Litecoin 51% attacked? - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ?? on ??

They can be transferred to the CPF in any quantity you need.

No, 2.02 implements a fix for that. So over 5 years or so 2 million will be transferred from those accounts if they are used until each one drops below 1 million and becomes "dead". The reason trust blocks cost a little money to sign is mostly so that the trust accounts eventually "die" to be replaced by real millionaires.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:18:21 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You're not secure from 51% as it won't be long before we have a trusted node online that you can't control.

Also the only proof we have that any coins are "unspendable" is your word.

Well besides my word and those of other core SolidCoin people, there is also the source code. Even makomk could tell you they are unspendable, just give him a PM.

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

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:18:21 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You're not secure from 51% as it won't be long before we have a trusted node online that you can't control.

Also the only proof we have that any coins are "unspendable" is your word.

Well besides my word and those of other core SolidCoin people, there is also the source code. Even makomk could tell you they are unspendable, just give him a PM.

which means they are still unspendable.
I think other aspects of the fork were also changed after its creation...

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ?? on ??

You're not secure from 51% as it won't be long before we have a trusted node online that you can't control.

Also the only proof we have that any coins are "unspendable" is your word.

Well besides my word and those of other core SolidCoin people, there is also the source code. Even makomk could tell you they are unspendable, just give him a PM.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: doublec on December 02, 2011, 08:13:06 PM

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:10:23 PM

It's quite a cool security feature don't you think? Being secure from 51% attacks.

If you're a 51% attacker it isn't.

Hah! Right.. maybe that's why I'm getting so much steam over here Tongue

doublec

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1005

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 08:10:23 PM

It's quite a cool security feature don't you think? Being secure from 51% attacks.

If you're a 51% attacker it isn't.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ?? on ??

When you have 12 million in your wallet you can afford to that.

Actually it's 10 wallets, each with 1.2 million. And since the coins are unspendable there isn't much anyone can do with them except use them to sign trust blocks. It's quite a cool security feature don't you think? Being secure from 51% attacks.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: coblee on December 02, 2011, 08:06:56 PM

Oh, how nice of you. I sometimes take money from my wallet and put it into my other wallet. Other people don't have to do that, it's just what I do.

Sorry, but you had to have seen that coming. Cheesy

Yes well it's a common fallacy that it's "my wallet", I don't see it that way. I just feel strange with the trust node winning a block every two days and taking it when I have that special privilege so I give it back to be used for bounties and whatnot.

You can check all the important accounts and what is happening with them here :-

http://www.solidtools.net/

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

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

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.

Oh, how nice of you. I sometimes take money from my wallet and put it into my other wallet. Other people don't have to do that, it's just what I do.

Sorry, but you had to have seen that coming. Cheesy

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

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.

HolodeckJizzmopper

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

Quote from: Nachtwind on December 02, 2011, 07:58:25 PM

I imagine some German politicians saying the same about their party in the past...

As much as I hate invoking Godwin's Law on page two of a thread, it really is amazing how many ideological and behavioral parallels there are between CoinHunter and Hilter.

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:50:40 PM

And SolidCoin wasn't "pwned", if it was it wouldn't be around still. It's funny how much some of you seriously hate SolidCoin and want it to die, ever since day 1. Just accept the fact it will be the #1 coin soon.

Quote of the day..

I imagine some German politicians saying the same about their party in the past...

.
.
.
.

OF COURSE NOT THAT AUSTRIAN!
i mean someone else... Westerwelle Tongue

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

CoinHunter, do you currently mine any SC2 yourself?

HolodeckJizzmopper

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:50:40 PM

Just accept the fact it will be the #1 coin soon.

You all heard it here first, folks !

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: HolodeckJizzmopper on December 02, 2011, 07:48:51 PM

CoinHunter, with all due respect, your words carry no weight on these forums, and this is entire thread is nothing more than baseless, speculative FUD on your part.

Considering your "officially most secure P2P cryptocurrency" was just pwned, you have no business coming here talking about the security of other currencies.

Please go fuck a kangaroo, return to your forums, and address the handful of sycophants who give a fuck about what you have to say.

Why would I when my mere presence seems to agitate you so much . Wink

And SolidCoin wasn't "pwned", if it was it wouldn't be around still. It's funny how much some of you seriously hate SolidCoin and want it to die, ever since day 1. Just accept the fact it will be the #1 coin soon.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: makomk on December 02, 2011, 07:38:12 PM

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:27:52 PM

We already monitor reorgs and there are now hard limits (not that they are needed yet, but in the future with unknown trust nodes it may) in SolidCoin so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any transactions from a wallet that lost transactions in a reorg would readd them. You need to check the code again.

I think the wallet will probably re-add the transactions if they don't conflict with anything in the post-reorg chain. Also, there's a rather big security related reason that Bitcoin doesn't have hard limits on reorgs.

Well SolidCoin isn't bitcoin and we aren't vulnerable to all of the same issues.

The transactions WILL be readded if they aren't in the post reorg chain. The greatest reorg we have had so far is 3 blocks, and this was earlier on while we were working out some trust node issues. With recent changes reorgs haven't extended past 1 block which is very good, but we still recommend everyone waits at least 3-6 confirmations before fully confirming a transaction.

HolodeckJizzmopper

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

CoinHunter, with all due respect, your words carry no weight on these forums, and this is entire thread is nothing more than baseless, speculative FUD on your part.

Considering your "officially most secure P2P cryptocurrency" was just pwned, you have no business coming here talking about the security of other currencies.

Please go fuck a kangaroo, return to your forums, and address the handful of sycophants who give a fuck about what you have to say.

makomk

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 564

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:27:52 PM

We already monitor reorgs and there are now hard limits (not that they are needed yet, but in the future with unknown trust nodes it may) in SolidCoin so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any transactions from a wallet that lost transactions in a reorg would readd them. You need to check the code again.

I think the wallet will probably re-add the transactions if they don't conflict with anything in the post-reorg chain. Also, there's a rather big security related reason that Bitcoin doesn't have hard limits on reorgs.

Quote from: CoinHunter on December 02, 2011, 07:27:52 PM

Not deleting 0 conf transactions from a wallet is a bug in bitcoins handling of reorgs, SolidCoin fixes that bug.

It's not exactly a bug. The Bitcoin developers are opposed to making transactions disappear like that because they're useful for diagnosing double spends after the fact.

Quote from: Nachtwind on December 02, 2011, 07:34:08 PM

God.. soneone so connected to Solidcoin and its various "strange" surroundings (The "dick" that obviously mined a large chunk of the early coins.. the dissapearance of the "dick" and the ddos on BTC pools at the same time...) shouldnt accuse anyone of anything.

Fun thought: anyone that managed to figure out the vulnerability in signing the even blocks early enough could probably have used it to mine a disproportionate percentage of the early coins by exploting it to rewrite history into a version where they mined all the coins.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: doublec on December 02, 2011, 07:22:17 PM

Quote from: coblee on December 02, 2011, 07:19:26 PM

There really isn't much money to be made right now to attack Litecoin with a double spend. I will talk to the exchanges to see if they have been affected by a double spend.

btc-e.com has 550 BTC available for taking in their litecoin exchange. I think that's plenty for people to be tempted to steal.

If a botnet pool has 51% of the hashing power, they can generate half of the total coins. That's 14,400 litecoins a day or 76 bitcoins a day. If they can make that much legitimately, why risk it with a double spend attack that would likely kill your source of daily income. 550 btc is not worth it from the perspective.

Nachtwind

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 507

*not reading more than the first post now*

Sorry CH but i am getting sick here right now.
So.. after finally someone find an exploit in the SC code (again.. wasnt there someone changing timestamps in order to toy with the diff?) you "warn" people not to go to the other mentionable altchain because a hack there "was imminent"?

God.. soneone so connected to Solidcoin and its various "strange" surroundings (The "dick" that obviously mined a large chunk of the early coins.. the dissapearance of the "dick" and the ddos on BTC pools at the same time...) shouldnt accuse anyone of anything. So far cobllee has done everything as transparent as possible and i's say that there is just a botnet running those whatnot many %, since LTC is just more profitable right now than SC is.. and for many people just more dependable.. as for Botnets.
If you set a few thousand computers onto a chain you have to know that the chain is stable and wont have a subsiedy cut just because some dev had a hickup or so..

Topic: Litecoin 51% attacked? - page 4. (Read 10238 times)