Pages:
Author

Topic: Fairbrix fiasco - page 2. (Read 3669 times)

Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 04, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
#28
For all practical intents and purposes that is "kinda lock-in"

Yes, I completely agree. I've been away from the *coin world for about a year. Just trying to get the lay of the land.

I always thought the original bitcoin philosophy, of defending everyone's shared history based on the implausibility of >51% CPU power attacks, died when coders put in the first hard coded block lock. Since then the question has been, "How much history can we leave at risk?" What you call a "confirmation horizon" is exactly what I am suggesting. Otherwise, the definition of "confirmed" becomes non-sensical.

I figured exchanged must have long ago solved this problem. It simply doesn't make any sense for multiple exchanges to trade on different branches. The notion of, "Everyone stop trading, while we (exchanges) discuss this among ourselves." makes perfect sense.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 11
Hillariously voracious
October 04, 2011, 12:36:05 PM
#27
Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)

Just curious, what mechanisms to the mechanisms to the exchanges currently use?


Basically, they watch out for reorgs that affect more than their "confirmation horizon" and shut trades down. Recent fairly cunning i0coin run-in managed to get around that, though (don't recall the details) so those mechanisms might need some refining.

For all practical intents and purposes that is "kinda lock-in"
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 04, 2011, 12:33:25 PM
#26
Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)

Just curious, what mechanisms to the mechanisms to the exchanges currently use?
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 11
Hillariously voracious
October 04, 2011, 12:28:53 PM
#25
Exchanges already have just such a mechanism (though timestamp-based locking holds promise too... anyone willing to try thing out on GeistGeld ?)
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 04, 2011, 12:08:07 PM
#24
Why don't you add in a rolling block lock. Say locking blocks 1 hour old. That would limit any CPU attack to the ability to only erase transactions less than an hour old.

I know about the chicken and egg problem. How do anonymous peers know which block to lock? But in this case there is one known "non-anonymous" peer that is implicitly trusted. It is owned and operated by "michaelmclees".

When you reach critical mass and add an exchange to the fairbrix network. That adds a second non-anonymous peer. Though no one will "implicitly" trust the exchange, if miners go with a fork unsupported by the exchange there will be no place to reap their rewards.

If an exchange changes forks, it would result in brix they sold to customers for dollars disappearing. Since the exchange is non-anonymous actual police are likely to show up and arrest them for fraud. I presume exchanges will be monitoring any chain swap attacks closely.
hero member
Activity: 633
Merit: 500
October 04, 2011, 11:50:16 AM
#23
I don't know why anyone would mine that.  For all I know, it's still producing blocks with 0 coins.

If you wish to mine Fairbrix, https://github.com/coblee/Fairbrix is the one to use.
sr. member
Activity: 445
Merit: 250
October 04, 2011, 11:38:18 AM
#22
I have a connect of 3, 2300 blocks but doesn't seem to increase further.  Is it normal or is there any issues?  I have opened the port.
That was the old version. Count is now 2303. Someone somewhere is still mining...
sr. member
Activity: 312
Merit: 250
October 04, 2011, 10:31:06 AM
#21
One of these altcurrencies needs to attempt to implement a forked chain detection algorithm.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 04, 2011, 09:46:23 AM
#20
I deleted everything and reinstall it now loads quite ok at more than 5740 and 6 connections.  It was ok on one computer, not ok on this computer till now.
hero member
Activity: 633
Merit: 500
October 04, 2011, 09:16:54 AM
#19
I have a connect of 3, 2300 blocks but doesn't seem to increase further.  Is it normal or is there any issues?  I have opened the port.

I've got 6 with blocked ports and blocks are downloading normally.  5706 blocks right now.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 04, 2011, 09:00:22 AM
#18
I have a connect of 3, 2300 blocks but doesn't seem to increase further.  Is it normal or is there any issues?  I have opened the port.
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1030
October 03, 2011, 08:43:59 AM
#17
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
October 03, 2011, 06:23:05 AM
#16
Is it possible that the solution to "GPU Hostile" crypto-currencies lies within the IE9 Hardware Acceleration and an older lesser known work around for previous anti-parallel computing by the cryptocommunity?

Maybe a modded hardware accelerator could turn GPU's into APU hybrids and could crunch at tens of thousands times faster than every CPU on the network combined. A mere 1 GH /s machine would be a beast...I would shutter to think what a 68 GH /s farm would do.

I would love to claim this as my own idea but it in fact is the (theoretical) brain child of a couple of iOS engineers I know. They (theoretically) adapted it from from previous failed attempts at cryptographers to prevent parallel computing in cracking MD5 hashes.  "GPU Hostility" was solved a while back.

I would also speculate that someone needed a testnet and really didn't want to disrupt Tenebrix as there is already an exchange and pool. I would venture to say this theoretical attacker may in fact have nothing against Fairbrix and is developing a Solidcoin killer.

All just theory on my part.  Grin Grin Grin

~BCX~


PS I would also guess the test is complete and I wouldn't worry about it.

Caitlin Upton, is that you? Dressed up to look like an internet troll? Well let's see, I carefully analysed your text bitcoinexpress and summed it up like this.

Quote
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some . . . people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 11
Hillariously voracious
October 03, 2011, 05:22:43 AM
#15
Given that the net currently operates as intended with same windows binaries around, no, that is not consistent with evidence.

Having said that, did anyone invite theymos to take a look at the blockchain ?
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 03, 2011, 05:16:33 AM
#14
The other possibility is that the windows binaries were in some way different to the linux source so when the Windows users came online there was a sudden net split.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
October 03, 2011, 05:04:36 AM
#13
Is it possible that the solution to "GPU Hostile" crypto-currencies lies within the IE9 Hardware Acceleration and an older lesser known work around for previous anti-parallel computing by the cryptocommunity?

Maybe a modded hardware accelerator could turn GPU's into APU hybrids and could crunch at tens of thousands times faster than every CPU on the network combined. A mere 1 GH /s machine would be a beast...I would shutter to think what a 68 GH /s farm would do.

I would love to claim this as my own idea but it in fact is the (theoretical) brain child of a couple of iOS engineers I know. They (theoretically) adapted it from from previous failed attempts at cryptographers to prevent parallel computing in cracking MD5 hashes.  "GPU Hostility" was solved a while back.

I would also speculate that someone needed a testnet and really didn't want to disrupt Tenebrix as there is already an exchange and pool. I would venture to say this theoretical attacker may in fact have nothing against Fairbrix and is developing a Solidcoin killer.

All just theory on my part.  Grin Grin Grin

~BCX~


PS I would also guess the test is complete and I wouldn't worry about it.

May this attacker actually be you and your buddies over at Cupertino ?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 03, 2011, 01:56:44 AM
#12
Is it possible that the solution to "GPU Hostile" crypto-currencies lies within the IE9 Hardware Acceleration and an older lesser known work around for previous anti-parallel computing by the cryptocommunity?

Maybe a modded hardware accelerator could turn GPU's into APU hybrids and could crunch at tens of thousands times faster than every CPU on the network combined. A mere 1 GH /s machine would be a beast...I would shutter to think what a 68 GH /s farm would do.

I would love to claim this as my own idea but it in fact is the (theoretical) brain child of a couple of iOS engineers I know. They (theoretically) adapted it from from previous failed attempts at cryptographers to prevent parallel computing in cracking MD5 hashes.  "GPU Hostility" was solved a while back.

I would also speculate that someone needed a testnet and really didn't want to disrupt Tenebrix as there is already an exchange and pool. I would venture to say this theoretical attacker may in fact have nothing against Fairbrix and is developing a Solidcoin killer.

All just theory on my part.  Grin Grin Grin

~BCX~


PS I would also guess the test is complete and I wouldn't worry about it.
Everywhere you go cancer happens.
newbie
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
October 03, 2011, 01:41:09 AM
#11
Is it possible that the solution to "GPU Hostile" crypto-currencies lies within the IE9 Hardware Acceleration and an older lesser known work around for previous anti-parallel computing by the cryptocommunity?

Maybe a modded hardware accelerator could turn GPU's into APU hybrids and could crunch at tens of thousands times faster than every CPU on the network combined. A mere 1 GH /s machine would be a beast...I would shutter to think what a 68 GH /s farm would do.

I would love to claim this as my own idea but it in fact is the (theoretical) brain child of a couple of iOS engineers I know. They (theoretically) adapted it from from previous failed attempts at cryptographers to prevent parallel computing in cracking MD5 hashes.  "GPU Hostility" was solved a while back.

I would also speculate that someone needed a testnet and really didn't want to disrupt Tenebrix as there is already an exchange and pool. I would venture to say this theoretical attacker may in fact have nothing against Fairbrix and is developing a Solidcoin killer.

All just theory on my part.  Grin Grin Grin

~BCX~


PS I would also guess the test is complete and I wouldn't worry about it.


And that, theoretically, would be fscking hilarious. One would hope that this theory would be published at some point, after the testing is done, of course.

donator
Activity: 1654
Merit: 1351
Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.
October 03, 2011, 12:08:15 AM
#10
GeistGeld doesnt have this vulnerability plugged. GG fixed the ArtForz attack, which is also fixed in Fairbrix and Tenebrix. The 51% attack exists in all crypto currencies.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 02, 2011, 11:56:45 PM
#9
Maybe you can check with how Geistgeld did it?
Pages:
Jump to: