bitcoin vs solidcoin - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1019

Quote from: willphase on September 04, 2011, 06:25:29 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on September 04, 2011, 12:17:47 AM

Anyone that argues "Once you get 51% you can do blah blah with SolidCoin" is someone that doesn't understand the issue. 51% on SC or BTC right now means DEATH.

The difference is that the compute power for BTC grew organically so there was never a point where any single entity could get anywhere close to the 51% (except, perhaps in May/June when there were fewer pools and some threatened to reach 51%. However, with SC and these other spinoff currencies, there is a real risk of this happening - all it takes is for a small proportion of the current BTC miners to spin off in a coordinated manner to SC and they could seriously damage the network, and thus damage BTC by proxy.

Will

+1 everybody investing in sc needs to be aware of that. there are seven pools or so that could do it within a couple of hours. would the pool miners even notice? ("very bad luck..")

nobody in the world can do this with bitcoin - it is by far the fastest distributed computing network.

willphase

hero member

Activity: 767

Merit: 500

Quote from: CoinHunter on September 04, 2011, 12:17:47 AM

Anyone that argues "Once you get 51% you can do blah blah with SolidCoin" is someone that doesn't understand the issue. 51% on SC or BTC right now means DEATH.

The difference is that the compute power for BTC grew organically so there was never a point where any single entity could get anywhere close to the 51% (except, perhaps in May/June when there were fewer pools and some threatened to reach 51%. However, with SC and these other spinoff currencies, there is a real risk of this happening - all it takes is for a small proportion of the current BTC miners to spin off in a coordinated manner to SC and they could seriously damage the network, and thus damage BTC by proxy.

Will

ctoon6

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Quote from: CoinHunter on September 04, 2011, 12:17:47 AM

Quote from: ctoon6 on September 04, 2011, 12:11:44 AM

you don't seem to understand a fundamental issue with decentralization, of course unless you plan to add centralization.

the fundamental problem is that you can not control how a user will interact in the network or use a protocol. of course a 51% attack would be impossible in a perfect world, because the software that is widely used simply does not allow it. however users can write their own software to do different things, therefore if you have a large portion of the network, you have "control" as long as you have custom software to allow it.

also, you cant enforce time stamping to be more than somewhat accurate, because you have no central authority to say if a time stamp was bad or not.

and i challenge you to attack the bitcoin network, since you seem to have figured it out.

Where do you get the idea I don't understand decentralization? What part of the post above makes you believe that?

If you think the only way to defend a network is through centralization you would be wrong. If you think all the smartest ideas in the world are going into Bitcoin you would be wrong.

Anyone that argues "Once you get 51% you can do blah blah with SolidCoin" is someone that doesn't understand the issue. 51% on SC or BTC right now means DEATH. There is nothing worse than DEATH. If they start playing with the timestamps, generating mass coins, double spending, withholding tx etc, people will stop accepting SC or BTC. That is what we call DEATH.

It's like talking to a brick wall with some of the people here.

you have yet to say any solutions to the above problems, and i never said anything about solid coin or bitcoin, the issue is that the system is decentralized. decentralization by nature makes it difficult to identify nodes that are related, in this case, a single entity, for any bitcoin based system. therefore you can never prevent the 51% attack, you can always hard code in exceptions, but that adds centralization to the system.

again, if you have a solution to any of them problems, or are able to attack the network, then by all means.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: ctoon6 on September 04, 2011, 12:11:44 AM

you don't seem to understand a fundamental issue with decentralization, of course unless you plan to add centralization.

the fundamental problem is that you can not control how a user will interact in the network or use a protocol. of course a 51% attack would be impossible in a perfect world, because the software that is widely used simply does not allow it. however users can write their own software to do different things, therefore if you have a large portion of the network, you have "control" as long as you have custom software to allow it.

also, you cant enforce time stamping to be more than somewhat accurate, because you have no central authority to say if a time stamp was bad or not.

and i challenge you to attack the bitcoin network, since you seem to have figured it out.

Where do you get the idea I don't understand decentralization? What part of the post above makes you believe that?

If you think the only way to defend a network is through centralization you would be wrong. If you think all the smartest ideas in the world are going into Bitcoin you would be wrong.

Anyone that argues "Once you get 51% you can do blah blah with SolidCoin" is someone that doesn't understand the issue. 51% on SC or BTC right now means DEATH. There is nothing worse than DEATH. If they start playing with the timestamps, generating mass coins, double spending, withholding tx etc, people will stop accepting SC or BTC. That is what we call DEATH.

It's like talking to a brick wall with some of the people here.

ctoon6

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Quote from: CoinHunter on September 03, 2011, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: ArtForz on September 03, 2011, 03:23:34 PM

Yes. It appears any time-triggered system or asymmetrically adjusting algorithm using block timestamps can be gamed by a 51% attacker.
What's worse, the same thing can be done by a 51% collective of attackers without requiring any central coordination other than agreeing on a starting block and what rules define a "properly fake" block timestamp.

Yes except you're missing the point. This is easily detectable, and if Bitcoin or SolidCoin have a 51% attacker that wants to destroy either chain, they currently can. As soon as I hear someone say "Well if you get to 51%...." it sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. Assume 51% and malicious means game over.

Unlike Bitcoin I am working on a way to solve the problem of the 51% attacker. And good luck to you personally too..... you mess with thousands of peoples computers, network and investments and you can expect some sort of response.... the people here cheering on this blackhat should also take a look at themselves.

I know numerous vulnerabilites in Bitcoin's chain and if I wanted to do an "artforz" to bitcoin I could. That is the difference between someone that has no intent to harm others and someone that does.

you don't seem to understand a fundamental issue with decentralization, of course unless you plan to add centralization.

the fundamental problem is that you can not control how a user will interact in the network or use a protocol. of course a 51% attack would be impossible in a perfect world, because the software that is widely used simply does not allow it. however users can write their own software to do different things, therefore if you have a large portion of the network, you have "control" as long as you have custom software to allow it.

also, you cant enforce time stamping to be more than somewhat accurate, because you have no central authority to say if a time stamp was bad or not.

and i challenge you to attack the bitcoin network, since you seem to have figured it out.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: ArtForz on September 03, 2011, 03:23:34 PM

Yes. It appears any time-triggered system or asymmetrically adjusting algorithm using block timestamps can be gamed by a 51% attacker.
What's worse, the same thing can be done by a 51% collective of attackers without requiring any central coordination other than agreeing on a starting block and what rules define a "properly fake" block timestamp.

Yes except you're missing the point. This is easily detectable, and if Bitcoin or SolidCoin have a 51% attacker that wants to destroy either chain, they currently can. As soon as I hear someone say "Well if you get to 51%...." it sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. Assume 51% and malicious means game over.

Unlike Bitcoin I am working on a way to solve the problem of the 51% attacker. And good luck to you personally too..... you mess with thousands of peoples computers, network and investments and you can expect some sort of response.... the people here cheering on this blackhat should also take a look at themselves.

I know numerous vulnerabilites in Bitcoin's chain and if I wanted to do an "artforz" to bitcoin I could. That is the difference between someone that has no intent to harm others and someone that does.

wolftaur

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: Vladimir on September 03, 2011, 04:40:23 PM

lol,

beats being in allinvain's position, though

Ouch.

Vladimir

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

-

.

BitcoinPorn

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Posts: 69

Vlad's currently running Bitcoin v0.1 that he got fresh from his cryptography mailing list on this baby

:p

Still like SolidCoin, enjoying seeing this particular one going through growing pains/issues, definitely went ahead and took the clients off my computers to do a little sitting and waiting

Synaptic

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

SolidCoin, IXcoin, IOcoin....

They all just show what a gullible community this is. Gullible, or unscrupulous.

stryker

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

vlad, your talking about open source software.... the same goes for all other open source software, its down to peer review..... or is linux/gnu also evil then?

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1019

Quote from: ArtForz on September 03, 2011, 03:23:34 PM

Yes. It appears any time-triggered system or asymmetrically adjusting algorithm using block timestamps can be gamed by a 51% attacker.
What's worse, the same thing can be done by a 51% collective of attackers without requiring any central coordination other than agreeing on a starting block and what rules define a "properly fake" block timestamp.

what about using the relationship of hashrate and difficulty as a retargeting condition?

edit: not sure if estimating the hashrate will suffer from the same timestamp problem

ArtForz

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 257

Yes. It appears any time-triggered system or asymmetrically adjusting algorithm using block timestamps can be gamed by a 51% attacker.
What's worse, the same thing can be done by a 51% collective of attackers without requiring any central coordination other than agreeing on a starting block and what rules define a "properly fake" block timestamp.

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1019

btw: does the time triggered retargeting make solidcoin more vulnerable? I think ArtForz indicated something like this. Would it be possible to create your own forked block chain and mess with the timestamps so that difficulty bottoms out and you can create new blocks like crazy? I assume things like these are the problems that come with a real time dependent network algorithm.

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1019

Quote from: jav on September 03, 2011, 08:34:49 AM

Quote from: Vladimir on September 03, 2011, 08:04:25 AM

I bet most big miners and pool operators are fully aware about this possibility, most probably just cannot be bothered, when the alternative is simply to do nothing and shitcoins will just die out on their own.

But if someone does this it would be technically a very interesting event. Pass the popcorn.

It would also be an asshole move. Of course young projects can easily be trampled to death by cyber bullies. That proofs nothing at all about the technical side of SolidCoin. Even if one day a clearly superior alternative to Bitcoin emerges (and I don't believe SolidCoin to be that), then this SuperiorCoin will most likely go through the same vulnerable phase and it would be a disservice to the progress of crypto-currencies to take advantage of this vulnerability and kill it off early.

If you think, like me, that SolidCoin does not bring enough advantages over Bitcoin to be a serious competitor, then just let them alone and run their course. I don't see it cause much harm. It even provides a nice field test for some of the alternative approaches, like the new difficulty adjustment algorithm. If this turns out to be a worthwhile change, it could be even adopted for Bitcoin in the future, starting from some checkpoint block number, and we would already have a better understanding how that would play out.

could not agree more but: it is better for such an aggressive move to happen early and transparently than later and in the dark. I would consider it a field test for a pirate pool. It would not be necessary to trample a to the ground but some serious double spending would no doubt be interesting.

norulezapply

hero member

Activity: 481

Merit: 502

Bitcoin always wins. Solidcoin is a poor fork with no real advantages and will likely die out soon.

aq

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: FlipPro on September 03, 2011, 11:08:36 AM

You really think Coinhunter is the one out to get us, when ArtFroz is the attacker? WTF? Tongue

I think those solidcoins have brainwashed you too much:
- Coinhunters modification where half-backed.
- Artforz used it within its specifications.
- Coinhunters version failed.
- Coinhunter delivers a fix to fix the fix of a fix for his version

stryker

sr. member

Activity: 518

Merit: 250

I'm just looking to see how two solidcoin promises pan out.... the super-dooper api and as time goes on the ease of exchange from SC to dollars.... mostly because these two things will drive interest in SC and decouple it from bitcoin so it can stand on its own.... thats where it could become interesting and a little fuzzy.

SC does lead in involving the community and enabling the "common man" to use it so its going to be very interesting.

N12

donator

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1010

Quote from: BitcoinPorn on September 03, 2011, 10:04:06 AM

Quote from: aq on September 03, 2011, 09:57:09 AM

Maybe I would do it. It would be for my profit and for the greater good of the community.

Please explain the greater good part.

I believe it’s because many Bitcoin proponents only want a free market and competition as long as it benefits them. Else, it has to go.

JohnDoe

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: Technomage on September 03, 2011, 06:50:27 AM

Deflation does indeed discourage spending but the key issue is that I don't actually think that's a bad thing. It's better for the people if they have more incentive to save money instead of spending it and it's way better for the environment and our sustainability in general. An economic model based on infinite growth is absolutely utopian-ridiculous taking account the current realities so any system based on that is basically doomed, this is one of the main reasons why we're seeing so many problems in the real world right now.

I agree infinite growth is unsustainable. I'm not advocating for inflation, I'm advocating for deflation + demurrage which does not stagnate the economy like pure deflation but is environmentally sustainable because the focus is shifted from short term to long term investment as holding more money than you can spend becomes a waste. So things like cutting down a whole forest and then leaving for an immediate million dollars is no longer preferable to cutting and replanting little by little over the course of many years.

Quote from: Technomage on September 03, 2011, 06:50:27 AM

And the thing of it is, even with deflation people will use money to purchase what they need to live. They will even purchase luxuries, you see this very clearly with electronics. Electronics get better (deflate) massively in a very short amount of time but still people keep buying them even if they can get much better ones later with the same amount of money. Deflation is not a serious problem unless it's totally out of control.

Time preference would only help with spending in a deflationary currency if that currency is the only medium of exchange available to people. If there are alternative currencies people will just choose to spend with an inflationary currency and store value with a deflationary one, pretty much like the relationship between dollars and swiss francs.

Topic: bitcoin vs solidcoin - page 2. (Read 19345 times)