Research "botnets"...
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
I thought that was the whole point of litecoin, and the thing that enhances its security?
Zombie miners ftw right?
Topic: Litecoin is more secure than Bitcoin, lower hashrate is nearly irrelevant (Read 3426 times)
September 03, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
I thought that was the whole point of litecoin, and the thing that enhances its security?
Zombie miners ftw right?
August 28, 2012, 06:05:17 PM
It wouldn't be to hard or even that expensive for them to decide to make BTC mining ASICs, and then crush the network.
What about scrypt ASICs ? Have you seen the chart at page 19 of www.tarsnap.com/scrypt/scrypt-slides.pdf ?
There are ideas being discussed to make it even harder for govt to attack, namely proof-of-stake and BDD weight.
August 28, 2012, 05:10:39 PM
A govt (NSA, CIA, etc) couldn't rent the services of a botnet through a third party and smash Litecoin with hundreds of thousands of nodes? Why build a warehouse of rigs when you can simply rent more far more hashing power as the entire Litecoin network has on demand. Also how many CPU do you think the a major government or bank has? They wouldn't need to build some ASIC chips, Litecoin provided a back door using hardware they already have sitting idle for 16 hours a day.
The cost to 51% attack Litecoin is negligible and could be done for free by a botnet operator who is just bored and curious if he can accomplish it. Making CPU more competitive (i.e. crippling more efficient hardware) would only make Litecoin even more at risk to operators with huge numbers of botnets.
The cost to 51% attack Litecoin is negligible and could be done for free by a botnet operator who is just bored and curious if he can accomplish it. Making CPU more competitive (i.e. crippling more efficient hardware) would only make Litecoin even more at risk to operators with huge numbers of botnets.
Both BTC/LTC are vulnerable to such attack. Any gov has access to much more hashing power than both of the networks combined. The U.S gov as it is now has millions of ASIC devices, used for encryption. It wouldn't be to hard or even that expensive for them to decide to make BTC mining ASICs, and then crush the network.
Really, the only thing that keeps either coin safe, is its lack of recognition and underestimation. I would guarantee though, if Bitcoin, or litecoin for that matter ever got to the point where it could replace fiat (like many people seem to think it would) there will be at least one of the 196 countries governments successfully attacking Bitcoin/Litecoin.
When people talk about the evil gov interfering, they seem to automatically think of the U.S Gov, there are far more unstable/corrupt govs out there that wouldn't feel too bad about destroying BTC/LTC given a reason.
August 28, 2012, 07:18:57 AM
By this argument you could also say that it's easier for the govt to break scrypt-hashed passwords than sha256-hashed passwords.
Let's differentiate between an entity that tries to acquire scrypt hardware in secret, and an entity that tries to acquire scrypt hardware openly. If this entity tries to do it in secret, then obviously it'd wish to have ASIC that's as fast as possible.
Also, if Litecoin makes CPUs more competitive, then more honest hashpower could also join the network, not just CPUs that sit in govt offices or exploited by botnets. Let's imagine that the entire Bitcoin network switched to scrypt and even gained more CPU miners as a result, do you think that Bitcoin would be more prone to govt attack, or less prone to govt attack?
Let's differentiate between an entity that tries to acquire scrypt hardware in secret, and an entity that tries to acquire scrypt hardware openly. If this entity tries to do it in secret, then obviously it'd wish to have ASIC that's as fast as possible.
Also, if Litecoin makes CPUs more competitive, then more honest hashpower could also join the network, not just CPUs that sit in govt offices or exploited by botnets. Let's imagine that the entire Bitcoin network switched to scrypt and even gained more CPU miners as a result, do you think that Bitcoin would be more prone to govt attack, or less prone to govt attack?
August 27, 2012, 10:33:21 AM
You consider only the botnet attack, and proclaim that Bitcoin is more secure because of this particular attack.
Botnets are likely to attack just the poor computers under their controls, it isn't likely that a botnet will gain 51% hashpower (which wouldn't be enough for double-spending if Litecoin implements proof-of-stake).
However, a malicious entity (e.g. government) could invest in ASIC to gain 51% hashpower and attempt to destroy the network (by denying txns, proof-of-stake wouldn't help), scrypt protects against this attack.
More generally, ASIC tends to centralize to hashpower, which diminishes the overall security of the network.
If Litecoin modifies the scrypt parameters to make CPUs more competitive, then the hashpower will be more decentralized.
See also https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1131548
Botnets are likely to attack just the poor computers under their controls, it isn't likely that a botnet will gain 51% hashpower (which wouldn't be enough for double-spending if Litecoin implements proof-of-stake).
However, a malicious entity (e.g. government) could invest in ASIC to gain 51% hashpower and attempt to destroy the network (by denying txns, proof-of-stake wouldn't help), scrypt protects against this attack.
More generally, ASIC tends to centralize to hashpower, which diminishes the overall security of the network.
If Litecoin modifies the scrypt parameters to make CPUs more competitive, then the hashpower will be more decentralized.
See also https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1131548
August 27, 2012, 08:48:05 AM
IMO the fact that GPUs do provide such an increase in hashrate on scrypt will be the thing that protects LTC from attack.
Your average botnet victim runs a Pentium or core2 CPU which does about 5Kh max, is online only certain hours of the day.
You would need 100 CPU bots for every HD7970 mining on the LTC network.....
To reach 234Mh, the network speed last time I checked you would need around 46800 bots mining 24/7 at 5Kh per bot.
OK Conficker is reckoned to have 8m bots but does anyone wanting to destroy litecoin really have 46800+ bots?
On Scrypt, the issue isnt that an ASIC cannot be built, but that it would be extremely expensive per slide 19 of the following.
http://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/attachments/86_scrypt_slides.pdf
Your average botnet victim runs a Pentium or core2 CPU which does about 5Kh max, is online only certain hours of the day.
You would need 100 CPU bots for every HD7970 mining on the LTC network.....
To reach 234Mh, the network speed last time I checked you would need around 46800 bots mining 24/7 at 5Kh per bot.
OK Conficker is reckoned to have 8m bots but does anyone wanting to destroy litecoin really have 46800+ bots?
On Scrypt, the issue isnt that an ASIC cannot be built, but that it would be extremely expensive per slide 19 of the following.
http://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/attachments/86_scrypt_slides.pdf
August 27, 2012, 07:37:52 AM
Research "botnets"...
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
August 27, 2012, 07:15:44 AM
Cryptocoin security is dependent on:
Strength of algorithm
Distribution of mining resources
Difficulty
Network strength
Strength of algorithm:
Scrypt is so much more expensive in terms of resources to purchase, lower hashrate creates an upper bound of attack strength.
It cost so much more money to increase attack strength in Litecoin that it becomes a very strong wall against attacks.
Hashrate is not the measurement of strength. Hashrate * Strength of algorithm is.
Compare a flood of millions of gallons water to thousands of larger boulders. The damage done by the boulders can be more even though the count is less.
Distribution of mining resources:
The distribution issue is not linear. It's parabolic (high imbalance at low and high ends of spectrum).
High jumps from one technology to the next has the same effect as low difficulty.
High jumps balkanize the mining power in the hands of people who do not spend.
If big miners don't buy carrots via bitcoin, then the bitcoins are useless to carrot farmers.
Difficulty:
The difficulty is lower in litecoin right now, but in reality litecoin is the same as bitcoin 5 years from now because of the algo strength.
Network strength:
It takes less work to get the same security in litecoin as it does in bitcoin.
Scrypt creates a tough ceiling for new tech to overcome.
Bigger bat is just as good as faster bat in physics.
All in all litecoin is a more secure network because no new technology can come in all of a sudden and surprise the network and undermine security even if only temporarily.
Strength of algorithm
Distribution of mining resources
Difficulty
Network strength
Strength of algorithm:
Scrypt is so much more expensive in terms of resources to purchase, lower hashrate creates an upper bound of attack strength.
It cost so much more money to increase attack strength in Litecoin that it becomes a very strong wall against attacks.
Hashrate is not the measurement of strength. Hashrate * Strength of algorithm is.
Compare a flood of millions of gallons water to thousands of larger boulders. The damage done by the boulders can be more even though the count is less.
Distribution of mining resources:
The distribution issue is not linear. It's parabolic (high imbalance at low and high ends of spectrum).
High jumps from one technology to the next has the same effect as low difficulty.
High jumps balkanize the mining power in the hands of people who do not spend.
If big miners don't buy carrots via bitcoin, then the bitcoins are useless to carrot farmers.
Difficulty:
The difficulty is lower in litecoin right now, but in reality litecoin is the same as bitcoin 5 years from now because of the algo strength.
Network strength:
It takes less work to get the same security in litecoin as it does in bitcoin.
Scrypt creates a tough ceiling for new tech to overcome.
Bigger bat is just as good as faster bat in physics.
All in all litecoin is a more secure network because no new technology can come in all of a sudden and surprise the network and undermine security even if only temporarily.
Jump to: