Topic: Can Bitcoin be displaced by another mined coin? (Read 2081 times)

Quote from: datz on May 14, 2013, 10:16:16 PM

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'. The salient point is that it happens.

It's not likely to happen on an organized, large scale through pools and the like if the community considers it an illegitimate tactic. Hence my question. Some might argue that it's theft, fraud, criminal abuse, or the like.

I would say it's in no way illegal, at least in its primitive form. You can't accuse me of mining with more than 50% of the network's hashpower, and you can't accuse me of refusing to process other's transactions because I don't want to use my own hardware to do that.

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

we're moving on - we planned this from 0.1

LOL
Who's we? You and Satoshi back at the lab? Cheesy

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: datz on May 14, 2013, 10:38:26 PM

Quote from: foggyb on May 14, 2013, 10:31:00 PM

Quote from: foggyb on May 14, 2013, 10:31:00 PM

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

Dream On.

If you wish to survive - follow me. Else, perish.

Whatever you say, kid.

datz

sr. member

Activity: 295

Merit: 250

"to survive, we must live and fly"

Quote from: foggyb on May 14, 2013, 10:31:00 PM

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

Dream On.

If you wish to survive - follow me. Else, perish.

datz

sr. member

Activity: 295

Merit: 250

"to survive, we must live and fly"

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

Dream On.

I am not a dreamer. I am a doer.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 14, 2013, 09:10:52 PM

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

Dream On.

superduh

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

non-mined as in centrally issued?

datz

sr. member

Activity: 295

Merit: 250

"to survive, we must live and fly"

we're moving on - we planned this from 0.1

datz

sr. member

Activity: 295

Merit: 250

"to survive, we must live and fly"

we will transfer the value of mined BTC to another non-mined currency. mining is inefficient, wasteful, and produces vulnerabilities. great marketing scheme and traction-generator - but we need to move on.

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'. The salient point is that it happens.

It's not likely to happen on an organized, large scale through pools and the like if the community considers it an illegitimate tactic. Hence my question. Some might argue that it's theft, fraud, criminal abuse, or the like.

It should be illegal because it is theft, fraud, criminal abuse, but how can we enforce this today?

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 14, 2013, 09:10:52 PM

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

Absolutely not!
It just seems like cryptographic solutions should take into account the extent of whatever deplorable things human beings are capable of. Bitcoin is successful because it can't be hacked, because it can't be attacked, etc... It seems necessary that a system can defend itself against everything that's out there in the world that could try to take advantage of its vulnerabilities.

Do I think Bitcoin miners are honourable? Doesn't matter. The point is that some of them have a lot power and may use it in nefarious ways. Personally, I strive to keep my decisions focused on liberating humanity and accelerating ideas. But I suppose it's all about perspective. If I perceived something was a threat to me or what I believed in, I suppose I would want to attack it... but now I feel like we're having a whole different conversation.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'. The salient point is that it happens.

It's not likely to happen on an organized, large scale through pools and the like if the community considers it an illegitimate tactic. Hence my question. Some might argue that it's theft, fraud, criminal abuse, or the like.

They can argue until they are blue in the face. I doubt that a majority people would pitch a bitch about a pool taking some time off to destroy some promising competition if there was a pretty clear cut picture that the competition was likely to diminish from the value they held in, say, Bitcoin.

I'm not even sure I would, and I do believe it is slimy, unethical, and damages the distributed crypto-currency environment that society might otherwise enjoy.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: QuantPlus on May 14, 2013, 08:48:49 PM

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'. The salient point is that it happens.

It's not likely to happen on an organized, large scale through pools and the like if the community considers it an illegitimate tactic. Hence my question. Some might argue that it's theft, fraud, criminal abuse, or the like.

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Ripple is incomprehensible...

Ripple will have a shot when more people become aware of it and more gateways emerge. There will be ways for it do really amazing things like be your own bank, create a LETS, or even invent a new commodity. Bitcoin and Ripple are both small fish in the big pond finance. I think they could help each other change the world. But I don't see Bitcoin clonecoins contributing much other than confusion at this point.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

I'd say the vulnerability of all other mined coins to a 51% attack (or some other type of attack) by Bitcoin miners makes this impossible.

Are you saying that launching a 51% attack on a currency is a perfectly legitimate tactic for advocates of a competing currency to employ?

I would say that it does not matter whether it is 'legitimate'. The salient point is that it happens.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.