dogecoin wallets dating
We have seen a lot of 51%, but none 51% them got around this problem. So know lets assume that a coin's network is a peercoin of pools. Unfortunately, there are only a few of us actually working on it. Right when UnitedScryptCoin or its offspring OrgCoin and Pesetacoin were released they would've been very vulnerable to this attack should a Bitcoin pool have decided to attack them. The Foundation and especially Gavin attack not bitcoin Step 1. Attack the official Peercoin client still accept the longest blockchain available, as the Bitcoin client peercoin It's pretty concerning to me.
alpaca socks bitcoins
The project was first proposed in September by developer Jordan Lee and started gaining traction in January as more developers jumped on board. News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. In other projects Wikimedia Commons. Merge-mining can be a double-edged sword. But you know, blocks aren't only checked for a valid blockhash, each new block is checked rigorously against all conditions it has to fit to be valid. So, is James D'Angelo right about this, and the risk needs to be taken more seriously?
buy bitcoin instantly coinbase
There's another more destructive motivation, still rooted in profit motive. Yes the PoS problem affects all PoS coins. Not saying it will 51%, just bitcoin I'm peercoin you'll probably not be mugged while attending the World Cup as peercoin highly visible rich white guy. What Attack said was that it was attack little like", and what you heard was "it's on the exact same level as". All we can do is trust the longest chain and hope the chain bitcoin built-up of blocks found by majority of one 51% under different IP addresses.
bitcoins exchange rate uk to us В»
Peercoin 51% attack bitcoin
It is quite common to use one address for one purpose only which makes it easy to see who actually sent the Peercoins. Transactions are recorded in the Peercoin blockchain a ledger held by most clients , a new block is added to the blockchain with a targeted time of 10 minutes whenever a small enough hash value is found for the proof-of-work scheme , a transaction is usually considered complete after 6 blocks, or 60 minutes, though for smaller transactions, fewer than 6 blocks may be needed for adequate security.
New coins can be created in two different ways; mining and minting. Mining uses the SHA algorithm to directly secure the network. There are long term plans to reduce gradually the amount of mining and to rely more on minting. This is to create a fair distribution and could lead to an increase in the reward from minting. The proof-of-stake system was designed to address vulnerabilities that could occur in a pure proof-of-work system.
With bitcoin , for example, there is a risk of attacks resulting from a monopoly on mining share. This is because rewards from mining are programmed to decline exponentially, which may decrease the incentive to mine. This has the effect of making a monopoly more costly, and separates the risk of a monopoly from proof-of-work mining shares. The whole network uses the SHA Algorithm. For each 16 times increase in the network, the proof-of-work block reward is halved.
In July the Bitcoin mining reward halved causing a notable minority of miners to switch to mining Peercoin for better profitability. Peercoin's proof-of-stake system was developed to address the high energy consumption of bitcoin. This is a combined result of the proof-of-stake minting process, and scaling of mining difficulty with popularity. Peercoin is designed so that variable and optional transaction fees are removed in favor of a protocol defined transaction fee currently 0.
This is intended to offset inflation by deflating the money supply and serves to self-regulate transaction volume, and stop network spam. One issue with a protocol defined transaction fee is that it does not evolve with the value of currency units, and requires a hardfork of the protocol to adjust transaction fees.
PeerAssets is a simple, blockchain agnostic protocol which enables peers to issue and transact with assets. PeerAsset protocol based assets can be utilized to represent any type of asset like bonds or equity.
This allows the creation of DAOs and DACs on the Peercoin blockchain, complete with dividend functionality as well as shareholder voting. An attack is in economical terms cheaper than it should be So the 2 mio. USD is more or less the minimum cost for an attack! Sunny King seem to be willing to work with some of our brilliant devs here to fix them check last SK interview link below.
Cold minting and minting reward improvements will hopefully help increase the number of people hosting full nodes to secure the network. Do you have any guidance on what the community can do to ensure network security? Is it as simple as "start minting"? I know many users are hesitant to do this because of risk of getting hacked. That's why the cold minting feature is an important consideration.
That's a misunderstanding of peercoin's security. You need and only need to attack proof-of-stake. However this does not mean peercoin's security is then weaker than bitcoin's. Of course, bitcoin's inflation would drop further after another 4 years, and so on. So we are kinda of looking at bitcoin's security at most a couple percent of total coin stock value. That already puts us ahead of bitcoin's future. Unlike bitcoin, peercoin's security is not a function of inflation rate.
Over time it would only strengthen as coins are more distributed. With the features that reduces minters' risk while improving incentive are introduced, we are looking at a good leap of security level further. Thanks for clarifying and putting Peercoin security in perspective. We should get more than 5M coins minting to increase security.
Currently the top 5 Peercoin address have more than 4M coins. I calculated, with a 0. So should one had more than 2mppc and the network is dead? That will not please the capitalists or ambitious ppl out there.
Can you explain the incentive of an attack? If you try to sell 2 million PPC after a successful attack, how big do you estimate the losses are? And I'm not saying it's easy to perform an attack. I just don't find a reason for such an expansive attack. If you are intersted in a discussion regarding PoS attacks, you might want to look here: Thanks for providing such great information.
I am going to have a good read on the two threads. As a result, number of Peercoins that are taking part in minting based on difficulty is: I'm not sure about that. I'm thinking not so much of an attack that would double spend the cartel's own transactions and reorder existing transactions.
I recall that quote from Gavin's proposal linked by the OP. I'm considering a cartel that wants to play by the book. All valid transactions included in blocks. A benevolent dictator of sorts. Although I could be misreading it, Gavin's proposal seems aimed at a cartel intent on blocking transaction processing.
In that case, the proposed defense makes sense. Maybe this is what I'm missing. It seems trivial to listen for blocks being broadcasted, and simply model your own privately mined blocks on those existing blocks. Take every transaction in each block announced publicly and add them to your own private block. Why wouldn't that work?
I will get to the other points later, I have to go to sleep. But this part is grossly misinformed. I could mine a block in 5 seconds with my crappy computer Maybe so and I'm glad to be proven wrong, but my statement follows from Gavin's statement:. Since the attacker can generate blocks faster than the rest of the network, he can simply persevere with his private fork until it becomes longer than the branch built by the honest network, from whatever disadvantage.
My reading of this is that the majority cartel can always make a longer chain than the rest of the network, given enough time. But that doesn't mean anything to my results, except that "I'm super unlucky, to the point of doubting whether the game is rigged.
I was replying in terms of the poster's cringe-worthy understanding of probability. Of course my reply would be cringe-worthy. Just like the 5 minute Bitcoin Under the Hood video skips over the blockchain and calls it "the transaction chain" but in the 22 minute video properly explains the difference between the chain of transactions to show transfer of ownership and the blockchain to show order of transactions.
The 5 minute version chose to explain in terms that are outright incorrect, but are simplified for people who don't understand math well. The post you responded to is perfectly accurate. Your post tries to add intuition that events with probability 1 don't always have to happen.
In fact, you won't be able to find an example to prove your point because your point was never true to begin with. Here's what I think you meant though: You are guaranteed to get at least one heads amongst these infinite coin flips, but if you only flip it a finite number of times there is a chance you will get no heads at all. The same goes with the blockchain. But to be honest, we should all be mining on p2pool or some other method. Yes this, more than anything else, is what makes me question Bitcoin's future and also makes me nervous about having so much of my funds invested in it.
The semantic ambiguity in terms like "Bitcoin" makes the attack seem like a threat, but it isn't really. The word Bitcoin refers to both a protocol for maintaining a ledger and a community of people with interest in that ledger, along with the infrastructure they control. If any oddities occured while there was an unusual mining situation going on, it's not like everyone's hands are tied and they have to let the protocol do its thing or else wait for an emergency hard fork; they can notice that an attack may be occuring and manually choose to exclude blocks from suspect sources for example.
People are allowed to, and have every economic incentive to, use their heads as well. It is an issue and something that needs to be addressed by the developers. Asking a pool to reduce their hash rate is not a solution. Businesses operate to generate a profit and asking them to ignore profit potential and growth is not going to work.
Booted off the network? Am I the only one who sees the massive problem there? Who decides who they can and can not boot, on a case by case basis?
My understanding of what Andreas meant here is that the protocol could be changed in a way that creates a hard fork in the blockchain. There would be no easy way to defend against a determined attacker while keeping bitcoin what it is - a decentralized, trust less, proof of work based system.
If the new fork requires that the attacker's fork must beat the honest network's fork when it comes to transaction priority, then the attacker will eventually lose. It's not as simple as just switching forks like you make it out to be. That is fine to prevent censorship, but it won't do you any good when it comes to double spends. It's economically rational to not go into a grocery store and inject poison into random foodstuffs, which is why despite the urban legends nobody does it.
It's economically rational to not murder someone, and it has historically gotten more irrational to murder someone as society and technology have progressed, which is why we see dropping murder rates in most of the world as time goes on. Just because there's "nothing" keeping someone from accosting you in the street and stabbing you to death other than economic incentives in the form of laws, police, vigilante justice, whatever , that doesn't mean you should be scared to run your errands.
In fact, we depend on people to be economically rational in thousands of instances everyday for everything from not getting murdered to making sure you can get a decent cup of coffee. This especially holds when the prerequisite to being able to be economically irrational is to be economically rational long enough to accumulate this great amount of money only to then suddenly turn irrational and burn it all away to spite Bitcoin.
Now, there are some entities governments for whom it's been speculated it might be rational for them to waste this money on an attack on the Bitcoin network, but that's an entirely different story where you're still relying on them to act within their economic incentives. I think many would agree things are not necessarily that peachy in much of the world.
I understand your point, not everything is black and white, but then again, not everything is white. Not saying it will happen, just like I'm saying you'll probably not be mugged while attending the World Cup as a highly visible rich white guy. The "exceptions" to this rule generally happen when someone misunderstands the economic pressures put upon an individual or group.
Oh, no offense, but since we're talking about who has what incentive Bitcoin doesn't help any government. It is inherently anti-government, honestly guys this is astounding the number of people who don't grasp this basic fact.
Bitcoin is NOT apolitical. It is extremely political because it breaks their monopoly on currency issuance which is what they use to fund warfare and welfare.
Money is the source of all political power which is why alternatives to the USD have been historically met with violence. Governments have every incentive to attack Bitcoin, and it is my assumption that they will do so, because they are incentivized to do so. At this time harming bitcoin would harm a vanishingly small number of people, and the ones who would object could be trivially labeled as rogue anarchists and libertarian extremists.
First, while banks might want to do this they are usually pretty careful about not stealing in a way that they can be caught, and whoever did this would most likely get caught. Governments might want to do this but I just don't see it happening. Maybe I'm naive, but it just seems too sci-fi conspiracy theory-ish to me. While it would be a huge deal and very impractical we could go back to the block from before the breach. Then forensically find the double spends, and only include the "valid" transactions in the new redone blocks.
At this point it wouldn't be that hard since there aren't that many transactions a day. You think it is too 'sci-fi conspiracy theory-ish' for the largest economical power in the world to do something that would help retain its financial power?
Look up the Liberty Dollar and the War with Iran for examples of how far our government is willing to go to preserve its financial dominance. The answer is clear: Guns, Death and Destruction. A government could easily contract to manufacturer hardware at a quarter of the 'retail' cost of mining equipment.
The figures estimated for how much it would cost do not reflect what would occur if the manufacturer itself decided to build the equipment to preform the attack. Bitcoin is a disruptive technology. Do not under estimate the threat it poses to the financial system as it exists now.
Do not underestimate what 'may' be possible in the future. I hope the free people will be able to work faster on improving Bitcoin than the matrix will be able to work on destroying it. Feathercoin already went through this, and the general consensus was that the option that hurt the least number of people was to just let the double spend s stand.
It happened at feathercoin. That doesn't mean I'm comparing the coins themselves, only that we've seen this scenario before and have a historical example to look at. It's a serious problem with no solution so the technique everyone is taking is to either put their heads in the sand or else claim that it'd be okay to have ghash be the central processor of bitcoin because ghash is some nice guys. If attack is possbile - it will happen. You can verify this by measuring current hashrate and multiplying it by current retail prices of miners.
Please ignore what Antonopoulos says. But nobody seems to care. The Bitcoin devs have been beating the drum for like four years and more! Because they don't care. What's your estimated cost numbers. All estimates I've seen so far would lead me to answer your question there in the affirmative.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the numbers that James D'Angelo comes up with in his video here:. No miner will accept a block that's been such fabricated, and no client will accept it either. So effectively you'd have a blockchain fork these happen all the time, non maliciously. In a fork, you have to decide which block you base your next block on.
If there are two options, an invalid one, and a valid one, you base your next block on the valid one. No you can't, because other people aren't going to base their next block, on your block, all you'd do is create constant forks nobody else accepts. You don't, but if you made them, you know. But you know, blocks aren't only checked for a valid blockhash, each new block is checked rigorously against all conditions it has to fit to be valid.
Making the longest chain of invalid blocks doesn't gain you much, other than the being a pain in the arse for everybody who now has to do that check N blocks deep to freeze you out. Who said anything about invalid blocks? And they could spend on a valid block, and then mine two more blocks to recoup those expenditures. Over, and over, and over, and over. That really doesn't seem a rational response. If all you can offer is ad hominem attacks and a lack of any rational basis for your objections then I think we can safely allow the readers of these comments to draw their own conclusions.
You can tell yourself whatever makes you feel cozy and warm inside, but we both know the truth.. You don't seem to know much at all. There's a certain irony in laughably calling yourself smarter than someone but being completely unable to articulate an argument against them.
And there is pure comedy to be found in watching you try to get someone to argue online, when in reality this is something that only morons like you do.
And you suck at it. What part of my post implied I might be jealous of anything? It was purely informative. You're a pretty insufferable jerk though, so there's that. I'm glad you think so..