Topic: So Bitcoin Leaders what is your position on the ongoing Altcoinocide? - page 3. (Read 5810 times)

Who is more than happy to have luke doing dirty work? Gavin? I think he doesn't really care about the Coiledcoin blockchain, it might even concern him a bit, because deepbit owns a big amount of hashing speed on Bitcoin - and even if deepbit is 100% honest - someone might hack 'em and then .... it's gone!

btw.: Most altcoins failed without luke, because everyone tried to get in asap and sold 'em off for BTC when it became profitable. If you think that CoiledCoin will really take off: Create a new CoiledCoin blockchain and make sure, that nobody takes it over.  I'm not defending Lukes 51% attack and I'd suggest that he and other people - which are not interested in "brand new & improved blockchains" - just ignore them.

Anything that claims to be a cryptocurrency, but fails within 24hrs of launch, was not one.
This thread is off-topic for these forums since it is supposed to be about alternate cryptocurrencies.

Well, Gavin already replied and stated his personal opinion, and any other bitcoin devs with half a brain will keep mum and stay out of this whole mess (hint: they probably don't give a flying fuck).
So... thread done?

Not true.  While Luke used a pool a botnet could do the same thing and without any cost.   Depending on the aggregate hashing power a couple of large hashing farms would gain 51% and once again AT NO COST.

Essentially you are hoping against hope that bad guys won't have more hashing power than good guys because if they do .... it costs them nothing to attack.

51% is only a deterrence in Bitcoin because there is no direct value to the attack in comparison to the huge cost.  If "bad guys" gained 51% of network they stand to lose more then they gain by a 51% attack.  In the CoiledCoin attack there was absolutely no cost and hence no deterrent.

Apples and oranges. Bitcoin is in its early stages, so is any crypto-currency. Attacks are by definition a sign of flaws.

Again, ArtForz disrupted his targets. Luke Jr nuked 'em. I don't trust a guy with a cross in one hand and a nuke in the other.

They did not have such requirement. As I said on the other topic, it was more on the line of "most people must not be crooks".

For the feature of merged mining to be a vulnerability, these both things must verify:

• There must be one or more rogue, ill-intended pool operator out there.
• Most of the miners of such rogue pool operator must be willing to support a criminal act with their resources.

It's particularly the verification of the second hypothesis, at least so far, that shocks me. I wouldn't assume such a thing as likely before such event as well.


Oh please, think twice about what you wrote there. Just think how this logic can be extended to pretty much every aggression. "Oh, I feel sorry for that woman, but my head thinks that possibly the guy that broke into her house and raped her did her a favor by showing all those blatant flaws in her personal security."

This isn't about this particular coin only. Honestly, I don't care about it. None of the alt chains have motivated me enough to buy a single coin of them.
This is about the principle it represents. The idea that is somehow OK to attack competitors like this.

The attitude isn't only unethical, it is economically bad, pretty much like state coercions or criminal attitudes that force people to do things they wouldn't do otherwise (or not to do things they would). Actually, this particular attack has an effect similar to that of state regulations. This attitude - which depends on miners tolerance, let's not forget - means  that "alt chains cannot start with merged mining". And that doesn't have anything to do with merged mining being intrinsically bad, but with the fact that some individuals will apply coercion against you if you use it. As consequence, an entire branch of possibly innovative coins is ruled out. Will never happen. Just like all those business which never happen because "we cannot afford a X license". Unless, of course, if their creator properly negotiates the necessary "political favors" (= support from other pool operators, in the merged mining case), then it might happen.
In summary, it is almost as disgusting, unethical, and economically bad as government regulations. (on a much smaller scale, of course) But initiated by a pool operator instead of a government, and supported by miners instead of "electors".

I've already posted a sketch of a system that allows non-arbitrary natural forking. I even allows the creation of token bases with higher difficulty.

As people have noted, if you want to success you have to acknowledge, accept, embrace reality and clean up all the Santorum it leaves behind.

Kiss reality's ass and she will reward you.

People want to fork. Fine. Fork all you want here:
Proposal for multigenerational token architecture
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proposal-for-multigenerational-token-architecture-57253

Morning, gentlemen.

100% agreed.
If your system relies on a lack of assholes on the internet... good luck.
Btw, the same problem also exists for non-mergemined chains with miniscule hashrate right after launch, remember the massive FBX orphaning?
Anyone with a dozen decent CPUs could do it... and someone did it. whoops. Except no one stepped forward admitting to the attack, so instead of 20 pages of forum drama spread over a dozen threads we got a bunch of "aww, sucks" posts and people moved on.

Exactly.  Altcoins should be a learning, experimenting "sandbox" not a pump and dump we can be early adopters and get rich reset.

A (painful) lesson has been learned.

BTW nice name change.

Hardly.

The 51% attack has always been a potential attack vector for Bitcoin.

However there are some key differences:
a) the cost threshold is much higher
b) there is no mechanism of using free hashing power to attack Bitcoin
c) anyone w/ sufficient resources has an economic incentive to not attack Bitcoin.

The way CoiledCoin launched way beyond stupid.  Merged Mining is a double edged sword.  Sure it gives you increased hashing power BUT that increased hashing power can be used for good or bad.  Having a launch rushed w/ little notice is pure fail.  Likely no other alt-coin will be so stupid (or blind to the threat) next time.


Sure Bitcoin is vulnerable to non-economic 51% attacks.  It always has been.  That is far different than a scenario which allows a "free" 51% attack.

I have been watching this saga for a few months now and what I find funny/interesting is that when certain alt chains are attacked most posts cheer but when other chains are attacked most posts are upset.

I do not have any horses in the alt race so I really do not care.  Just find it all amusing.  But one thing has been shown for sure:  any future alt chain launch needs to create some mechanism to prevent what happened to CoiledCoin.
 

What do I personally think?  I think it was mean, and luke-jr shouldn't have done it.

But if your system has a requirement "everybody will play nice" then your system is broken. You have to assume that people will try to break what you build (and also have to assume that nobody is perfect so you'll have to have a way of fixing your system when you find out it is broken).

So my heart feels sorry for CoiledCoin; my head thinks it is possible Luke-Jr did all the altchains a favor by demonstrating a problem that needs to be solved. And I'll re-iterate what I say in my "Be Safe" post:  only invest money or time in altcoins (or Bitcoin, for that matter) that you can afford to lose.

His pool? He can only use the resources of his pool, if the new altcoin is very similiar to bitcoin. If it uses SHA-512 or Whirlpool instead of SHA-256 it doesn't work...

Also, he said that he didn't use the resources of his pool to do the 51% attack  or did I misread that?

so is lukejr still attacking other alt currencies? i'd have thought he'd have moved on to using eligius hashing power to bruteforce networks in abortion clinics by now. alt coin attacks are so yesterday.

...