Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20257. (Read 26706707 times)

2400cny about to break. 2335 looks like some kind of last resort on Huobi...

Just like the 2-year drop from 1200 to 120, we are going from 500 to 50 over the next 2 years. It's called the long tail.

China is already dropping, in case you missed it

1-day macd has turned red, do we expect a drop ?

Pattern is nearly pixel-identical over 10 minutes. Only difference is the second leg down...

But what i now noticed: on the given chart there is two times 16:20 o'clock?

This is an idiots (that is me) take on it:

It addresses mining centralization. But mining centralization is sort of a lost cause because of the economics of mining. And sort of not a problem because of the economics of it. Mining will go the areas with the cheapest electricity, globally. Sending work to a server connected to good fiber can be done anywhere in the world. There is a built in incentive to keep the network robust and decentralized to a certain degree. This has been put to the test recently (ghash.io) and I'd say Bitcoin passed.

The idea of "poison transactions" is a bit unclear to me. If it solely relies on lost rewards as a way of incentivizing miners to remain honest, then I think that is sort of naive. If anyone wants to build a sufficiently large farm to mine blocks on their own, then they either want to protect the network or attack the network. Not commit theft.

As far as I can see Bitcoin NG doesn't address node centralization, which I think is the most contentious issue. All of these transactions on the microblock will need to be communicated. And I don't see how unlimited microblocks every 10s will lead to less bloat or less network demands on the node.

Edit: Turns out Gavin Andresen agrees with me on the last part:

"It's an interesting idea, but it isn't a scaling solution-- the same amount of transaction data has to get to every fully-validating node, it doesn't matter if it is sent in the microblocks of the Bitcoin-NG proposal or the blocks we have now."

no, people cashed in on that crash, and okponzi is trying to block those accounts.

Sounds juicy and coherent

That's the kind of input I was hoping for...



The difference to the current situation is that you'd only need to incapacitate a fraction of total hash power, in contrast to the global attack you'd need to launch now to achieve the same. Correct?

Is there a time delay how long it takes to "direct" your DDOS attacks? As in: once you've learned who holds the key for the current micro block period, you have exactly 10 minutes to perform a targeted attack. Is that enough, given the constraints of practically applicable DDOS attack scenarios we know?



I don't consider this one so problematic, for two reasons:

(1) There's a strong economic disincentive to do so for global utility reasons, even if locally, it might make economic sense. The only entities (pools, presumably) likely to pull off such an attack are the big holders of hash power anyway. A double spend exceeding reward+fees would be worth it locally, i.e. they'd gain more (txs value) than they'd lose (reward+fees), but they would almost certainly suffer a much greater loss globablly due to (a) lower value of any rewards+fees gained in the future because of negative market reaction to the "inside" attack, and (b) sharp disappreciation of their (sunk) hardware cost, caused by the same mechanism as in (a).

(Aside: I've used a similar argument a few times as criticism of the (imo economically naive) attack scenarios described by Emin Gün Sirer. He correctly describes a positive "local" incentive to cheat given mining centralization, but doesn't properly account for the "global" economic consequences for the cheating entity.)

That said, even if you would in principle agree with my global vs. local utility argument, there's likely a limit to it, i.e. if you manage to cheat the network out of enough coins that you'd be able to sell fast enough before the market reacts, the attack could be worth it. Which leads to my next point:

(2) Waiting for confirmation (just 10 minutes) or several confirmations if large values are at stake is already recommended now. We're only describing successful cheating in case of the recipient accepting 0-conf txs anyway, right? In that case, there's an upper limit to the actual damage caused anyway, since the network only allows us to see no. of confirmations (and, after the fact) possible double spends, but tx acceptance is a decision process outside the network, and it is almost guaranteed that the actually ("externally") accepted volume per block is strictly smaller than the total volume per block.

Repetive pattern looks like some trouble with the trading engine.

Coin

Explanation

Woo hoo! Blockchain blockchain blockchain!!!

good luck trading against xu mom. they wiped them out two times.

just tweeted @ohyperjacked

Gotta love the BB tightening...  

Explosive moves when you turn on the power washer! But what will be the pressure release valve limit!

cheers and good day  

MICROSOFT + BLOCKCHAIN: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/ethereum-blockchain-as-a-service-now-on-azure/

This looks like an interesting idea which seems to both address the transaction limit concerns voiced by large blockers and the mining centralization due to slow propagation of large blocks feared by small blockers. It might open up new attack vectors though. First thought which comes to my mind is that if the miner currently responsible for verifying transactions goes offline/something happens to them, do we get a delay in transaction confirmations until the next block is mined? If so this would open the door to an attack where you would just DDOS or otherwise incapacitate the miner and the network grinds to a halt. Such centralization, very scare. Also what happens if the miner decides to double-spend transactions worth more than the coinbase reward + transaction fees combined? As far as I can tell the only punishment seems to be that their block rewards gets taken away retroactively by the network. Also what happens to such a reward afterwards? Wouldn't that mess with Bitcoins steady predictable inflation rate? So many questions...

Coin

Explanation