Topic: Bitcoin Dev Sells 50% of his Bitcoin due to 51% threat. - page 4. (Read 6775 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Good point, have we learned nothing from gox?
One year ago, if someone would have raised the possibility of MagicalTux seriously hurting bitcoin, a chorus of disapproval would have dismissed that. 
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
same situation like "Transaction Malleability" and the mtgox desaster. such gaps have to be fixed and not let the bad boys take advantage of it!
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
I've been reading this 51% attack crap since early 2011 and it isn't fixed yet. Why? Is it because back then it was just Tycho, Slush, Eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and a few others. They are all swell guys and would never hurt the network, right? Well, that's the thinking of a child's mind. You don't let a major issue sit unsolved for over three years where money is involved. I read a thread once where Gavin was talking to etotheipi and rambling on about prioritizing issues because he could only handle so much at a time. Tough shit. You can't handle the workload then get more people. Bitcoin is no longer here just to intellectually stimulate a select group of developers. It's real money we're talking about.
wouldn't switching to NXT, XPM, DRK or LTC be a more logical solution to the BTC 51% threat than selling bulk? Those coins (for the time being) are much less susceptible to a 51% attack....
GHASH has already stated that they will work on implimenting new features that will allow people who buy hash to point to a pool of their choosing. They are working to eliminate the fear that people have.
Very interesting. You got a link by chance?
There was a post on their blog not so long ago about that.
And that's totaly ok...i rent ghs and i tell where it will mine. That's how it should be from the start (i do understand that it wa snot needed so...)
I don't think the dev team views this as a problem that should be solved by technology and instead one that should be solved by the community.
First thing Bitcoin community learned me is : "never trust anyone"Secont thing is that bitcoin, as peer to peer, open source, whatnot is created so we dont need to trust anyone (central auth etc.). So basicly, if they are not fixing it and "trust that community will solve it" than that's like backstabbing yourself in the back. First you say: "Hey guys, look, ill give you tool that will enable you to control your own wealth w/o any central auth" and than few sentances after they say: "yes but you have to trust..."
Sorry but that holds no credit with me.
Almost every problem Bitcoin has, should be solved by software (changing protocol) not by hardware, or god forbid community.
GHASH has already stated that they will work on implimenting new features that will allow people who buy hash to point to a pool of their choosing. They are working to eliminate the fear that people have.
Very interesting. You got a link by chance?
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
I don't think the dev team views this as a problem that should be solved by technology and instead one that should be solved by the community. I wonder how big of a mistake this will be.
Clearly Mr. Todd thinks it's a big enough mistake to justify unloading half his coins.
GHASH has already stated that they will work on implimenting new features that will allow people who buy hash to point to a pool of their choosing. They are working to eliminate the fear that people have.
miners are morons for joining a pool that already has +40% or not switching pools.
you cant fix stupid.
miners are not morons-they are maximising profits in their own interests. Also I think most are not altruistic so would stay with a pool even if there are competing pools (a bit like staying with your bank even if others are equally good/bad). In a previous comment btc was not the problem the market was. Basically correct but previous performance ( good handling of the update fork) is no assurance that another fork will be equally well handled and it makes a lot of people nervous-including me!. you cant fix stupid.
Actually they are morons. The 1% they save in pool fees is probably lost (in fiat value) due to all the FUD created by the 50% threat of ghash.io.
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
Solutions are already being talked about.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/282j4m/petamine_1150_ths_is_considering_joining_p2pool/
P2Pool with a subsidy provided by the greater community (I'd throw them a couple coins a year) would do wonders. It could very easily become the most profitable place to mine if the community made it so.
I'm anticipating this being the scenario in the not too distant future.
Is he concerned about a design flaw within Bitcoin or a design flaw with the open source project system?
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
ACH/EFT has had numerous attacks against it and numerous design flaws. The responsible team discovers the problem and corrects it, no big deal. That's what needs to happen with the design flaws within Bitcoin. The problem isn't that Bitcoin has a basic design flaw it's that no one is fixing it.
You can't say it's a "market issue" and it's not Bitcoin's fault. Bitcoin is totally based on free market principles so yeah there is a Bitcoin problem. I do believe that if someone WANTED TO they could take down Bitcoin for a relatively smaller amount of money. This is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow otherwise how could you have major widespread adoption when there is a risk of a terrorist or something taking down the whole system?
i'm thinking maybe i should sell some of my coins as well. the 51% issue seems to be bitcoin's biggest hurdle. nevermind government regulation or scammers, this is the real issue.
He has a very valid point that the incentives in place are not strong enough to prevent a 51% threat
And what are the incentives to prevent a 51% attack? Essentially it is the value of all Bitcoins held by those with the >51%, as if any attack occurs due to 51% attack the confidence in Bitcoin evaporates and with it the Bitcoin value. Who *inside* Bitcoin has any interest in an attack? Its an external threat from any organisation that wishes to destablise, disrupt or destroy Bitcoin, but to do so is now a very expensive matter.
Bitcoin is more likely to succeed if it's possible that it may fail.
If it was clear that there were no risks, then earlier adopters would be less inclined to diversify their wealth by divesting. If these people didn't divest (sell), then coins wouldn't diffuse as quickly into a wide and efficient wealth distribution.
I don't know how old Peter Todd is, but his linked-in profile states the he received his bachelor's degree in 2011. So I assume he is in his twenties and that five figures1 was enough that he felt he should diversify (perhaps to sleep more soundly at night).
So, once again, it seems like bitcoin is evolving as it should.
1I'm assuming he means CAD and not BTC.
If it was clear that there were no risks, then earlier adopters would be less inclined to diversify their wealth by divesting. If these people didn't divest (sell), then coins wouldn't diffuse as quickly into a wide and efficient wealth distribution.
I don't know how old Peter Todd is, but his linked-in profile states the he received his bachelor's degree in 2011. So I assume he is in his twenties and that five figures1 was enough that he felt he should diversify (perhaps to sleep more soundly at night).
So, once again, it seems like bitcoin is evolving as it should.
1I'm assuming he means CAD and not BTC.
I'm not sure I understand your point about wealth disfusing. The market price reflects the perceived risk. The amount of coins is irrelevant really since bitcoin is divisible down to the ten millionth. Maybe I'm not understanding you here.
Bitcoin is more likely to succeed if it's possible that it may fail.
If it was clear that there were no risks, then earlier adopters would be less inclined to diversify their wealth by divesting. If these people didn't divest (sell), then coins wouldn't diffuse as quickly into a wide and efficient wealth distribution.
I don't know how old Peter Todd is, but his linked-in profile states the he received his bachelor's degree in 2011. So I assume he is in his twenties and that five figures1 was enough that he felt he should diversify (perhaps to sleep more soundly at night).
So, once again, it seems like bitcoin is evolving as it should.
1I'm assuming he means CAD and not BTC.
If it was clear that there were no risks, then earlier adopters would be less inclined to diversify their wealth by divesting. If these people didn't divest (sell), then coins wouldn't diffuse as quickly into a wide and efficient wealth distribution.
I don't know how old Peter Todd is, but his linked-in profile states the he received his bachelor's degree in 2011. So I assume he is in his twenties and that five figures1 was enough that he felt he should diversify (perhaps to sleep more soundly at night).
So, once again, it seems like bitcoin is evolving as it should.
1I'm assuming he means CAD and not BTC.
Why doesn't someone institute a worldwide consensus voting system? Bitcoin is perfect for such a thing
People who choose to go with ghash are already voting in a way. They choose to give them so much hashing power.
Jump to: