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.
Topic: Bitcoin even more broken than previously thought - page 3. (Read 5069 times)
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense
Because Bitcoin cultists ignore people who disagree with them
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense
It means that a number of forum members have put him on their personal ignore list.
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Put you back on ignore.
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/25/block-propagation-speeds/
Oh dear. Not only has it now be demonstrated that selfish mining is a feasible attack, but the rewards available are much greater than previously assumed. Still, not to worry, I'm sure the exchanges will keep pumping out false price data to keep the bubble going a bit longer before it is popped.
Oh dear. Not only has it now be demonstrated that selfish mining is a feasible attack, but the rewards available are much greater than previously assumed. Still, not to worry, I'm sure the exchanges will keep pumping out false price data to keep the bubble going a bit longer before it is popped.
Nobody reply to this guy.
He's an established Troll.
Hmmmm. This gives me an idea.... Trollcoin!
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense
no worries , troll or not , i believe bitcoin community will mend this flaw
if this will be a problem, they will solve it. trolls are welcome
Selfish mining doesn't break bitcoin at all. All this does is speed up the confirmation time, and increase the fees required to get your transaction in a block. In any case, bitcoin was meant from the beginning for miners to be incentivized, so of course the most profitable mining strategy will win out. It does not need "honest miners" who only mine for the good of the world.
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
The attack vectors described in these "studies" have been discussed in the bitcoin community for years. It's also worth noting that despite a market-cap in the billions, these attacks have not been performed to any measurable degree. Nevermind the perverse incentives (the authors treat incentivization very myopically). These attacks are interesting to theorize about and should ultimately be insulated against for the long-term, but they're of little practical relevance.
You don't think the fact that Bitcoin is definitely not incentive compatible is an issue?
An incentive is a reward, and rewards are subjective.
We can argue all day about if miners make enough money or who gets the new coins and fees. None of that changes the fact that there will always be people out there who see things such as helping verify payments, having a fun hobby to play around with and generally contributing back to the web as an adequate incentive.
Even if you ignore all those things, and argue that there is absolutely no incentive, the conclusion of that is that it would be irrational to mine. There will always be people who behave irrationally.
I believe selfish-mining can be easily defeated by spying on the pool as a miner when told to generate shares for a new block. Propagation delay has no bearing on my proposed solution.
"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?
Not all nodes are created equal. It doesn't matter if you reach 50% of the miners, if those 50% only have 1% of the hashrate.
classic bitcoin cultist misdirection. Amazing how you've managed to avoid addressing the argument at hand.
What's the point about discussing a dead and deceased currency?
I really am curious about the motivation that keeps you coming back, sharing thoughts about an already buried shitty coin.
Really.
He's not here for actual discussion. He's here to agitate.
I'd be happy to argue the paper not the person, if the person was here to actually argue the paper.
no worries , troll or not , i believe bitcoin community will mend this flaw
The attack vectors described in these "studies" have been discussed in the bitcoin community for years. It's also worth noting that despite a market-cap in the billions, these attacks have not been performed to any measurable degree. Nevermind the perverse incentives (the authors treat incentivization very myopically). These attacks are interesting to theorize about and should ultimately be insulated against for the long-term, but they're of little practical relevance.
You don't think the fact that Bitcoin is definitely not incentive compatible is an issue?
"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?
Normally, yes. However any mining pool acting in a 'selfish' manner can be identifed by predictable effects. Once the offending pool is identified, honest miners who desire to punish the selfish pool may do so, by adding a delay to the propogation of any of their published blocks, or simply refusing to forward them at all. There is nothing in the protocol that requires peers to treat each other equally.
The attack vectors described in these "studies" have been discussed in the bitcoin community for years. It's also worth noting that despite a market-cap in the billions, these attacks have not been performed to any measurable degree. Nevermind the perverse incentives (the authors treat incentivization very myopically). These attacks are interesting to theorize about and should ultimately be insulated against for the long-term, but they're of little practical relevance.
Why does winning a bunch of pointless races make any difference. Big pools control most of the hashrate and are only a handful of those nodes.
Jump to: