Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

ccn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 555 posts

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#431

Post by antris »

dnautics wrote: post #387
wpietri wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the split you draw between people looking at Bitcoin-the-real-thing and people adoring the machinery is an excellent one. If you look at the original paper, it's pretty clear that Bitcoin was meant to be peer-to-peer electronic cash: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf In practice, it has failed at this aim. I don't think that was necessarily so; plenty of things start out rough and become more useful over time.…

In practice, Airbnb has failed at its aim of providing airbed style accommodations for conference goers.

Is bitcoin becoming a store of value really as obviously better for it than AirBnb becoming a more general accommodation provider? If not, it's not really a fair comparison.

Besides, AirBnb didnt even fail in providing accommodation for conference goers with included breakfast. It still works perfectly in its original intended use.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#432

Post by tome »

MereInterest wrote: post #198
tehsauce wrote: post #110

Earlier 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.

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.

Where would you buy a put (sell) option on Bitcoin (without substantial counterparty or settlement risk)? I genuinely want to know. I would have bought one in November if I could have.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#434

Post by gersh »

hossbeast wrote: post #311
mortdeus wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about state level actors, say the NSA, that consider bitcoin supplanting the US dollar as the standard medium of international currency exchange a huge threat to the world economy? (or at least their ability to control it) I think people need to be concerned that Governments, at any point of time, with their incomprehensibly huge computation power, can use it to crush bitcoin. Not only that but they can pass law…

How is the government going to forcibly size a wallet? Are you suggesting they can break the crypto, or that they will compel people to divulge their keys?

There are probably simpler methods, but if the United States really wanted to, they could probably buy/seize enough computers to pull a 51% attack.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#436

Post by baq »

hapnin wrote: post #321
doorbumper wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin hasn't been useful as a currency for a long time. I don't think that's a good measure for determining how an event might affect bitcoin price.

Bitcoin averages something on the order of 200,000 transactions per day. It's useful to someone.

Visa does 2000 per second. 200k per day is almost laughable.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#437

Post by sobani »

jhpriestley wrote: post #218
split_tender wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Suppose that it takes $50 of energy to find a hash at current difficulty. Transaction fees are at $50 (in BTC). I can offer miners $51 for their hash power, but they might be suspicious. So the other thing I can do is confirm transactions for $49 in fees, which I'm calling underbidding. This will drive miners out of the market.

Wouldn't this mean you ignore the transactions with the higher fees for the other miners to pick up, thereby making mining more profitable for them?

How bitcoin transacting work is not that the miners publish their price and someone accepts that price and thus sends the transaction to that miner. How it works is that you publish your transaction with the fee you're willing to pay and if your fee is high enough, it will get included in the next block.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#438

Post by sobani »

branchless wrote: post #243
jhpriestley wrote: post #83

When 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…

Here's my reason for not "investing" (it's no investing, it's speculation): * bitcoin is not mandated as the sole accepted currency for settling tax in any sovereign state, therefore it can go to zero

It will never go to absolute zero as long as there are still people who at the very least see it as a joke. "Remember when BTC was $20000? I just bought 50000 of them, I would have been a billionair! Haha!"

Also tell people in Venezuela how their Bolivar is not going to zero, because they have to pay their taxes with it.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#439

Post by cslarson »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #92
jhpriestley wrote: post #83

When 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…

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 value of bitcoin gold doesn't seem to have gone down in correlation with this attack.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#440

Post by sgt101 »

gascan wrote: post #56
ggg9990 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. The cryptocurrency energy consumption problem will never be solved, since if it is, it will be economically feasible to attack. So cryptocurrency adoption in the mainstream will require massive electricity consumption.

You might even say it will ultimately require at least 51% of worldwide electricity production, to ensure no actor (including nation-states) can suddenly on-line additional capacity to seize control. And then if that's true, one might dream of a power plant arms race, where two competing nations build additional power plants as fast as possible to prevent the other from gaining enough electrical capacity to attack th…

Alternatively one side opting out and using Fiat instead?

Oh...

Post reply on HN