Topic: Wonder who this solominer is? 88.6.216.9 - page 33. (Read 60498 times)

If they invested a lot of money into getting such a big hashrate, it would be extremely stupid of them to perform this kind of 51% attack. Sure they will get all the mined coins, but bitcoin prices will plummet when this kind of attack becomes successful. Because then that means one entity has total control of the coin. If they indeed manage to get 51% of the network, it would be far more profitable for them to mine normally and stay hidden and mine the majority of the coins.

Not a big deal if you are using the system to make send payments or speculate. However, if you are currently mining, it is a big deal.  It is a matter of time before this guy/group or someone like this guy/group chooses to exclude blocks found by other miners.  All they need is 51%. The days of profitable, independent mining are numbered.

I hope these people are also ASIC manufacturers because that would be really funny.

1) Sell a bunch of expensive mining hardware to lone miners to recoup development costs.
2) Maintain a dominant residual share of this hardware.
3) Use the dominant share to shut out all the suckers who purchased mining equipment from you.
4) You have all newly mined coins and revenue from equipment sales. Your customers have worthless hardware.

If that happens, it will be good.

I for one welcome our new Spanish overlords.

As long as the 'proof of work' has not been bypassed, I do not think this is a big deal.

again, as long as the protocol held!!

$5000 a day business! Worth creating a botnet for ($1.8million a year!).

Bet they are monitoring the forum and already writing the code to "hide" better. i.e. include some transactions and vary the ip address a bit.

hmm... so it is growing. Wonder if they plan to let other people keep mining.

This sucks.

Some charting skills. This is getting really weird.

Miners can't change transactions.  Not with 1 % of the network, not with 100%.  Also fees can never be higher than the "sent coin" = input.  Fees are simply the difference between input and output.

I am not sure what you are asking.

If this miner got to the point where they are mining 51% of the network and had supernodes specifically designed to capture transactions, could they start changing those transactions into 1% spend and 99% fees and then only accept transactions where the fee was higher than the sent coin?

If we want to keep abusing the lottery analogy, I should point out that every single node on the entire network "wins" about once a week, just not all at the same time.

I had typed up a lengthy reply last night, but I paused to consider what you have said on the subject, and then I slept on it.

My conclusion is that you haven't actually read, or at least not understood, a thing that I've said.  I have two reasons for thinking that.

First, you have completely misunderstood the problem.  See here for example.  Important part quoted below.


And second, you have completely ignored the parts of my posts where I explain the mechanism to be used by nodes to resolve their temporary, local conflicts.  Example here.

Let me be very clear.  I propose that:
1. nodes temporarily reject blocks that they can identify as antisocial.  Nodes already temporarily reject blocks, but for different reasons.
2. nodes have a method whereby a block that was temporarily rejected can become accepted.  Again, nodes already do this.

Further, I assert that:
1. these will not lead to permanent or even long-lived chain forks, for exactly the same reason that the ordinary chain forks that we get about once a week are not permanent, and can't become permanent.
2. any method used to game the system to create blocks that include only dummy transactions created by the attacker to circumvent rejection will necessarily require more effort than simply doing the right thing (including ordinary transactions), giving the current antisocial miner(s) a strong incentive to become a positive part of the network.

Is their share of hashing power growing over time?

Is this LargeCoin or BotNet?

Of course. But the proxy nodes would be helpful outside of this situation, for determining the real first sender of a transaction.

I wonder how hard it would be to have the solo miner setup a dozen $5 VPS with different providers and change their IP addresses periodically to obfuscate any tracking.  Alternatively having blocks "appear" from one of hundred tor endpoints would make tracking impossible.

Wonder how hard it would be to set up proxy nodes that would grab the real IP of the sender, and forward it to your main node while also giving you the real IP (instead of your proxy's IP).

Seems they have changed ip 88.190.236.238 Or blocked my node.

Bitcoin doesn't use clocks specifically because it is non deterministic.  By timing the 30 second threshold you could cause some nodes to see the next block as invalid and some to see it as valid.

And yes 3 days is utterly meaningless.  1 block out of 700+ is rare by any standard.  Someone wins the lottery every week thus it is pretty common to win the lottery right?

Still go ahead and fork the blockchain because that is the only way such a reckless and useless proposal sees the light of day.

Every three days (roughly) is rare to you?  I don't think you'll find many people to agree with that.  And it is only unpredictable if you need it to happen on a specific block.  If you don't care which block it happens on, then you just need to wait a bit.

The forks that would happen under this plan would be essentially identical to the forks that happen now, and they would be resolved in the same way, and in roughly the same amount of time.

P.S.  Your "flood the network with transactions" attack only works in a world without clocks.  In a world with clocks, like the one we live in, we can keep a count of how many valid transactions were visible X seconds ago, where X is greater than roughly double the mean latency of the network.  30 would be a good value for X.