Zeitgeist was a shitty movie and 'time-travel attacks' sounds much cooler.
Personally I am going with the time warp attack.
Topic: [POLL] call all the "time-travel in the blockchain" attack "Zeitgeist attacks" (Read 1324 times)
September 14, 2011, 11:53:25 PM
Personally I am going with the time warp attack.
September 14, 2011, 11:23:03 PM
Why not call it the Apple attack?
"Rotten Apple Attack"
September 14, 2011, 11:21:16 PM
Why not call it the Apple attack?
September 14, 2011, 03:18:49 AM
Not at this point, but should an actual proposal for a sufficiently versatile scheme emerge, I would definitely consider it.
September 13, 2011, 07:02:37 PM
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol 
Does GG have plans to address the 51% exploit that exists?
You mean the Fundamental Exploit of 51% as described in Satoshi's paper or the "attacker with 51% screwing up diff without invalidating blocks"?
The former can be sort-of addressed with a clever implementation of licensed mining, I suspect, but that is my bellyfeel nothing more.
The latter is solved already, like, at the moment of reset.
You have any intentions of creating licensed mining?
September 13, 2011, 06:39:03 PM
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol
Does GG have plans to address the 51% exploit that exists?
You mean the Fundamental Exploit of 51% as described in Satoshi's paper or the "attacker with 51% screwing up diff without invalidating blocks"?
The former can be sort-of addressed with a clever implementation of licensed mining, I suspect, but that is my bellyfeel nothing more.
The latter is solved already, like, at the moment of reset.
September 13, 2011, 06:34:02 PM
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol
Does GG have plans to address the 51% exploit that exists?
September 13, 2011, 06:32:45 PM
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol
September 13, 2011, 06:31:45 PM
Not exactly sure why this matters. Point? Lulz?
September 13, 2011, 06:25:45 PM
Zeit is time in German
Relevance of Geist is, well, obvious
And it sounds nifty
Relevance of Geist is, well, obvious
And it sounds nifty
Jump to: