We should have an "Obvious attempts at false market rumors" subforum and move these posts there.
Mod +1 Insightful
Topic: delete (Read 5174 times)
You might be correct that varience has a near-zero effect for lower-confirmation transactions, but still remember that shorter block times give less varience.
Shorter block times means the attacker can make more attempts.So someone with 49% has a near-zero, close enough to zero, chance. The actual probability of getting 7 blocks in a row is less than 0.6% for a 49% holder. The actual probability is smaller, because you aren't rolling an infinite amount of dies.
Think it can't happen? I had to search long and hard to find a real example. I had to go all the way back to...today.Bitcoin network right now: 12.224 Thash/s
Deepbit network right now: 5282 Gh/s
How many block can deepbit get in a row with 43% hashpower? Blocks 143334 - 143341 are deepbit blocks. Deepbit just solved 8 blocks in a row with only 43% hashpower. I'm sure if someone analyzed the blockchain we'd find even longer runs of deepbit-only blocks.
Variance = someone with <51% can successfully attack the blockchain.
Faster block target speeds = more chances to attack = weaker security.
Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
Not useful? How about you post the first 13 digits of your 16 digit credit card number. That means I'd have a 1 in 1000 chance (.1%) to guess your credit card number. Care to try me?[/quote]
4120 1337 8008!
Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
Not useful? How about you post the first 13 digits of your 16 digit credit card number. That means I'd have a 1 in 1000 chance (.1%) to guess your credit card number. Care to try me?Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
Not useful? How about you post the first 13 digits of your 16 digit credit card number. That means I'd have a 1 in 1000 chance (.1%) to guess your credit card number. Care to try me? Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
I should have really trimmed out that quote chain...
I'm not claiming 20% is a potential attack, that was someone else. I just wanted to provide a USEFUL response to your statement instead of the X-Files face palm someone else gave.
Well sure, that can and will happen, but the new competing currency must first be superior to devalue the old currency, as the failures of Ixcoin and I0coin have demostrated. The primary purpose of this currency is as a means of exchange rather than a store of value anyway so a new superior currency would be embraced, not fought.
Well the point is that there is no security in the fact that your original currency is "limited". If a new superior currency comes along, your original coins will be worthless, that's pretty deflationary.
Saving as in "holding your money on your wallet" is discouraged, saving as in "trying to maintain your purchasing power somehow" is not. The only thing that changes is the way to save; instead of just holding it you buy assets like stocks, bonds, ETFs, commodities, etc.
True, and if you guys are able to have stocks, bonds, etc. available when you launch I'll be impressed and buy some coins
. The general concept is interesting, I just feel this works better in the short term weak economy environment, it would definitely help our current economic situation. The question is would it work long term, and what effect would all that spending have in a good economy? What are the long term consequences. I don't know. You might be correct that varience has a near-zero effect for lower-confirmation transactions, but still remember that shorter block times give less varience.
Shorter block times means the attacker can make more attempts.So someone with 49% has a near-zero, close enough to zero, chance. The actual probability of getting 7 blocks in a row is less than 0.6% for a 49% holder. The actual probability is smaller, because you aren't rolling an infinite amount of dies.
Think it can't happen? I had to search long and hard to find a real example. I had to go all the way back to...today.Bitcoin network right now: 12.224 Thash/s
Deepbit network right now: 5282 Gh/s
How many block can deepbit get in a row with 43% hashpower? Blocks 143334 - 143341 are deepbit blocks. Deepbit just solved 8 blocks in a row with only 43% hashpower. I'm sure if someone analyzed the blockchain we'd find even longer runs of deepbit-only blocks.
Variance = someone with <51% can successfully attack the blockchain.
Faster block target speeds = more chances to attack = weaker security.
Ok I shouldn't say it's zero, but negligible, not much higher than zero. I especially objected to you using 20%, etc. You're talking a fraction of a percent, so it's actually not all that useful to talk about. Nice try though.
I should have really trimmed out that quote chain...
I'm not claiming 20% is a potential attack, that was someone else. I just wanted to provide a USEFUL response to your statement instead of the X-Files face palm someone else gave.
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for yaHere's a more useful one:
Variance means that even with less than 51% of the hashing power you have a chance, albeit a smaller one, to disrupt the chain. For example, a bunch of people freaked out some weeks ago because the Bitcoin chain managed to get... I think it was like 3 blocks in a 10 second period? People also often freak if there's the occasional hour between blocks, but this has happened MANY times without a drop in hashing power.
Think of it this way: Take, say, a d12 for roll playing, and assume you and several players are sitting at a table, and to "win" the game you have to roll a 1. The average chance of you rolling a 1 is going to be 1 in 12, but...
You could roll that 1 result twice in a row, or, you could get 24 rolls in a row... that come up with a different number. In a large enough sample set, with a truly balanced die to roll, it'll just about always be "even" among the different numbers, but if you're looking at just a few rolls in a row...
If you play many games with dice, cards, etc, it only takes a moment of pondering that before you can realize that if you were to roll that die 12 times, it's quite possible for you to _NOT_ get each number exactly one time.
Now imagine the block chain lottery as rolling a die with 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 sides... (Someone correct me if I'm remembering wrong and it's not a 256 bit hash in use, please.)
You might be correct that varience has a near-zero effect for lower-confirmation transactions, but still remember that shorter block times give less varience. So someone with 49% has a near-zero, close enough to zero, chance. The actual probability of getting 7 blocks in a row is less than 0.6% for a 49% holder. The actual probability is smaller, because you aren't rolling an infinite amount of dies.
Someone computed what the actual odds were. Even for a 60% holder it was a small fraction of a percent. But it wasn't zero for below-51%.
So it isn't that you can't create a longer chain, it's that it's extremely unlikely any attempt to do so would succeed, and even if you have 75% of the power the variance is much higher than I think you're assuming: look at the luck charts of large pools if you want proof of that.
You might be correct that varience has a near-zero effect for lower-confirmation transactions, but still remember that shorter block times give less varience. So someone with 49% has a near-zero, close enough to zero, chance. The actual probability of getting 7 blocks in a row is less than 0.6% for a 49% holder. The actual probability is smaller, because you aren't rolling an infinite amount of dies.
Someone computed what the actual odds were. Even for a 60% holder it was a small fraction of a percent. But it wasn't zero for below-51%.
So it isn't that you can't create a longer chain, it's that it's extremely unlikely any attempt to do so would succeed, and even if you have 75% of the power the variance is much higher than I think you're assuming: look at the luck charts of large pools if you want proof of that.
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for yaHere's a more useful one:
Variance means that even with less than 51% of the hashing power you have a chance, albeit a smaller one, to disrupt the chain. For example, a bunch of people freaked out some weeks ago because the Bitcoin chain managed to get... I think it was like 3 blocks in a 10 second period? People also often freak if there's the occasional hour between blocks, but this has happened MANY times without a drop in hashing power.
Think of it this way: Take, say, a d12 for roll playing, and assume you and several players are sitting at a table, and to "win" the game you have to roll a 1. The average chance of you rolling a 1 is going to be 1 in 12, but...
You could roll that 1 result twice in a row, or, you could get 24 rolls in a row... that come up with a different number. In a large enough sample set, with a truly balanced die to roll, it'll just about always be "even" among the different numbers, but if you're looking at just a few rolls in a row...
If you play many games with dice, cards, etc, it only takes a moment of pondering that before you can realize that if you were to roll that die 12 times, it's quite possible for you to _NOT_ get each number exactly one time.
Now imagine the block chain lottery as rolling a die with 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 sides... (Someone correct me if I'm remembering wrong and it's not a 256 bit hash in use, please.)
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for ya
Here's a more useful one:
Variance means that even with less than 51% of the hashing power you have a chance, albeit a smaller one, to disrupt the chain. For example, a bunch of people freaked out some weeks ago because the Bitcoin chain managed to get... I think it was like 3 blocks in a 10 second period? People also often freak if there's the occasional hour between blocks, but this has happened MANY times without a drop in hashing power.
Think of it this way: Take, say, a d12 for roll playing, and assume you and several players are sitting at a table, and to "win" the game you have to roll a 1. The average chance of you rolling a 1 is going to be 1 in 12, but...
You could roll that 1 result twice in a row, or, you could get 24 rolls in a row... that come up with a different number. In a large enough sample set, with a truly balanced die to roll, it'll just about always be "even" among the different numbers, but if you're looking at just a few rolls in a row...
If you play many games with dice, cards, etc, it only takes a moment of pondering that before you can realize that if you were to roll that die 12 times, it's quite possible for you to _NOT_ get each number exactly one time.
Now imagine the block chain lottery as rolling a die with 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 sides... (Someone correct me if I'm remembering wrong and it's not a 256 bit hash in use, please.)
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for ya
But someone will still create a new currency at some point to compete with it once your coins become valuable enough or too hard to mine, I wasn't really talking about lost coins. The supply of coins from the new network would diminish the value of your coins.
Well sure, that can and will happen, but the new competing currency must first be superior to devalue the old currency, as the failures of Ixcoin and I0coin have demostrated. The primary purpose of this currency is as a means of exchange rather than a store of value anyway so a new superior currency would be embraced, not fought.
I should say savings is discouraged, which in turn would diminish lending since money to lend comes from savings.
Saving as in "holding your money on your wallet" is discouraged, saving as in "trying to maintain your purchasing power somehow" is not. The only thing that changes is the way to save; instead of just holding it you buy assets like stocks, bonds, ETFs, commodities, etc.
@jackjack: Unable to refute like a man huh?
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for ya
As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for ya As can 49%, 40%, 20%, etc., they just have zero chance of succeeding.
Fixed it for yaITT: people think mining 6 1-minute blocks in a row is as difficult as mining 6 10-hours blocks in a row
Unless I missed something, then that's correct, but only if you interpret it in a certain way.With the same relative hashpower vs. the rest of the network, over the same # of blocks, chances of finding X blocks in a row are the same, doesn't matter if avg. time/block is 10 seconds or 10 days.
But... wouldn't a theoretical attacker care more about how much time it takes to get a successful double-spend instead of how many blocks?
Jump to: