How is the price not crashing? It's down 10%, which is pretty much like the rest of the market.
Because shitcoin prices have no relation to any sort of reality. Some shitcoins are traded on exchanges even if no actual coin or code existed.
Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
191–200 of 555 posts
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#192maybe Bitcoin Diamond will prove harder
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#193How is the price not crashing? It's down 10%, which is pretty much like the rest of the market.
My understanding from a cursory read is that this happened a week ago, so perhaps the dump has already been priced in.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#194Curious if this is illegal in anyway? I suppose there will be increasing incentive to do the numbers on the hash cost to take over a coin and to execute these attacks. Neat.
I think stealing is illegal, yes.
What exactly was stolen here? This isn't legally recognized money. And the spend was of the attacker's own coins. The exchange into another cryptocurrency or fiat currency is fraudulent I suppose, but isn't that on the transacting exchange?
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#195Satoshi really downplayed 51% attacks in his/her original whitepaper[1]: > The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour h…
I think it's probably fair to say that he/she did not anticipate people spinning up a whole bunch of crypto-currencies and that those crypto-currencies would be worth something. How many coins are out there that are worth millions of dollars to people speculating? I certainly wouldn't have given that idea credence at the time Satoshi wrote the original whitepaper. I personally thought that BTC would either be success…
I'm pretty sure he did.
It's not like we don't have dollars and euros and so on, and silver and gold in the past.
> I did not anticipate people dumping piles of money into it to speculate on its value.
98% of trading in euros and dollars is pure speculation.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
The spooky thing that this made me realize, is that if anyone did find a vulnerability in bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is that they would have a greater incentive to only slowly leech off the system, because they will be able to siphon out much more over time than if everyone panics over security. The weapon is no good unless it's secret.
Assuming you want to make money directly, sure. If you want to harm a community in which the currency is widely used, the incentives are different.
What kind of incentive does the attacker have to just harm a community of a distributed system?
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#197When Bitcoin was running up to $20,000, I tried to analyze the system and come to a personal conclusion about its equilibrium value, because I didn't want to miss out if it really was the currency of the future. I ended up not investing, because of the possibility of a double-spend attack. I think that cryptocurrency enthusiasts are seriously underestimating the importance of double-spending attacks to the economics…
The numbers I've seen quoted for a double spend attach on Bitcoin Cash (assuming guaranteed block space) are that it would cost about 50K to double spend on a 0-conf transaction. So really, you can confidently accept 0-conf for <1K reasonably. More that that you can accept 1-conf or more which can take a minute or two. BTC rejects 0-conf transactions, but they are already in use around the world and are successful as…
Except you profit from mined blocks. In theory you should be able do do a 51% attack for a profit even without double spending as you capture high value transactions over a longer timespan than normal. Aka in 10 ten blocks you get the same number of high value transactions as would normally occur over 20 blocks. Where you would end up with the same 10 blocks without a 51% attack but someone else would also mine 10 blocks and capture some of those high value transaction fees.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument is that by doing a 51% attack you undermine the market value so you never get the rewards. This makes sense, but only for the leading crypto coin. As we see here today, you can 51% attack smaller coins, which should imply an increase in the value of Bitcoin from consolidation.
The spooky thing that this made me realize, is that if anyone did find a vulnerability in bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) is that they would have a greater incentive to only slowly leech off the system, because they will be able to siphon out much more over time than if everyone panics over security. The weapon is no good unless it's secret.
Nah, you could short-sell Bitcoin. Take out a sell option, crash the value, buy cheap, then exercise the option. Information is valuable, no matter which direction it predicts the market to go.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#199When Bitcoin was running up to $20,000, I tried to analyze the system and come to a personal conclusion about its equilibrium value, because I didn't want to miss out if it really was the currency of the future. I ended up not investing, because of the possibility of a double-spend attack. I think that cryptocurrency enthusiasts are seriously underestimating the importance of double-spending attacks to the economics…
What do you mean, “underbidding”, e.g. “underbidding attack”? I don’t understand this term in the context of your hypotheses which assumes a perfectly efficient market for hashpower
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#200Purely hypothetical and mostly stupid: could double spending attacks be a way to overcome the issue of a limited supply of coins and the fact the total number of coins tends to zero as old coins are lost?
If you wanted you could "reclaim" coins which didn't move in 10 years let's say. Or you could just issue new coins. There is no need to go to such convoluted lengths.