https://btc-e.com/exchange/ltc_btc
Crash
Topic: deleted - page 12. (Read 22102 times)
Hey the dummy is finally getting a clue. I didn't write it, an engineer I work with did. It wasn't as good as ArtForz who had one first, but it did the trick!
Alright lets say you are speaking the truth: You would have to create significant selling pressure in the bitcoin market in order to pay for the ec2 rent. Added to that the BTC you sold are gone.
Even assuming that you can buy back some if you play the market right lower than you brought it down it would be nearly impossble to come out of it in the green.
And lemme guess you wrote your own gpu miner? IIRC those were only for sale.. not free.
With CPU a block a day or something.
Hey the dummy is finally getting a clue. I didn't write it, an engineer I work with did. It wasn't as good as ArtForz who had one first, but it did the trick!
@Coblee
Just curious, do you think I have the ability and have any chance at success of 51% LTC...
~BCX~
Of course. It's a lot harder than it was when Litecoin first came out. But you just have to DDoS all the pools, which we know you are capable of. Then while people are down, you throw a few hundred EC2 instances and a few hundred GPUs at it to fork a chain.
The best defense we have is to solo mine or use p2pool. That way a DDoS won't take all the miners down and it would require more resources to try to outpace the main network.
Well, somebody with a big ltc investment might want to also buy a fuckton of EC2's and defend the blockchain. Just a thought
As stated in the AWS acceptable use policy of disallowed activities on their network:
Intentional Interference. Interfering with the proper functioning of any System, including any deliberate attempt to overload a system by mail bombing, news bombing, broadcast attacks, or flooding techniques.
Have fun tracking down one of BCX's instances. Also, this would be master debatable, clients following the longest block chain is by design, so I would argue his 51% attack would "[interfere] with the proper functioning of any System."
Well, somebody with a big ltc investment might want to also buy a fuckton of EC2's and defend the blockchain. Just a thought
Or sell...
Well, somebody with a big ltc investment might want to also buy a fuckton of EC2's and defend the blockchain. Just a thought
right if BTCX is what he/she/it/not sure speaks it would make sense to have had to own a botnet.
But I doubt even that. My guess is rented ddos+ec2==btcx's power
But I doubt even that. My guess is rented ddos+ec2==btcx's power
Sadly I actually protected LTC in the early days with a huge amount of hash power to fend off 51% attacks by the Solidcoin crew. Over the course of the last year I've bought a couple thousand BTC of LTC to bump it up ahead of SC and keep prices stable.
But hey, looks like the LTC community needs an attitude adjustment.
~BCX~
But hey, looks like the LTC community needs an attitude adjustment.
~BCX~
So infantile, yet so apt.
August 2010 is not early enough to finance this endeavor. Even I found out about BTC at the time, to bad I didn't think much of it back then....
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
I started mining when the diff was 352, I made a killing buying early on and selling at the peak.
Stick to things you know about from experience. Mining isn't the only way to make profit in Bitcoin.
And lemme guess you wrote your own gpu miner? IIRC those were only for sale.. not free.
With CPU a block a day or something.
But right I didn't mine at the time, were looking at the dollar value and thought it wasn't worth the hassle
Ever hear of a cluster or a botnet or a supercomputer?....all viable mining options back then
August 2010 is not early enough to finance this endeavor. Even I found out about BTC at the time, to bad I didn't think much of it back then....
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
I started mining when the diff was 352, I made a killing buying early on and selling at the peak.
Stick to things you know about from experience. Mining isn't the only way to make profit in Bitcoin.
And lemme guess you wrote your own gpu miner? IIRC those were only for sale.. not free.
With CPU a block a day or something.
But right I didn't mine at the time, were looking at the dollar value and thought it wasn't worth the hassle
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Nothing much will happen to the LTC blockchain: if it's an attack with really huge hashpower then he can try to fork from an earlier block, but still it has to be a block after a checkpoint and not e.g. the genesis block. However, an attack from an earlier block is probably infeasible, because he'd have to compete with the hashpower that already did that work and then race with the current hashpower, so I suppose that instead he means forking from the current block. So while the attack takes place and he starts building the forked chain, he can deposit LTC to btc-e, trade them for BTC, withdraw the BTC, then broadcast his forked chain so the person he traded with who got the LTC will actually get nothing. Therefore, if everyone just doesn't trade on btc-e while the attack takes place, then there would be no victims of a double-spending attack, and the only thing that the attacker will gain is the 50 LTC block rewards in his forked chain (meaning that he'd earn the same amount of LTC by mining regularly instead of forking).
Exactly. But there's no way you can expect people to not trade on the exchanges. And if the exchange uses BCX's litecoins to pay out any withdrawals, those payments will be reverted when BCX's fork is announced. So in the end, some people will lose some coins. The loss of coins would be nothing compared to the Bitcoinica hack/theft/incompetence fiasco. But, it would be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on Litecoin. Would people rally behind it and put more hashpower into it to prevent further attacks? Or would people lose trust in the coin because another attack can happen any time in the future? I don't think it will kill Litecoin, but it will likely put a hurting on the price for some time, which may not be a bad thing in the long run.
August 2010 is not early enough to finance this endeavor. Even I found out about BTC at the time, to bad I didn't think much of it back then....
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
Difficulty in 2010 wasnt anything. I started in Early may of 2011 and I made bank with bitcoin mining.
BCX is right you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Sure it's possible, it's only between 400-600 gpus required. And thats not impossible to get ahold of. What will happen? People won't trust it anymore so they will sell and abandon it. Thats what will happen.
Yes, it's possible. Not even bitcoin is immune from 51% attacks. Though with bitcoin it's much harder, but then someone with an ASIC can attack it if they wanted to. Satoshi did say that people would not try to 51% bitcoin, because if they had that much hash power, they would earn more money by mining it normally than by attacking it. This is true with Litecoin right now. If BCX used his hashpower to mine Litecoin, he would make more money than to try to do a double spend with a 51% attack.
If BCX is just going to fork the chain for 24 hours. Then what would happen is that all transactions within that 24 hours period would be reverted. And those transactions will then be replayed on the new forked chain if they are still applicable. If they cannot be replayed, then a double spend will happen. (Reminds me when I did a "git rebase" on the litecoin code just a few days ago and ran into a ton of merge conflicts.) Normally, only the attacker would be able to double spend his coins. Since no one else is aware of the attack and would be able to muck with his transactions to double spend them. But the double spend by the attacker will have ripple effects that would potentially invalidate a lot of other transactions.
I think Litecoin needs some centralization right now. Oh wait...
corrected for you
LAWL!!!! And the sock puppets still get owned even during an LTC event hahaha
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Sure it's possible, it's only between 400-600 gpus required. And thats not impossible to get ahold of. What will happen? People won't trust it anymore so they will sell and abandon it. Thats what will happen.
Yes, it's possible. Not even bitcoin is immune from 51% attacks. Though with bitcoin it's much harder, but then someone with an ASIC can attack it if they wanted to. Satoshi did say that people would not try to 51% bitcoin, because if they had that much hash power, they would earn more money by mining it normally than by attacking it. This is true with Litecoin right now. If BCX used his hashpower to mine Litecoin, he would make more money than to try to do a double spend with a 51% attack.
If BCX is just going to fork the chain for 24 hours. Then what would happen is that all transactions within that 24 hours period would be reverted. And those transactions will then be replayed on the new forked chain if they are still applicable. If they cannot be replayed, then a double spend will happen. (Reminds me when I did a "git rebase" on the litecoin code just a few days ago and ran into a ton of merge conflicts.) Normally, only the attacker would be able to double spend his coins. Since no one else is aware of the attack and would be able to muck with his transactions to double spend them. But the double spend by the attacker will have ripple effects that would potentially invalidate a lot of other transactions.
I think Litecoin needs some centralization right now. Oh wait...
corrected for you
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Nothing much will happen to the LTC blockchain: if it's an attack with really huge hashpower then he can try to fork from an earlier block, but still it has to be a block after a checkpoint and not e.g. the genesis block. However, an attack from an earlier block is probably infeasible, because he'd have to compete with the hashpower that already did that work and then race with the current hashpower, so I suppose that instead he means forking from the current block. So while the attack takes place and he starts building the forked chain, he can deposit LTC to btc-e, trade them for BTC, withdraw the BTC, then broadcast his forked chain so the person he traded with who got the LTC will actually get nothing. Therefore, if everyone just doesn't trade on btc-e while the attack takes place, then there would be no victims of a double-spending attack, and the only thing that the attacker will gain is the 50 LTC block rewards in his forked chain (meaning that he'd earn the same amount of LTC by mining regularly instead of forking).
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Sure it's possible, it's only between 400-600 gpus required. And thats not impossible to get ahold of. What will happen? People won't trust it anymore so they will sell and abandon it. Thats what will happen.
Yes, it's possible. Not even bitcoin is immune from 51% attacks. Though with bitcoin it's much harder, but then someone with an ASIC can attack it if they wanted to. Satoshi did say that people would not try to 51% bitcoin, because if they had that much hash power, they would earn more money by mining it normally than by attacking it. This is true with Litecoin right now. If BCX used his hashpower to mine Litecoin, he would make more money than to try to do a double spend with a 51% attack.
If BCX is just going to fork the chain for 24 hours. Then what would happen is that all transactions within that 24 hours period would be reverted. And those transactions will then be replayed on the new forked chain if they are still applicable. If they cannot be replayed, then a double spend will happen. (Reminds me when I did a "git rebase" on the litecoin code just a few days ago and ran into a ton of merge conflicts.) Normally, only the attacker would be able to double spend his coins. Since no one else is aware of the attack and would be able to muck with his transactions to double spend them. But the double spend by the attacker will have ripple effects that would potentially invalidate a lot of other transactions.
I think Litecoin needs some 51% protection right now. Oh wait...
August 2010 is not early enough to finance this endeavor. Even I found out about BTC at the time, to bad I didn't think much of it back then....
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
The point is: difficulty was already significant.
wow what a fucking hero "someone in a shoutbox pissed me off, so now I am going out of my way to fuck over peoples good work"
some "community" we have.....
some "community" we have.....
Yeah, funny how his shenanigans don't work on Bitcoin. I wonder why...
I have way too many BTC and have been mining BTC since August of 2010, that's why.
You must have made your parents proud. You didn't have to become a doctor to bring in big bucks.
wow what a fucking hero "someone in a shoutbox pissed me off, so now I am going out of my way to fuck over peoples good work"
some "community" we have.....
some "community" we have.....
Yeah, funny how his shenanigans don't work on Bitcoin. I wonder why...
I have way too many BTC and have been mining BTC since August of 2010, that's why.
I knew it must be an early adopter behind this. But it's one who's unfortunately fucked up in the head. BTC and LTC are in trouble.
So is this possible? And if so what will happen to the ltc block chain?
Sure it's possible, it's only between 400-600 gpus required. And thats not impossible to get ahold of. What will happen? People won't trust it anymore so they will sell and abandon it. Thats what will happen.
Yes, it's possible. Not even bitcoin is immune from 51% attacks. Though with bitcoin it's much harder, but then someone with an ASIC can attack it if they wanted to. Satoshi did say that people would not try to 51% bitcoin, because if they had that much hash power, they would earn more money by mining it normally than by attacking it. This is true with Litecoin right now. If BCX used his hashpower to mine Litecoin, he would make more money than to try to do a double spend with a 51% attack.
If BCX is just going to fork the chain for 24 hours. Then what would happen is that all transactions within that 24 hours period would be reverted. And those transactions will then be replayed on the new forked chain if they are still applicable. If they cannot be replayed, then a double spend will happen. (Reminds me when I did a "git rebase" on the litecoin code just a few days ago and ran into a ton of merge conflicts.) Normally, only the attacker would be able to double spend his coins. Since no one else is aware of the attack and would be able to muck with his transactions to double spend them. But the double spend by the attacker will have ripple effects that would potentially invalidate a lot of other transactions.
Jump to: