Topic: deleted - page 4. (Read 14599 times)

What would happen if BCX didn't let us know about the attack?

PS: Will this change in the code help us against an announced attack?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1055265

Hahahahahaha

Also known as DDOSing the pools in order to make everyone's miners fallback to solo mining so that you can claim a large portion of the newly increased unknown portion of the network? Yeah... no.

History repeats itself.....

isn't this the same thing coinhunter was ranting about a few months ago?  iunno i just remember a bunch of FUDand litecoin x links.

YOU MUST BE AN UGLY BITCH... YOUR MOMMA MUST BE SHAMED

Is the BitcoinEXpress woman? Ябывдул!

^-- this x 1000

this threat is nothing more than paranoia. all he's been able to prove is that he has (or his other script kiddie friends) have access to some bandwidth to throw a couple DoS's.

the amount of fear and misinformation being circulated is staggering.

The estimations in a previous posts for the costs are something like 1200x2.2$/hour which makes this x24x3=190,080$ which corresponds with your post. It is said that BTC will be used to finance it, that's 22k BTC atm, looking at the markets I haven't noticed any sale like that.

As long as this doesn't happen I don't think we ought to take the threat as serious as it is made out to be.

if that capacity is working on a fork of the blockchain, shouldn't that capacity have dropped out by now?  the start time on the fork was hours ago.

You need to look at how many BTC were in existence and multiply that by how much they were each worth and then determine hashes defending per dollar of cryptocurrency. That is the true cumulative worth of the block chain (from an attacker's point of view). Also, BTC had the advantage of being the first. The only people who put any store in it's value were people who believed in it. Now that BTC has paved that road, other cryptocurrencies cannot rely on being under the "hackers radar" when they launch. They either need additional protections to defend against a 51% attack early in their lifecycle, or they need to have very little value to discourage people from attacking the chain until there is enough hash power & resources to defend it.

Your comparison of hash strength of the two chains is also off since it has been shown that GPUs performance on LTC mining is not well bounded.

No matter the outcome, the proponents of Litecoin need to be prepared to spend money to put hashes behind their blockchain. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to bad actors and thus not a proper value store.

koin you are out by a factor of 10 its about 400k ltc market cap

using a rough estimate, let's say all hardware for mining bitcoin costs about $10 million today.  so to 51% attack, it would require investment of $10 million (using today's technology, well actually much less as pools can be ddos'd to require a lesser amount of equipment) -- an amount beyond the range a sole actor would likely have access to.  a bigger factor, is that the amount of equipment needed (again, using technology that is readily available today) couldn't be acquired without there being knowledge that this is happening, well in advance.

even if there wasn't the benefit to the attacker where the pools get ddos'd, the hardware for reaching 51% on litecoin could be obtained  with a little over a $100k investment.  that's within the reach of a single individual, and that amount of hardware is readily available.  because litecoin can mined using temporary resources purchased as-needed from the cloud, the actual cost is much, much less.

this doesn't mean bitcoin is invulnerable.  an asic developer willing to piss away the investment could do a 51% attack.   fpgas are available in sufficient quantity
to do a 51% against bitcoin.  the market is saying because there isn't an economic incentive to do so (no chance to profit by double spending after reaching 51%) , the risk of this occurring can be discounted.

this alleged attack against litecoin isn't being done for economic benefit.  the value of all litecoins at the current market exchange rate totals under $50k, $400k so there's not much incentive to do an attack with the intent to double spend.   and it wouldn't be announced in advance if double spending with the intent to defraud was the reason for the attack.

bitcoin got a free pass simply because it was the first.  there is the desire by people that would like to see bitcoin go down, but there's not millions of dollars worth of this desire.  litecoin isn't as fortunate.

FYI every the LTC network does 0.238 GH that's x1100 about 260 GH in the Bitcoin world. If you look back what BTC was worth when hashing power was at that value LTC is safer than BTC was back then.
According to this calculation (which may be off because LTC mining performs different on Tesla GPUs which are used for the attack) BTC would only need 53x more funds to be attacked this way, right now.

+1

...and all those delusional bcx sock puppets, please see a specialist and take your pathetic master with you!

Just because people are putting money in does not mean it is worthwhile. Lots of people had invested money in Bernie Madoff for instance.
Litecoin stands or falls on its design, not on what people wish it could be.
Would you keep your money in a bank that left it lying on the floor, depending only on internet forum posts to deter thieves from taking it? Of course not.

It looks like the value of Litecoin has outstripped it's hash-rates ability to defend the block chain. The proper response for people who have invested in Litecoin is to engage more hash power to defend their value store or sell their Litecoin to reduce it's value. Either action make it less attractive to attack the block chain.

I'm surprised why the Admins even let BitcoinEXpress post here. They should ban his account indefinitely. On a side note, there are numerous people that have either invested money via electricity and depreciating hardware costs or people that have purchased Litecoins on the market. Why would you impose any hardship on these people? Any money that people have invested believed that they could have a decent return. You are essentially stealing from them and there families in hopes of what; making your future brighter. At what time does your moral code/compass or ethics tell you what your doing is wrong?

I for one think he's just trying to instill panic. Stand firm Guys

Well... relatively safe...

Funds deposited into the exchange during the forking period, may become invalid, so the exchange ends up with more LTC trading in the system, than it took in through deposits, post-fork.

Since we're talking a 3-day period that is being attempted, and the fact LTC's value is still so low, they may not think of that as a big enough deal to audit it, and just balance it out themselves with their own funds.

My opinion if I was in their position... .. .

-- Smoov

ps: need a failover? feel free to add my public node, below. I've set the fee to 0% for the time being. There are a few other public LTC p2pools, can be found on the p2pmine list and the P2pool Server List thread.

use your LTC address that you want coins generated to, as your username... password can be anything.