Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

Post by radisb » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:13 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #444

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to assume that the greatest feat of Bitcoin is it's price. Yes, sure the price might be affected (somewhat) by how exchanges operate and media covers. However, many people don't care too much about the monetary price, and play the long game. In the long run, the market always adjusts. In in the end, it is the same with any other commodity or currency.

What game are you playing if you don't care about the price?

Post by JepZ » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:22 AM UTC

apo wrote: post #216

Oddly enough, one of the selling points of Bitcoin Gold (a hard fork of Bitcoin) was its use of Equihash instead of SHA-256. The idea was that a memory-hard proof-of-work function would inoculate Bitcoin Gold from miner centralization. The problem with mining centralization is that sufficiently powerful miners can attack the network by rewriting blocks. This opens the door to double spending. This was exactly the att…

Post by rimliu » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:36 AM UTC

hvidgaard wrote: post #419

nopinsight wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is far from clear that Bitcoin will likely ever reach $70,000. That implies an approx market cap of $1,200,000,000,000 or more. Would Bitcoin ever be useful enough or generate more value than Google or several Big Energy companies combined to justify and sustain that valuation?

People said the same thing about $1,000 when it reached $35. in about 6 months, bitcoin will be 10 years, so considering that it went from $0 to $20,000 in those 10 years, so as my statement say, it's not without reason to expect it to reach $70,000 in the next 5 years. People like to compare bitcoin to gold, which has an estimated current market cap of $6,000,000,000,000. Will gold ever generate more value than Goog…

Post by samolang » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:50 AM UTC

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…

Post by celticninja » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:57 AM UTC

zeven7 wrote: post #360

Jommi wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

source?

Not exactly a double spend, but billions BTC being printed out of thin air: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0