Litecoin 51% attacked? - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4242

Merit: 8672

Quote from: Ahimoth on December 04, 2011, 12:29:30 AM

If you look at last week's LTC chain data, you will see that about 5 out of every 10 blocks had the same address for the generate. This means someone is running a custom miner or daemon, and controls a very large chunk of the mining power.

For your reference:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LSQAz3zmxfKAEPZJd9693Udrg19gEidHs8

That addressed solved 582 out of 3020 blocks. A far cry from 5 out of 10. As far as custom— it looks like the coinbaser patch from bitcoin.

If you look at their payments, they sure look like pool payouts. Anyone mining on a pool with about 20% of the hash power care to look and confirm that your inputs came from that address and identify the pool for us?

Ahimoth

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

Quote from: sd on December 03, 2011, 04:11:16 PM

Quote from: k9quaint on December 03, 2011, 03:51:28 PM

So Coinhunter claims he doesn't know where most of the hashpower of Litecoin comes from.
Not surprising that he conflates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Cheesy

Personally I have a workstation with a quad core Phenom 955 slightly overclocked to 3.4 Ghz. I only use 3 cores for LiteCoin mining and I get a few blocks a week with no pool. My guess is everyone with something better than 2 cores has little incentive to join a pool and that won't change unless the difficulty goes way up. Solo miners better account for the huge 'unknown' amount of mining better than CoinHunters evil-pool theory.

CoinHunter is attempting to FUD LiteCoin because he knows that it's a better designed system than SolidCoin is. LiteCoin will likely take all of SolidCoin's miners in the next few months. He is scared.

Actually it is evident by examining the block chain that there are one or two very large "dark" mining pools. As much as I hate to drag him into this, ArtForz looked into the chain as well, and confirmed my suspicions during a brief chat on btc-e. Its pretty obvious that *most* of that unknown chunk of the hashrate is not solo miners, and instead is composed of a few individuals.
If you look at last week's LTC chain data, you will see that about 5 out of every 10 blocks had the same address for the generate. This means someone is running a custom miner or daemon, and controls a very large chunk of the mining power.

For your reference:
http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LSQAz3zmxfKAEPZJd9693Udrg19gEidHs8

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Raoul Duke on December 03, 2011, 09:10:45 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:32:02 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you want the exchanges to drop an alt coin all you have to do is drop a thousand BTC on them and they will dump said alt coin without notice. It's worked for me in the past LOL

Cool, and since you have 10 million Bitcoins should be easy to do .

It was easy enough to get you booted off a certain exchange wasn't it! All those psycho emails you sent were forwarded to me. maybe I should post some of them, that would be too funny.

So, you are admitting that YOU PAID Crypto X Change to boot Solidcoin?

They will not be pleased by that, let's see what they have to say...

Where did I say I paid CryptoXchange, I knew it wouldn't be long for CH brought another bitch.

So, do tell us which exchange was it that paying 1000BTC to drop an alt-chain worked for you in the past.
I'm sure we all want to know which exchange is it. Maybe someone is willing to offer them more money than you did...

michaelmclees

hero member

Activity: 633

Merit: 500

"CoinHunter is attempting to FUD LiteCoin because he knows that it's a better designed system than SolidCoin is. LiteCoin will likely take all of SolidCoin's miners in the next few months. He is scared."

Eventually, he'll be the last miner, last user, last everything... Then he'll claim the coin only he can use is more secure than ever!

sd

hero member

Activity: 730

Merit: 500

Quote from: k9quaint on December 03, 2011, 03:51:28 PM

So Coinhunter claims he doesn't know where most of the hashpower of Litecoin comes from.
Not surprising that he conflates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Cheesy

Personally I have a workstation with a quad core Phenom 955 slightly overclocked to 3.4 Ghz. I only use 3 cores for LiteCoin mining and I get a few blocks a week with no pool. My guess is everyone with something better than 2 cores has little incentive to join a pool and that won't change unless the difficulty goes way up. Solo miners better account for the huge 'unknown' amount of mining better than CoinHunters evil-pool theory.

CoinHunter is attempting to FUD LiteCoin because he knows that it's a better designed system than SolidCoin is. LiteCoin will likely take all of SolidCoin's miners in the next few months. He is scared.

k9quaint

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

So Coinhunter claims he doesn't know where most of the hashpower of Litecoin comes from.
Not surprising that he conflates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Cheesy

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

The best thing for any coin is to expand it's hash rate as fast as possible. LitecoinPools web miner is already working wonders in spreading the hash power out among many smaller miners. With people working to incorporate the web mining into Games, websites and other projects, LTC will fast build a large and secure base.

Quote from: tacotime on December 02, 2011, 10:49:35 PM

No one attacks these currencies because you effectively lose most of your invested money into mining if you do.

Way to FUD it up CH. The "dark pool" has had 50+% of the hash rate from day 10 of Litecoin's existence, I would think that by now they would have already 51% attacked the chain if they so wanted to. My thoughts are: they know know they are the ones securing the chain and they also know they'll make the most money dumping into the market if the coin is secure, not if it's insecure. The dark pool is only enhancing the security of the chain as it has been from the beginning.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:32:02 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you want the exchanges to drop an alt coin all you have to do is drop a thousand BTC on them and they will dump said alt coin without notice. It's worked for me in the past LOL

Cool, and since you have 10 million Bitcoins should be easy to do .

It was easy enough to get you booted off a certain exchange wasn't it! All those psycho emails you sent were forwarded to me. maybe I should post some of them, that would be too funny.

So, you are admitting that YOU PAID Crypto X Change to boot Solidcoin?

They will not be pleased by that, let's see what they have to say...

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

I haven't been active over here much lately.

CoinHunter, you're an idiot. Your chain has already shown to be weak. Now disgrace yourself by attacking LTC when your chain is on the ropes.

Fail dev is fail. get over it, coblee is the better developer and decentralized is better than your centralized.

Of course you aren't going to stop being an idiot. But I wanted to make sure you knew.

Happy Holidays Wink

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: tacotime on December 02, 2011, 10:49:35 PM

No one attacks these currencies because you effectively lose most of your invested money into mining if you do.

Way to FUD it up CH. The "dark pool" has had 50+% of the hash rate from day 10 of Litecoin's existence, I would think that by now they would have already 51% attacked the chain if they so wanted to. My thoughts are: they know know they are the ones securing the chain and they also know they'll make the most money dumping into the market if the coin is secure, not if it's insecure. The dark pool is only enhancing the security of the chain as it has been from the beginning.

We have your word on that then? The "dark pool" hasn't been malicious and will not be?

tacotime

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1005

No one attacks these currencies because you effectively lose most of your invested money into mining if you do.

Way to FUD it up CH. The "dark pool" has had 50+% of the hash rate from day 10 of Litecoin's existence, I would think that by now they would have already 51% attacked the chain if they so wanted to. My thoughts are: they know know they are the ones securing the chain and they also know they'll make the most money dumping into the market if the coin is secure, not if it's insecure. The dark pool is only enhancing the security of the chain as it has been from the beginning.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Nachtwind on December 02, 2011, 08:47:16 PM

Details like those in "control" own most of the coins - but not as in bitcoin by investing into it but by simply being those in control? Or details like having a fork that got hacked/explolited already a few times? Or simply the detail that scamcoins only exist due to the agressive nature of its marketing/propaganda?

Right, like who is in control of deepbit? Want to control bitcoin? Just buy enough GPUs or FPGA and you can do it. Or just hack the pools and control them. These large pools in bitcoin are "control nodes" . They print most of the money , decide which transactions are added and generally control the entire network. Anyone who mines in Bitcoin and particularly the big miners have more power than the "majority" who don't mine and are simply using the code to create transactions or run a business. Is that seriously what you call security? You can say "anyone can mine in Bitcoin" and that can be countered with "anyone can become a trusted node in SolidCoin", it's just a matter of degrees.

You need to make the connection here that it's much, much better to have as much control of possible in the hands of people who are for the currency instead of random individuals who created a website and now have a pool controlling 33-50% of the network.

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

Quote from: Explodicle on December 02, 2011, 09:34:54 PM

Let's put our money where our mouths are. 10 BTC says no 51% attack on Litecoin before the next SC2 patch. Any takers?

Adding 5BTC to it.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Let's put our money where our mouths are. 10 BTC says no 51% attack on Litecoin before the next SC2 patch. Any takers?

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:41:12 PM

No I get what you're saying there, but it also applies to Bitcoin. For instance say the dev team does something you don't like, some forking change. Now you say others can resist it, so let's say bitcoin splits in 2, 50% who support the devs, 50% who support the old way. What if mtgox supports the devs? Did you know who owns the bitcoin trademarks, copyright, website, etc? Anyone who disagrees with THOSE people and wants to continue bitcoin "Like it is now" will get shut down.

There would probably be at least one exchange willing to trade between BTC and EvilBTC. Since both block chains share most blocks, most users would find themselves owning coins in both chains, each trading at about 50% of Bitcoin's value prior to the fork. Now the market will decide whether or not the change was correct, or if both are useful but for different things.

You can release a mandatory patch and tell the trusted nodes to kill the competing fork.

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:41:12 PM

So the same threat exists in Bitcoin. The same solution exists in SolidCoin.

The threat exists but is highly unlikely whereas Solidcoin has been through massive changes already that have been basically what you have said above..

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:41:12 PM

I understand people don't like others having "control" over something,

Absolutely right, espeically if one cannot trust those in control.

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:41:12 PM

but we have goals in SolidCoin that we want to achieve, we're against the banks as they exist today and we're against governments impinging on our freedoms.

Propaganda parade..

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:41:12 PM

If you agree with those 2 main things you can be safe in knowing where we are going with SolidCoin, the rest are just small details which should be sorted out by "someone".

Details like those in "control" own most of the coins - but not as in bitcoin by investing into it but by simply being those in control? Or details like having a fork that got hacked/explolited already a few times? Or simply the detail that scamcoins only exist due to the agressive nature of its marketing/propaganda?

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ?? on ??

This is the part that Coinhunter just can't seem to comprehend. That he can change the code to anything he desires and the rest of the chain is incapable of resisting. He just doesn't seem to get why that is a major flaw.

No I get what you're saying there, but it also applies to Bitcoin. For instance say the dev team does something you don't like, some forking change. Now you say others can resist it, so let's say bitcoin splits in 2, 50% who support the devs, 50% who support the old way. What if mtgox supports the devs? Did you know who owns the bitcoin trademarks, copyright, website, etc? Anyone who disagrees with THOSE people and wants to continue bitcoin "Like it is now" will get shut down.

So the same threat exists in Bitcoin. The same solution exists in SolidCoin. If I'm "killed by the feds", one of the other SolidCoin people can create new keys and the network will continue. I'm also not the only trust node so it would still continue for quite some time even without me in the current format. A year or three.

I understand people don't like others having "control" over something, but we have goals in SolidCoin that we want to achieve, we're against the banks as they exist today and we're against governments impinging on our freedoms. If you agree with those 2 main things you can be safe in knowing where we are going with SolidCoin, the rest are just small details which should be sorted out by "someone".

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

wow... CH.. speaking of "trust"... that feels..wrong..

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: coblee on December 02, 2011, 08:20:55 PM

Unspendable until your next mandatory binary-only release that is...

Not really. If there was a forking change which required new updates and it needed to be out quick, then it also means it's easy for everyone else to resume from that point on with a new client and new keys if anything was to happen.

Having source code out with a release doesn't stop anyone from being malicious either. People still need to A) Read the source code and B) understand it. As I'm sure you're aware with Bitcoin code, not much of that happens, and it's currently a more supported product than SolidCoin. Even with that the 2.02 source code was out a few hours after the binaries, and no one *needed* to upgrade without testing it. A few hours of downtime to ensure everything is good is hardly going to kill anyone. It's less than getting 6 confirms in bitcoin sometimes Tongue

Some people just have a level of trust in me that probably makes you uneasy sitting on the sidelines there, but trust is important in all human relationships. Some people should probably look at why they are so overly paranoid about some things (source code) and not about Gavin being funded by Trucoin or visiting the CIA.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:03:40 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on December 02, 2011, 07:57:22 PM

CoinHunter, do you currently mine any SC2 yourself?

Depends on the day and what I'm doing. I switch between mining BTC and SC depending upon which is more profitable to get more SC. I don't have much "mining power" though, just a couple of 5830s in my development PC.

My always hashing trust node occasionally generates a block (it's only a low hashing node) but I put them back into the CPF fund. There are no requirements for trust node operators winning normal blocks needing to do that, it's just what I do.

Doesn't that make SC2 vulnerable to a <1% attack? Even a 51% Litecoin attacker or coblee can't do such radical things as permanently lower the subsidy from 32 to 5.

Topic: Litecoin 51% attacked? - page 3. (Read 10238 times)