Pages:
Author

Topic: Pool Ops are now the Alt Currency Police - page 5. (Read 13951 times)

vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
January 06, 2012, 03:14:51 PM
#49
It's not centralized. It's democratic.

But it isn't democratic.  How do you vote?  How do you guarantee the vote is fair, accurate, and timely?  How do you ensure the people voting are informed?  How do you make sure the person who has the ACTUAL POWER to make the changes follows the will of "the people".

You vote by rejecting the chain you think is wrong.  You do this either by checkpointing the one you think is right, or allowing someone to do it on your behalf (e.g. by connecting to them).  You're motivated to checkpoint the one you think the rest of the world is likely to agree with, because if you're wrong, you've just made yourself a potential victim of double spending by anybody (who can spend their funds both in the majority chain, and the one you swallowed.)

Bottom line is, you always want to be with the majority opinion for your own security, and that alone will motivate people to come to a consensus on the basis of popularity alone.  A real attack chain that appears out of obscurity and rolls back a large number of blocks is going to have approximately 0% popularity and which is the right chain isn't going to be the subject of much debate.

Rejecting an attack chain isn't a battle of philosophical opinion.  It's not like right versus left, or Christians versus Muslims.  It's more like, what did we all observe.  If an attack happens, we'll know we observed an attack.  End of story.  It would be about as uncontroversial as asking the world whether the World Trade Center towers fell on 9/11/2001.

They fell.  No serious percentage of the population disputes it.  No one is attempting to write a history book that says the original towers are still standing.

Unless some massive bandsaw slices the earth in half and splits the network and all the mining power in half for an extended period of time, a naturally occurring chain reorg 5+ blocks deep is statistically unlikely.  We should plan on that event being an attack, and have Bitcoin go into a safety mode, favoring an intact system that is temporarily unavailable over an available one that is useless because none of the information in it is accurate due to being under control of an attacker.

newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
January 06, 2012, 03:11:21 PM
#48
it is not up to you to decide.

That exactly. In a free market anything should have a chance, supply and demand should decide whether it fails or not. Not someone like you who thinks, hmm well. I don't like this coin so lets shut it down. And to do so, you used resources from others and it doesn't matter whether they were affected by it or not. They didn't vote yes to it beforehand.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I heart thebaron
January 06, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
#47
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.

Expect to be reported to your ISP along with your local Police detachment. A Malicious attack with intent to disrupt another's service resulting in any form of vandalism in any way, shape or form will require investigating on their part with enough complaints and I know we will have enough.

You created this problem for yourself, so I would be prepared to suffer the backlash that comes along with it.

As a collective, enough of your personal information along with personal references have been obtained, which will also be contacted and informed of your exploits, so that they may judge for themselves, the measure of your resolve, especially as a so-called God-fearing boy.

This unfortunately is just the beginning. Expect to be under someone's microscope very soon and for what I can only hope, is a long, inconvenient while.

Your fan club.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 02:59:59 PM
#46
it is not up to you to decide.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
January 06, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
#45
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.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 02:43:51 PM
#44
Hashing power can also be bought and sold, just as easily as humans can be. Either buy the hardware yourself, or consider someone offering the top two pool operators a large sum of money for control of their pools.

A 51% attack does not have to correspond with a doubling in the hashpower. An existing pool or large mining operation can turn, which would not show a change in the total hash power.

A 51% does not necessarily require a re-org beyond 1 block. If I want to double spend, then it requires a large re-org, but if I just want to shut down the network, no re-org is required.

True there is no absolute protection beyond the "good guys" having 51% of hashing power.  Still making the blockchain "smarter" reduces the effectiveness of a 51% attack.

A 51% attack to perform a denial of service is utterly stupid use of resources.  Eventually it will be defeated and then network transaction will resume.

Using a pool for hashing power (or any public hashing power) to form a chain is easily detectable and likely will lead to a) people stop spending and b) people gaining more hashing power to fight off the attack.

The "nuclear" option for a 51% attack is one that is both massively destructive and undetecable until it happens.

Take private hashing power, build a chain in private, don't publish each block, fill the blocks w/ double spends, then publish the attack chain once it is longer than the "good chain" resulting in economic chaos, crashing bitcoin prices, and loss of confidence.


So you are right no protocol adjustment can make the network 51% "immune" but it doesn't have to be.  Bitcoin is already very hard to attack, and economical 51% attacks are likely impossible (cost of attack outweights direct profits from attack).   Adding block chain "smarts" would make it even harder to pull off large scale disruptive attacks.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
January 06, 2012, 02:36:12 PM
#43

I think there are ways to provide 51% protection but human control isn't something I would ever support.  Human control is fallible.  Humans can be bribed, beaten, extorted, killed, etc.

The block chain protocol could be improved to detect and invalidate a 51% attack (hint: a 51% attack involves a re-org AND doubling of hashpower).  Yeah there may be some side effects but they would be part of the network outside of human control/manipulation.



Hashing power can also be bought and sold, just as easily as humans can be. Either buy the hardware yourself, or consider someone offering the top two pool operators a large sum of money for control of their pools.

A 51% attack does not have to correspond with a doubling in the hashpower. An existing pool or large mining operation can turn, which would not show a change in the total hash power.

A 51% does not necessarily require a re-org beyond 1 block. If I want to double spend, then it requires a large re-org, but if I just want to shut down the network, no re-org is required.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
January 06, 2012, 02:28:53 PM
#42
I would advise everyone to search these forums or the bitcoin related
IRC archives for Luke's past comments on things like religion and gay
people. It made me leave his pool in a hurry.


I've seen these comments... they make him look ignorant, bigoted, irrational and idiotic.  Despite this, I used to think luke was a good and intelligent person deluded by religion.  The latest attack proves that he is not only ignorant and bigoted, but also a despicable person in general.  He may be smart, but he is a worthless human being.

Once I even saw luke saying that he'd support murdering his own son if he had gay sex in a country where it was punished by the death penalty, because it would be in accordance with his religious views and the local secular laws.  A person who says that is not a normal human being, he lies among the scum of the earth.

This is the only public attack on someone's character I have ever posted on this forum.  Luke-jr seems like he deserves it.
Its not a character attack, its just simple truth. I might even have logs laying around.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
bitcoin hundred-aire
January 06, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
#41
I would advise everyone to search these forums or the bitcoin related
IRC archives for Luke's past comments on things like religion and gay
people. It made me leave his pool in a hurry.


I've seen these comments... they make him look ignorant, bigoted, irrational and idiotic.  Despite this, I used to think luke was a good and intelligent person deluded by religion.  The latest attack proves that he is not only ignorant and bigoted, but also a despicable person in general.  He may be smart, but he is a worthless human being.

Once I even saw luke saying that he'd support murdering his own son if he had gay sex in a country where it was punished by the death penalty, because it would be in accordance with his religious views and the local secular laws.  A person who says that is not a normal human being, he lies among the scum of the earth.

This is the only public attack on someone's character I have ever posted on this forum.  Luke-jr seems like he deserves it.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 01:53:10 PM
#40
It's not centralized. It's democratic.

But it isn't democratic.  How do you vote?  How do you guarantee the vote is fair, accurate, and timely?  How do you ensure the people voting are informed?  How do you make sure the person who has the ACTUAL POWER to make the changes follows the will of "the people".

Even if it was perfectly democratic, humans fail.  The federal reserve is a great idea in theory.  Money supply SHOULD match economic expansion so that pricing power is always the same.  IF the Fed worked in actuality a dollar today would have the same pricing power as 1970s or 1920s or 1800s.  In reality it fails.  Humans fail.    Giving an elite group of humans control of Bitcoin is the day I stop mining forever (or support the alt which doesn't do that).

Quote
In the case of Luke's attack, there is no doubt which is the attack chain and which is not. The consensus is unanimous. So if this were bitcoin, we would be check pointing the last good block and moving on with life.

For example say Luke was the one who had the power to write and published the "right chain" patch.  Oops.  You now just guaranteed the attack chain has superiority.

Quote
In case of a threat of a repeat attack, implementation of an algorithm that performs simple spot checks to detect a bogus chain (discussed in other threads, Gavin contributed a few potential criteria), many bogus attack chains could be auto rejected with no human interaction.

This I have no problem with.   There are automatic methods which could make the blockchain smarter and more resilient to 51% attack without going down that slippery slope of human manipulation.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 01:42:59 PM
#39
Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work.  

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing.  


I think there are ways to provide 51% protection but human control isn't something I would ever support.  Human control is fallible.  Humans can be bribed, beaten, extorted, killed, etc.

The block chain protocol could be improved to detect and invalidate a 51% attack (hint: a 51% attack involves a re-org AND doubling of hashpower).  Yeah there may be some side effects but they would be part of the network outside of human control/manipulation.



Yeah just like BTC can't be 51% or economic manipulated with just a couple of millions.

Funny to think that all the BTC value is worth $50 million when just $5 million or even less is needed to kill all this network. SolidScam is no good either.

Until issues like the potential for a 51%, price stability, early adopters having 100 000 of coins for $100 this whole system is a joke.

Arguably, the biggest joke compared to crap like CoiledCoin but still a joke.

If we want BTC to be valid we need to find a technological solution for the 51% problem. No more of this "it will never happen" or "the attacker would gain more by contributing" and other such excuses. BTC is just as vulnerable as CoiledCoin if the miners go away. Don't leave it to chance. Fix it while you can.
vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
January 06, 2012, 01:41:41 PM
#38
Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work. 

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing.

It's not centralized. It's democratic.

In the case of Luke's attack, there is no doubt which is the attack chain and which is not. The consensus is unanimous. So if this were bitcoin, we would be check pointing the last good block and moving on with life. In case of a threat of a repeat attack, implementation of an algorithm that performs simple spot checks to detect a bogus chain (discussed in other threads, Gavin contributed a few potential criteria), many bogus attack chains could be auto rejected with no human interaction.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 01:37:05 PM
#37
Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by it's owner as "connect to me" and whose position they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.

So centralized human control of a distributed network?   If security is the ultimate goal then just make it a central authority which validated and prevents double spends and eliminate the massive cost and overhead of the blockchain and distributed work.  

A single low end server could handle all the Bitcoin transaction processing. 


I think there are ways to provide 51% protection but human control isn't something I would ever support.  Human control is fallible.  Humans can be bribed, beaten, extorted, killed, etc.

The block chain protocol could be improved to detect and invalidate a 51% attack (hint: a 51% attack involves a re-org AND doubling of hashpower).  Yeah there may be some side effects but they would be part of the network outside of human control/manipulation.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
January 06, 2012, 01:34:49 PM
#36
So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?

Given they were worthless scam coins?  No you didn't lose anything.

LOL. Exactly what I was going to say !

You only lost some electricity because you were naive enough to think this typical pump & dump - open exchange in 5 hours after launch scheme was going to work.

Luckily a moral Christian like Luke stopped this BS. I hope he kills crap like DVC, IXC, I0C next etc.
vip
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
January 06, 2012, 01:31:11 PM
#35
You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

Shutdown and do what?

How do your resolve the fact that some % of the network believes chain A is valid and some % believes chain B is valid.  Never re-org?  If you re-org and the longest chain wins then you are back where you started from.

Shut down and refuse transactions.

It would require human consensus/interaction to figure out what went wrong - typically by adding a block checkpoint - and start the network back up.  Those in a position to patch the checkpoint into their client would do so. Those who cannot would simply force connect to a node advertised by its owner as "connect to me" and whose chain version they agree with, which would effectively censor out the unwanted chain from their view.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 01:27:22 PM
#34
So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?

Given they were worthless scam coins?  No you didn't lose anything.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
January 06, 2012, 01:26:34 PM
#33
You know, I am surprised we don't just code into Bitcoin to shut down if faced with a need to reorg more than 5 blocks, rather than accepting an attack chain. Then all an attacker can do is temporarily DoS a chain - far less disruptive than rolling back transactions.

Shutdown and do what?

How do your resolve the fact that some % of the network believes chain A is valid and some % believes chain B is valid.  Never re-org?  If you re-org and the longest chain wins then you are back where you started from.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I heart thebaron
January 06, 2012, 11:37:06 AM
#32
So Luke didn't intend for anyone to lose anything ?

I lost 20+ blocks from my wallet, all with 200+ confirmations as well as a 6 block transfer after that. Does that mean I didn't lose anything ?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
January 06, 2012, 11:33:53 AM
#31
...A useful countermeasure would be to replace the static locking time (120 blocks) for new coins w/ a variable one based on block chain length.  Maybe starting out with a lock of 1000 (not much use for alt-coins on day 0 anyways) declining wot 120 blocks based on block length over say the first year.
Precisely. Chain length, recent block generation speed, with some tweaking any algorithmic approach would beat a hard-coded value.


I would love to hear (or read) from a miner at Eligius pool and how THEY feel about having their hashing power used for something they didn't consent to or agree with ?
I'm here Smiley
Obviously, I'm not overjoyed about Luke's alleged endeavor. That's a breach of agreement between Luke and his miners.
Surely, my hashing power will be put to better use than shooting up alt-chain currencies, right Luke, old chap?
I'm not moving my miners just yet but a yellow flag has been raised.


I congratulate people like gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack ) and Luke-Jr.
Well done to you both ! Screw the scammers and pump & dumpers.
How about "screw them" by just staying away and never touching their chains?
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
BitMinter
January 06, 2012, 11:25:37 AM
#30
Code:
[10:31]	luke-jr	coblee: I didn't orphan anything mature
[10:31] coblee luke-jr: oh ok
[10:32] luke-jr I intentionally avoided anyone actually losing money
[10:32] coblee so just mining, not including transactions, and dumping?
[10:33] luke-jr coblee: actually, I decided it was better not to dump
[10:33] luke-jr coblee: I've also asked BTC-e to reverse the dumping I did earlier
[10:33] coblee how would they reverse the dumping?
[10:33] gmaxwell presumably the counterparties would rather have their btc back.
[10:34] gmaxwell So they could just undo the trades, luke didn't withdraw the bitcoin he got.
[10:34] luke-jr coblee: well, presuming by dumping, we mean "selling"
[10:34] TuxBlackEdo what happen?
[10:34] TuxBlackEdo and why are we still awake?
[10:35] coblee this is pretty funny
[10:35] luke-jr TuxBlackEdo: I effectively disabled the latest scamcoin
[10:35] gmaxwell TuxBlackEdo: a new altcoin showed up out of nowhere.. complete with an exchange and a bunch of eager ponzi pumpers.
[10:35] _W_ TuxBlackEdo, it's morning here
[10:35] gmaxwell TuxBlackEdo: and look took charge of the chain.
[10:35] TuxBlackEdo coilcoin, right?
[10:35] luke-jr Coiled*
[10:36] gmaxwell And some people who were planing to make money fast, are none too happy that they can't get any blocks or txn in, and that luke crashed the price on the market.
[10:36] luke-jr why is artforz helping them workaround it?
[10:36] gmaxwell Awesome. The race is on.
[10:36] luke-jr gmaxwell: well, he's just encouraging them to get BTCGuild onboard "next time" -.-
[10:36] luke-jr nothing fancy
[10:37] TuxBlackEdo instead of crashing the price of a alt chain we should try to somehow make the price of namecoin go through the roof
[10:37] gmaxwell oh. meh, well fine. Its true— but since the cost of setting up more merged chains is still high— good luck with that.
[10:37] coblee they are bashing you on btc-e luke-jr lol
[10:37] TuxBlackEdo that's pretty cool though, props luke-jr
[10:37] luke-jr TuxBlackEdo: pfft, you abuse namecoin anyway
[10:38] gmaxwell coblee: it's a little beyond bashing. At least earlier is was pretty scarry.
[10:38] TuxBlackEdo how
[10:38] luke-jr TuxBlackEdo: you just sell them
[10:38] TuxBlackEdo explain how i "abuse" namecoins?
[10:38] coblee scary how?
[10:38] TuxBlackEdo I never sold a namecoin
[10:38] TuxBlackEdo actually i do the opposite
[10:39] TuxBlackEdo while everyone was selling i was setting up big buy orders
[10:39] luke-jr TuxBlackEdo: then why do you want price up?
[10:39] TuxBlackEdo i own a ton of namecoins
[10:40] TuxBlackEdo ill move some namecoins right now to prove
[10:40] gmaxwell TuxBlackEdo: I'll give you an address to move them to.
[10:40] TuxBlackEdo hehe
[10:40] TuxBlackEdo ill move them to
[10:40] luke-jr lol
[10:41] TuxBlackEdo MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP
[10:41] TuxBlackEdo done
[10:42] TuxBlackEdo a412edf5e41529582f138cbc4bd3991203150fab4797fc472853dedd730b5ca9
[10:43] gmaxwell hahah
[10:43] gmaxwell castonbtce: so what can we say CLC stands for?
[10:43] gmaxwell castonbtce: crazy loser coin?
[10:43] gmaxwell k65onyx: catastrophic loss of coins?
[10:43] gmaxwell artforz: lol
[10:43] gmaxwell castonbtce: cunt luke coin
[10:44] luke-jr hmm
[10:44] luke-jr just in case I accidentally orphaned some non-generation, I just let them all through a few blocks ago
[10:44] luke-jr bet they don't notice <.<
[10:45] doublec I saw them
[10:45] gmaxwell well they were saying that you'd stopped earlier, so who knows.
[10:47] TuxBlackEdo how long is namecoin going to take to generate a block...
[10:48] JFK911 ;;bc,stats
[10:48] gribble Current Blocks: 160874 | Current Difficulty: 1159929.4972244 | Next Difficulty At Block: 161279 | Next Difficulty In: 405 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1221673.16179828 | Estimated Percent Change: 5.32305323054
[10:51] luke-jr reckon I should leave it on overnight?
[10:51] TuxBlackEdo luke-jr, http://explorer.dot-bit.org/a/MxbmJyLDcqTmuzcQoGjPen4fW3AdkNLqBP
Pages:
Jump to: