I hate popular thread based on crapy argument, I just ignore him, next time, I'll pass by !
Topic: Bitcoin even more broken than previously thought (Read 5069 times)
Quote
Going right back to ancient Rome, the best way to destroy a currency is to undermine confidence in it. Selfish mining incentives malign behaviour, it puts fair players at a disadvantage, and a dynamic like that always ends the same way: Rome burns.
Absolutely this. It's possible to see why, because bitcoin is such a disruptive technology, there are certain actors who would be willing to absorb great cost to damage the credibility of the technology.
I have counted on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
Not at all the same. A forger (of money, art etc) gains 95% + so they do not care if they devalue what they forge. They take paper worth pennies and turn it into hundreds.
A selfish miner would not have such a profit by the attack AND they have a vested position in Bitcoin. Blocks are NOT being forged in any of these attacks. The selfish miner only makes a SMALL gain. That is the difference and why in the real world this does not play out.
I have counted on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
Not at all the same. A forger (of money, art etc) gains 95% + so they do not care if they devalue what they forge. They take paper worth pennies and turn it into hundreds.
A selfish miner would not have such a profit by the attack AND they have a vested position in Bitcoin. Blocks are NOT being forged in any of these attacks. The selfish miner only makes a SMALL gain. That is the difference and why in the real world this does not play out.
Who said it was a small gain?
I have counted on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
Not at all the same. A forger (of money, art etc) gains 95% + so they do not care if they devalue what they forge. They take paper worth pennies and turn it into hundreds.
A selfish miner would not have such a profit by the attack AND they have a vested position in Bitcoin. Blocks are NOT being forged in any of these attacks. The selfish miner only makes a SMALL gain. That is the difference and why in the real world this does not play out.
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin.
I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal.
The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality.
Going right back to ancient Rome, the best way to destroy a currency is to undermine confidence in it. Selfish mining incentives malign behaviour, it puts fair players at a disadvantage, and a dynamic like that always ends the same way: Rome burns.
You have not countered my argument at all.
The incentives are not there for real world miners, and for nefarious miners (trying to break the network itself) the effects on the network are not great enough for the effort.
I have countered on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which they forge. Selfish miners would behave likewise. As to the latter, prove it. Prove that altering the mining dynamic such that rewards are no longer proportional would not cause havok.
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin.
I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal.
The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality.
Going right back to ancient Rome, the best way to destroy a currency is to undermine confidence in it. Selfish mining incentives malign behaviour, it puts fair players at a disadvantage, and a dynamic like that always ends the same way: Rome burns.
You have not countered my argument at all.
The incentives are not there for real world miners, and for nefarious miners (trying to break the network itself) the effects on the network are not great enough for the effort.
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin.
I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal.
The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality.
Going right back to ancient Rome, the best way to destroy a currency is to undermine confidence in it. Selfish mining incentives malign behaviour, it puts fair players at a disadvantage, and a dynamic like that always ends the same way: Rome burns.
Sadistic mining is a losing strategy
Sado-mining, on the other hand...
http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/imgdata/topics/2010/tp101129.html
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin.
I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal.
The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality.
"It takes 4.5 seconds for a block to reach 50% of the miners. That's approximately an eternity in computer terms. That's plenty of time for a selfish miner to push his own block and win some races, especially if he makes his block smaller than average."
But won't the 4.5 seconds apply equally to the selfish miner and honest miners?
But won't the 4.5 seconds apply equally to the selfish miner and honest miners?
This comes to mind: Low-latency strategies
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin.
This page on the wiki should be renamed.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Non_Working_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
Anyone got a better name?
Billions of Bitcoins were credited to 2 wallets. That attack worked. ubdoing it involved breaking Bitcoin's own rules, and if it happened now it would destroy Bitcoin.
This page on the wiki should be renamed.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Non_Working_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
Anyone got a better name?
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue.
The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network.
Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it.
The writer of the article ignores these points.
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now.
That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril.
I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user.
Link or citation please? No such bug was ever exploited in the wild.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
The latter was not exploited, I stated that clearly, but only because at the time the userbase was small. The former was exploited , and undoing the damage involved effectively rebooting Bitcoin; again, this was possible because it was nascent at this stage, if it happened now it would be the end of Bitcoin.
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now.
That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril.
I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user.
Link or citation please? No such bug was ever exploited in the wild.
Wow, Heinleinisms, you must be like some sort of sooperhackerd00dsavantmuthafukka.
Whilst you may be chagrined to learn this, I'm afraid I must inform you that brilliance is not communicable. You can hang from the coattails of luminaries, but your star shall shine no brighter as a result. Take heed little grasshopper: know thy limits, lest thy limits be known by all.
Whilst you may be chagrined to learn this, I'm afraid I must inform you that brilliance is not communicable. You can hang from the coattails of luminaries, but your star shall shine no brighter as a result. Take heed little grasshopper: know thy limits, lest thy limits be known by all.
I'm not threatened by others being aware that I have limits, and while brilliance may not be communicable, understanding most certainly is. You could be every bit as brilliant as you seem to believe, but you still lack understanding.
Actually, no.
You can communicate information, but understanding require qualia
Wow, Heinleinisms, you must be like some sort of sooperhackerd00dsavantmuthafukka.
Whilst you may be chagrined to learn this, I'm afraid I must inform you that brilliance is not communicable. You can hang from the coattails of luminaries, but your star shall shine no brighter as a result. Take heed little grasshopper: know thy limits, lest thy limits be known by all.
Whilst you may be chagrined to learn this, I'm afraid I must inform you that brilliance is not communicable. You can hang from the coattails of luminaries, but your star shall shine no brighter as a result. Take heed little grasshopper: know thy limits, lest thy limits be known by all.
I'm not threatened by others being aware that I have limits, and while brilliance may not be communicable, understanding most certainly is. You could be every bit as brilliant as you seem to believe, but you still lack understanding.
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
It doesn't much matter who the author may be, only what the argument is. Speaking for myself, I very rarely see actual arguments presented on this forum anymore. And when that does happen, it's generally due to a misunderstanding of the protocol by the author. I'm not saying that this article doesn't have merit, but it doesn't have merit because it was presented by a professor from Cornell.
The worst logical fallacy is the misuse of logical fallacies as a way of trying to win in argument. It was not an appeal to authority anyway, as it was not said that this guy is necessarily correct because he is a Cornell professor, rather it was stated that to summarily dismiss his work given his credentials and reputation would be stupid as it seems unlikely he would be making claims he could not defend with solid arguments.
It was implied, and you damn well know it.
You inferred it.
Jump to: