bter hacked and lost 50m nxt - page 22.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: Quantumtangles on August 15, 2014, 09:40:06 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:34:27 AM

In NXT the last 720 blocks are reversible (there are rolling checkpoints), which means if forgers gather 51% of power and decide to rewrite those last 720 blocks, they can.

When TF is implemented (scheduled in a few months), rogue forgers will have to gather 90% of forging power and they would be able to rewrite only the last 10 blocks.

BTER get hacked and lose a bunch of NXT. Crypti price gets creamed. BTC withdrawals from BTER are frozen.

People are arguing about whether to roll back or not (probably only a few serious minds really know the answer to this based on the NXT code even though everyone seems to have an opinion about it).

A large investor threatens to sue everyone on planet earth before sending them to jail.

Interesting stuff. Question: If it is correct to say that there are checkpoints in the NXT blockchain, would it be possible and in that event would it make sense to unravel the fraudulent transaction whilst leaving legitimate transactions intact or is this an oversimplification?

It will be possible if 51% of forging power is sent to forge on the new chain, the longest chain wins. Only forgers (stakeholders who forge) decide whether to mine on the old chain or to join the new chain.

Quantumtangles

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:34:27 AM

In NXT the last 720 blocks are reversible (there are rolling checkpoints), which means if forgers gather 51% of power and decide to rewrite those last 720 blocks, they can.

When TF is implemented (scheduled in a few months), rogue forgers will have to gather 90% of forging power and they would be able to rewrite only the last 10 blocks.

BTER get hacked and lose a bunch of NXT. Crypti price gets creamed. BTC withdrawals from BTER are frozen.

People are arguing about whether to roll back or not (probably only a few serious minds really know the answer to this based on the NXT code even though everyone seems to have an opinion about it).

A large investor threatens to sue everyone on planet earth before sending them to jail.

Interesting stuff. Question: If it is correct to say that there are checkpoints in the NXT blockchain, would it be possible and in that event would it make sense to unravel the fraudulent transaction whilst leaving legitimate transactions intact or is this an oversimplification?

liondani

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

Inch by Inch,Play by Play

Quote from: Fernandez on August 15, 2014, 05:50:16 AM

Quote from: Litesire on August 15, 2014, 05:48:01 AM

Quote from: Fernandez on August 15, 2014, 05:36:04 AM

This is a huge amount. Bter has been one of the best performing exchanges so I hope this doesn't affect their other operations.
Now prepare for a NXT dump.

So I wonder how NEM shares are going to be doing? Wink

They might even go up. Investors may look at NEM as a hedge against NXT. 50m NXT in the wrong ends will spook a lot of investors; and if prices tumble they may decide they are better off buying up NEM tokens instead of selling for BTC.

I personaly bought more BitSharesX...now it seems much more secure with TITAN technology implemented.

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

amarha

Quote from: Nautica on August 15, 2014, 09:24:22 AM

...

Yes I just want to highlight one particular thing you wrote:

Quote from: Nautica on August 15, 2014, 09:24:22 AM

Besides, this is the free market in action. It's up to users to start using the new wallet, and we can collectively choose to ignore that transaction. There is nothing more democratic and decentralised than this. What in the hell are you complaining about?

Doing something like this voluntarily and choosing as a group to make a change is 100% a 'free market' action and is precisely the point of having the freedom to make such changes.

Bitcoin is strong because the majority controls its destiny. If someone came along right now with a new development team that was better and faster as a group Bitcoin could decide to reject our current clients and switch over in a heartbeat. That won't happen though, but the idea is what drives Bitcoin.

Chris001

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

electroneum.com

Any change made to Nxt because someone stole coins = Death of Nxt

A rollback or a canceling / and or changing of any transaction will make Nxt a joke

Nxt has a chance to show that they are FOR REAL by doing nothing

Viper1

sr. member

Activity: 686

Merit: 320

Quote from: maok on August 15, 2014, 09:30:20 AM

you are creating a precedent here. It is totally a centralized decision which will set a precedent in the future when and if crypto will be accepted as global currency. It will create the option for big entity to bring his mining power in action whenever a rolling back will be in his favour. This is an unwritten rule. Crypto stands for irreversibility not for lets take another look and if it doesn't suits us lets rewrite history by using latent forces of mining whenever a rolling back suits us.

crypto will never be accepted as a global currency with these types of things happening on a regular basis. I can understand not wanting to roll back the entire blockchain, but the patch that just rolls back the hackers transactions is a very reasonable solution. There has to be some form of "justice" or anarchy will reign and no one outside the crypto community will take any of this as a serious option.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

It's amazing the price of NXT isn't much lower than it is right now. The NXT price always seemed to be far more manipulated by a small number of holders than any other coins. This event kind of backs up that assumption. The handful of guys that own it all haven't panic sold (yet). If distribution was higher, there would have been much more panic selling.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

In about 16 hours it will be clear which chain wins, it will be exactly 720 blocks since the hack.

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 09:20:19 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:14:56 AM

When?

August 15th, 2010

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/strange-block-74638-822

It's a different situation though. But it's possible.

4 years ago today, spooky.

My 2 cents....you guys have handled this the right way, let the forgers decide.

However, whatever happens the hacker wins and Nxt loses, either you rollback, weather the storm and he it sitting on 110BTC. You don't roll back and he dumps them Nxt at some point, until then y'all nervous and short term optimism at least, is gone.

People saying its the end of Nxt, I doubt it, but it could be a rough ride.

Also ISP's should really sort out their shit, 2FA, encryption and everything else is no good if your ISP is the weak point due to lacking security. They should be held accountable, as it was the ISP that was lacking security again that allowed an attacker to get to some of mine & eMunie's BTC stash.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

In NXT the last 720 blocks are reversible (there are rolling checkpoints), which means if forgers gather 51% of power and decide to rewrite those last 720 blocks, they can.

When TF is implemented (scheduled in a few months), rogue forgers will have to gather 90% of forging power and they would be able to rewrite only the last 10 blocks.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 09:20:19 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:14:56 AM

When?

August 15th, 2010

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/strange-block-74638-822

It's a different situation though. But it's possible.

Point conceded. It was a bug and patch, so yes, a different situation.

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:22:10 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:13:59 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:04:47 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:00:03 AM

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is decentralized. In fact, centralization of mining power is one of the biggest concerns for BTC now. Further, I don't think BTC protocol allows rollbacks.

It's decentralized if no one entity has 51% power (or 90% when TF is implemented in a few months). There is no one entity in NXT that has 51% forging power. If forgers decide to download the modified release and do the rollback, then it's democracy in PoS style. BTC software could also be modified to do a rollback and if enough miners download it and reach 51% of mining power OR if enough miners decide to secretly mine a separate chain and reach 51% of mining power, they orphan all the other miners' blocks.

For some strange reason, you seem to equate the majority threshold and democracy as the benchmark for decentralization. It is not.
Further, don't keep snipping our conversations. Otherwise, I might forget you earlier claims such as BTC has done rollbacks before.
Also, your last two sentences seem to refer to forking.

I hate overquoting.

I think I stated clearly what centralization is - one entity holding 51% of the mining/forging power. This is not the case for NXT.

Yes, my last sentences refer to forking. So what's your question?

When it's relevant to our discussion, it's not overquoting.

You disagreed against my original statement, and now you're asking what's my question?
Once again, collusion of forgers/peers into a voting block in not decentralization.
Your definition of decentralization includes terms such as democracy and majority.

maok

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: Nautica on August 15, 2014, 09:24:22 AM

Quote from: maok on August 15, 2014, 09:17:29 AM

Exactly, going back in blockchain is an unwritten rule. It shouldn't happen. If this happens it clearly means that the miners which chose to do so act in a centralized way for their own private benefit(a real life revolution always has couple of central leaders without which the revolution would fail). The small miners will not have a choice. It will be mostly decided the by pools owners.

Going back into the blockchain is a centralized decision no matter how you look at it and who takes part in it. Unless there is a major bug affecting all users, the rolling back shouldn't be an option.

It's an unwritten rule because it's not even a rule. Plenty of cryptos, including Bitcoin, have rolled back before. You are the fundamentalist taliban of anarchism, you are idolising the ideology of the so-called "free market" in the face of overwhelming practical and ethical reasons to take a constructive decision to freeze a single transaction on the blockchain. The solution the NXT dev posted does not even roll back anything else than that single transaction. No, this will not erode trust in NXT. If anything, it will protect trust in NXT as the NXT dev is taking action to protect his own creation with literally no ill consequences (except if you're the hacker), and you are standing on the side of the road yelling at a cloud.

Besides, this is the free market in action. It's up to users to start using the new wallet, and we can collectively choose to ignore that transaction. There is nothing more democratic and decentralised than this. What in the hell are you complaining about?

That, or you were planning on stealing some crypto yourself and are hoping to establish a cultural precedent for you to get away with it.

you are creating a precedent here. It is totally a centralized decision which will set a precedent in the future when and if crypto will be accepted as global currency. It will create the option for big entity to bring his mining power in action whenever a rolling back will be in his favour. This is an unwritten rule. Crypto stands for irreversibility not for lets take another look and if it doesn't suits us lets rewrite history by using latent forces of mining whenever a rolling back suits us.

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

amarha

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:22:10 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:13:59 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:04:47 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:00:03 AM

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is decentralized. In fact, centralization of mining power is one of the biggest concerns for BTC now. Further, I don't think BTC protocol allows rollbacks.

It's decentralized if no one entity has 51% power (or 90% when TF is implemented in a few months). There is no one entity in NXT that has 51% forging power. If forgers decide to download the modified release and do the rollback, then it's democracy in PoS style. BTC software could also be modified to do a rollback and if enough miners download it and reach 51% of mining power OR if enough miners decide to secretly mine a separate chain and reach 51% of mining power, they orphan all the other miners' blocks.

For some strange reason, you seem to equate the majority threshold and democracy as the benchmark for decentralization. It is not.
Further, don't keep snipping our conversations. Otherwise, I might forget you earlier claims such as BTC has done rollbacks before.
Also, your last two sentences seem to refer to forking.

I hate overquoting.

I think I stated clearly what centralization is - one entity holding 51% of the mining/forging power. This is not the case for NXT.

Yes, my last sentences refer to forking. So what's your question?

I fully agree with you here. People don't seem to understand what decentralisation means.

Nautica

jr. member

Activity: 59

Merit: 10

Quote from: maok on August 15, 2014, 09:17:29 AM

Exactly, going back in blockchain is an unwritten rule. It shouldn't happen. If this happens it clearly means that the miners which chose to do so act in a centralized way for their own private benefit(a real life revolution always has couple of central leaders without which the revolution would fail). The small miners will not have a choice. It will be mostly decided the by pools owners.

Going back into the blockchain is a centralized decision no matter how you look at it and who takes part in it. Unless there is a major bug affecting all users, the rolling back shouldn't be an option.

It's an unwritten rule because it's not even a rule. Plenty of cryptos, including Bitcoin, have rolled back before. You are the fundamentalist taliban of anarchism, you are idolising the ideology of the so-called "free market" in the face of overwhelming practical and ethical reasons to take a constructive decision to freeze a single transaction on the blockchain. The solution the NXT dev posted does not even roll back anything else than that single transaction. No, this will not erode trust in NXT. If anything, it will protect trust in NXT as the NXT dev is taking action to protect his own creation with literally no ill consequences (except if you're the hacker), and you are standing on the side of the road yelling at a cloud.

Besides, this is the free market in action. It's up to users to start using the new wallet, and we can collectively choose to ignore that transaction. There is nothing more democratic and decentralised than this.

Vega

hero member

Activity: 739

Merit: 500

This is an interesting solution:
https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/nrs-v1-2-5b/

Not a full rollback, but one targeting the theft.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: maok on August 15, 2014, 09:17:29 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 08:49:43 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 08:36:14 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 08:33:19 AM

So, here is what's going to happen.

In NXT, forgers decide what chain to forge on.

NXT is all for decentralization.

CfB is against a rollback, he said, but he sees not giving a choice to the community as a centralized decision on his part.

That's why he's going to put a modified release for download, which rolls back the chain.

If enough forgers download that release and forge with it and their chain is longer, then that chain wins and the hack is rolled back.

If enough forgers stay on the old chain and keep it the longest, then the hack is not rolled back.

That's how decentralization works in the PoS world.

The equivalent in PoW would be 51% of the miners mining on the longest chain, it's same in PoS.

Let's see how this drama unfolds

Right.

This is exactly what decentralisation is.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread.

Coordination of peers/forger into a voting block is not decentralized.
Not all Nxt holders will be involved in the decision-making process, and the smaller shareholders and retail partners will be alienated - even if such a measure reaches 51%.
In the case of retailers, they could potentially face loses for services rendered or products sold.

In view of that, what major investor or retailer would dare make any future commitments to Nxt if they know Nxt has a history of doing rollbacks?
Would a major retailer be willing to offer a Nxt payment option to their customers knowing a rollback is a possibility?

Exactly, going back in blockchain is an unwritten rule. It shouldn't happen. If this happens it clearly means that the miners which chose to do so act in a centralized way for their own private benefit(a real life revolution always has couple of central leaders without which the revolution would fail). The small miners will not have a choice. It will be mostly decided the by pools owners.

Going back into the blockchain is a centralized decision no matter how you look at it and who takes part in it. Unless there is a major bug affecting all users, the rolling back shouldn't be an option.

I do not get this logic - if a huge percentage of the forgers or whatever the fuck this is called in nxt decides to roll back, how is this a centralized decision?

I think the proposal given is great - no matter how the forgers decide.

maok

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:14:56 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 09:06:27 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:00:03 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 08:53:39 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 08:49:43 AM

Coordination of peers/forger into a voting block is not decentralized.
Not all Nxt holders will be involved in the decision-making process, and the smaller shareholders and retail partners will be alienated - even if such a measure reaches 51%.
In the case of retailers, they could potentially face loses for services rendered or products sold.

In view of that, what major investor or retailer would dare make any future commitments to Nxt if they know Nxt has a history of doing rollbacks?
Would a major retailer be willing to offer a Nxt payment option to their customers knowing a rollback is a possibility?

In crypto currencies the majority of miners/forgers decide everthing. It's 51% or so in PoW and in NXT at this time. When TF is implemented in NXT, then it will take 90% power to overcome the chain, which will make it more secure than PoW. Bitcoin did rollbacks in its history too, so nothing dramatic here.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is decentralized. In fact, centralization of mining power is one of the biggest concerns for BTC now. Further, I don't think BTC protocol allows rollbacks.

Bitcoin itself has been rolled back...

When?

it was a bug in very early days, satoshi lead the revolution at that time and they had to go back in blockchain because the bug affected all users. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9530

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:13:59 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 09:04:47 AM

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:00:03 AM

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is decentralized. In fact, centralization of mining power is one of the biggest concerns for BTC now. Further, I don't think BTC protocol allows rollbacks.

It's decentralized if no one entity has 51% power (or 90% when TF is implemented in a few months). There is no one entity in NXT that has 51% forging power. If forgers decide to download the modified release and do the rollback, then it's democracy in PoS style. BTC software could also be modified to do a rollback and if enough miners download it and reach 51% of mining power OR if enough miners decide to secretly mine a separate chain and reach 51% of mining power, they orphan all the other miners' blocks.

For some strange reason, you seem to equate the majority threshold and democracy as the benchmark for decentralization. It is not.
Further, don't keep snipping our conversations. Otherwise, I might forget you earlier claims such as BTC has done rollbacks before.
Also, your last two sentences seem to refer to forking.

I hate overquoting.

I think I stated clearly what centralization is - one entity holding 51% of the mining/forging power. This is not the case for NXT.

Yes, my last sentences refer to forking. So what's your question?

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

amarha

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 09:14:56 AM

When?

August 15th, 2010

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/strange-block-74638-822

It's a different situation though. But it's possible.

maok

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: rugrats on August 15, 2014, 08:49:43 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 08:36:14 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 15, 2014, 08:33:19 AM

So, here is what's going to happen.

In NXT, forgers decide what chain to forge on.

NXT is all for decentralization.

CfB is against a rollback, he said, but he sees not giving a choice to the community as a centralized decision on his part.

That's why he's going to put a modified release for download, which rolls back the chain.

If enough forgers download that release and forge with it and their chain is longer, then that chain wins and the hack is rolled back.

If enough forgers stay on the old chain and keep it the longest, then the hack is not rolled back.

That's how decentralization works in the PoS world.

The equivalent in PoW would be 51% of the miners mining on the longest chain, it's same in PoS.

Let's see how this drama unfolds

Right.

This is exactly what decentralisation is.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread.

Coordination of peers/forger into a voting block is not decentralized.
Not all Nxt holders will be involved in the decision-making process, and the smaller shareholders and retail partners will be alienated - even if such a measure reaches 51%.
In the case of retailers, they could potentially face loses for services rendered or products sold.

In view of that, what major investor or retailer would dare make any future commitments to Nxt if they know Nxt has a history of doing rollbacks?
Would a major retailer be willing to offer a Nxt payment option to their customers knowing a rollback is a possibility?

Exactly, going back in blockchain is an unwritten rule. It shouldn't happen. If this happens it clearly means that the miners which chose to do so act in a centralized way for their own private benefit(a real life revolution always has couple of central leaders without which the revolution would fail). The small miners will not have a choice. It will be mostly decided the by pools owners.

Going back into the blockchain is a centralized decision no matter how you look at it and who takes part in it. Unless there is a major bug affecting all users, the rolling back shouldn't be an option.

Topic: bter hacked and lost 50m nxt - page 22. (Read 25445 times)