Pages:
Author

Topic: Pool Ops are now the Alt Currency Police - page 4. (Read 13951 times)

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 09:13:12 PM
#69
Why not just use a checkpoint to reject his alternate chain?  It still exists in your blockchain file afaik...  Then on, experiment with rejecting reorgs deeper than 5 blocks as a default option (where the other manually-selectable choices are to shutdown on attempted reorg, or to just reorg as usual).  Then Luke will be limited to rolling back no more than 5 blocks at a time, and you can consider any transaction 6 deep to be safe.

why not set the default-option to 1?

then all mined blocks are irreversible and save  Grin

That would mean the chain would fork into 2 chains every few days spontaneously. Sometimes two different continuation blocks are found very close to each other and if everyone sticks to the one they got first, it means the network ends up split into two forks.


before the splitting: the networks has to decide: one is orphan and the other counts and is o.k.
when there are three, then 2 orphans, 1 o.k., whats the prob?

There is no "THE NETWORK" just individual nodes.

So if half the network (or some part of it) propogates block A and the protocol locks it and it can't change (the definition of a checkpoint).

The other half of the network (or some part of it) propogates block B and the procotcol locks it and it can't be changed (the definition of a checkpoint).

Now neither have of the network can reconcile w/ the other half.  Part of the network considers block A canonical and part believes B is and neither will trust the other half.

You can't have a system that checkpoints blocks after 1 block.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
January 06, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
#68
Why not just use a checkpoint to reject his alternate chain?  It still exists in your blockchain file afaik...  Then on, experiment with rejecting reorgs deeper than 5 blocks as a default option (where the other manually-selectable choices are to shutdown on attempted reorg, or to just reorg as usual).  Then Luke will be limited to rolling back no more than 5 blocks at a time, and you can consider any transaction 6 deep to be safe.

why not set the default-option to 1?

then all mined blocks are irreversible and save  Grin

That would mean the chain would fork into 2 chains every few days spontaneously. Sometimes two different continuation blocks are found very close to each other and if everyone sticks to the one they got first, it means the network ends up split into two forks.


before the splitting: the networks has to decide: one is orphan and the other counts and is o.k.
when there are three, then 2 orphans, 1 o.k., whats the prob?
member
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
January 06, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
#67
Why not just use a checkpoint to reject his alternate chain?  It still exists in your blockchain file afaik...  Then on, experiment with rejecting reorgs deeper than 5 blocks as a default option (where the other manually-selectable choices are to shutdown on attempted reorg, or to just reorg as usual).  Then Luke will be limited to rolling back no more than 5 blocks at a time, and you can consider any transaction 6 deep to be safe.

why not set the default-option to 1?

then all mined blocks are irreversible and save  Grin

That would mean the chain would fork into 2 chains every few days spontaneously. Sometimes two different continuation blocks are found very close to each other and if everyone sticks to the one they got first, it means the network ends up split into two forks.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
January 06, 2012, 08:02:47 PM
#66
Why not just use a checkpoint to reject his alternate chain?  It still exists in your blockchain file afaik...  Then on, experiment with rejecting reorgs deeper than 5 blocks as a default option (where the other manually-selectable choices are to shutdown on attempted reorg, or to just reorg as usual).  Then Luke will be limited to rolling back no more than 5 blocks at a time, and you can consider any transaction 6 deep to be safe.

why not set the default-option to 1?

then all mined blocks are irreversible and save  Grin
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 502
January 06, 2012, 07:55:46 PM
#65
I am not sure why this thread claims it is dead, maybe it just means the original post author has given up on it.

As far as I know the only pool to have so far included it in its roster of merged-mined chains is still slugging away at it and simply does not yet have enough hashing power to defeat the attack. If more people mine it, or join pools that are merged-mining it, at some point possibly honest miners will out-hash the attacker, who can then either be regarded as just a more aggressive than usual and somewhat cuckoo-type ponzi scheme profiteer doing the usual massive initial mining that is already so familiar in other chains.

The option possibly also remains of actually restarting at the genesis block but at the reached difficulty once enough hashing power is aboard.

Luke claims not to have used Eligius hash power in his attack, it seems possible that the reason an entire pool appeared to give up the fight was thinking they were up against Eligius not just one religious fanatic's personal hashing rigs.

-MarkM-


He had to use eligius pool because no way in hell does he have enough resources to outdo the blockchain since I combined 80gh onto it at one point and still couldnt compete and he sure as hell doesnt have the finances to top that hashrate albeit only 80gh.

If you had the personal $$$ to get 80 ghash then how do you know he also doesn't have the $$$ needed as well ? Fail yet again. Please post concrete evidence next time before making random statements.

The cat in the hat sat on the mat.
vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
January 06, 2012, 06:32:24 PM
#64
I am not sure why this thread claims it is dead, maybe it just means the original post author has given up on it.

As far as I know the only pool to have so far included it in its roster of merged-mined chains is still slugging away at it and simply does not yet have enough hashing power to defeat the attack. If more people mine it, or join pools that are merged-mining it, at some point possibly honest miners will out-hash the attacker, who can then either be regarded as just a more aggressive than usual and somewhat cuckoo-type ponzi scheme profiteer doing the usual massive initial mining that is already so familiar in other chains.

The option possibly also remains of actually restarting at the genesis block but at the reached difficulty once enough hashing power is aboard.

Why not just use a checkpoint to reject his alternate chain?  It still exists in your blockchain file afaik...  Then on, experiment with rejecting reorgs deeper than 5 blocks as a default option (where the other manually-selectable choices are to shutdown on attempted reorg, or to just reorg as usual).  Then Luke will be limited to rolling back no more than 5 blocks at a time, and you can consider any transaction 6 deep to be safe.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 06:20:44 PM
#63
I am not sure why this thread claims it is dead, maybe it just means the original post author has given up on it.

As far as I know the only pool to have so far included it in its roster of merged-mined chains is still slugging away at it and simply does not yet have enough hashing power to defeat the attack. If more people mine it, or join pools that are merged-mining it, at some point possibly honest miners will out-hash the attacker, who can then either be regarded as just a more aggressive than usual and somewhat cuckoo-type ponzi scheme profiteer doing the usual massive initial mining that is already so familiar in other chains.

The option possibly also remains of actually restarting at the genesis block but at the reached difficulty once enough hashing power is aboard.

Luke claims not to have used Eligius hash power in his attack, it seems possible that the reason an entire pool appeared to give up the fight was thinking they were up against Eligius not just one religious fanatic's personal hashing rigs.

-MarkM-


He had to use eligius pool because no way in hell does he have enough resources to outdo the blockchain since I combined 80gh onto it at one point and still couldnt compete and he sure as hell doesnt have the finances to top that hashrate albeit only 80gh.

If you had the personal $$$ to get 80 ghash then how do you know he also doesn't have the $$$ needed as well ? Fail yet again. Please post concrete evidence next time before making random statements.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 502
January 06, 2012, 06:16:48 PM
#62
I am not sure why this thread claims it is dead, maybe it just means the original post author has given up on it.

As far as I know the only pool to have so far included it in its roster of merged-mined chains is still slugging away at it and simply does not yet have enough hashing power to defeat the attack. If more people mine it, or join pools that are merged-mining it, at some point possibly honest miners will out-hash the attacker, who can then either be regarded as just a more aggressive than usual and somewhat cuckoo-type ponzi scheme profiteer doing the usual massive initial mining that is already so familiar in other chains.

The option possibly also remains of actually restarting at the genesis block but at the reached difficulty once enough hashing power is aboard.

Luke claims not to have used Eligius hash power in his attack, it seems possible that the reason an entire pool appeared to give up the fight was thinking they were up against Eligius not just one religious fanatic's personal hashing rigs.

-MarkM-


He had to use eligius pool because no way in hell does he have enough resources to outdo the blockchain since I combined 80gh onto it at one point and still couldnt compete and he sure as hell doesnt have the finances to top that hashrate albeit only 80gh.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
January 06, 2012, 06:13:03 PM
#61
I am not sure why this thread claims it is dead, maybe it just means the original post author has given up on it.

As far as I know the only pool to have so far included it in its roster of merged-mined chains is still slugging away at it and simply does not yet have enough hashing power to defeat the attack. If more people mine it, or join pools that are merged-mining it, at some point possibly honest miners will out-hash the attacker, who can then either be regarded as just a more aggressive than usual and somewhat cuckoo-type ponzi scheme profiteer doing the usual massive initial mining that is already so familiar in other chains.

The option possibly also remains of actually restarting at the genesis block but at the reached difficulty once enough hashing power is aboard.

Luke claims not to have used Eligius hash power in his attack, it seems possible that the reason an entire pool appeared to give up the fight was thinking they were up against Eligius not just one religious fanatic's personal hashing rigs.

-MarkM-
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 250
January 06, 2012, 05:40:51 PM
#60
i don't think anyone should trust him with their hashing power

is it true its luke doing it to i0c and ixc now as well?

Seems like it and I hope he succeeds and gets rid of these crap scammer chains.

Alt chains are not necessarily scams!  They are first and foremost playgrounds for experimenting with new features.

If people assign value to them then so be it. 

If you don't see value in them, don't trade for them.

Attacking an alt chain just because you can attack it is not OK.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
#59
it is not up to you to decide.

It's not up to him to decide what to put in his own transactions?

It's not up to him to decide what chains are to live or die.

How is the chain dead?  Nobody can continue to mine it?  or nobody wants to mine it?
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
January 06, 2012, 05:08:37 PM
#58
it is not up to you to decide.

It's not up to him to decide what to put in his own transactions?
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 04:13:06 PM
#57
how are they scams?

copycats sure, but it doesn't force anyone to buy them, if people do then that gives them value, if they do not then they do not, either way it doesn't hurt anyone outside of that.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
#56
i don't think anyone should trust him with their hashing power

is it true its luke doing it to i0c and ixc now as well?

Seems like it and I hope he succeeds and gets rid of these crap scammer chains.
vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
January 06, 2012, 03:36:55 PM
#55
I am fine with it, not because I think it was morally right or wrong, but because I don't give a crap about alt coins.  No alt coins are serving any useful purpose other than as testnets for ideas that could be added to Bitcoin.  And attacking a testnet is not something I object to.  OP_EVAL is ultimately intended to protect against theft, but no one is trying to steal Coiled Coins.  The CPU mining coins are ultimately intended to solve a problem with GPU mining that I can't see even exists, otherwise we'd be discussing which Bitcoin block we should switch to CPU mining.

The natural consequence for the action though is that Luke will have less mining power at his disposal at the whim of those who disagree with him - an appropriate one under the circumstances.  It's democratic.

I am fine with the attack because I believe we need to work to beef up Bitcoin against 51% attacks.  I think we underestimate the likelihood of one being attempted, especially if Bitcoin surges in popularity, just like people underestimated the need to keep their wallets safe from malware and to avoid storing them on anonymous websites when bitcoins were only worth pennies.

Just the simple change having bitcoind shut down gracefully instead of accept a reorg over 5 blocks would make our network far more resilient.  I'm surprised few of us see that, but I'm glad Gavin does (afaik).  
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
January 06, 2012, 03:36:34 PM
#54
FWIW, I will prosecute any false reports to the full extent of law. And since I have not broken any laws, all such reports are false.
Looking forward to it. More comedy gold will ensue. It will be like a mixture of Spanish Inquisition with Scientology's strategy of identifying and isolating Bitcoin-suppresives.

Instead of burning them at a stake the Bitcoin Inquisition will dessicate the apostates to death in the hot air coming out of the ATI graphic cards.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I heart thebaron
January 06, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
#53
FWIW, I will prosecute any false reports to the full extent of law. And since I have not broken any laws, all such reports are false.
You obviously don't understand the law very well if you think that it stretches across country borders...LMAO.

Civil Law and Dogmatic Law are very different and not universal.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 102
Bitcoin!
January 06, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
#52
So we should instill false and unjustified faith in random cryptocoin ponzi schemes?
Um, Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme as much as any other alt coin is.
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
January 06, 2012, 03:16:11 PM
#51
I don't particularly have any incentive to respond to the scammers that I foiled, given the significant cost (in time) to do so. Nor do I have any financial loss or care particularly if people want to stop mining on Eligius because they were in on the scam (or any other reason). I will clarify that Eligius miners were not adversely impacted by this, and that the CLC mining involved only adding data that I hashed myself to my own transactions; and I was careful to ensure that nobody lost any confirmed CLC. If any Eligius miner wishes to inquire further, I will take the time to answer specific to-the-point questions which are signmessage'd with an active (ie, has mined in the past week) Eligius payout address that has earned at least 2000 TBC (5.36870912 BTC) over all time.

Eligius is a Bitcoin mining pool and I am, as always, committed to doing my best to contribute to and protect the Bitcoin ecosystem. Pyramid schemes built upon forks of the Bitcoin software ultimately discredit and harm Bitcoin's reputation. I hope CoiledCoin will be the last of such scams now that it is clear there are people (not just myself) willing to stand up to them. Namecoin alone demonstrates a legitimate, innovative use of Bitcoin technology, and while I don't personally agree with their ideals/goals, I see it as a good thing for Bitcoin and worth cooperating with.

cablepair, regarding Devcoin, I don't see any reason to treat it as different from any other scamcoin. I will at least discuss it with you on IRC before doing anything other than mining it with the almost-unmodified (zero txn fee, zero post-maturity delay) Devcoin client.

P.S. While the opposition seem to be very venemous and vocal, I have gotten a lot more positive support from a head-count perspective.
Godminer-Jr is warning you: if you have a nice little research chain it would be sad to see it unable to process transactions. It has been written on the tablets revealed on Mt.Sinai: Thou shalt have none other chains before mine (Deuteronomy 5:4-21).
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
January 06, 2012, 03:15:18 PM
#50
FWIW, I will prosecute any false reports to the full extent of law. And since I have not broken any laws, all such reports are false.
Pages:
Jump to: