Seriously, use ixcoin. It's already dead and namecoin has a patch coming already.
IMO using namecoin, the only coin that actually has a function, is a shithead move.
Topic: delete - page 3. (Read 23378 times)
Well, personally, I'd prefer to see flaccidcoin stepped on due to general grating attitude of "We fixed up MAJOR VULNERABILITY IN BITCOINSIZ, LOLZ" the SolidCoin dude demonstrated, but I guess it's too low hanging a fruit or something...
Why not Ixcoin instead of Namecoin?
Ok, I've said what i wanted and really have no desire to enter into a flame war.
@Tomatocage
Ignore me if you want that's cool. This whole evolution of this exploit occurred when Artforz posted his exploit. A long time member, coder and Bitcoiner contacted me because they wanted to use my mining firepower to test an enhanced version of the ArtForz exploit. We accidentally discovered it had a whole of unintended abilities.
We tested it, it worked and now we will test it against a live network.
DoubleC and Ruxum, you can ignore me if you want I'm just trying to give you some heads up. Yes it should scare the bejeezus of out anyone with a chain and low hash rate, because it is now possible to do anything we want with block chain in its current evolution.
Attack starts at 19101.
@Tomatocage
Ignore me if you want that's cool. This whole evolution of this exploit occurred when Artforz posted his exploit. A long time member, coder and Bitcoiner contacted me because they wanted to use my mining firepower to test an enhanced version of the ArtForz exploit. We accidentally discovered it had a whole of unintended abilities.
We tested it, it worked and now we will test it against a live network.
DoubleC and Ruxum, you can ignore me if you want I'm just trying to give you some heads up. Yes it should scare the bejeezus of out anyone with a chain and low hash rate, because it is now possible to do anything we want with block chain in its current evolution.
Attack starts at 19101.
Really interesting project. I wish you good luck with that.
Are you going to post the results and your findings in this topic? I'm really interested in following that.
Could you let us know would you then REVERT damage made if attack would be successful?
Having a few NMC, not a big deal, just curious.
Having a few NMC, not a big deal, just curious.
in the name of science =p
So I take it you didn't learn anything from the test net?
A test net will not protect itself, you guys are getting a week or so to prepare. A test net is not a "real world" situation either. Namecoin is the perfect candidate. That's why.
I still don't see the point. There is a vulnerability, and a fix is implemented, it will be activated at block number 19200. If you want to test it, why don't you test the network after merged mining is in place? This way, you will not be doing something you already know the result of. What will be gained if the network is rushed for an update? I'm at a loss here. Looks like it's more of a social experiment than a technical one.
1) Developing protection for Bitcoin against exploits
2) Developing a lethal alt chain killer.
3) Making developers aware that when the "bad guys" make you aware of an exploit, FIX IT!
2) Developing a lethal alt chain killer.
3) Making developers aware that when the "bad guys" make you aware of an exploit, FIX IT!
1) Protection is developed and you are not testing it.
2) Merged mining will make this unfeasible if it isn't faulty itself. Better test it instead of preventing.
3) That's exactly what the developers did here. They developed new technology instead of bloating the system with workarounds.
I don't see what you do as offensive but still, I don't see how it will accomplish what you claim it will.
We notified the exchanges to prevent monetary loses by these guys. The purpose of this is knowledge and not to steal.
Notifying exchanges doesn't prevent monetary loss. If the rewrite occurs then the exchange will end up with a different balance of namecoins compared to the balance held in the exchange database. Loss will occur due to the exchange losing the coins but still having the users balance reflect what they originally deposited. Even adjusting for the blockchain reorganization the exchange loses in time and effort to fix up transactions and deal with irate users who have lost coins.The only way for an exchange to avoid this is to close.
And this same clown is begging you to make a GG exchange in another thread. LOL it doesn't get much better than this!
HI MY NAME IS BITCOINEXPRESS! HEY DOUBLEC, I'M GOING TO STEAL FROM YOU BUT CAN YOU PLEASE SET UP AN EXCHANGE SO I CAN SELL MY GG COINS? K THX.
A 51% attack is very elementary to what we plan to do. A team of our coders is convinced we can stop the block chain period and control it's direction forward or backwards via a reset. We've actually done it on a small test net.
The purpose of this is knowledge and not to steal.
The purpose of this is knowledge and not to steal.
So I take it you didn't learn anything from the test net?
Using ArtForz modified exploit we are going to generate 5000 blocks in a matter of minutes, confirm them and commence experimenting.
Didn't artforz's exploit rely on the geitz method of calculating difficulty adjustments using the times on blocks? I don't think namecoin does this does it? 
I really hope this is just a stunt to get more people mining namecoins out of sympathy.
This way we get to 19200 quicker.If not, I hope the attacker miners catches fire!
This way we get to 19200 quicker.If not, I hope the attacker miners catches fire!
We notified the exchanges to prevent monetary loses by these guys. The purpose of this is knowledge and not to steal.
Notifying exchanges doesn't prevent monetary loss. If the rewrite occurs then the exchange will end up with a different balance of namecoins compared to the balance held in the exchange database. Loss will occur due to the exchange losing the coins but still having the users balance reflect what they originally deposited. Even adjusting for the blockchain reorganization the exchange loses in time and effort to fix up transactions and deal with irate users who have lost coins.The only way for an exchange to avoid this is to close.
Does anybody else think this anouncement is just a crude attempt to drive the price down.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
It could be, but I'm not taking any chances.
And by the way, if we all mine them for a few days, merged mining will do the rest.
Does anybody else think this anouncement is just a crude attempt to drive the price down.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
Or to reduce Bitcoin hashing power...
Not me, but I do work for Apple in Cupertino LOL...
^^ Your assholeness is explained... Learnt it with your boss, hein?
Does anybody else think this anouncement is just a crude attempt to drive the price down.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.
It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.
Perhaps someone should log/record the attack to increase its educational value ?
Abe is designed to record it, though it currently lacks a web interface to quickly look for chain splits. The slow way is to look for blocks with more than one "next block" and follow the "next" links. Anyway, I look forward to some nice test suite material.
If the 51% attack is successful, you won't have to worry about merged mining as it won't happen.
I'm scratching my head over this conclusion. If you publish a block 19200, merged mining happens, and very likely the whole network overpowers the attackers. So you must plan on indefinitely preventing the chain of greatest work from having over 19200 blocks. Perhaps by messing with the difficulty, shoot it up high for a low-numbered range, so high that the new chain has greater work than the current one, so you push the current block number back a few thousand. Then stop mining the tip and let the public network dither (as it's currently doing) while you prepare your next "longest chain" at an even lower block height. Etc.
Still a lot of ongoing work and expense, though admittedly, I have to read up on the ArtForz exploit you mentioned. And if the Namecoin developers come up with a fix (even something as simple as checkpoints or MM start block tweaks) you will declare victory and move on, right?
I don't think it's a bad attack. Thanks for giving everybody the heads-up.
Wait... I thought that Namecoin had all of the protection measures that Bitcoin had, and that these exploits were only possible due to the changes to the difficulty code the other chains made?
The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.
The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.
Well, "other" chains are just "more" vulnerable (though IMVHO bitcoin's window of 2h is, all things considered, a mite too wide).
However, if I understand the 51 issue correctly, you can enforce arbitrary rules when you have 51+, so whether or not a given failsafe is present becomes a moot point.
Wait... I thought that Namecoin had all of the protection measures that Bitcoin had, and that these exploits were only possible due to the changes to the difficulty code the other chains made?
The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.
The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.
Good luck.
I hope this will help us to improve Bitcoin & other crypto currencies further.
I hope this will help us to improve Bitcoin & other crypto currencies further.
I wonder if this attack would be legal?
Jump to: