It's possible using DPI equipment at ISP.
For example China right now can ban bitcoin in their country if they would want to. Same way as they banned tor and i2p.
Topic: The "you cant kill Bitcoin argument" - page 3. (Read 6602 times)
^ I just caught the Star Wars quote 
That's a really good one!
That's a really good one!Yeah, sorry if it seemed too harsh, I really should have added a smiley... I hope you don't find my lack of smileys disturbing.
^ I just caught the Star Wars quote That's a really good one!
That's a really good one! ^The other two systems I like are:
This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/
This one's good:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/multi-pps-281180
This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/
This one's good:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/multi-pps-281180
No arguments here when it comes to being able to mine in a pool without having to sell your vote, that's definitely a topic that doesn't get the attention it deserves.
^The other two systems I like are:
This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/
This one's good:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/multi-pps-281180
This idea is ok:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/07/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/
This one's good:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/multi-pps-281180
BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.
There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.
I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=1
That refers to a specific stop-all-or-nearly-all-the-transactions attack, however a stop-some-but-not-all-transactions attack, or enough double-spend attacks would probably work just as well in crashing the market if it went on for long enough.
Edited to add: He also mentioned in that same blog post that someone willing to spend enough money could continue to pull off a stop-all-or-nearly-all-the-transactions attack even with the countermeasure in place.
BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.
There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.
I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html?m=1
Gavin: "The code already has a notion of (bitcoin priority) that it uses to prevent transaction spam (sending gazillions of tiny transactions to yourself, just to make everybody else do the work of validating and storing them); extending that to influence the chain-fork-selection code wouldn't be hard....something like....ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)” would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they’d pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people’s transactions or have their chain rejected".
In Andresen’s post, he notes that such a solution would be “Not To Be Used Except In Case of Emergency”.
BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.
There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.
I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.
BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.
There are solutions for the 51% attack situation. When the fix needs to be implimented it will be. Gavin and others have had the solution ready for awhile now. The whole 51% thing just makes good press, it's all about selling fear, thats why you never hear that a 51% attack would be noticed immediately and the fix would shut the attack down almost immediately making all the attackers blocks invalid. To the normal citizen Bitcoin user it would be a small "hiccup" and banks have big "hiccups" all the time and no one really complains. Banks even close on the weekends and are getting hacked/fraud/ID thefts daily.
What is more impressive than the falsehood of the dude, is how sure of himself, he seems to be... Amazing!
because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives
It's the most idiotic statement I never read on the internet... astonishing, could you please elaborate on what are the alternatives (I guess centralized) and what do you understand by the term "cost of supporting decentralized technology" vs "cost of supporting alternatives"? And if it's not to much what does cost mean for you ($ term I guess)?
Thx a lot.
There is lot of such statements with little knowledge about bitcoin.
because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives
It's the most idiotic statement I never read on the internet... astonishing, could you please elaborate on what are the alternatives (I guess centralized) and what do you understand by the term "cost of supporting decentralized technology" vs "cost of supporting alternatives"? And if it's not to much what does cost mean for you ($ term I guess)?
Thx a lot.
As long as there is money to be made off of it, it will always be around.
BTW I don't think Bitcoin is undefeatable, you can always destroy it by 51% attack. And that's why I think it is amazing: you can choose.
People are always talking about governments kill bitcoin....come on, if bitcoin realized what it promoised, those governments who want to kill bitcoin will be voted out before they can do.
Quote
Presuming that you are talking about the current financial system then that is just incorrect. Presuming that you are talking about some other cyptocurrency that nobody uses or supports, then, good luck with that line of thinking. There is no other (current) viable solution to the Byzantine generals problem, which is the primary reason that bitcoin (or any "cryptocurrency") has got anywhere. Without that, all other flavours of crypto are useless (unless build on top of bitcoin).
I am talking about decentralized vs centralized systems.
The cost for immutable transactions in any crypto-currencies is too high.
And we can not decrease it.
When the hashrate will stop growing it will be easy to collect old switched off asics, turn them on for an hour and gain 51%
Sorry. No way.
You are assuming bitcoin running with high market cap && low velocity in circlation, then it's true, bitcoin costs too much. But consider the situation after velocity rising, things will be totally different.
When the hashrate stopped growing, there will not be old swiched off asics, ascics will be running until they are broken.
I was having an argument in the speculation sub-forum when someone said "the only way to stop Bitcoin would be to ban the entire internet"... see I often hear that, but being in IT as a profession that statement give me a real hard time, so I thought it is time to discuss it, maybe there is something I am not aware off !!
So if Bitcoin becomes a real threat to governments, and if they agree on banning it and killing it, one way to go would be just changing regulation (FCC) for internet service providers and force them to ban the port that Bitcoin uses (8332 now), this would mean certain death to Bitcoin.
I want to hear your opinion, and how do you think this could be prevented ?
So if Bitcoin becomes a real threat to governments, and if they agree on banning it and killing it, one way to go would be just changing regulation (FCC) for internet service providers and force them to ban the port that Bitcoin uses (8332 now), this would mean certain death to Bitcoin.
I want to hear your opinion, and how do you think this could be prevented ?
change the port to 80, use SSL.
now bitcoin is indistinguishable from any SSL website, good luck banning it.
SSL doesnt run on port 80.
http://stason.org/TULARC/security/ssl-talk/3-4-What-ports-does-SSL-use.html#.VDlkM_ldXKA
But less pedantically, if people wanted to ban it, it would be much easier. Ban the entry and exit points and ban the ownership/dealing of it. Not to say it would be completely eradicated but would be limited to niche uses and a currency to succeed needs widespread adoption.
I don't think it will be banned though, just evolved and more regulated than currently. In general cryptocurrency is a good thing and will succeed in the longer term I think, nothing to be feared.
Quote
Presuming that you are talking about the current financial system then that is just incorrect. Presuming that you are talking about some other cyptocurrency that nobody uses or supports, then, good luck with that line of thinking. There is no other (current) viable solution to the Byzantine generals problem, which is the primary reason that bitcoin (or any "cryptocurrency") has got anywhere. Without that, all other flavours of crypto are useless (unless build on top of bitcoin).
I am talking about decentralized vs centralized systems.
The cost for immutable transactions in any crypto-currencies is too high.
And we can not decrease it.
When the hashrate will stop growing it will be easy to collect old switched off asics, turn them on for an hour and gain 51%
Sorry. No way.
Quote
you cant kill Bitcoin
it will die itself, because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternativesPresuming that you are talking about the current financial system then that is just incorrect. Presuming that you are talking about some other cyptocurrency that nobody uses or supports, then, good luck with that line of thinking. There is no other (current) viable solution to the Byzantine generals problem, which is the primary reason that bitcoin (or any "cryptocurrency") has got anywhere. Without that, all other flavours of crypto are useless (unless build on top of bitcoin).
Quote
you cant kill Bitcoin
it will die itself, because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives Jump to: