Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring more confirmations decreases the probability that a transaction will be reverted, under the assumption that an attacker has < 49% of the hashpower. If you attempt an attack with 49%, then you have a fair chance of mining, say, 6 blocks before the rest of the network. If you get unlucky then you sacrifice those rewards. But if you mine with 51% then your attack chain is (probabilistically) guaranteed to even…
There's a question that you're missing or ignoring about how long the 51% attack is sustained. Sustaining a 51% attack for one day is very difficult, doing it for one week or one month is proportionally that much more expensive.
Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
491–500 of 555 posts
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#493Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
What game are you playing if you don't care about the price?
Do you care about the price of 1 dollar? "In what?" you will ask. "Exactly. In what?" I will respond.
I'm asking what the long game is? You haven't helped.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that there are a few canaries in the coal mine, but there are a lot of creative options if you have the ability to execute arbitrary code on a mining node botnet, assuredly some of which are yet to be discovered (as far as we know). Consider as well the many financial opportunities available to someone who may have an interest in sabotaging or disrupting some kind of mining activity, perhaps in subtle wa…
They could fake the results to make it look like everything was ok while the attack happened. That's apparently what stuxnet did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17099969
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#496Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#497So this would require an attacker to pay into the exchange with BTCg, have the deposit clear and approve for trading, trade it for another currency, and have that trade settle and be clear for withdrawal, and then process the withdrawal, all in under 4 hours. After which point the attacking miner surfaces a longer chain they had been keeping which doesn’t include the original BTCg deposit. Alternatively, if the excha…
Exchanges need to be built with the fluid nature of blockchain conflict resolution in mind. You can estimate the cost of double-spend attacks on each chain at any time, calculate your potential exposure, track where the related funds are now in your system, and mitigate your exposure by delaying the outflow of funds that have outsize exposure to double-spend attack potential. In the simple case, you might allow withd…
also, you can monitor the value of transactions in the last few blocks. 500% spike in transaction value in the last 2 blocks? better add a few more blocks to the confirmation requirement, or require withholding on those deposits.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
The RMB is not even fully convertible, it is the opposite of liquid. The US dollar is useful to countries like china is because the US government acts as a debtor of last resort, allowing them to park surpluses in treasuries.
> The US dollar is useful to countries like china is because the US government acts as a debtor of last resort Which ultimately derives from our mammoth consumption. If Chinese consumption eclipses America's and their economy rebalances, they will have lots of Chinese consumers buying goods with renmimbi, leaving sellers offshore with boatloads of the currency to find investments for. (I consider this to be a moderat…
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/11...
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is often asserted (for example, in the Bitcoin white paper [22]) that a cartel can double-spend Bitcoins. In a strict sense, this is true: a cartel can spend a Bitcoin by paying it to a player Alice, receiving goods or services, and then shifting the consensus choice of history to a branch where that coin is instead paid to a different player Bob. However, we argue that double-spending by a cartel has a limited pa…
This seems to miss the point that the mining pays for itself in collected transaction fees. Double spend is just icing on the cake.
Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this argument repeated so often? How is that comparison not clearly absurd to you? The conventional financial system is very obviously many orders of magnitude more efficient than bitcoin.
How is it obvious that conventional financial transactions are orders of magnitude more efficient than bitcoin? You can't use transaction price as a metric because it reflects a lot more than just the energy consumption of the system and even if you did, conventional transactions are not orders of magnitude cheaper than bitcoin transactions.
> How much energy is spent securing conventional financial systems? You have to include everything: banks, minting, enforcement, physical security, even military and intelligence action.
I really feel like I shouldn't have to explicitly point out why this reasoning is so flawed, but to start with, bitcoin does not IN ANY WAY obviate the need for banks, law enforcement, physical security, or "military and intelligence". There isn't some kind of "well, actually..." response to this, it's totally and obviously incorrect and we're living in two different fundamental realities if we can't agree on that base line.