Positive Bitcoin write-up on Zerohedge

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote

I suspect at least 3 different governments consider Bitcoin an 'asset' of theirs, and each have >50Th reserve hashing power (reserve = sitting there, not plugged in)

Oh boy ... which orifice did you pull that from? ... more blowhards ... i guess it is kind of fun living in a fantasy world ... "debate" all you want, I'll leave you to your Decepticons kids.

Spaceman_Spiff

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

₪``Campaign Manager´´₪

Quote from: Hermel on February 03, 2013, 11:44:21 AM

Quote from: Hexadecibel on February 03, 2013, 05:36:08 AM

Oh look, its this thread again.
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=0

Thanks for pointing me to this blog post!

+1

Hermel

member

Activity: 67

Merit: 11

Quote from: Hexadecibel on February 03, 2013, 05:36:08 AM

Oh look, its this thread again.
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=0

Thanks for pointing me to this blog post!

Hexadecibel

vip

Activity: 571

Merit: 504

I still <3 u Satoshi

Oh look, its this thread again.
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=0

So not only getting the majority of the hashing power and maintaining it prohibiting, its only trivial for us to thwart.

This is why we wont see a 51% attack. The attacker would just be throwing money down a pit.

Hermel

member

Activity: 67

Merit: 11

Quote from: notme on February 02, 2013, 06:20:49 PM

Quote from: Hermel on February 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM

So the evil master plan would go like this:
1. Invest in enough computing power to control the majority of the network, you control the blockchain now.
2. Stop integrating blocks mined by others in the blockchain.

2.5 Bitcoin is patched, other miners continue on their own chain.

Can you explain what kind of patch you mean? A patch that says the shortest blockchain counts instead of the longest? A patch that privileges a few miners, saying that their blocks must be included in the block chain? A one-time update to the client that hard-codes an alternative (shorter) chain of blocks to be accepted?

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Is this forum now fully invested with blowhards these days? Roll Eyes

... its kind of like watching 7yos talk about what-if techno-monsters that are engaged in make believe battles.

"... and then the Master Megatron dropped out of warp drive and descended on to the bitcoin network with the might and fury of the Decepticons from planet Cybertron ... "

okay kids you had your fun how about find another play-pen?

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote

For example, you could stop processing transactions with a fee lower than 1 BTC.

The instant you achieve such control, bitcoin would die because everyone would stop using it.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hermel on February 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM

Quote from: Gabi on February 01, 2013, 08:06:16 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't know. Maybe you're right. At this stage I think it's a moot point though -- why destroy Bitcoin when you can control it? And why advertise your power and risk losing everything?

Because you can't print bitcoins at will like with fiat money. They want to protect their power to print money at will and defend their privileges. Destroying bitcoin does this and about losing... what, some millions of $? They have hundreds of billions!

Note that while controlling the majority of the Bitcoin network does not allow you to print Bitcoin, it allows you to raise fees arbitrarily. For example, you could stop processing transactions with a fee lower than 1 BTC.

So the evil master plan would go like this:
1. Invest in enough computing power to control the majority of the network, you control the blockchain now.
2. Stop integrating blocks mined by others in the blockchain.

2.5 Bitcoin is patched, other miners continue on their own chain.

Quote

3. Stop including transactions with a fee less than X, forcing users to give larger fees.
4. Earn lots of transaction fees.
5. Invest transaction fees into more computing power in order to keep the majority.
6. The other miners will starve one by one as they won't be able to earn anything anymore.
7. ~~Bit~~Govcoin is now a monopoly which you own.

8. Bitcoin is still happily chugging along.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Gabi on February 02, 2013, 06:03:15 PM

Quote

I think they would fail even if they attempted it

That is the problem. If they attempt they will of course succeed, since it is not hard at all.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Hermel

member

Activity: 67

Merit: 11

Quote from: Gabi on February 01, 2013, 08:06:16 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't know. Maybe you're right. At this stage I think it's a moot point though -- why destroy Bitcoin when you can control it? And why advertise your power and risk losing everything?

Because you can't print bitcoins at will like with fiat money. They want to protect their power to print money at will and defend their privileges. Destroying bitcoin does this and about losing... what, some millions of $? They have hundreds of billions!

Note that while controlling the majority of the Bitcoin network does not allow you to print Bitcoin, it allows you to raise fees arbitrarily. For example, you could stop processing transactions with a fee lower than 1 BTC.

So the evil master plan would go like this:
1. Invest in enough computing power to control the majority of the network, you control the blockchain now.
2. Stop integrating blocks mined by others in the blockchain.
3. Stop including transactions with a fee less than X, forcing users to give larger fees.
4. Earn lots of transaction fees.
5. Invest transaction fees into more computing power in order to keep the majority.
6. The other miners will starve one by one as they won't be able to earn anything anymore.
7. Bitcoin is now a monopoly which you own.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote

I think they would fail even if they attempted it

That is the problem. If they attempt they will of course succeed, since it is not hard at all.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Gabi on January 31, 2013, 07:58:47 AM

Don't they spend hundreds of billions in military each year?

Quote

all you got out of it was some bitcoins that cost you more to produce than the average miner.

Lol. What is not clear "their aim is to destroy bitcoin, not profit"

It's perfectly clear, and as the beginning of that sentence stated, I think they would fail even if they attempted it. Way to take things out of context and then argue with a point that wasn't made.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on January 31, 2013, 08:37:34 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I guess in order to actually disrupt the network, you would need to crowd-out most transactions, so you would need to consistently mine several blocks in a row, not just 1 in 2. So, even if you get say ~80% of the network power, Bitcoin could still be usable as long as the blocks are normally less than 20% full (and all the transactions can be crammed into 1-in-5 blocks).

Couldn't the attacker just invalidate previous "correct" blocks with transactions by not including them in their (longest) chain?

Yes, he can

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't know. Maybe you're right. At this stage I think it's a moot point though -- why destroy Bitcoin when you can control it? And why advertise your power and risk losing everything?

Because you can't print bitcoins at will like with fiat money. They want to protect their power to print money at will and defend their privileges. Destroying bitcoin does this and about losing... what, some millions of $? They have hundreds of billions!

Piper67

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on January 31, 2013, 08:37:34 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I guess in order to actually disrupt the network, you would need to crowd-out most transactions, so you would need to consistently mine several blocks in a row, not just 1 in 2. So, even if you get say ~80% of the network power, Bitcoin could still be usable as long as the blocks are normally less than 20% full (and all the transactions can be crammed into 1-in-5 blocks).

Couldn't the attacker just invalidate previous "correct" blocks with transactions by not including them in their (longest) chain?

I don't know. Maybe you're right. At this stage I think it's a moot point though -- why destroy Bitcoin when you can control it? And why advertise your power and risk losing everything?

Exactly... If I had a bone to pick with Bitcoin and had 10 million dollars lying around, I could do a lot more without even thinking of mining that by trying a 51% attack.

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: hazek on January 30, 2013, 05:11:51 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 29, 2013, 07:09:17 PM

Nice work on that zerohedge thread Hazek.

Thanks, I do my best.

Hazek, TraderTimm, and Half_A_Billion_Hollow_Points pretty much crushed all the ignorant comment trolls without breaking any kind of intellectual sweat.

Well done and thank you, gentlemen.

Spaceman_Spiff

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

₪``Campaign Manager´´₪

Quote from: ?? on ??

I guess in order to actually disrupt the network, you would need to crowd-out most transactions, so you would need to consistently mine several blocks in a row, not just 1 in 2. So, even if you get say ~80% of the network power, Bitcoin could still be usable as long as the blocks are normally less than 20% full (and all the transactions can be crammed into 1-in-5 blocks).

Couldn't the attacker just invalidate previous "correct" blocks with transactions by not including them in their (longest) chain?

TraderTimm

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1121

Quote from: Piper67 on January 31, 2013, 07:35:23 PM

Quote from: TraderTimm on January 31, 2013, 07:14:30 PM

I don't get it Gabi - the wiki says a 51% attack is more than 50% of the network's computing power.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Bitcoin Charts says the Network total hashing power is ~ 29.773 TeraHashes/sec

51% = 15.18423 TeraHashes/sec, not 29.773 + 15.18423...

Anyway, I think it is pretty apparent the logistics aren't exactly trivial.

The point is that if you were to start from scratch, you'd have to reach 51% of the current hashing power PLUS the one you'd have to get to defeat it. Let's say current power is 30 Tera, if you went and bought 15, they'd be added to it for a total of 45. Now your 15 wouldn't be half of the total anymore.

Ah I get it --- haha, can't believe I missed that. Thanks guys - guess you learn something every day

My mistake.

Piper67

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1001

Quote from: TraderTimm on January 31, 2013, 07:14:30 PM

I don't get it Gabi - the wiki says a 51% attack is more than 50% of the network's computing power.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Bitcoin Charts says the Network total hashing power is ~ 29.773 TeraHashes/sec

51% = 15.18423 TeraHashes/sec, not 29.773 + 15.18423...

Anyway, I think it is pretty apparent the logistics aren't exactly trivial.

The point is that if you were to start from scratch, you'd have to reach 51% of the current hashing power PLUS the one you'd have to get to defeat it. Let's say current power is 30 Tera, if you went and bought 15, they'd be added to it for a total of 45. Now your 15 wouldn't be half of the total anymore.

TraderTimm

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1121

I don't get it Gabi - the wiki says a 51% attack is more than 50% of the network's computing power.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Bitcoin Charts says the Network total hashing power is ~ 29.773 TeraHashes/sec

51% = 15.18423 TeraHashes/sec, not 29.773 + 15.18423...

Anyway, I think it is pretty apparent the logistics aren't exactly trivial.

cho

full member

Activity: 155

Merit: 100

Boar with me

At some point, we might be talking about the Bitcoin network being attacked by the very powers that are emitting fiat money. Sounds logical to me that fiat money emitters try to protect fiat money.
At that point, a network attack might be funded with billions of dollars.
A billion dollar invested in the protection of your 1000-billion-quantitative-easings-emitting-central-bank looks like a sound investment.
Also remember that some gov / intelligence agencies have been producing ASICs for a variety of purposes for decades. Some of them have got the skills to design and produce their own ASIC devices.
Question is, by the time bitcoin looks threatening to a central bank, how much dollars will it really need to throw at the fire to extinguish it ? How much effort would it have to go through in order to get away with such an attack, from a public opinion point of view ?

Topic: Positive Bitcoin write-up on Zerohedge (Read 4386 times)