In large part the attacks seem to be motivated by fear; the fear that somehow the existence of complementary currencies that can be used in conjunction with bitcoin to accomplish things that work better using more than one currency than they do using only one currency will undermine the value of the existing currency whose usefulness they are extending by creating new opportunities involving the existing one.
Nonetheless despite encountering such attitudes some people have gone ahead anyway, exploring and enjoying some of the advantages that not being stuck with only one currency can provide.
-MarkM-
Topic: The problem of 51% attacking alt-chains (Read 2703 times)
And the big problem is that leaves the network open to corporate takeover, if folks want to keep their cash they have play by the new powers rules and if a group/government/corporation etc. has that kind of crunching power a new network stands no chance of re-capturing the block chain without more power or of building up a new network without a means of blocking that kind of attack.
Sure....thanks for coming out Socket Puppet
The only thing better for you than joining yesterday, would have been to join today.
....and the BlowHardEXpress train keeps on a rollin'
If I recall, the 51% "attack" isn't really a vulnerability. It's a feature.
If over 51% of the network decides that "this is how its going to be" then, the people have spoken, it is done.
Lets say the bitcoin developers decide to make some crazy update to the client that most people don't like. Well, fork it, don't run the update, and majority wins.
If it only takes one person or even a small handful of people to 51% a *coin, then that coin obviously wasn't meant to survive in the first place. My two cents.
If over 51% of the network decides that "this is how its going to be" then, the people have spoken, it is done.
Lets say the bitcoin developers decide to make some crazy update to the client that most people don't like. Well, fork it, don't run the update, and majority wins.
If it only takes one person or even a small handful of people to 51% a *coin, then that coin obviously wasn't meant to survive in the first place. My two cents.
But this can be applied to any decentralized cryptocurrency in its infancy. Bitcoin got lucky to this extent, probably because nobody thought it was worth 51% attacking to begin with. Now that Bitcoin is seen as valuable by attackers, they are attempting the next best thing -- 51% attack coins similar to Bitcoin while they are still in their infancy.
If I recall, the 51% "attack" isn't really a vulnerability. It's a feature.
If over 51% of the network decides that "this is how its going to be" then, the people have spoken, it is done.
Lets say the bitcoin developers decide to make some crazy update to the client that most people don't like. Well, fork it, don't run the update, and majority wins.
If it only takes one person or even a small handful of people to 51% a *coin, then that coin obviously wasn't meant to survive in the first place. My two cents.
If over 51% of the network decides that "this is how its going to be" then, the people have spoken, it is done.
Lets say the bitcoin developers decide to make some crazy update to the client that most people don't like. Well, fork it, don't run the update, and majority wins.
If it only takes one person or even a small handful of people to 51% a *coin, then that coin obviously wasn't meant to survive in the first place. My two cents.
Trust has a specific meaning in cryptography: a point of weakness. The less you have to trust something you don't control, the safer you are.
It has a meaning you're not familiar with, evidenced by how you highlighted what you agreed with and ignored what you didn't agree with.
It has a meaning you're not familiar with, evidenced by how you highlighted what you agreed with and ignored what you didn't agree with.
But that brings me back to one of my points in an earlier post -- the 51% attack has nothing to do with the 'crypto' aspect of things. The algorithm isn't being attacked. It's being utilized. This attack isn't about trust in the currency, it's about trust in the community.
Trust has a specific meaning in cryptography: a point of weakness. The less you have to trust something you don't control, the safer you are.
It has a meaning you're not familiar with, evidenced by how you highlighted what you agreed with and ignored what you didn't agree with.
It has a meaning you're not familiar with, evidenced by how you highlighted what you agreed with and ignored what you didn't agree with.
Not based on trust means not dependent on magic elements that support the whole system.
It means removing the middle man.
Trust inherent in a community keeps it together.
Trust inherent in a process is a vulnerability.
Try not to trip over these different meanings.
It means removing the middle man.
Trust inherent in a community keeps it together.
Trust inherent in a process is a vulnerability.
Try not to trip over these different meanings.
I think you're the one tripping over these different meanings.
Obviously what we're seeing is that it IS based on trust, i.e. the trust inherent in the community. In the early stages of a cryptocurrency, it's becoming quite obvious that trust in the community is essential to its success. All it takes is one deviant community member with resources to mess the whole thing up. Trust isn't a 'magic element,' but it does support the whole system.
Not based on trust means not dependent on magic elements that support the whole system.
It means removing the middle man.
Trust inherent in a community keeps it together.
Trust inherent in a process is a vulnerability.
Try not to trip over these different meanings.
It means removing the middle man.
Trust inherent in a community keeps it together.
Trust inherent in a process is a vulnerability.
Try not to trip over these different meanings.
These things are called CRYPTOcurrencies for a reason. They are NOT based on trust and are SUPPOSED to be attacked.
Very good point.
I disagree with this.
1) 51% attack really doesn't have to do with the 'crypto' aspect of the currency.
2) Supposed to be attacked when? On day one? On day 365? On the currency's 10th year anniversary? If people are "supposed to" be attacking it from day one, none of these currencies would have ever gotten off the ground. Bitcoin would've been forked hundreds of times if it was "supposed to" be 51% attacked.
3) Where do you get "supposed to" from anyway? Is that what a person's duty is? They are supposed to attack others' work? There's quite a big difference between attacking to improve a currency and attacking to be a dick and destroy it.
4) Not based on trust? You don't trust the open-source nature of the code or the math behind it or what? I'm not sure I understand this. I'm also not sure how I follow the logic that "not based on trust" leads to "supposed to be attacked."
Isn't it enough to just agree on one node to trust? If you then detect a fork, either stop processing and raise an alarm or go with the trusted node.
But seriously, there must be more thought of how to fend off attacks like that. Because some individuals will always try to break big things. If we want to establish a standard for global transactions based on cryptography it has to be more resilient.
i liked this thread. It mentions that these guys are just ego driven bullies, which is what it looks like to me.
These things are called CRYPTOcurrencies for a reason. They are NOT based on trust and are SUPPOSED to be attacked.
Meanwhile, bounties. I'd love to see one big attack to bitcoin going live and see the effect to price.
Will we see one in Dec 2012 after block split reward happened to maximize the attacker's profit ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vulnerability-bounties-proposal-79830
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
What a lot of altcoins have done is to move to an Open Transactions server for now, so they can go ahead and build up trade and alliances and cashflow and so on hoping that if they do in fact turn out to be successful they will eventually have enough transaction volume to be able to attract enough miners to secure a blockchain. At that point they might even decide that the overhead expense caused by miners is not worth paying, but if it is worth paying, at least they will be in a position to pay it.
Since the original plan was in any case to be able to allow each Freeciv nation to launch its own "national currency" if it wished to do so, the whole matter of how exactly to launch more and more currencies into the mix is still being actively explored by players; some interesting ideas have come up and it does still look like it might well be worth a "nation"'s while to at least consider launching a currency of its own.
(For one thing, bitcoin (and probably some other chains too) retains the "feature" local exchange networks do not like: the tendency to flee the market precisely when most needed...)
-MarkM-
Since the original plan was in any case to be able to allow each Freeciv nation to launch its own "national currency" if it wished to do so, the whole matter of how exactly to launch more and more currencies into the mix is still being actively explored by players; some interesting ideas have come up and it does still look like it might well be worth a "nation"'s while to at least consider launching a currency of its own.
(For one thing, bitcoin (and probably some other chains too) retains the "feature" local exchange networks do not like: the tendency to flee the market precisely when most needed...)
-MarkM-
I one time saw this picture on github....... The end
These things are called CRYPTOcurrencies for a reason. They are NOT based on trust and are SUPPOSED to be attacked.
Very good point.
These things are called CRYPTOcurrencies for a reason. They are NOT based on trust and are SUPPOSED to be attacked.
If you don't like this fact then I don't understand what are you doing on cryptocurrency forum.
If you don't like this fact then I don't understand what are you doing on cryptocurrency forum.
Luke-Jr seems to follow the law of "Do what thou wilt"
I guess he only reads the old testament.
Luke-Jr seems to follow the law of "Do what thou wilt"
It appears that Litecoin is only being defended by angry forum posts.
I guess if you are only looking in the forum...oh wait look further....
here is an example
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/protecting-ltc-by-bringing-extra-hashing-power-in-95368
My point exactly. 1 post in the newbie forum...
How about some organized resistance?
there is a hell of a lot more to cryptocurrencies than the bitcointalk forums and btc-e shoutbox
Then you have all organized an effective defense of Litecoin that will foil the 51% attack attempt. Well done.
We can close all these superfluous threads and open the exchanges again.
Jump to: