Topic: Unattanium: Broken by design. (Status: Proven broken) - page 2. (Read 5008 times)

Just to try to clarify this further.

I mined more than 50% of the blocks in that period. I owned UNAT.  That's what a 51% attack is.

And because of the fundamental design flaws of the coin, I performed a 51% attack with 7% of the hashrate.

Which, I must say, far exceeded my expectations.  The various different design flaws add up to make attacking this coin ridiculously easy.

I attacked, and mined, more than 50% of the UNAT blocks, with 7% of the hashrate, over 10 minutes.  The paper says that. It explains how, and why.  That's what it says. If you think it's unclear, please tell me how I could make that any clearer.


The blocks are there. Their number and their hashes. At the bottom of the paper.  If you're finding it too complex, think of it this way - how can adding MORE hashpower (I didn't actually rent any, I just pointed my own at the coin for a few minutes) bring the difficulty DOWN?


Wait, what? You don't care if the coin is secure?  Surely you meant to say something different there.

That doesn't actually say anything. Its not hard to manipulate difficulty of any chain with rented hash power available now. I don't see any attack on explorer?

That paper looks a lot like wikipedia...

Whether its secure or not doesn't matter to me but I don't see your double spend and difficulty looks like it adjusted well

I was saying that I was correct, and you are wrong.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8dwuGznri35uNHDxhUcRDXD0I8afKN9R3G3oPNhBbo

So we have had spikes of nearly 600 terahash and have held steady well over 100 all week. All with under a 0.1% orphan rate

You were saying...?

Anyway, so after I've done this (almost) thankless task, I ended up with 11.2 unat. At current prices, that's worth about .2btc - Remember, I explicitly tagged all the blocks I mined, so anyone can verify this.

I'm going to burn them, just so people can't claim I tried to profit from this coins misfortune. And for .2btc, I'd rather not leave myself open to accusations of that.

I'm thinking I'm going to send them to something like '1LALALALALAIamNtListeningLALALA' or something amusing like that.  Any suggestions?  I'll have to generate the checksum so the end will be random, but I want to dispose of them properly.

I think of myself as a good guy. I'm not the one scamming. I do what I said I would do. I fixed the stalled blockchain.  The underlying design flaws are still there, of course.  (eg, it can't download its own blockchain, coins are spendable after 10 confirmations, 8 second blocks, etc., etc., etc.)

I really wish people would try - just try - to actually read what I've written.

51% is a known issue. It normally resolves itself by the coin getting enough hashrate to make it economically unviable.

This is a new issue.  25%. Someone with 25% of the hashrate can attack and take over the coin.

I'm totally amazed that supporters of the coin aren't even disputing this. They're just going 'Oh well. This new attack means that you'll need like 1000 confirmations before you can trust a transaction'. I also explained why even that won't help, but, again, no-one read it. 

Well. The people who understand this stuff read it, I'm sure. The people who don't understand didn't.

Because if they HAD read it, they'd understand the problem.

Well, I said, that it doesn't matter for most coins, if they are 51% attackable, or 25% attackable. You can rent enough hash nowadays.

Even You can 51% attack Unat just with Your own rigs.
That's all I said.

I won't post in this thread anymore, because I'm not in the mood to get trolled.

And btw, I'm missing the tons orphans You predicted. There were two in about 220 blocks, thats less than 1%.

Oh. As a little surprise, check the coinbase of the blocks I mined. You'll need a UTF8 hex converter. I recommend http://encodertool.com/hexadecimal

For those that don't know how to view the coinbase, do a 'decoderawtransaction' of the first transaction in the block.  For example:


If you're on unix.

*sigh* You honestly don't understand the issue do you?

You're trying to imply that I'm saying 'any coin is 51% attackable'. That's -not- what I'm saying. I'm saying that having such a short block time, makes it 25% attackable. There is a whole new massive attack surface that has been exposed by this.

I've written two examples up. Please, take some time and read them.  If you disagree with any of it, please say WHY you disagree.

At the moment, all it's been is people going 'U R RONG COZ I SED SO'.  Which doesn't really actually prove anything, when I'm actually producing numbers and facts.


You're welcome. I was somewhat surprised that I was thanked, actually.


Yes. That was blockhash 00000000000000067c98ee84bac30cae63bdf5b8ab266ff47b498c10cc5c6768

Then I solved the next four at 126M, (starting at 0000000000000010308ac29db28d0587d6f900fd2bed4e8ac68e1b72ce5be0a8), then the next four at 31M (starting at 000000000000006dac5833d99968a33d66d68fa3386981595116630d681d13eb), then the next four at 8M (000000000000001737ebaef9b3d01c8a27388a28e731c3d4099aaddfdd9c3546), then the next four at 2M (00000000000004092c8a581ecbd617c0a19933cb9128e1c59412177ab5a4974c) and so on.

Other people started finding blocks when it got down to about 30k.  I've since returned everything to normal service, and the blockchain seems to be flowing nicely.

I also notice that no-one has taken me up on my offer to prove that 8 seconds is insecure.

Every single PoW coin is easily attackable.

Shall I go to every ANN thread of every PoW coin and post, that these coins are all easy targets?

Assuming Your theroy is correct:
In case of UNAT the attacker won't really care, if he needs 100 TH, or 200 TH. If he wants to attack it, 100% more hash would'nt be the problem i guess.

Seems You became a little obsessed about Unat.
Nonetheless thanks for Your hash.

And for the record: It started with 2 blocks of 2B diff and went to 505M for four blocks, where we solved three. You solved the last 505M block.

Just as an update, for those interested bystanders. 

I've dragged the difficulty down from 505M (when this started) to 31M, with one block to go before it hits 8M.

I should nail those four blocks within an hour or so, which will get it to 2M, then 500k almost instantly.

I'm looking every half hour or so, so I may miss it, but even if I keep firing at it, it should peak at about 300k, which is easily minable for almost any pool.

The interesting stuff will then start happening. Either I'm wrong, and this chain will be secure, or I'm right, and the chain will be an easy target for attacks.

I'm actually willing to put some money on this being INSECURE, if anyone's willing to take the bet.

Okee, thanks! I jut assumed at the outset that it was a well-kept secret of some sort.

Because the Unat thread is moderated. So this discussion would have been deleted.


Calling something fud does not make it so. Read my previous post.

And here's the thing - I think the only person who's trying to con people is you, and the dev (if you're not the same person?).

I keep explaining, in different ways, how you're wrong.  And you keep ignoring it. So, this either means that you KNOW that 8 seconds is wrong, OR, you're incapable of understanding it.

Either way, you should probably not be involved in this conversation that the grown-ups are having.

You must be so frustrated to even setup a new topic for this kind of FUD.

But for every FUD, there's a big holder or want-to holder for the coin. Period.

Ah well, there you go. I was wrong.  I didn't see anything about that in the bitcointalk thread, though.  Where was this vote held?


As I explained to you in channel, that's not how difficulty works. It's decreasing as fast as it can at the moment. It went from 505M to 126M. In two more blocks it'll be down to about 31M, then four more blocks after that 7, then four more after that it'll be less than 1M. I admit I phrased it wrongly. It should be 'It's now running at a TARGET of an 8 second block time'. Better?

I realise you don't understand how these things works. I suggest that people who don't understand how things work don't try to explain (incorrectly) how they work to people who DO understand how they work.


I'm paraphrasing here, because this is just an unneeded wall of text.


I think you fail at comprehension.

The line before this was me answering the question 'Well, why are you mining this coin then?'

For someone who's provably ignorant of how stuff works, and has also been accused, in this thread of scamming, I really think you should work on your comprehension skills.


I don't think you understand what FUD means. FUD means to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.   There is no uncertainty, nor is there any doubt.  8 Seconds is too short.  Just because you say it's not doesn't mean you're right. It does, in fact, mean you're wrong.

Let me put this here, on a line by itself:
  By stating that 8 seconds is secure, you are wrong.


So lemme see if I can get the points of your post in order here. I don't have the hashrate. Then I lied. Then I didn't. Then I claimed I had hash that I did have, that I then used to mine the coin. That I said I was going to do.

I.. really can't see the problem here. I haven't lied. I've been scrupulously honest. I've been accused of quoting out of context, and yet, when I asked for what I'd done, so I could fix it, there was none to be found.

So. May I suggest you sit back and relax. I'm going to fix your coin, like I said I was going to. I'm then going to watch it implode on itself.   As the dev said, he thinks it's secure, and I think it's not.

I think the best way to resolve this is for me to prove it's insecure.  Then, hopefully no-one else will have the underpants-on-head-retarded idea of setting a coins time to this short again.

http://www.dailydoge.org/2014/07/30/dogecoin-51-attack-imminent/

That was the first google result. There's lots of others