I am going to destroy BitCON (there is no light, it is fatally doomed as it lacks distribution) and you will buy from me.
LOL
Can't resist bringing this up now and again.
Topic: Cracking the Code - page 5. (Read 7687 times)
LOL
Can't resist bringing this up now and again.
I am going to destroy BitCON (there is no light, it is fatally doomed as it lacks distribution) and you will buy from me.
LOL
Can't resist bringing this up now and again.
Quote
[Anything and everything AnnoyMint says]
This is just another in a very long string of attempts to find the "fatal flaw" in Bitcoin. Remember his claim that ASICs would cause the downfall of Bitcoin? This is just his "fatal flaw" du jour.
Use your ignore button. His rantings are the reason it is there.
I also highly doubt that the code would get cracked soon, if ever.
When the coin rewards decline to near 0 roughly 2040ish, then my discovery is that the transaction fees rewards can not scale as a percentage of the commerce, because the transaction fee in comparative dollars would be much higher than fiat alternatives.
Either this is a typo, or you beleive there will still be debt-based government backed currencies in 2040.
When you see this kind of setup below in the link, you can start to see the serious business of miners.
Only take one of these massive outfits to be offered incentives to form alliances and suddenly have potential problems I guess.
http://hongwrong.com/hong-kong-bitcoin/
Only take one of these massive outfits to be offered incentives to form alliances and suddenly have potential problems I guess.
http://hongwrong.com/hong-kong-bitcoin/
So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly?
Only ignores by members above a certain level count
I was just trying to inject some humor into the conversation. No one is on my ignore list. Although, I do not consider all opinions to be valid, I do consider them to be interesting. It is important to be aware of other people's misconceptions. Besides, you never know when they may have a valid point.
What timeframe would you give for the >50%attack to occur from this point in time?
When the coin rewards decline to near 0 roughly 2040ish, then my discovery is that the transaction fees rewards can not scale as a percentage of the commerce, because the transaction fee in comparative dollars would be much higher than fiat alternatives. Thus mining will be underfunded relative to the value of the Bitcoin economy to be gained by attacking it.
Even if transaction fees were scaled up (ignoring fiat alternatives or if I am mistaken about fee structure of fiat alternatives), if miners are funded significantly from transaction fees (and no longer primarily from coin rewards), then Bitcoin is subject to takeover by cartels due to the Transactions Withholding Attack (search the forum for it).
Thus the target date for Bitcoin to be taken over technically is 2040ish, perhaps 2033 earliest.
Realize it could be taken over much sooner than that by governments, since Bitcoin is not anonymous, they can attack the users with taxes, treble penalties, etc.. Rogue governments can do anything in crazy economic implosions, e.g. communist Wiemar Germany followed by Nazis, Stalin, China's purge of 57 million people, etc.. I believe such an economic implosion is coming globally after 2015. But I think the government has a more clever plan for takeover.
I believe Bitcoin will fail much sooner than that being a ponzi-pyramid-variant-bubble (no exact name for the scheme Bitcoin is, but it has NO INTRINSIC VALUE because transactions can't scale due to the concentration of ownership of the coin and the fact that the rich can't spend, they must cash out). This is covered in great detail in my posts, so if you want to dig into that, click my name and read posts in November. Basically I see the world government (G20 + IMF + World Bank + UN, etc) moving in after the ponzi collapse to clawback all the gains to provide justice to all the old ladies who were destroyed by Bitcoin's collapse.
Do you believe there is an altcoin that does not have these concerns or could one be developed?
As far as I know there is not one now without any major concerns, except I am aware of Freicoin but apparently demurrage is negative to some or most but I am not saying they should be and I haven't studied Freicoin closely nor have I monitored its price and adoption.
I believe one is being developed.
Lastly, although u seem to have a high number of ignores, I do prefer to listen to those that can backup their arguments, and although the conversations can somewhat deteriorate at times, it seems to be more so than frustration than inability to understand other points of view.
Yes they are frustrated with me and I am frustrated with them.
I don't know if novices can follow the upthread debate. I doubt it.
Basically what it has boiled down to is if the > 50% attacker modifies the protocol then the rest of the network has to choose which protocol rule it keeps:
a. longest (i.e. faster) chain wins
b. other protocol priority (e.g. coin rewards schedule) wins
My antagonists claim they control 100% of the non-mining clients and force them to do #b. I am saying they are insane if they think they control anything 100% that is open source and/or involves a billion actors.
Once the miners disagree (#a or #b), then the clients are free to do what ever fits each one of them best. Are they likely to converge to a consensus (#a or #b) or diverge into a Tragedy of the Commons (incompatible double-spend mess mix of #a and #b)? It would behoove those who are large and have control over many clients to push it in the direction that is most advantageous for the most customers, thus likely to converge rather than diverge.
The danger is that some large outfit such as Amazon would seize that opportunity have faster transactions (i.e. choose #a) than its competition since it will likely control the client its customers employ (integrated into the Amazon website).
The competition would then need to react else lose customers. So #a is going to win and #b is fantasy of those geeks who think they control something that they don't. They fundamentally don't understand free markets.
personally commend you for providing not only various probable weaknesses within the bitcoin DNA but also back that up with what seems to be competent evidence with merit.
I'm sure mr satoshi when completing his white paper did not allow for human greed and power!
When contemplating whether you are full of shit or have valid argument, one only has to understand that to be the minnow on one side of the battle is honourees in itself, win or lose, so should be given credence.
Appreciate your efforts and personally enjoy your posts, although with your obvious strength in economics and also coding, it is certainly at time hard to understand the various Swazi language, but guess we all have our s and w.
I'm sure mr satoshi when completing his white paper did not allow for human greed and power!
When contemplating whether you are full of shit or have valid argument, one only has to understand that to be the minnow on one side of the battle is honourees in itself, win or lose, so should be given credence.
Appreciate your efforts and personally enjoy your posts, although with your obvious strength in economics and also coding, it is certainly at time hard to understand the various Swazi language, but guess we all have our s and w.
It is difficult to be the minnow. If I am wrong, let them present an argument. I will admit when I am wrong. Thus far they either just don't see my point (some of them) or they will disagree with the unlikelihood that they can exert 100% top-down control.
I hope I didn't embarrass you in any way by answering your post late, after the landscape of the debate had changed. My antagonists made some strong rebuttals, but they didn't expect that I am more knowledgeable than they thought. Some of them still don't get my point, and of course an idiot views a genius as being an idiot.
If you think it is difficult for you to follow the debate, imagine that even some of them who are reasonably expert on the block chain can't quite get my point.
This is far above the pay grade of most Bitcoiners.
One thing I will say is thay with this much money involved and the value continuing to rise, there is a HUGE incentive for people to try and find a way to do an attack. Since it is web based anyone in the world can try to attempt this. Think of all the mafia groups all over the world.
I do not fully understand the way bitcoin works enough to say if it is possible or not but it is certainly something we should all think about.
It would be nice if this could be a constructive discussion instead of resorting to name calling.
I do not fully understand the way bitcoin works enough to say if it is possible or not but it is certainly something we should all think about.
It would be nice if this could be a constructive discussion instead of resorting to name calling.
No it is correct. See I actually know how Bitcoin works.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
Dropped by a minority of the mining in this case. So the majority chain will grow longer even faster if the minority chain doesn't include the attacker's blocks in the calculation of the difficulty. Because we can assume the attacker will include the blocks generated by the minority chain in its longer chain.
So you are thinking that transactions will not be slower in the minority chain, but relative only to the expected 10 minute block period. The attacker's chain will be much faster.
So all my arguments to luv2drnkbr still apply. The clients will have an incentive to have faster transactions. Instead of 60 minutes for 6-confirmations in the minority chain, the 90% chain will offer it in only a few minutes.
I am sorry but you are wrong.
How you going to weasel out of this one?
Wow you're an idiot. You dont know the fck how blockchain works.
How the fck the chain can grow longer if your block was dropped by the network, not just mining nodes ?
Welcome to my ignore fcktard.
What the f$ck man can't you read? Are you really that dense?
Try to read it again more slooowly.
The block is not dropped by the > 50% miners who are controlled by the attack. And you don't top-down control all of the non-mining peers and their incentives. The longer block chain will be processing transactions up to an order-of-magnitude faster than the minority chain.
It only takes some non-mining clients that recognize the longer chain as valid (open source remember! don't expect every node to run your source code), to throw an entire monkey wrench into which spends are valid. Then you have chaos. The market will vote and the vote won't be 100% for either chain.
And I will place my bets on the masses preferring faster transactions than a few coins which don't affect them in any way.
The clients don't wag the miners. The miners are either consistent else the clients are free to choose.
P.S. I see your ignore is brown too.
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:13:32 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:28:24 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:38:36 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:59:28 PM
Insert Bad bad bad Bear here
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 04:06:18 PM
Show/Hide
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 04:13:35 PM
O yeah , interesting replies!
I got to avoid this thread! even though I sometimes see DeathAndTaxes as the last poster.
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:13:32 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:28:24 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:38:36 PM
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 03:59:28 PM
Insert Bad bad bad Bear here
AnonyMint
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 04:06:18 PM
Show/Hide
Unignore
Re: Cracking the Code
Today at 04:13:35 PM
O yeah , interesting replies!
I got to avoid this thread! even though I sometimes see DeathAndTaxes as the last poster.
Quote
[Anything and everything AnnoyMint says]
This is just another in a very long string of attempts to find the "fatal flaw" in Bitcoin.
I already found it.
Now to recap, not only is a > 50% attack very destructive as I've successfully argued and defended above, but don't forget that my first point was also that Bitcoin will be relatively easy to 50% attack once the coin rewards decline, because there is a problem with transaction fees:
In my (opinionated) analysis it is very likely to happen (when coin rewards diminish near to 0) with Bitcoin, because of a flaw in the design (transaction fees should be zero instead).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745513
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745458
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745513
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745458
Mining funding will be miniscule after coin rewards end, because there is a tension with transaction fees that has no solution. If you scale tx fees as a percentage then they will become orders-of-magnitude higher than debit cards (apparently some have a flat fee), because of the very high value of BTC in fiat. Whereas, if you don't, then mining is underfunded relative to the value of Bitcoin's economy, thus a 50 - 95% attack is very likely. The only solution is to eliminate transaction fees entirely and keep coin rewards.
The stats are here, it's 0.69% of miner revenue (good guess!).
...is just $18,000 a day...
So with Transaction fees in the ~$30,000 range it looks like the fees are roughly able to pay for electricity, a somewhat surprising result actually.
So with Transaction fees in the ~$30,000 range it looks like the fees are roughly able to pay for electricity, a somewhat surprising result actually.
You missed the failure mode.
If miner revenue is to be only a tiny fraction of commerce, then 50+% attack is extremely likely.
Only perpetual coin rewards can secure the network adequately.
Otherwise transaction fees must be too high, and also significant revenue from transaction fees allows the Transactions Withholding Attack.
No it is correct. See I actually know how Bitcoin works.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
Dropped by a minority of the mining in this case. So the majority chain will grow longer even faster if the minority chain doesn't include the attacker's blocks in the calculation of the difficulty. Because we can assume the attacker will include the blocks generated by the minority chain in its longer chain.
So you are thinking that transactions will not be slower in the minority chain, but relative only to the expected 10 minute block period. The attacker's chain will be much faster.
So all my arguments to luv2drnkbr still apply. The clients will have an incentive to have faster transactions. Instead of 60 minutes for 6-confirmations in the minority chain, the 90% chain will offer it in only a few minutes.
I am sorry but you are wrong.
Quote
[Anything and everything AnnoyMint says]
This is just another in a very long string of attempts to find the "fatal flaw" in Bitcoin. Remember his claim that ASICs would cause the downfall of Bitcoin? This is just his "fatal flaw" du jour.
Use your ignore button. His rantings are the reason it is there.
No it is correct. See I actually know how Bitcoin works.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. What part of dropped don't you understand? The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
So if in the time 2016 blocks should be found miners produce 2016 valid blocks and the attacker produces 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks the 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks are simply dropped. They just cease to exist as far as every node on the network is concerned. 2016 valid blocks were found in the difficulty adjustment period so difficulty remains "low". Now the bad actor WAS mining valid blocks are started mining invalid blocks it would be no different than simply stop mining. Blocks would be found slower, difficulty would go down, blocks would be found faster again.
Invalid blocks are never part of the longest chain. Never. Not once, not ever. All nodes independently verify data received by other nodes. That is the basic cornerstone of Bitcoin's security model. If you can't get that right then why should anyone listen to any on the nonsense you are spouting.
As for your rebutal that is also nonsense. Invalid blocks aren't included in the difficulty adjustment calculation. They are simply dropped. What part of dropped don't you understand? The remaining valid miners would find blocks at ~10 minute interval.
So if in the time 2016 blocks should be found miners produce 2016 valid blocks and the attacker produces 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks the 489748971983472982372189 invalid blocks are simply dropped. They just cease to exist as far as every node on the network is concerned. 2016 valid blocks were found in the difficulty adjustment period so difficulty remains "low". Now the bad actor WAS mining valid blocks are started mining invalid blocks it would be no different than simply stop mining. Blocks would be found slower, difficulty would go down, blocks would be found faster again.
STILL WRONG.
ALLL NODES AS IN ALL 100,000+ ON THE NETWORK REGARDLESS OF IF THEY ARE MINING OR NOT VALIDATE ALL TX AND ALL BLOCKS. That is the security model of Bitcoin. No node trusts the output of any other node. So miner makes a block giving him a single extra Satoshi and relays it to his peers. Guess what? Those peers validate the block and the block is invalid. It is simply dropped. It never becomes part of any chain.
Already refuted upthread, c.f. my rebuttal of luv2drnkbr.
A BLOCK WITH MORE COINS THAN ALLOWED BY THE PROTOCOL IS INVALID. PERIOD. 1+1 = 3 is still invalid even if it is the longest chain. Nodes (once again ALL NODE not just miners) use the longest (most work) VALID chain. A chain which contains blocks which mint extra coins is ALWAYS invalid and thus will NEVER be picked by any node.
Incorrect. You have a very narrow (myopic) view of the situation, which thus is erroneous. Read my rebuttal of luv2drnkbr. Try to wrap your mind around the reality.
STILL WRONG.
ALLL NODES AS IN ALL 100,000+ ON THE NETWORK REGARDLESS OF IF THEY ARE MINING OR NOT VALIDATE ALL TX AND ALL BLOCKS. That is the security model of Bitcoin. No node trusts the output of any other node. So miner makes a block giving him a single extra Satoshi and relays it to his peers. Guess what? Those peers validate the block and the block is invalid. It is simply dropped. It never becomes part of any chain.
A BLOCK WITH MORE COINS THAN ALLOWED BY THE PROTOCOL IS INVALID. PERIOD. 1+1 = 3 is still invalid even if it is the longest chain. Nodes (once again ALL NODE not just miners) use the longest (most work) VALID chain. A chain which contains blocks which mint extra coins is ALWAYS invalid and thus will NEVER be picked by any node.
My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.
Exactly.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3753842
Hey OP, you are totalitarian. You don't like free markets. You want Stalin's IronFistTopDownCoin.
Chaos is a natural bitch if you don't design for it to be your friend.
Chaos is a natural bitch if you don't design for it to be your friend.
My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.
It is antithesis of what you think it is. I am not going mince my words. I will tell you frankly. I will not stop until we replace Bitcoin with something not so vulnerable.
You don't know shit about what I think Bitcoin is or why I'm here. And you don't care, it's just not what you want it to be, and you're butthurt over it. You think you know what's better for us than we do? And you claim to be a flavor of anarchist? If you have better ideas, fine, great, share them, but stop with spreading lies and bullshit and claiming you're doing it to save us from evil or whatever the fuck, that's exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that landed the world in the place it is now. You're worse than those you claim to be against.
What lies did I spread? Name one. You can't. So that makes you the liar.
So enlighten us? Why are you supporting Bitcoin when it has severe vulnerabilities that hand the electronic currency to the government and cartels?
I am not butt hurt over anything. I am explaining to the newbies what you would prefer to sweep under the rug. I will not lose. So why would I be butt hurt? You will lose. I don't mean this argument, because you already lost that. I mean you will lose by supporting Bitcoin.
My motives are very clear. Bitcoin is extremely evil. It is handing the internet and everything we worked so hard to protect right into the lap of the NWO, 666, cartels and all the bullshit that people think it is supposed to preventing.
It is antithesis of what you think it is. I am not going mince my words. I will tell you frankly. I will not stop until we replace Bitcoin with something not so vulnerable.
You don't know shit about what I think Bitcoin is or why I'm here. And you don't care, it's just not what you want it to be, and you're butthurt over it. You think you know what's better for us than we do? And you claim to be a flavor of anarchist? If you have better ideas, fine, great, share them, but stop with spreading lies and bullshit and claiming you're doing it to save us from evil or whatever the fuck, that's exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that landed the world in the place it is now. You're worse than those you claim to be against.
Jump to: