Love the wild wild west analogy.
Like it or hate it but when it come to this kind of coin, might makes right. Manage your exposure accordingly, I'm content with things the way they are.
Topic: One last thing on the 51% attack (Read 1812 times)
The problem with this analogy is that there isn't a 'bartender' in Bitcoin. This is why Solidcoin used trusted nodes. The argument is how do we implement a bartender with the least centralization possible?
Perhaps something like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decrits-proposal-solution-for-an-unbound-energy-related-stable-value-currency-91183
I'm just telling you on what not to look out for if you are concerned about the longevity of BTCs value. What you are reading into my posts is pure conjecture. A hypothetical bitcoin killer has too many possible attributes to name them all, but naming the attributes it wouldn't have is easy. 
Silly it won't be called a "coin", it won't be a bitcoin fork and you guys wouldn't even recognize it for what it is if you stuble upon it.
It's more similar to real world coins than Bitcoin is.
It's not a bitcoin fork and this is an advantage.
It's an implementation of an electronic coin that doesn't have some disadvantages of Bitcoin. Next (but not last) step to the Perfect Coin.
And lol no it won't be announced in this sub-forum. When this board gets wind of it it will already be too late.
U r wrong. I'm announcing that i'm launching a new coin. It's beta-tested now. Anyone who wish to take part in the launch could send me a PM, so I'll send detailed info with instructions and source code when the coin is released.
Silly it won't be called a "coin", it won't be a bitcoin fork and you guys wouldn't even recognize it for what it is if you stuble upon it.
And lol no it won't be announced in this sub-forum. When this board gets wind of it it will already be too late.
U r wrong. I'm announcing that i'm launching a new coin. It's beta-tested now. Anyone who wish to take part in the launch could send me a PM, so I'll send detailed info with instructions and source code when the coin is released.
I guess the real world equiv is like more than half the people rocking up to the bar with monopoly money, and arguing with the bar tender it's real money, who has an obsession with listening to more than half of the people.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
The problem with this analogy is that there isn't a 'bartender' in Bitcoin. This is why Solidcoin used trusted nodes. The argument is how do we implement a bartender with the least centralization possible?
We do not implement centralization.
What about each node, before, accepting the new block is "genuine" compares it to the way the prior X blocks have propagated? not sure if it makes any sense though... but... if the nodes were propagates from a host which doesnt normally submit, then relayed by others that do not normally relay... would require each client holding a "footprint" of last X blocks prop. pattern.
I guess the real world equiv is like more than half the people rocking up to the bar with monopoly money, and arguing with the bar tender it's real money, who has an obsession with listening to more than half of the people.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
The problem with this analogy is that there isn't a 'bartender' in Bitcoin. This is why Solidcoin used trusted nodes. The argument is how do we implement a bartender with the least centralization possible?
I guess the real world equiv is like more than half the people rocking up to the bar with monopoly money, and arguing with the bar tender it's real money, who has an obsession with listening to more than half of the people.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
In the real world, we'd not do this, we'd trust our experience of knowing what money looks likes, why dont we simply build into the software something to check the entropy of the submitting-nodes of new work is roughly the same as over the last X blocks? e.g. not a brand new set of hosts all shouting it.
For all we know the next bitcoin has been killed at birth by people overly invested in bitcoin 1.
They will never allow a competitor to get to the stage of threatening their baby.
They will never allow a competitor to get to the stage of threatening their baby.
They don't have that choice. Bitcoin is an experiment and wasn't intended as the backbone for an entire economy. Litecoin or any of the current alt chains isn't either but eventually it will happen. My bet is even within this decade.
And lol no it won't be announced in this sub-forum. When this board gets wind of it it will already be too late.
Rejecting other miners' perfectly good blocks is clear attack though.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
No. They'll just become orphaned ones.
No, the rogue miner is mining a totally separate blockchain at that point.
Your imaginary "it is all ok as its the wild west out here" might work for a few hobbyists hijacking each other's hobbyhorses but with millions of dollars on the line it will more likely be as simple as how many dollars of damage are they doing by their "unfair competitive practices" and whether they are part of a conspiracy to do it...
-MarkM-
It would require them to redefine what "perfectly good" meant to them. To drive transaction prices up that high would probably be seen as attack (since it would exclude most transactions). But right now there are other fairly arbitrary rules setup that current miners do enforce, size limits, certain limits to prevent bitdust attacks, etc. Even the standard client's insistence on including transaction fees for small or immature coinbases can be seen as a set of arbitrary rules.
I do think that the real line gets drawn when they start rejecting blocks from other miners though as you said. Refusing to include transactions they don't like (while permitting them to enter the blockchain through other miners) would be perfectly valid even now.
I do think that the real line gets drawn when they start rejecting blocks from other miners though as you said. Refusing to include transactions they don't like (while permitting them to enter the blockchain through other miners) would be perfectly valid even now.
Rejecting other miners' perfectly good blocks is clear attack though.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
No. They'll just become orphaned ones.
Rejecting other miners' perfectly good blocks is clear attack though.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
Such an attack is not criminal, not even unethical. These currencies are designed to be voted on by 51 per cent of the available power deciding which chain is the correct one. If I have that power, then I decide. This is mob rule, I'm OK with that.
Survival of the fittest.
There's definitely some truth to that, although some actions would possibly be ruled a criminal if they are obviously trying to break things. Trying to pull off a double spend or denying transactions to specific entities might be criminal interference, but simply owning the majority share of power definitely isn't illegal. Even enforcing mildly arbitrary rules like 0.02BTC+ 2% transaction fees (removing the advantage of low transaction fees) might be perfectly legal. Under such a plan blocks with transactions not including "proper" fees wouldn't be included in their chain, and if they have enough power then they get to say so.Survival of the fittest.
Unethical is definitely still there though, but not publishing their rules might make it murkier.
Such an attack is not criminal, not even unethical. These currencies are designed to be voted on by 51 per cent of the available power deciding which chain is the correct one. If I have that power, then I decide. This is mob rule, I'm OK with that.
Survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest.
Unlike some nutcases, they know that 51% attacks would be criminal and they would get in legal trouble for attempting them. Maybe anti-trust or somesuch laws might hit them to, deliberate sabotage of competitors, conspiracy, gosh knows what. Cyber-terrorism?
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
For all we know the next bitcoin has been killed at birth by people overly invested in bitcoin 1.
They will never allow a competitor to get to the stage of threatening their baby.
They will never allow a competitor to get to the stage of threatening their baby.
I don't think that's true at all. Visa, Mastercard, Paypal all have a lot invested but are unable and/or unwilling to stop BitCoin threatening their core businesses.
Just get the major ASIC farms and pools on board with merged mining. Anyone big enough to attack that is big enough to find to hit with massive "this person is criminally attacking our network, costing umpteen dollars in disruption" law enforcement and/or civil suits, cease and desist orders, filtering and banning and loss of ISP accounts at their ISP level etc etc etc.
(Just get infrared satellites to look for undocumented mining farms like they do grow-houses...)
-MarkM-
(Just get infrared satellites to look for undocumented mining farms like they do grow-houses...)
-MarkM-
The next bitcoin is going to have to solve the 51% issue without the shit that happened with sc.
Jump to: