Pages:
Author

Topic: Cracking the Code - page 7. (Read 7687 times)

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 07:31:58 AM
#31
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
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 07:29:32 AM
#30

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 Smiley

Yeah I know but how do we know that (mostly) only the gatekeepers are not the ones trying to control the reputation of people who stomp on their early adopter gains?

I don't see many newbies telling me they've put me on ignore. In fact, none that I remember.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 07:27:40 AM
#29
Could someone explain in layperson terms why it is not possible to figure out a key to solve all future hashes or blocks and create bitcoins at will?

Also, and I hope to be in topic, why do we need to try millions of hashes before finding the right one? Isn't there a way to create a mathematical way to just get the right hash on the first try?

If there is, nobody has found it yet (afawk). And there is a LOT of interest in cracking hashing algorithms because they are used in many sensitive applications. Quantum computing is one thing to keep an eye on though because quantum computers, who make use of the fact that electrons can be in several different states at the same time, for computing could be able to crack any hash within milliseconds. But then Bitcoin could move to other hashing algorithms that can not be cracked by quantum computers.

Older hashes have been broken. Typically the longer a hash is around, the more attacks on the hash are found. However, Bitcoin could change the hash in that case, so that really isn't a problem.
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1125
November 28, 2013, 07:26:42 AM
#28

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 Smiley
newbie
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
November 28, 2013, 07:23:43 AM
#27
Could someone explain in layperson terms why it is not possible to figure out a key to solve all future hashes or blocks and create bitcoins at will?

Also, and I hope to be in topic, why do we need to try millions of hashes before finding the right one? Isn't there a way to create a mathematical way to just get the right hash on the first try?

If there is, nobody has found it yet (afawk). And there is a LOT of interest in cracking hashing algorithms because they are used in many sensitive applications. Quantum computing is one thing to keep an eye on though because quantum computers, who make use of the fact that electrons can be in several different states at the same time, for computing could be able to crack any hash within milliseconds. But then Bitcoin could move to other hashing algorithms that can not be cracked by quantum computers.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 07:10:27 AM
#26
To all the newbies, here is a quote from bitcoin wiki, you have to understand how bitcoin miners are rewarded
Quote
The incentive to put forth this time and electricity is that the person who manages to produce a block gets a reward. This reward is two-fold. First, the block producer gets a bounty of some number of bitcoins, which is agreed-upon by the network. (Currently this bounty is 25 bitcoins; this value will halve every 210,000 blocks.) Second, any transaction fees that may be present in the transactions included in the block, get claimed by the block producer.

Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean you have >50% network.

The reward has to be agreed upon the network.

In short, dont listen to the retard Anony, there is a reason why hes ignored.


Here is what he said
Quote
If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The only thing the attacker control is transactions which are put into the blocks. Not the reward of finding blocks.

Listen up Dunning-Kruger novice.

The miner who finds the block, decides what to put in the coinbase transaction in that block.

The honest miners and honest non-mining nodes will reject it if it doesn't follow the agreed upon schedule for coin rewards.

However if the attacker controls > 50% of the hash rate, then the attacker's miners will accept the block.

I already explained upthread what the options of the non-mining nodes are at that point (they must fork because longest chain must be valid else the entire double-spend protection is gone, but the attacker can attack the fork, there is no escape). And they don't really have any option but to accept the new coins. Go read what I wrote at the top of this page.

Now STFU because you don't know what you are talking about. I do. You are misinterpreting what the wiki says. No where does the wiki say what you are trying to assert.

The incorrect claim in the wiki that I have quoted upthread, is because who ever wrote the wiki is listening to gmaxell, but gmaxell is wrong.

Eat humble pie.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
November 28, 2013, 07:03:41 AM
#25
To all the newbies, here is a quote from bitcoin wiki, you have to understand how bitcoin miners are rewarded
Quote
The incentive to put forth this time and electricity is that the person who manages to produce a block gets a reward. This reward is two-fold. First, the block producer gets a bounty of some number of bitcoins, which is agreed-upon by the network. (Currently this bounty is 25 bitcoins; this value will halve every 210,000 blocks.) Second, any transaction fees that may be present in the transactions included in the block, get claimed by the block producer.

Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean you have >50% network.

The reward has to be agreed upon the network.

In short, dont listen to the retard Anony, there is a reason why hes ignored.


Here is what he said
Quote
If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The only thing the attacker control is transactions which are put into the blocks. Not the reward of finding blocks.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 06:57:23 AM
#24
Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,


Yeah that is precisely my point retard. You still don't get it.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
November 28, 2013, 06:54:08 AM
#23
As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Quote
The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air
Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If you try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 06:44:50 AM
#22
As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Quote
The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air
Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners and honest non-mining nodes could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If the honest miners try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.
full member
Activity: 161
Merit: 100
November 28, 2013, 06:32:05 AM
#21
As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Quote
The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air
Can you try explain to me how they will able produce more coins?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 06:28:10 AM
#20
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.

I see some people have an ignore with a yellow rectangle around it....but why is your ignore red and blinking?  Shocked

So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly?

Just another gatekeeper trying to hoodwink the novices. Actually I have a slight caveat to Etlase2's theory about being able to stop all transactions, Gavin implied a reasonable counter-point that the majority of non-mining nodes would abandon a chain which doesn't process any transactions. Etlase2 fails to note that an attacker probably can't win unless it provides an advantage for non-mining nodes that outweighs any changes to the protocol which might be undesirable to some or most. But gmaxwell is technically wrong when he asserts coins can't be added. And the Bitcoin wiki is incorrect on that point too.

The reason is because as I stated upthread, the non-mining nodes don't validate the coinbase transaction, only miners do. And non-mining nodes are not going to join a minority chain in protest, because the attacker can just shift his mining resources to attack the minority chain anew. There is no escape.

Sorry blowhard Bitards.

I dare gmaxell to come here and debate me on this.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 06:13:20 AM
#19
As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Quote
The attacker can't:

* Change the number of coins generated per block
* Create coins out of thin air
full member
Activity: 161
Merit: 100
November 28, 2013, 06:09:28 AM
#18
Because mathematically you need to know the prior block hash before you can compute the next one.

And unless you have > 50% of the total network hash rate, then you can't permanently compute the next hash faster than the network can.

Note you can with declining probability P (< 1) compute the next hash faster than the network with less than 50% of the hash rate. Since probability is multiplicative, then doing this for two consecutive blocks is P x P, e.g. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 so from 1 in 10 for one block rises to 1 in 100 chance for two blocks. Ditto for N consecutive blocks, e.g. for four blocks then 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 = 1 in 10,000 chance.

Anony, thanks for the explanation.

So if someone has over 50% of the total network hash rate is that something to be concerned about?  Do you think it will ever happen?

My pleasure.

Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started.

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



Or another attack which gives up control of the network. Dig, dig, dig into the rabbit hole:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3744842

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745278

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3745161
As soon you start insult people because they don't agree with you, you lose argument
hero member
Activity: 528
Merit: 527
November 28, 2013, 06:05:00 AM
#17
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.

I see some people have an ignore with a yellow rectangle around it....but why is your ignore red and blinking?  Shocked
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 05:55:46 AM
#16
OMG I have 63 ignores now, another clicked to join the Bitard brigade.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 02:26:40 AM
#15
Alt coin users could transfer the value in their bitcoins to a more secure alt coin. The price of bitcoin would plummet but the price of the new coin would rise and we would continue using crypto coins just like we are doing with bitcoin.

That is exactly the plan. Wink
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 02:21:26 AM
#14
Please stop quoting AnonyMint. The reason his Ignore link is that color is because we don't want to read his posts.

Butt hurt Bitards of course prefer to remain in a delusion.

Oh so maybe 62 gatekeepers out of 10,000 have clicked ignore. Meaningless.

Gatekeepers are people who try to suppress truth so the rest remain ignorant. The facts are upthead and stand on their merits.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
November 28, 2013, 02:20:11 AM
#13
Please stop quoting AnonyMint. The reason his Ignore link is that color is because we don't want to read his posts.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
November 28, 2013, 02:17:49 AM
#12
Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started.

That is nonsense.  It isn't that other nodes would fork it is that 100% of the nodes would simply reject a chain which violates the rules like create a zillion coins.

Hey you forgot that > 50% of the mining nodes will be controlled by the attacker.

If you mean non-mining nodes, they have no protocol interaction with creation of coins. Duh!

You are nonsense.

It doesn't matter if a single miner does it or someone with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of the hashpower.   An invalid block is invalid regardless of how much hahpower created it.  

Miners simply force a consensus when the network is split on the status of transactions.   All node (as in every single full node on the network regardless of if they are mining or not) independently verifies all transactions and blocks.  An invalid block is simply invalid.

Your claim is simply false and shows a lack of basic understanding of the system you are trying to "fix".

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacking_all_users

Incorrect. You are Dunning-Kruger ignorant on this issue (I recognize you are reasonably knowledgeable on Bitcoin overall).
Pages:
Jump to: