Hey NWO
Can you tell me what were the improvements of Powercoin?
Topic: Confirmation: PowerCoin was 51% attacked - page 3. (Read 6809 times)
@NWO
(Full disclosure: I have absolutely no financial interest in any aspect of PWC.)
From what I understand you are telling me is that you are being told an attacker supposedly created "magic coins" from thin air on one chain, deposited them, allowed the chain to merge and then withdrew those supposed coins from Cryptsy on the proper chain?
Whoever told you that, hasn't the slightest clue on how a 51% attack works. Furthermore, simply out of curiosity only, I have done a very detailed analysis of the PWC block chain and can't state as a fact, no attack occurred.
Take it from someone that has pulled off a few 51% attacks and understands such, No 51% attack occurred on PWC.
~BCX~
(Full disclosure: I have absolutely no financial interest in any aspect of PWC.)
From what I understand you are telling me is that you are being told an attacker supposedly created "magic coins" from thin air on one chain, deposited them, allowed the chain to merge and then withdrew those supposed coins from Cryptsy on the proper chain?
Whoever told you that, hasn't the slightest clue on how a 51% attack works. Furthermore, simply out of curiosity only, I have done a very detailed analysis of the PWC block chain and can't state as a fact, no attack occurred.
Take it from someone that has pulled off a few 51% attacks and understands such, No 51% attack occurred on PWC.
~BCX~
I completely agree and I appreciate your input. I think someone with significant hashing power has accumulated A LOT of coins as no signs of an attack were found. However, the damage is done, most of the PWC team have now disintegrated.
The plot thickens.
First of all:
I just want to agree with this loudly. Although TBH I think a lot of these coin "devs" aren't in it for the "love of their work".
If you can't be bothered to hand it off to someone (or no one will take it) at least go out with a bang and completely fuck up your coin like an angry teenage GLD developer.
Back on topic, I'm interested about this "analysis of the blockchain". The block chain would, of course, hide any evidence of a successful double spend that's the nature of the thing.
And here's this "51%" bogeyman again. It must have been AWS guy right?
Now I like cryptsy, and haven't found BigVern to be anything but a straight shooter. But it seems to me it would be a lot easier to "51%" a single client than it would be to do it to a whole network.
And of course the only person who would have evidence of it would be the owner of the gang-raped node. And as far as that node is concerned , it might as well be the whole network.
Interesting.
"PWC got 51% attacked"
First of all:
Even if someone tried to double spend through Cryptsy, so what? If you're going to give up the project after this, you shouldn't have started it at all.
I just want to agree with this loudly. Although TBH I think a lot of these coin "devs" aren't in it for the "love of their work".
If you can't be bothered to hand it off to someone (or no one will take it) at least go out with a bang and completely fuck up your coin like an angry teenage GLD developer.
Back on topic, I'm interested about this "analysis of the blockchain". The block chain would, of course, hide any evidence of a successful double spend that's the nature of the thing.
And here's this "51%" bogeyman again. It must have been AWS guy right?
Now I like cryptsy, and haven't found BigVern to be anything but a straight shooter. But it seems to me it would be a lot easier to "51%" a single client than it would be to do it to a whole network.
And of course the only person who would have evidence of it would be the owner of the gang-raped node. And as far as that node is concerned , it might as well be the whole network.
Interesting.
"PWC got 51% attacked"
Actually the love for my work in PWC cost me a hell of a lot more than what I made. We were trying to bring a whole range of services to the community and build more of a following but the rumours about a 51% attack has spooked most of the investors and followers. It is nothing but an upward battle which is why I decided to discontinue the work as my team has vanished. I can't do this on my own.
The complete and utter misinformation about a 51% attack in this thread is amazing.
1) A 51% attack CANNOT crate "magic coins" out of thin air.
2) Simply mining with more than 50% of the hashing power IS NOT a 51% attack.
3) 51% attacks ARE NOT invisible or undetectable, they are quite apparent in block chain analysis.
Most importantly, PWC was not 51% attacked, no magic coins were ever created anyone who thinks that "magic coins" can be created on one fork, then deposited on an exchange and withdrawn on a supposed 2nd unrelated fork, really doesn't understand cryptocoins too well.
~BCX~
1) A 51% attack CANNOT crate "magic coins" out of thin air.
2) Simply mining with more than 50% of the hashing power IS NOT a 51% attack.
3) 51% attacks ARE NOT invisible or undetectable, they are quite apparent in block chain analysis.
Most importantly, PWC was not 51% attacked, no magic coins were ever created anyone who thinks that "magic coins" can be created on one fork, then deposited on an exchange and withdrawn on a supposed 2nd unrelated fork, really doesn't understand cryptocoins too well.
~BCX~
Bcx , please see my topic about a checkpoints system and a blockchain audit system .
I'm looking to pay someone to dev a system or cut and paste etc , maybe you want to show the community you can do something good for it ?
If your intention to 51% attack a system is to show its flaws , why not help legitimate currency for the future ?
The plot thickens.
First of all:
I just want to agree with this loudly. Although TBH I think a lot of these coin "devs" aren't in it for the "love of their work".
If you can't be bothered to hand it off to someone (or no one will take it) at least go out with a bang and completely fuck up your coin like an angry teenage GLD developer.
Back on topic, I'm interested about this "analysis of the blockchain". The block chain would, of course, hide any evidence of a successful double spend that's the nature of the thing.
And here's this "51%" bogeyman again. It must have been AWS guy right?
Now I like cryptsy, and haven't found BigVern to be anything but a straight shooter. But it seems to me it would be a lot easier to "51%" a single client than it would be to do it to a whole network.
And of course the only person who would have evidence of it would be the owner of the gang-raped node. And as far as that node is concerned , it might as well be the whole network.
Interesting.
"PWC got 51% attacked"
First of all:
Even if someone tried to double spend through Cryptsy, so what? If you're going to give up the project after this, you shouldn't have started it at all.
I just want to agree with this loudly. Although TBH I think a lot of these coin "devs" aren't in it for the "love of their work".
If you can't be bothered to hand it off to someone (or no one will take it) at least go out with a bang and completely fuck up your coin like an angry teenage GLD developer.
Back on topic, I'm interested about this "analysis of the blockchain". The block chain would, of course, hide any evidence of a successful double spend that's the nature of the thing.
And here's this "51%" bogeyman again. It must have been AWS guy right?
Now I like cryptsy, and haven't found BigVern to be anything but a straight shooter. But it seems to me it would be a lot easier to "51%" a single client than it would be to do it to a whole network.
And of course the only person who would have evidence of it would be the owner of the gang-raped node. And as far as that node is concerned , it might as well be the whole network.
Interesting.
"PWC got 51% attacked"
I feel for those who lost money and everyone who spend time and effort developing PowerCoin.
Unfortunately it is another reason for the general public to think that all cryptocurrencies (bitcoin included) are not reliable and may hurt wider adoption.
Unfortunately it is another reason for the general public to think that all cryptocurrencies (bitcoin included) are not reliable and may hurt wider adoption.
I appreciate your input. We invested heavily in PWC and this was just one more setback for us. BigVern messaged me that the attacker had indeed manipulated the chain and created hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air.
It is not possible to create hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air in a 51% attack. They can mine from a point further back from the main chain and when they surpass the main chain a reorganization occurs which would result in their chain being the main one. The coins they legitimately mined are then real and those that are on the losing chain lose theirs. It's not really 'out of thin air' though. They genuinely mined them. This is probably what you meant but it's good to be specific otherwise people spread FUD about what can happen in 51% attacks on other coins.
EDIT: I guess they could double spend which is a form of creating coins out of thin air. Spending them once, rolling back, then spending them again. Is that what happened?
That's exactly what I was going to point out and after looking at the block chain in detail, I can't even find where it was "attacked".
~BCX~
From my understanding of the analysis made by BigVern, the culprit created new coins by double spending.
I've sent you a PM BCX.
Even if someone tried to double spend through Cryptsy, so what? If you're going to give up the project after this, you shouldn't have started it at all.
I appreciate your input. We invested heavily in PWC and this was just one more setback for us. BigVern messaged me that the attacker had indeed manipulated the chain and created hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air.
It is not possible to create hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air in a 51% attack. They can mine from a point further back from the main chain and when they surpass the main chain a reorganization occurs which would result in their chain being the main one. The coins they legitimately mined are then real and those that are on the losing chain lose theirs. It's not really 'out of thin air' though. They genuinely mined them. This is probably what you meant but it's good to be specific otherwise people spread FUD about what can happen in 51% attacks on other coins.
EDIT: I guess they could double spend which is a form of creating coins out of thin air. Spending them once, rolling back, then spending them again. Is that what happened?
That's exactly what I was going to point out and after looking at the block chain in detail, I can't even find where it was "attacked".
~BCX~
From my understanding of the analysis made by BigVern, the culprit created new coins by double spending.
I've sent you a PM BCX.
I repeat
What were the improvements of Powercoin again?
What were the improvements of Powercoin again?
We may add some checkpoints to fix this issue. I've added two more lines from the original list (35305 & 35600):
static MapCheckpoints mapCheckpoints =
boost::assign::map_list_of
( 1, uint256("0xeaffe76c4e3ff3c814c94ce46732f887bb1bc8242b50c581445db0d6d6f76801"))
( 99, uint256("0xa922607fc2fe50fd30b7f043953cc045405919620e35db9274dbccb633c8a13d"))
(127, uint256("0x94a069f3f8e4f9efa95d4e9fa700daf65b28d1cff4e62f4e2401598d2bd2ad6f"))
(159, uint256("0x5c77fd4033fd7f8ceaa7748202d741d9b1d431a18d6f3cfbbade5878f5aa0157"))
(226, uint256("0xc9f61ecaf05662a7cb59ca404ec8aa94404ba602605500f8d8da6fe65ea741e5"))
(35305, uint256("0x323f211cf941f05062885a0f0fde9c8b9368ec2cc423df802b5d5c06269c0620"))
(35600, uint256("0x12c5e6f9e8dccfaa0ebc0b5ba3be2a7e16089e1c3a6cc565b22c8082f8342656"))
;
/*
static MapCheckpoints mapCheckpoints =
boost::assign::map_list_of
( 1, uint256("0xeaffe76c4e3ff3c814c94ce46732f887bb1bc8242b50c581445db0d6d6f76801"))
( 99, uint256("0xa922607fc2fe50fd30b7f043953cc045405919620e35db9274dbccb633c8a13d"))
(127, uint256("0x94a069f3f8e4f9efa95d4e9fa700daf65b28d1cff4e62f4e2401598d2bd2ad6f"))
(159, uint256("0x5c77fd4033fd7f8ceaa7748202d741d9b1d431a18d6f3cfbbade5878f5aa0157"))
(226, uint256("0xc9f61ecaf05662a7cb59ca404ec8aa94404ba602605500f8d8da6fe65ea741e5"))
(35305, uint256("0x323f211cf941f05062885a0f0fde9c8b9368ec2cc423df802b5d5c06269c0620"))
(35600, uint256("0x12c5e6f9e8dccfaa0ebc0b5ba3be2a7e16089e1c3a6cc565b22c8082f8342656"))
;
/*
I appreciate your input. We invested heavily in PWC and this was just one more setback for us. BigVern messaged me that the attacker had indeed manipulated the chain and created hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air.
It is not possible to create hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air in a 51% attack. They can mine from a point further back from the main chain and when they surpass the main chain a reorganization occurs which would result in their chain being the main one. The coins they legitimately mined are then real and those that are on the losing chain lose theirs. It's not really 'out of thin air' though. They genuinely mined them. This is probably what you meant but it's good to be specific otherwise people spread FUD about what can happen in 51% attacks on other coins.
EDIT: I guess they could double spend which is a form of creating coins out of thin air. Spending them once, rolling back, then spending them again. Is that what happened?
Yes I clearly ran for the hills.
I still think you're actually 14 or something.
I still think you're actually 14 or something.
Hey NWO where is that court order you were supposed to send me?
I think you quivering and running for the hills was hilarious enough
Though I wasn't lying about my family of lawyers. No hard feelings, PWC is now the past and the drama along with it.
Hey NWO where is that court order you were supposed to send me?
Is there any evidence of the "attacker" reorganizing the chain?
The attack may have simply been someone with a lot of hashing power mining your coin.
Your response is kind of melodramatic.
Fix it and keep on going.
If Coblee had given up on Litecoin the 1st, 2nd or 24th time someone shit on LTC it would not be the success it is today.
Just my .02 PWC
~BCX~
The attack may have simply been someone with a lot of hashing power mining your coin.
Your response is kind of melodramatic.
Fix it and keep on going.
If Coblee had given up on Litecoin the 1st, 2nd or 24th time someone shit on LTC it would not be the success it is today.
Just my .02 PWC
~BCX~
I appreciate your input. We invested heavily in PWC and this was just one more setback for us. BigVern messaged me that the attacker had indeed manipulated the chain and created hundreds of thousands of coins out of thin air. The landscape is very different now and altcoins are commonplace, the next successful coin has to bring something truly innovative to the table just like LTC did back in 2011.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It is the law of natural selection in the digital crypto world. The strong traits "coins" survive, the weak ones die off. This is critical in evolution! Look for much more of this to happen.
What if the coin you invested got attack still a good thing?
Sorry, the term "good thing" was a bad choice. I feel for those invested who lost out and hate to see anyone lose money. That part I would never say is good. I should have used the term "necessary thing". With all of these coins showing up so quickly, something has to give. My understanding is that the only way to secure a coin from these types of attacks is to have the ability to overpower them. If there is not enough hashing power going to the coin to prevent such a destruction, then it can be taken over and destroyed. Like it or not, that is the same we see in mother nature. It is cruel, it is harsh, but I think it will make cryptos more powerful in the long run.
Sorry for the insensitivity and sorry for your loss my friend.
I think your understanding is flawed. From a evolutionary perspective, only strong coins would survive through the support of the populous. Where the unsupported weaker coins would just die off from no support. In this instance PWC was targeted and killed. For example, DGC has picked up some steam recently and who knows it may do great things someday but no one will ever know if it got attacked. I purely used this example because DGC is on the radar for the next attack.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It is the law of natural selection in the digital crypto world. The strong traits "coins" survive, the weak ones die off. This is critical in evolution! Look for much more of this to happen.
What if the coin you invested got attack still a good thing?
Sorry, the term "good thing" was a bad choice. I feel for those invested who lost out and hate to see anyone lose money. That part I would never say is good. I should have used the term "necessary thing". With all of these coins showing up so quickly, something has to give. My understanding is that the only way to secure a coin from these types of attacks is to have the ability to overpower them. If there is not enough hashing power going to the coin to prevent such a destruction, then it can be taken over and destroyed. Like it or not, that is the same we see in mother nature. It is cruel, it is harsh, but I think it will make cryptos more powerful in the long run.
Sorry for the insensitivity and sorry for your loss my friend.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It is the law of natural selection in the digital crypto world. The strong traits "coins" survive, the weak ones die off. This is critical in evolution! Look for much more of this to happen.
What if the coin you invested got attack still a good thing?
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It is the law of natural selection in the digital crypto world. The strong traits "coins" survive, the weak ones die off. This is critical in evolution! Look for much more of this to happen.
It is a bad news.
Jump to: