The fact that they hit 48% tells me the average miner doesn't much care about it.
Because it's a non-issue. And if it becomes an issue, they will obviously move, as their profits rely on the success of bitcoin.
Topic: We're not going anywhere, until the 51% question is answered - page 6. (Read 6400 times)
Because it's a non-issue. And if it becomes an issue, they will obviously move, as their profits rely on the success of bitcoin.
The fact that they hit 48% tells me the average miner doesn't much care about it. It should never have gotten that high.
one of the main points is Bitcoin is decentralized. Allowing one entity with a large percent of the hash rate defeats this and goes against the whole idea. I really have a hard time understanding why people dont see this as bad.
Because if you looked into the "issue" it's not very impactful (wouldn't do major damage to the system) and completely stops taking effect after miners switch pools immediately following the attack.
one of the main points is Bitcoin is decentralized. Allowing one entity with a large percent of the hash rate defeats this and goes against the whole idea. I really have a hard time understanding why people dont see this as bad.
Are you telling me that the fate of bitcoin resting resting on a single entity who can fork it on a whim, is not a problem?
+1.
What's the difference between bitcoin and centralized payment systems (visa, mastercard, paypal) then?
The de-facto single payment processor is not what we all are expecting from bitcoin. Even if our money is safe (for now).
Meanwhile, GHash.io is at 47%. I bet it will reach 50% in a few days.
Are you telling me that the fate of bitcoin resting resting on a single entity who can fork it on a whim, is not a problem?
Instead of wasting your time begging me to stop, you should beg GHash.io to stop instead.
Instead of wasting your time begging me to stop, you should beg GHash.io to stop instead.
It will stop being asked when it stops being a problem. Seriously, it can't be that hard to understand.
But it's not a problem, seriously. Stop.
It will stop being asked when it stops being a problem. Seriously, it can't be that hard to understand.
"We're not going anywhere..." until the 51% question stops being asked. Seriously, it can't be that hard to understand.
Remember when bitcoin hard forked in March 2013? Remember how incredibly quickly the community came together to remedy the issue? Remember what happened to BTC/USD price right after?
Do you think miners wouldn't leave ghash.io quickly and permanently if they executed a 51% attack by their own virtue or that of a hacker? Do you think in the very rare event that a pool did execute what would be limited to a brief 51% attack there would be any dire, permanent consequences to the integrity of the protocol? Or do you think it's more likely that the bitcoin community would once again demonstrate its resiliency?
Do you think miners wouldn't leave ghash.io quickly and permanently if they executed a 51% attack by their own virtue or that of a hacker? Do you think in the very rare event that a pool did execute what would be limited to a brief 51% attack there would be any dire, permanent consequences to the integrity of the protocol? Or do you think it's more likely that the bitcoin community would once again demonstrate its resiliency?
It is a problem. It doesn't matter if there is an easy technical solution or if we can recover from it, what really matters here is public perception. It must not happen in the first place.
The tired argument that the disincentive to the 51% attack is so great that no one would consider it... is a flawed argument that comes with the assumption that there are only rational actors on stage...
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
You're an idiot OP
The 51% question *is* answered for those who care to understand its true ramifications
can you link me or summarize what you're implying?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
From the wiki:
"Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive."
That assumes they are in control of their pool and not some third party.
The tired argument that the disincentive to the 51% attack is so great that no one would consider it... is a flawed argument that comes with the assumption that there are only rational actors on stage...
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
Thank you and Thank you, I was going to post the exact same thing.
Just because the pool operators have no plans of a 51% attack doesnt mean the pool cant be hacked and someone else does the attack. We could bounce back after such an event but looking at other coins who have been 51%'d im not sure....
The tired argument that the disincentive to the 51% attack is so great that no one would consider it... is a flawed argument that comes with the assumption that there are only rational actors on stage...
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
We all know that there are men who just want to watch the world burn... that 51% attack is coming, and it needs to be addressed.
The 51% question *is* answered for those who care to understand its true ramifications
can you link me or summarize what you're implying?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
From the wiki:
"Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive."
That assumes they are in control of their pool and not some third party.
The 51% question *is* answered for those who care to understand its true ramifications
can you link me or summarize what you're implying?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
From the wiki:
"Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive."
I've read from this link: http://learncryptography.com/51-attack/
Quote
There’s only a couple things someone with 51% of the network hashrate could do. They could prevent transactions of their choosing from gaining any confirmations, thus making them invalid, potentially preventing people from sending Bitcoins between addresses. They could also reverse transactions they send during the time they are in control (allowing double spend transactions), and they could potentially prevent other miners from finding any blocks for a short period of time
I guess 51% attack could drive away the investors
Like maybe two companies doing a multi-million dollar deal using bitcoin as payment gateway but their transaction cannot proceed because the network is under 51% attack. They'll be forced to avoid bitcoin.
So, I was wondering, does bitcoin have the capability to ban those miners/people doing the attack? Let's say some entity could maintain a 51% hashrate and they continued attacking the network, what could bitcoin do? Will bitcoin just be a sitting duck waiting for someone with greater computational power to appear and save the network?
The 51% question *is* answered for those who care to understand its true ramifications
can you link me or summarize what you're implying?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
From the wiki:
"Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive."
Idiot n00bs refuse to believe that this question has been discussed (and summarily answered) over and over... for 4 fkn straight years now.
Trolls will be trollin'.
Would Satoshi not have envisaged this problem?
He did and outlined it as a MAJOR RISK
This is why he is constantly crapping on about securing a DISTRIBUTED network
Jump to: