Topic: BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver - page 8. (Read 1175 times)
A lot of crypto currencies are discovered everyday. Some maintains standards and become famous and some are scam. Bitpico is one of the new currency. So know all the information's about it before investing.
I would be more happy, if all those guys would be trying to compel the government systems that bitcoin is something legit and trustworthy, maybe then we will gain more stability from that we have right now.
Interesting... You can see in this shitty graph I made that they did attacks on 6/18, 6/21 and to a lesser extent 6/25. It looks like so far the network is holding up.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
I noticed this myself in the fork.lol blocksize graph:
This is nothing, they are just testing the software out to see if it works. When they release it and everyone can join the attack with their processing power it's when we'll see some good fireworks. The network is most likely a collapse but since ironically no one uses the coin, there will not be many complains and BCH supporters will label it as a success.
BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.
Correct, in this instance I was referring to the backers of BCH, passing it off as BTC.
Sorry if that wasn't clear
Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin.
BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.
a 51% is an empty argument scare tactic.
imagine if you had 10 friends(nodes). your all handed a piece of paper thats green
7 of your friends. reject it.. but you and 3 friends continue.
all that happens is that 70% of people just delayd.. THEMSELVES
...
the only real disruption is not from altcoin creating (pico's challenge)... but..
to really disrupt a network is to have enough mining power to regularly make blocks and then . make blocks.. following the rules so that they are acceptable.. but then simply dont add any transactions into the blocks
and while doing this. spam the mempool with transactions the other pools would include, to cause a bottleneck..
as for the argument about "rejoining the ntwork"... wel btc is several blocks ahead of bch..
so why doesnt pico just try making a clone of btc data chain rejoin bch to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and btc are not compatible and thus reject
so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin clams to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and clams are not compatible and thus reject
so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin btg to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and bitcoin gold are not compatible and thus reject
Thanks for the analogy.
The network spamming sounds like the route they are going. I seem to recall someone doing a breakdown of this in regards to large pools that don't pay out transaction fees, to drive up the fees per block.
I know a fork can't rejoin after the fact different rules and what not. I guess with the last one I was thinking the BTG attack where they created double spends . These attacks are where I'm still fuzzy .
Interesting... You can see in this shitty graph I made that they did attacks on 6/18, 6/21 and to a lesser extent 6/25. It looks like so far the network is holding up.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
Not shitty if it gets the information across
They did say this is going to be a sustained "attack". Guess well see. If they aren't successful it will just save the BCH backers some time come September.
Interesting... You can see in this shitty graph I made that they did attacks on 6/18, 6/21 and to a lesser extent 6/25. It looks like so far the network is holding up.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
BCH won't actually hold their own stress test until Sept 1st.
It's worth posting the plain text interview bitpico did with for some website:
Looks like they tried to bring the LN network down too and they couldn't, I cannot wait to see how Bitcoin Cash handles the pressure. Their nodes are certainly centralized by some Amazon VPS in China. Full 32 MB blocks are going to crash most of the nodes if they have the resources to sustain the attack. Doesn't look to good for BCH, if it gets exposed it will be the end of the "blocks as big as needed" scaling approach.
BCH fans can't also claim that this is a blackhat attack. The fact that they are advertising it and giving a deadline is very whitehat. When Jihan, Roger and co spammed the Bitcoin network, they didn't say anything. The attack could be even more brutal if made by surprise at key times, but they are being nice.
Quote
On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:08 PM, Alyssa Hertig <[email protected]> wrote:
Sure thing! Few questions for you:
- Why are you attacking bitcoin cash?
It is a stress test to validate the integrity of the Bitcoin Cash network on behalf of it’s investors. In the past Bitcoin has been attacked for good and for bad but it’s integrity remains intact which provides investor confidence. The #1 basic rule to all decentralized computer networks is that if it’s not attacked enough to resolve any problems then it will end badly. Skype is the perfect example of a decentralized computer network that was reverse engineered, attacked and subsequently 3 indivduals collapsed all 100,000 backup supernodes leading to a full centralization of the protocol to Microsofts datacenter.
- What kind of attacks are you executing?
Everything from low-level TCP/IP stack attacks to high level bitcoin cash protocol attacks. The combination guarantees several things: 1. The weakest nodes running on VPS’s will crash or run out of bandwidth and become non-responsive. 2. All other nodes will begin to stall out from multiple back-to-back pre-mined 32 Megabyte blocks. Our LevelDB stress testing shows that the Bitcoin Cash UTXO database on a complex 32 Megabyte block can require up to 200 Gigabytes of RAM to fully process and if this RAM is not available the UTXO database will become corrupt and if LevelDB doesn’t release the memory the OS will become unresponsive. Our LevelDB stress tests have been active for over 7 months since we migrated our Bitcoin implementation’s codebase's UTXO set to it’s own database; that said LevelDB wasn’t designed to handle such complex Big Data being read, written and deleted in-parallel.
- Why do you think you'll be able to fork the blockchain?
There are only a handful of mining pools and not enough nodes to enforce network rules; isolating majority of these nodes allows us to utilize our own nodes to withhold blocks and/or headers, reject blocks and/or headers, purposefully fail to relay block’s and/or headers and so on. Recently the Bitcoin Cash network has hard forked to accept 32 Megabyte blocks. With a combination of sybil attacks and our farm producing 32 Megabyte blocks (in-advance) we can inject enough blocks to induce latency and churn into the network so that miners will fall behind on consensus and begin to build their own chains since we will have isolated all of the miners nodes to our own nodes with different rules regarding blocks sizes they are willing to accept. At this point anyone can double-spend at any Bitcoin Cash Zero Confirmation merchant, even from a light client and with zero-effort; the funds will simply show back up once connected to another isolated node.
We believe we have already perfected our approach and our studies are conclusive; LevelDB cannot sustain our complex blocks and Bitcoin Cash is 85% centralized to only a few data-centers and miners. If Bitcoin Cash were 15% centralized then our efforts would fail except for the LevelDB weaknesses; our confidence as always is high. When we attacked the Bitcoin LN we failed across the board except for the massive nodes that crashed however they were quickly fixed and running again. This was a win-win for Bitcoin LN; only time can tell how Bitcoin Cash will withstand the assault.
Sure thing! Few questions for you:
- Why are you attacking bitcoin cash?
It is a stress test to validate the integrity of the Bitcoin Cash network on behalf of it’s investors. In the past Bitcoin has been attacked for good and for bad but it’s integrity remains intact which provides investor confidence. The #1 basic rule to all decentralized computer networks is that if it’s not attacked enough to resolve any problems then it will end badly. Skype is the perfect example of a decentralized computer network that was reverse engineered, attacked and subsequently 3 indivduals collapsed all 100,000 backup supernodes leading to a full centralization of the protocol to Microsofts datacenter.
- What kind of attacks are you executing?
Everything from low-level TCP/IP stack attacks to high level bitcoin cash protocol attacks. The combination guarantees several things: 1. The weakest nodes running on VPS’s will crash or run out of bandwidth and become non-responsive. 2. All other nodes will begin to stall out from multiple back-to-back pre-mined 32 Megabyte blocks. Our LevelDB stress testing shows that the Bitcoin Cash UTXO database on a complex 32 Megabyte block can require up to 200 Gigabytes of RAM to fully process and if this RAM is not available the UTXO database will become corrupt and if LevelDB doesn’t release the memory the OS will become unresponsive. Our LevelDB stress tests have been active for over 7 months since we migrated our Bitcoin implementation’s codebase's UTXO set to it’s own database; that said LevelDB wasn’t designed to handle such complex Big Data being read, written and deleted in-parallel.
- Why do you think you'll be able to fork the blockchain?
There are only a handful of mining pools and not enough nodes to enforce network rules; isolating majority of these nodes allows us to utilize our own nodes to withhold blocks and/or headers, reject blocks and/or headers, purposefully fail to relay block’s and/or headers and so on. Recently the Bitcoin Cash network has hard forked to accept 32 Megabyte blocks. With a combination of sybil attacks and our farm producing 32 Megabyte blocks (in-advance) we can inject enough blocks to induce latency and churn into the network so that miners will fall behind on consensus and begin to build their own chains since we will have isolated all of the miners nodes to our own nodes with different rules regarding blocks sizes they are willing to accept. At this point anyone can double-spend at any Bitcoin Cash Zero Confirmation merchant, even from a light client and with zero-effort; the funds will simply show back up once connected to another isolated node.
We believe we have already perfected our approach and our studies are conclusive; LevelDB cannot sustain our complex blocks and Bitcoin Cash is 85% centralized to only a few data-centers and miners. If Bitcoin Cash were 15% centralized then our efforts would fail except for the LevelDB weaknesses; our confidence as always is high. When we attacked the Bitcoin LN we failed across the board except for the massive nodes that crashed however they were quickly fixed and running again. This was a win-win for Bitcoin LN; only time can tell how Bitcoin Cash will withstand the assault.
Looks like they tried to bring the LN network down too and they couldn't, I cannot wait to see how Bitcoin Cash handles the pressure. Their nodes are certainly centralized by some Amazon VPS in China. Full 32 MB blocks are going to crash most of the nodes if they have the resources to sustain the attack. Doesn't look to good for BCH, if it gets exposed it will be the end of the "blocks as big as needed" scaling approach.
BCH fans can't also claim that this is a blackhat attack. The fact that they are advertising it and giving a deadline is very whitehat. When Jihan, Roger and co spammed the Bitcoin network, they didn't say anything. The attack could be even more brutal if made by surprise at key times, but they are being nice.
Thanks for all the info. I'll be honest I haven't really looked into the core team. I like to try and spend about half my time reading up on the progress/damage done over the years.
So you've given me some good places to start reading up, as I've mostly focused on scams and vaporware. I've only spent a little time reading up on LN because I had no idea wht it was, now I just have the basics.
Know to best the dead horse so to say. Isn't a 51% attack supposed to hijack the blockchain for a time, through forking and running parallel so to speak. Using this time to usually create transactions and move/sell double spend coins.
Then, and I'm really fuzzy on this part, releasing control back to the original blockchain.
This is what I assumed was in mind.
So you've given me some good places to start reading up, as I've mostly focused on scams and vaporware. I've only spent a little time reading up on LN because I had no idea wht it was, now I just have the basics.
Know to best the dead horse so to say. Isn't a 51% attack supposed to hijack the blockchain for a time, through forking and running parallel so to speak. Using this time to usually create transactions and move/sell double spend coins.
Then, and I'm really fuzzy on this part, releasing control back to the original blockchain.
This is what I assumed was in mind.
a 51% is an empty argument scare tactic.
imagine if you had 10 friends(nodes). your all handed a piece of paper thats green
7 of your friends. reject it.. but you and 3 friends continue.
all that happens is that 70% of people just delayd.. THEMSELVES
...
now imagine those 7 friends were making the paper. like a 100metre relay-race where everyone crosses the line after 10s but there is only one winner
7 friends hand out pink paper. they hold onto it but they dont accept the green paper. you and 3 friends ignore the pink paper and wait the 0.001s for the runner with the green paper to arrive..
there is not much difference in the time you and your friends get the paper they want. but now they are ultimately forming thier own network(altcoin) where green rejects and bans pink from communicating and pink bans green from communicating..
thus green only talks to gren and pink only talks to pink
no disruption.. just social drama and a fork
now its just 2 different coin networks..
the only real disruption is not from altcoin creating (pico's challenge)... but..
to really disrupt a network is to have enough mining power to regularly make blocks and then . make blocks.. following the rules so that they are acceptable.. but then simply dont add any transactions into the blocks
and while doing this. spam the mempool with transactions the other pools would include, to cause a bottleneck..
as for the argument about "rejoining the ntwork"... wel btc is several blocks ahead of bch..
so why doesnt pico just try making a clone of btc data chain rejoin bch to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and btc are not compatible and thus reject
so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin clams to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and clams are not compatible and thus reject
so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin btg to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and bitcoin gold are not compatible and thus reject
if it was just miners. then when the pico pools make a block that deviates from the rules the bitcoin cash network has, the network would just reject the block.
it would need to be a node AND pool attack.. but the end result is the same. they just hash blocks only their system accepts.
its not disruption. its just altcoin creating and social distractions.
anyone can create an altcoin from any network. it does not even need to be 5000 nodes and 51% of hashrate to achieve it.
thus its just distraction drama to keep the "lets keep fingers pointing at ver" drama alive. much like kardashian drama, in the end
the core supporters have already done damage to the community with things like
"blockchain cant scale". meaning they are saying that satoshi's invention has failed
saying LN is the only solution. which is not an immutable ledger network and not even a network thats uniquely going to be used purely for btc
plus they are saying with factories. the users never have to resettle to a blockchain ever again...
showing that it can fork into altcoins
the revolution has been CORE-poratised
funny part is.
ver, bloq(segwitx2) samson mow/lukejr(USAF) and core devs are all paid by the same investors
which is why fee priorities, onchainscaling, trust of zero confirms, bypassing consensus and soon even PoW were/have/will damage the origiinal 2009 ethos of bitcoin
Thanks for all the info. I'll be honest I haven't really looked into the core team. I like to try and spend about half my time reading up on the progress/damage done over the years.
So you've given me some good places to start reading up, as I've mostly focused on scams and vaporware. I've only spent a little time reading up on LN because I had no idea wht it was, now I just have the basics.
Know to best the dead horse so to say. Isn't a 51% attack supposed to hijack the blockchain for a time, through forking and running parallel so to speak. Using this time to usually create transactions and move/sell double spend coins.
Then, and I'm really fuzzy on this part, releasing control back to the original blockchain.
This is what I assumed was in mind.
I'm not gtting involved in this childish drama. I'd rather just ignore it. There is only one bitcoin. Roger Ver tried his best to sabotage it with his bitcoin.com website and talking shit about the OG bitcoin all day.
I just assumed it was going to be machines from their group running the attack. Maybe any anti Bcash miners out there who jump on board if that option becomes possible.
Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.
It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.
Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.
It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.
if it was just miners. then when the pico pools make a block that deviates from the rules the bitcoin cash network has, the network would just reject the block.
it would need to be a node AND pool attack.. but the end result is the same. they just hash blocks only their system accepts.
its not disruption. its just altcoin creating and social distractions.
anyone can create an altcoin from any network. it does not even need to be 5000 nodes and 51% of hashrate to achieve it.
thus its just distraction drama to keep the "lets keep fingers pointing at ver" drama alive. much like kardashian drama, in the end
the core supporters have already done damage to the community with things like
"blockchain cant scale". meaning they are saying that satoshi's invention has failed
saying LN is the only solution. which is not an immutable ledger network and not even a network thats uniquely going to be used purely for btc
plus they are saying with factories. the users never have to resettle to a blockchain ever again...
showing that it can fork into altcoins
the revolution has been CORE-poratised
funny part is.
ver, bloq(segwitx2) samson mow/lukejr(USAF) and core devs are all paid by the same investors
which is why fee priorities, onchainscaling, trust of zero confirms, bypassing consensus and soon even PoW were/have/will damage the origiinal 2009 ethos of bitcoin
I just assumed it was going to be machines from their group running the attack. Maybe any anti Bcash miners out there who jump on board if that option becomes possible.
Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.
It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.
Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.
It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.
so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium
more social drama distractions.
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium
more social drama distractions.
So while enjoying my morning coffee I was enlightened as to more of the upper echelon of BTC adopters.
I had never heard of BitPico, but it sounds like they know what they're doing, and are most likely BTC purists. This is probably why they have an issue with Ver and his attempt to make BCash the new BTC.
This group is stress testing "his" baby with a sustained 51% attack, and they aren't even hiding about it. They told him, lol.
I read this article and it discusses how they did this with the lightning network to test it's merit and see how well it addresses previous issues with network scalability. This group was apparently a driving force behind Segwit2x, and had seemingly dissapeared before giving the lightning network a good working over.
I don't think the idea is inherently malicious like other 51% attacks, except with the obvious intention of making Roger Ver cry. They are just performing due diligence for a coin that came out of nothing and was "given"/pumped to #2.
https://bitcoinist.com/roger-ver-bitpico-hard-fork-bitcoin-cash/
I had never heard of BitPico, but it sounds like they know what they're doing, and are most likely BTC purists. This is probably why they have an issue with Ver and his attempt to make BCash the new BTC.
This group is stress testing "his" baby with a sustained 51% attack, and they aren't even hiding about it. They told him, lol.
I read this article and it discusses how they did this with the lightning network to test it's merit and see how well it addresses previous issues with network scalability. This group was apparently a driving force behind Segwit2x, and had seemingly dissapeared before giving the lightning network a good working over.
I don't think the idea is inherently malicious like other 51% attacks, except with the obvious intention of making Roger Ver cry. They are just performing due diligence for a coin that came out of nothing and was "given"/pumped to #2.
https://bitcoinist.com/roger-ver-bitpico-hard-fork-bitcoin-cash/
Jump to: