact these features provide the business case for paying more for transactions than with fiat based systems. Lower fees are just a nicety of the current economics.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: notme on July 15, 2013, 03:16:06 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin. It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin. It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

twentyseventy

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on July 15, 2013, 03:04:48 PM

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

I think a protocol change would be in order then, no?

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does. Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

If I understand correctly,

Can I buy (let's say) 20 shares of AM-PT on BTCT, and then transfer all of them immediately to be direct shares by asking burnside? (And then again once per month?)

Yes, but give it 3-4 days for the transfer to take place. Friedcat only does transfers 2x a week, so have a bit of patience.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: twmz on July 15, 2013, 01:42:18 PM

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

Friedcat already said that they don't do anything special filtering transactions...

Quote from: friedcat on May 23, 2013, 11:03:13 AM

We are using the same transaction policy of the official Bitcoin client's default behavior.

Friedcat would agree that 40% of difference on average cannot be considered just statistical noise. There must be a technical explanation, either explicit policies or implicitly as consequences of some technical facts.

twmz

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

Friedcat already said that they don't do anything special filtering of transactions...

Quote from: friedcat on May 23, 2013, 11:03:13 AM

We are using the same transaction policy of the official Bitcoin client's default behavior.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 12:55:01 PM

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

In that case, then the mining operations of ASICminer need to be moved outside China. Long term, transaction fees are going to be a susbtanial portion of ASICminer's mining income. In order to ensure a steady stream of mining income, they need to make sure that they are getting all of the transactions fees that are available.

As it is now, if you look at blocks found immediately after ASICminer finds a block, you will see a larger number of transactions and thus a larger amount of transaction fees in that block. ASICminer is giving away those transaction fees to the next miner to find a block. It may not seem like ASICminer is giving up much now, but if the value of bitcoin increases substantially, then these missed transaction fees are going to add up.

That's also bad for the AM reputation. Us, we mostly care about missing fees for shareholders, but I can imagine many of the unrational anti-AM people out there would be happy to point this out as a subsequent problem of AM hashrate. Usually I don't care about their screaming, but on this I'd feel uncomfortable.

AMuppInTime

donator

Activity: 290

Merit: 250

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 01:19:06 PM

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 01:17:06 PM

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?

Might it be they are trying to limit incoming traffic to not attract attention?

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 01:17:06 PM

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

OK. There's no logical reason to intentionally filter transactions, except those that don't include fees, right?

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: canth on July 15, 2013, 12:55:01 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

I hope this is not the case. Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin. It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block. I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation. I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

Poor peering introduces latency, and you might get transactions 10s after the average rest of the world, but you'll get them anyway. Unless you're totally cut on a sub-network, poor peering should be still good enough.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

The custom filter is a good explanation. It's the only one I can think of actually. Great firewall appart...

I hope this is not the case. Filtering transactions is not good for bitcoin. It is also not good for ASICminer shareholders.

I personally have had several transactions that were not initially confirmed when ASICminer found a block. I had to wait for the next block to be found by someone other than ASICminer to get an initial confirmation. I included a .0005 fee on each of those transactions, which I thought was enough to get my transaction included.

I doubt it's this - I would say it's more likely that connections from within China are able to get to fewer connections outside of China. It's not just the government firewall, peering is just not straightforward when it comes to this country.

chkgk

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Quote from: binaryFate on July 15, 2013, 12:06:02 PM

EDIT: That would make a good official question for friedcat! I'm really curious about these filter policies and their motivations, if they do exist.

+1

I would very much like to see that question included!

Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 851. (Read 3917468 times)