Topic: delete - page 4. (Read 11531 times)

Oh hell no.  I just said, a BTC holder who wants to maximize his return on investment has a rational reason to attack all altcoins.  A large BTC holder could easily believe that he has a reason to do so.  I never said whether I think that's a good thing or not. 


Wow, that's a new record.  Zero to Godwin's Law in one post!  I need to take a bow now.    

So what you are basically saying is that Bitcoin is the one and only true cryptocurrency and that all other attempts to improve or defer are an excuse to extinguish them? So it is our obligation to keep on going until everyone accepts only Bitcoin in this world? New Order?

Better watch out mate, you never know when someone is going to refer to Bitcoiners as The Arian race and calls for hacking pools as were they the gas chambers to fee the world from the altcoins!

rational self interest

About that "PWN ALL THE BLOCKCHAINS" meme.... 

As we all know, Altcoins are the number one reason proposed why Bitcoin is going to fail.  What economists who investigate the situation say is, "There is no barrier to entry, thus cryptocoins will never be scarce, thus  the price for all cryptocurrencies will be driven to zero."

Someone going around destroying altcoins would be demonstrating a barrier to entry, and probably doing the Bitcoin prospects a big favor.  So, yes, it's in the rational best interests of a large Bitcoin holder to organize a pool specificially to break altcoins. 

Also, altcoin bagholders who are PO'd at scummy altcoin developers might join in just out of spite. 

What a lame and evasive reply. I agree that it would be very hard to equate AUR to BTC. More people have lost more money due to fraud and/or insecure infrastructure in the bitcoin world than anything that has happened in the altcoin world.

~~XCB~~

For obvious reasons I agree! I also think both supporters and opposers of this coin (or any other) have had more than enough airtime on this forum so that any interested party can make up their own minds by now.

Personally I do think however that the fundamentals and principals behind Auroracoin are very well tight into the Bitcoin community as well. Of course Bitcoin has had it's share of scams and deceits and also has Auroracoin been accused of the same (without factual proof jet though).

The outcome of the Auroracoin initiative will in the end very much though have its impact on where Bitcoin is going. If it succeeds, it wil have proven that cryptocurentcy can really take it's place in a real economy, setting a mayor milestone in the landscape. If it fails, Bitcoin will probably take a bigger hit than all the  Gox debacles together.

So maybe it's time to put aside the bashing back and forth and just wait and see what will happen. Meanwhile I'm going to try my best to make the coin a success.

I don't care if people start smelling bag holders here either, I probably will smell the most, holding so many bags. But hey, some of those bags are pretty heavy and contain coins like BTC and LTC as well. And guess what, Ive been called a bag holder when they were at less than 1% of their current value ;-)

Personally, I don't know what the AUR dev is planning to do with the pre-mine. Everything here is just conjecture. I can understand why some people are suspicious. I can understand why some people are hopeful and trusting. It won't be long before we find out. Enough noise has been made about this issue here that it would be reasonable to assume that anyone interested in the subject has already received as much information/warning as they need to make a  decision.

Having said that, I think it is ironic that the bitcoin community is so focused on this issue at a time when it is clear that the biggest frauds and scams in the history of crypto-currencies are taking place in the bitcoin world, not the altcoin world. Wouldn't it be nice if bitcoin people spent as much time trying to get their own house in order before going OCD on AUR ?

~~XCB~~

Indeed I am talking about a malicious one, for the large enough pools, the network hashrate is irrelevant in case of a 51% attack. Truthfully, the fact that this is argued extensively in the forum and bitcoin wiki does not prevent such a possibility. It is known that a 30% hash power pool has also a serious chance to succeed in such an attack. From weaknesses section that you suggested, under "strong hash power attack" title;

A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

Assuming a profit seeking person must be virtuous, and smart enough to be virtuous is simply utterly wrong. A profit seeker might also be stupid enough to do stupid things.The current solution by developers to a 51% attack is to warn miners to use alternative pools, and miners are known to be dumb and we can not blame to be not knowledgeable enough to educate themselves. Some pool owner may wish to just go out of the game and wish to kill the price so he may buy more, or apply a double spend attack with a so immense amount that sacrificing his long term gains to his short term gains might seem ok to them. You can not argue that, no pool operator would do that. For some reason, a pool operator or two may wish to do that and that is a problem. They should be able to wish, but should not technically be able to successfully perform such an attack. The value of your and our money should not be in their hands and can not rely on wishful thinking in such a case.

That above is the greatest current risk of bitcoin I believe and the fact that it did not happen can nowhere mean it won't. "Hopefully it does not happen", does not mean anything either as we are talking about a protocol decentralizing trust and yeah to the currently existing pool operator guys, you have to trust. 1 in a 1000 scenarios: "what if FBI gives money to the pool operator to kill bitcoin?" Would be much simpler than building their own 50% hash power farm ya? You think they wouldn't bribe? You believe that all pool operators will keep on the side of bitcoin? Think again.

I know Andreas Antonopolus gives speeches such as "we have our own measures to apply in case of a 51% attack" but I have nowhere seen him explaining exactly what they are gonna do after such an attack. I can not think of anything else than manually correcting blockchain. Indeed I like the guy, he is the man, seems highly rational and knowledgeable but it does not mean every word comin out his mouth is truth. He predicted that mtgox would come up alive and people would get 100% ROI when the goxcoin price went down to 200$, and he even tweeted about his prediction.

from your quote:

As far as I can tell the dev has yet to reveal any concrete and/or verifiable way for the distribution of said Air Drop.

What's even more confusing is how AUR supporters haven't yet figured out that there is 0 infrastructure for AUR in Iceland; and yet they continue to believe this magical Air Drop isn't a blatant scam.

I'll tell you what though. This Air Drop is designed as the near perfect dump scam. It's designed in a way that won't negatively affect the price until people realize that the Icelandic population aren't really receiving AUR. My best guess is that up to 10% of the prime might actually go to residents of Iceland to cover up who's really dumping this coin.

I think they are using that missing Malaysian airlines plane.... filling it with AUR as we speak...

p2pool is a distributed pool.

Each miner runs their own copy of p2pool themselves on their own machine, yet they get the variance-smoothing between them all as if they are all one big pool. Without the dangers of letting someone else construct the block you are going to hash so that no "pool operator" can have you work on an attack block.

-MarkM-

Is there, in fact, any way to motivate people to mine individually, rather than as part of pools? 

I see pools as one of the biggest problems to overcome in an altcoin design.  Not the only big problem, but one of the biggest.  What I see though is that everybody wants to be part of a pool.  They don't even *know* how to mine solo, even though it's bog-simple compared to setting up a pool. 

When a pool comes close to 50% of the hashing power warnings go around trying to warn everyone to switch pool.

Some pools close themselves to new users when they get too much hashpower.

It would be nice if the idiots who call themselves "miners" but are really just "dumb hashers who do not actually construct blocks themselves but rather just blindly do dumb idiot-work for a real miner aka a pool" were not so frackin stupid as to use any pool that has more than maybe 25%, or better 20%, or better 1/6th, or even better 1/7th etc of the hashpower.

Ideally they should all each run their own copy of p2pool so they would be truly distributed instead of being dumb idiots blindly empowering potential attackers by using centralised pools at all.

p2pool exists for a reason. Use it. Yourself, not someone else's copy.

If you'd prefer more or prettier tables and charts, offer bounties to get them developed for p2pool.

-MarkM-

I read this differently:  I'm offering a contrarian viewpoint, and backing up my argument with facts.  

most of the shitslinging in this thread are from people defending auroracoin!  it's the auroracoin community that are taking offense.

bohemianstalker:

also Azeh:

and lphelps:


and illodin:

these are the people that come to the defense of auroracoin.  IMO this thread has brought out the very worst in the auroracoin community.  before you tell anybody not to "go harsh", take a look at the conduct from both sides of the debate.  


there are no virgins in this thread.  

the issue of the btc blockchain has been discussed exhaustively on btctalk, and there are many threads discussing your scenario.  take a look also at the "weaknesses" section in bitcoin:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

if two pools combine to exceed 50% of network hashrate this is problematic, but likely this is also accidental.  this has happened to many coins before, and because it's unintentional, we can come to an agreement to correct the forked chain.  there is a difference between an accidental 51% scenario, and a malicious one.  

It would be almost impossible to maliciously attack the bitcoin blockchain, as the bitcoin network hashrate is 28,400,000 Ghash. https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate

In contrast, auroracoin has only 11ghash protecting it.  it would be quite easy for a single user or company to attack and fork auroracoin.  there are many users on this forum with more than 11Ghash working right now e.g.:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7216.msg547977#msg547977  

i'm not saying any of these users are malicious, but it's entirely possible for a single person to possess enough hash power to damage auroracoin.  compared to auroracoin blockchain, bitcoin is near impossible to attack in this fashion.  

11ghash is not that many video cards.  

This is exactly the point i was making earlier:  most coins are insecure.  due to the insecurity, most coins are overvalued.  This point of vulnerability is almost never talked about in the altcoin forum, but it is a huge issue.  

if i can't lock my house, then i wouldn't leave anything valuable in there.  Similarly, i wouldn't put much value into a coin i could not secure.  

nice point, but just a question about bitcoin: ok the total hash power is immense but a pool has >%40 hashpower alone and just two pools together suffice to exceed 50%, how about that? Almost no coin's blockchain is really secure. And markm, if I got it correct you call scrypt as a hashing alg insecure? If yes, would u explain pls? thx.

markm and bcx has seen lots of scams in crypto-currency world and I personally give an ear as they are experienced and not messing around, rather warning. I am in the middle, a little bit more on the side assuming aur might be scam, just to be cautious, being safe is better than being sorry maybe.

And pls don't go harsh on each other guys will u? We are all here to share ideas, maybe warn each other, not to be take offense, seriously. If you consider aur as a good investment, go ahead and buy, no-one is holding you back, but just be aware of the risks, be aware that you are trusting a guy with all your investment, and that is what it is.

http://sancrypto.info/index/show/AUR/

Auroracoin has 11Ghash maintaining the blockchain.  11,000mhash protects $300M of supposed 'market cap.' 

11Ghash is not a lot of GPU.  There are scrypt mining pools that dwarf auroracoin (e.g. middlecoin has 15Ghash).  a large enough pool could take auroracoin for a ride and usurp the blockchain by mistake.  a small cartel of miners with malicious intent could inflict tremendous damage on the blockchain.

This vulnerability is shared by basically all coins except bitcoin.  

When figuring out what a currency is worth, the security of the blockchains should be considered.  if the blockchain cannot be sufficiently distributed, the risk of transaction reversals or intentional forks should destroy any value in that coin.   Because of this vulnerability most coins are overvalued.  

What is the difficulty/hashrate?

Even litecoin had such tiny hashrate that a stupid meme was able to conjure up as much hash or more almost overnight.

Does Auroracoin have more than litecoin or DOGE?

Even litecoin ad DOGE are borderline, each vulnerable even just to the hashing power of the other let alone if you consider all the other hashers out there that are not hashing either of them.

One "PWN the blockchains!" meme could wipe out pretty much any non merged mined scrypt coin it chose and maybe either litecoin or DOGE as well, simply by whipping up as much almost-overnight hash rate as DOGE did. DOGE showed how vulnerable all those coins are, so vulnerable just some stupid meme could conjure enough hashing to PWN them. It is lucky that DOGE was not a "PWN the blockchains" meme but just a "yet another crapcoin" meme. The next meme might not be so gentle.

-MarkM-

And how are you certain that they will not be able to protect the blockchain?

Since they aren't going to be able to secure the blockchain they would be stupid NOT to cash the heck out as soon as possible.

-MarkM-