Topic: Possible 51% Attack on fairbrix (fbx) - page 3. (Read 5189 times)

Even if the code is not done yet, the ideas are better than bitcoin and any other chain out there. You just cannot see it because of you inherent hate towards any other chain that beats bitcoin.

Where can one download that pile of ossom ^__~ ?

Just a FYI, I am not a SC troll but it seems like you are trolling SC without reason. If you actually took some time to see the new SC2 release, you would have seen it certainly is the best CPU mining chain ATM. It has some clever features not even bitcoin has and hopefully it can launch and we can test it really is the first chain that is 51% proof etc.

I see, the SC shills are again out in force making libelous claims about their "competition".
Guess they have to distract everyone from "2.0 Public Beta Testnet this weekend" followed by a whole lot of nothing...

Okay, any evidence to back up the libelous claim ?

BTW, FYI, I helped make and launch FBX ^__^

Nice describing Tenebrix, Fairbrix and Solidcoin 2. Hopefully I can mine other stuff than Tenecrap because ATM Solidcoin 2 and Fairbrix is down due to attack by Artforz and his buddy lolcust ( maybe same person too ? ) which cannot understand "competition" when it comes to CPU mining etc.

You have got to understand what natural selection means.
There can (and will) exist an inifinity of chains, all of them claiming to be the best.
But only a selected few will garner enough market capitalization to make it to the real world economy.
These got to be bullet proof by the time they are picked by the financial industry.

So, yes, ArtForz attacked SolidCoin, and yes, that laid waste in the chain, and that looked bad for you.
But you have got to admit that your chain wasn't fit. In fact you already admitted it by creating SC2.
ArtForz deserves credit for wasting time, efforts and resources for the only purpose of proving you wrong.
He paid his duty to the selection process.

Now you have got an original idea with SC2 when you decided to pick a more CPU friendly hash function.
ArtForz shamelessly copied you but improved on it by changing the hash function with a whitepaper backed memory-hard hash one, and that is good.
And someone already copied ArtForz, stripped the premined 7M, and rebranded it as FairCoin. Lame but effective.

It's jungle here, man.
So welcome to pick back stuff from *Brix, put it in SolidCoin and, yes, even bitch as much as you want about other currencies.
That's all within the rules, because there are no rules.

LOL, I thought you had me on ignore? And yes, feel free to point your Geforce2MX mining army at SC2.0, do your best (which if I had a sticker for participation, you'd get one).

Businesses will rely on a chain that has been down for more then a week and can be turned on and off by the will of one person?

Actually there are 2 people who visit these forums who have already been involved in 51% attacks or coordinating them. Artforz and Thebitcoinexpress. Lolcust is partnered with Artforz for his 2 coins. Is it any surprise something which forked from tenebrix was attacked by artforz, someone already known to be doing such attacks?

Doesn't matter though, artforz could 51% attack bitcoin and he'd still be lauded by people around here it seems.

SolidCoin 2.0 will have none of this drama with the hackers, and it will be the only chain that businesses can rely on to not get robbed.

Then it was never worth it to attack it in the first place. Why would anyone pursue such an attack when there's no exchange? The only reason I can think that anyone might want to attack it would be in preparation for attacking tenebrix, which you can exchange. Maybe some of the RS/CH sycophants were a little worried

Still, I'd be willing to bet that it comes down to an accidental fork. Has anyone done any real investigation of this yet?

The pchar message headers were changes AND a new genesis block was created. So there's no way that the old fairbrix client was the culprit. It is possible that this chain reorg was accidental, but not likely. Anyways, it seems like the overall network hashrate has grown and it's harder to pull off this attack now. And given that fairbrix has no value right now, it's not really worth it to keep attacking it.

+1

After some difficulty fairbirx was released recently. Shortly after many early adopters had their blocks invalidated. There has been some speculation that an unknown attacker executed a 51% attack effectivly stealing approximatly 1,600 blocks. Lolcust and I were talking about this and decided that making our conversation public might do some good. So I'm posting our conversation below.

Additional info:

Fairbrix Source is here: https://github.com/coblee/Fairbrix
Windows binaries here: http://www.mediafire.com/?9gc2
If you use IRC a fairbirx channel is on freenode at #fairbrix

Here is the conversation between Lolcust and I:

OneMINER:
I was wondering how an accidental 51% attack would occur. If I have some huge farm of CPUs and I start hashing for a coin I do work on the NEXT BLOCK right? Why would a legit miner with legit software start a chain over accidentally?

Based on what I know (and thats not much). The accidental argument sounds like BS. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

Lolcust:
FBX is tiny. As in, below 20% of TBX (and TBX isn't big yet).  
I find it far from implausible that the net got fragmented in an uncanny way and then reconstituted in a manner that orphaned everything.

In fact, I would not call it "impossible" that it was one of those dudes with "fixed up configs" reasserting dominance (in case of a fork, the chain with highest sum of work asserts dominance, and someone who mined for all the time that re-launch was prepared definitely has higher sum of work)

Only competent chain analysis will reveal the truth, but again, the only reason GG "relaunch" did not result in pwnt chain re-asserting itself was that I changed the start-message thingamabobbles for GG2, so that the "oldnet" couldn't chat with "newnet"

OneMINER:
I respect your opinion but frankly that's ridiculous. Fracturing net? So fractured that traffic doesn't get rerouted? I think not. Also if a person edited the faulty software so that it was compatible with the newer software why would the program try to start a new chain again? If it can communicate with other nodes it would download the chain and hash at it like a normal miner. The fact that it orphaned blocks is proof that it communicates with other nodes.

I ask you to reconsider your comments and if you so choose to throw your weight at killing off this chain. Allowing thieves to attack crypto coins and profit from it is unjust and immoral. If you feel like it I think discussing this in public might also be a good idea.

Thanks.

Lolcust:

Quote from: OneMINER on Today at 09:52:44 PM
I respect your opinion but frankly that's ridiculous. Fracturing net? So fractured that traffic doesn't get rerouted? I think not. Also if a person edited the faulty software so that it was compatible with the newer software why would the program try to start a new chain again? If it can communicate with other nodes it would download the chain and hash at it like a normal miner. The fact that it orphaned blocks is proof that it communicates with other nodes.

Um, well yeah, fracturing is not likely. A "bigger" (in the "more work" sense) chain with same pcharstarts being built during the time that you were re-launching ? Not entirely unlikely.

Did you change the pchar-thingies?


Quote from: OneMINER on Today at 09:52:44 PM
I ask you to reconsider your comments and if you so choose to throw your weight at killing off this chain.

Well, best course of action is to analyze the affected chain. I think we should contact   Theymos (theymos is known to have a blockchain-analysis hobby)

Also, I didn't quite get the "throw weight to kill it off" part... whom must I kill ?

Quote from: OneMINER on Today at 09:52:44 PM
Allowing thieves to attack crypto coins and profit from it is unjust and immoral. If you feel like it I think discussing this in public might also be a good idea.

Well, assuming it was indeed a 51-er theft, the attacker has so far failed to generate a profit since no exchange accepts fairbrix.

And discussing it in public is quite a good idea, IMHO. I think you can post this exchange in a thread of your choice (maybe a new one, since this is an interesting and distinct incident) and we can continue from there.


*Edit* If you have an opinion on the matter please post it but keep it on topic. Please ignore and do not comment on the posts that have nothing to do with fairbirx, 51% attacks or other such things. Thank you.