Wow, you're some big guy aren't you, with all your GPUs and botnets and EC2 instances? Faggot bitch.
No not really
Well, go for it. But fork it knowing that this is helping me pay rent. Go ahead. Do it cause you can.
Topic: deleted - page 7. (Read 14587 times)
Wow, you're some big guy aren't you, with all your GPUs and botnets and EC2 instances? Faggot bitch.
No not really
Well, go for it. But fork it knowing that this is helping me pay rent. Go ahead. Do it cause you can.
Man, everyone's freaking out about this, but an attack like this was bound to happen sooner or later. BCX may be an asshole, sure, but it's better for this to happen in the open rather than having it just suddenly be sprung out of nowhere to kill the chain.
Hell, even the fact that this attack is being publicly pre-announced should be enough to tip most of you off that this may not be nearly as big a threat as people are making it out to be.
And out of curiosity, what laws will BCX have broken by doing something like this?
Hell, even the fact that this attack is being publicly pre-announced should be enough to tip most of you off that this may not be nearly as big a threat as people are making it out to be.
And out of curiosity, what laws will BCX have broken by doing something like this?
Why don't you post under your real username? Mr.< 50 posts.
LOL
Man, everyone's freaking out about this, but an attack like this was bound to happen sooner or later. BCX may be an asshole, sure, but it's better for this to happen in the open rather than having it just suddenly be sprung out of nowhere to kill the chain.
Hell, even the fact that this attack is being publicly pre-announced should be enough to tip most of you off that this may not be nearly as big a threat as people are making it out to be.
And out of curiosity, what laws will BCX have broken by doing something like this?
Hell, even the fact that this attack is being publicly pre-announced should be enough to tip most of you off that this may not be nearly as big a threat as people are making it out to be.
And out of curiosity, what laws will BCX have broken by doing something like this?
Suddenly next week comes and some internet hacker just made a fucking fortune by trolling Litecoin exchanges into dropping rates and selling when everyone realized everything was okay.
you're forking crazy.
I will start the second fork in about 11 hours 45 minutes beginning at 11:59am GMT.
For those that don't truly under stand 51% attacks Coblee the creator of LTC explained it below.
I think most people don't understand a 51% attack. His fork will be mined in secret. So his EC2 instances and botnets and gpus will not be talking to any machine on the main network during the duration of the attack. Only when he is releasing the longer chain, would one of his machine need to announce the chain to everyone. So during the attack, you will not notice anything like an increase in hashrate.
You have until I start my new fork to to sell, transfer, move or buy and remain on the original fork. After I start the second fork I will run it for three days. Then I suspect all pools will be hit on Friday sometime dropping the hashrate so I can over take the original chain and force all nodes onto my new chain. All transactions conducted on the original chain after I start my second chain in 12 hours will simply not exist when I deploy the larger forked chain. That includes buys, sells and moves and yes this includes transactions to exchanges.
So you have about 12 hours to do what you want, so get busy.
I would highly suggest LTC Dev to implement a current lock in ASAP.
Hey at least i'm giving you warning.
~BCX~
Dude, do you like being a cunt?
Wow, you're some big guy aren't you, with all your GPUs and botnets and EC2 instances? Faggot bitch.
Already bought the popcorn, so let me see if I understand.
you are starting the new chain at noon gmt and you are going to release the new chain on friday? So there is nothing to see untill friday?
You need the hashpower only on friday because you can mine the new chain with very low diff? Or you need to mine the chain at same high diff because the client is rejecting a longer chain with lower diff?
I saw that you have a reputation in this forum, so if you fail, you will be in almost at the same level as Coinhunter for his scamcoin and (Artforz + Coblee) for the "litle missunderstanding" saying that litecoin cannot be mined with GPU.
You must be very confident about that 51% atack, since you are risking your +1600 post reputation.
If you fail LTC will be the queen, same technology fatster transaction times.
One more thing if you do not mind, you alert de LTC devs to put a "curren lock" so if they implement it they make you fail? So why are you warning them to make you fail? And if they cannot stop you why bother implementing the lock or warning them?
I think there are a lot of people like me wandering about this.
My email do not support or condem you. Just a courious guy on the internet wandering what is happening and a interested investor wandering if someone can really do this and if bitcoin is at the same risk.
Best Regards,
Max
you are starting the new chain at noon gmt and you are going to release the new chain on friday? So there is nothing to see untill friday?
You need the hashpower only on friday because you can mine the new chain with very low diff? Or you need to mine the chain at same high diff because the client is rejecting a longer chain with lower diff?
I saw that you have a reputation in this forum, so if you fail, you will be in almost at the same level as Coinhunter for his scamcoin and (Artforz + Coblee) for the "litle missunderstanding" saying that litecoin cannot be mined with GPU.
You must be very confident about that 51% atack, since you are risking your +1600 post reputation.
If you fail LTC will be the queen, same technology fatster transaction times.
One more thing if you do not mind, you alert de LTC devs to put a "curren lock" so if they implement it they make you fail? So why are you warning them to make you fail? And if they cannot stop you why bother implementing the lock or warning them?
I think there are a lot of people like me wandering about this.
My email do not support or condem you. Just a courious guy on the internet wandering what is happening and a interested investor wandering if someone can really do this and if bitcoin is at the same risk.
Best Regards,
Max
How is none of this illegal 
Simple logic. There is no law against making statements through pseudonyms on message boards about applying computing power in an asymmetrical manner to the solution of SHA-256 encryption. Saying that one is going to do an act is different than the actual doing of the act. And in this case even the act itself, while a nuisance and an affront to our sensibilities, is not per se "illegal". So the 13 or 14 active market makers on a couple of minor exchanges will be inconvenienced for a few days, and will not be able to play out their dreams of financial glory until the weekend? How is this even worth talking about?
Isn't he DDoS'ing things too?
You tell us... is SHE DDoS'ing? Can you provide evidence that IP's controlled by this specific person that you are accusing are committing these attacks?
oh actually she told someone she was
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bcx-threat-against-bitcoinme-95126
How is none of this illegal
Simple logic. There is no law against making statements through pseudonyms on message boards about applying computing power in an asymmetrical manner to the solution of SHA-256 encryption. Saying that one is going to do an act is different than the actual doing of the act. And in this case even the act itself, while a nuisance and an affront to our sensibilities, is not per se "illegal". So the 13 or 14 active market makers on a couple of minor exchanges will be inconvenienced for a few days, and will not be able to play out their dreams of financial glory until the weekend? How is this even worth talking about?
Isn't he DDoS'ing things too?
You tell us... is SHE DDoS'ing? Can you provide evidence that IP's controlled by this specific person that you are accusing are committing these attacks?
How is none of this illegal
Simple logic. There is no law against making statements through pseudonyms on message boards about applying computing power in an asymmetrical manner to the solution of SHA-256 encryption. Saying that one is going to do an act is different than the actual doing of the act. And in this case even the act itself, while a nuisance and an affront to our sensibilities, is not per se "illegal". So the 13 or 14 active market makers on a couple of minor exchanges will be inconvenienced for a few days, and will not be able to play out their dreams of financial glory until the weekend? How is this even worth talking about?
Isn't he DDoS'ing things too?
Yes the litecoin pools. I expect BCX is paying btherders in russia or something.
How is none of this illegal
Simple logic. There is no law against making statements through pseudonyms on message boards about applying computing power in an asymmetrical manner to the solution of SHA-256 encryption. Saying that one is going to do an act is different than the actual doing of the act. And in this case even the act itself, while a nuisance and an affront to our sensibilities, is not per se "illegal". So the 13 or 14 active market makers on a couple of minor exchanges will be inconvenienced for a few days, and will not be able to play out their dreams of financial glory until the weekend? How is this even worth talking about?
Isn't he DDoS'ing things too?
How is none of this illegal
Simple logic. There is no law against making statements through pseudonyms on message boards about applying computing power in an asymmetrical manner to the solution of SHA-256 encryption. Saying that one is going to do an act is different than the actual doing of the act. And in this case even the act itself, while a nuisance and an affront to our sensibilities, is not per se "illegal". So the 13 or 14 active market makers on a couple of minor exchanges will be inconvenienced for a few days, and will not be able to play out their dreams of financial glory until the weekend? How is this even worth talking about?
BCX didn't expect the hive.
The hive expected BCX.
Been building for a while now.
Time to drop anchor and board her ship.
The hive expected BCX.
Been building for a while now.
Time to drop anchor and board her ship.
You need to trust the lead developer which defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency in the first place.
But there's no way any alternative cryptocurrency can repel 54% attack
They need to be merge mined with bitcoin which i dont think you can do with litecoin.
Namecoin at least has the usefulness of domain name registration.
What if someone make another alt-crypt algorithm that run very poorly on Tesla card ?
Will this prevent that 54% attack ?
It will be ironic if litecoin gets destroyed that solidcoin will still be going.
Perhaps an open source version of the 51% protection mechanism from sc might work but I doubt it.
BCX once threatened to take down sc but has failed at that threat which I bet really pisses them off.
Perhaps an open source version of the 51% protection mechanism from sc might work but I doubt it.
BCX once threatened to take down sc but has failed at that threat which I bet really pisses them off.
You need to trust the lead developer which defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency in the first place.
But there's no way any alternative cryptocurrency can repel 54% attack
They need to be merge mined with bitcoin which i dont think you can do with litecoin.
Namecoin at least has the usefulness of domain name registration.
Couldn't this be easily stopped if there was a limit on the difference between two blockchain heights was put into effect? because as far as I know the litecoin client currently accepts the longest chain as the most valid one. So this would prevent something I would call "chain hopping" on the client.
uh......no
Because you "plan" to have more than 50% of the network. But this would stop the current miners from moving to your chain, would it not?
That was somewhat what I had in mind.
I think trusting the developer isn't that of an issue. You all doing that every day by not reading the whole sourcecode and every commit the whole time.
Couldn't this be easily stopped if there was a limit on the difference between two blockchain heights was put into effect? because as far as I know the litecoin client currently accepts the longest chain as the most valid one. So this would prevent something I would call "chain hopping" on the client.
Yes. It's quite simple.
Find this line in your code
bool static Reorganize(CTxDB& txdb, CBlockIndex* pindexNew)
and change it into this
// bool static Reorganize(CTxDB& txdb, CBlockIndex* pindexNew)
coblee will set a check point. if the chain gets forked, it can be rolled back to that check point and we'll lose three or four days of ltc history i guess.
You need to trust the lead developer which defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency in the first place.
But there's no way any alternative cryptocurrency can repel 54% attack
Jump to: