I thought miners were to be funded by the theoretical rise in value over time.
That doesn't make any sense. The miners have to earn something on each block they solve, else why would they continue to expend electricity and hardware ongoing.
Topic: Transactions Withholding Attack - page 13. (Read 27579 times)
That doesn't make any sense. The miners have to earn something on each block they solve, else why would they continue to expend electricity and hardware ongoing.
If EvilCorp has 20% of the network hashrate then sending a payment to anyone not using their centralized servers will take 50 FRAGGIN minutes for first conifrmation due to witholding the the tx from the other 80% of miners.
They don't have to withhold those. I said it can be insideous attack, where they slowly starve the network over time and build theirs. They are stealing (siphoning) resources and building their mass. Eventually they reach critical mass.
Yeah I see that service being "super popular". Even if people don't care about the network security they certainly don't want massively delayed txs just so evilcorp can rule the blockchain.
Of course the cartel wouldn't withhold transactions sent to parties who are not in their cartel.
But I think you fail to appreciate even how small businesses use Amazon to sell through.
Cartelization is the natural outcome of commerce and we see it happening before our eyes now.
I thought miners were to be funded by the theoretical rise in value over time.
Double spends. Also the issue is if at the time when block generation rewards are phased out the miners will decide to continue them instead of reducing as designed and this type of withholding might get the rest of the miners onboard with the idea since their income will be severely reduced. Of course all of that implies that mining will be highly centralized which may or may not happen. Currently it is more profitable to sell miners to public at BTC prices higher then the total projected mining return. That may always be more profitable then centralized mining thus eliminating both problems.
Because offchain would not be protected against double-spend.
So now we are using their central servers to process transactions off chain, why is their system vulnerable to double spends?
This off blockchain server supports sending payments to every single user, merchant, service provider on the planet?
Wow that is both amazing and never going to happen. If EvilCorp has 20% of the network hashrate then sending a payment to anyone not using their centralized servers will take 50 FRAGGIN minutes for first conifrmation due to witholding the the tx from the other 80% of miners.
Yeah I see that service being "super popular". Even if people don't care about the network security they certainly don't want massively delayed txs just so evilcorp can rule the blockchain.
Because offchain would not be protected against double-spend.
So now we are using their central servers to process transactions off chain, why is their system vulnerable to double spends?
Why would they bother though? If so many people are using their wallet and paying them, why not just keep the payments off the block chain entirely? Yes, they capture their own transaction fees, but only for cases where they could avoid a transaction fee entirely anyway.
Clever reply. I expect as much from you. Kudos.
Because offchain would not be protected against double-spend.
You are describing another way the attack could be done, to destroy the Bitcoin network by forking it, but it would probably be safer (less chaotic) to dominate the Bitcoin network instead as I have explained.
I envision the attack being invisible to the "dumb masses" customers, so you wouldn't want to be offchain then, because you lose interoperability for the customers on their coins and coin change.
Also the cartel would ramp this up over time, and not dominate initially so it is easier to insideously cancer the network than to fork, because fork requires dominating force from the start.
Why would they bother though? If so many people are using their wallet and paying them, why not just keep the payments off the block chain entirely? Yes, they capture their own transaction fees, but only for cases where they could avoid a transaction fee entirely anyway.
Oh so I have to be using Amazon's wallet.
Not really. It will affect you eventually no matter which wallet you use as I explained in my prior post.
Customers of the cartel naturally transact at the cartel's website or retail POS terminals. So the cartel can control these transactions and starve the Bitcoin network of these revenues. Eventually this drives the Bitcoin mining network bankrupt, except for the cartel's mining servers which continue to function. Thus the mining network becomes asymptotically 100% controlled by the cartel. So then it affects you no matter which wallet you send from. The customers of the cartel will be happy, but you won't be if you don't also become a customer of the cartel.
Once the cartel controls the mining network, they control Bitcoin. Then the government can regulate the cartel, so the government controls Bitcoin. So then they do whatever they want, including printing as many new coins as they want to.
Oh so I have to be using Amazon's wallet.
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that are in already solved blocks.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
When I send a transaction from blockchain.info, you're saying it's not getting propagated to all the nodes on the network and put in their mempool?
The attack is applied for transactions from customers of the cartel, not for transactions from customers of blockchain.info website although they are affected eventually as explained below.
If you are a very widespread cartel such as Amazon.com, joined with McDonalds, WalMart, etc, then you may control a majority of transactions. They could chose to not propagate them to other miners as I stated.
What is the benefit? Well for one motivation, stomping their competition. If their competition will gradually lose hashrate because other miners go bankrupt, then everyone who doesn't send through the cartel ends up with very slow confirmations, eventually hours and days as the cartel gains more and more control.
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that are in already solved blocks.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
When I send a transaction from blockchain.info, you're saying it's not getting propagated to all the nodes on the network and put in their mempool?
Oh, I see, so you envision a world in which everyone uses Amazon.com's wallet app. "The masses" may be stupid, but they're not so stupid that they'll use a wallet service that takes far longer than every other wallet service for their transactions to get confirmed.
Already rebutted in my immediately prior post where I mentioned Amazon accepting 0-confirmation transaction.
How can my ass be both smart and ignorant at the same time? 
It is your problem, not mine. Talk to your ass. Don't waste our time here.
I am much more intelligent than you know and much more well studied on these issues. Beware
Beware of what? Unlike you, I am not afraid of knowledge.What "knowledge"?
A miner collects transactions then calculates a mathematical hash of them, then proceeds to search for a solution to the proof-of-work puzzle for that hash. If the miner finds the solution, the miner publishes it to (other miners and eventually it is published to) the blockchain.info.
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that have in already solved blocks.
Blockchain.info is a web service, and is unrelated to the Bitcoin blockchain except in name. Maybe you need to well study it some more.So the blockchain.info only records transactions that have in already solved blocks.
I know that dufus. I was simplifying it for him, because he is a novice.
The point remains that the blockchain (either the decentralized protocol one or the web service copy of it) does not receive the withheld transactions until a block is solved by the miners withholding.
You are just making noise. You haven't made any point yet. Typical pompous idiot.
(I would have respected you, if you had respected me)
So you might say then that Amazon.com customers would be angry if Amazon withheld, because transactions would be slower (they would wait until one of Amazon's miners solved a block). But I have several rebuttals to such a rebuttal.
Main rebuttal is Amazon could accept 0-confirmation transaction and let the withheld data sit on its own miners until they win a block solution. The customer wouldn't notice.
I have other possible scenarios for how the attack could be done.
Oh, I see, so you envision a world in which everyone uses Amazon.com's wallet app. "The masses" may be stupid, but they're not so stupid that they'll use a wallet service that takes far longer than every other wallet service for their transactions to get confirmed.
take your rolly eyes smartass attitude and shove it up your ignorant ass.
How can my ass be both smart and ignorant at the same time? I am much more intelligent than you know and much more well studied on these issues. Beware
Beware of what? Unlike you, I am not afraid of knowledge.A miner collects transactions then calculates a mathematical hash of them, then proceeds to search for a solution to the proof-of-work puzzle for that hash. If the miner finds the solution, the miner publishes it to (other miners and eventually it is published to) the blockchain.info.
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that have in already solved blocks.
Blockchain.info is a web service, and is unrelated to the Bitcoin blockchain except in name. Maybe you need to well study it some more. So the blockchain.info only records transactions that have in already solved blocks.
Thanks for the link, but I must be dumb, I can't work out whether that answers my question. Explain like I'm 5 please... How do Amazon control my blockchain.info wallet, I'm not using Amazon's downloadable wallet.
Okay I apologize. I need to remember I speak to different audiences with different expertise.
A miner collects transactions then calculates a mathematical hash of them, then proceeds to search for a solution to the proof-of-work puzzle for that hash. If the miner finds the solution first, the miner publishes it to (other miners and eventually it is published to) the blockchain.info.
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that are in already solved blocks.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
So you might say then that Amazon.com customers would be angry if Amazon withheld, because transactions would be slower (they would wait until one of Amazon's miners solved a block). But I have several rebuttals to such a rebuttal.
Thanks for the link, but I must be dumb, I can't work out whether that answers my question. Explain like I'm 5 please... How do Amazon control my blockchain.info wallet, I'm not using Amazon's downloadable wallet.
How do Amazon get to say how my transaction is sent from blockchain.info when I click their buy button (or any other wallet for that matter)?
Read the link I provided in my OP. I will quote from it for you.
All transactions get propagated through the entire network of bitcoin users, with miners eventually also hearing them. So if you suggest that a mining cartel can somehow keep transactions from being broadcast, and keep other competing miners from hearing about them and mining them too, you are mistaken.
You are incorrect. If Amazon offers a downloadable client (or even one that runs from their website), which sends the transactions to their server, they have no obligation to forward the transactions to other miners.
So, if you are using an Amazon wallet app, and I am using some other wallet app, and you try to send me coins, how will I know whether you sent them if you only send them to Amazon's servers? It would essentially cut everyone using Amazon clients off from the rest of the bitcoin network. Why would anyone want to use such an app? Bitcoin transactions primarily work because they are propagated P2P through the network from person to person. Miners just sit on the perifere catching these transactions as they pass by and adding them to blocks.
Fact:
You are conflating the publication of block solutions with the propagation of transactions before the fact.
You don't understand well the way Bitcoin works.
gavin andresen is hugely keen to get as much constructive criticism as possible and the first step i believe is to have your theory peer reviewed before the developer team would consider looking at it or wether an action would be required. this is fair as only today i read a theory on twitter that bitcoin price rise was a short squeeze and reprinted by several msm pundits on twitter. they need to have theories filtered at a fairly high level or else its just unwanted noise
My Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch article was published at marketoracle many months ago and I have a thread on this bitcointalk.org for that article with 100s of posts. How much more peer review does it need.
Damn. If only there was a way the originator of a transaction could directly connect to multiple mining pools of his own choosing and send his transaction to all of them simultaneously. Oh wait, there is a way: the way I just said. 
I think you missed my point. That is why I had linked to discussion where I had already refuted this.
The masses don't see that in this attack. They see Amazon.com's website (or partner network) and click a button to buy.
You assume the masses are smart and concerned enough to demand their clicks on Amazon.com go to multiple miners. Sorry that is not the way the masses behave. I have much experience in marketing on the internet. Users click and and want to be done it. They just want their damn pizza. They don't get a rat's ass about your technological nirvana.
(take your rolly eyes smartass attitude and shove it up your ignorant ass. I am much more intelligent than you know and much more well studied on these issues. Beware)
How do Amazon get to say how my transaction is sent from blockchain.info when I click their buy button (or any other wallet for that matter)?
Jump to: