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

Sabotaging Bitcoin

blog.dshr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 224 posts

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#41

Post by OutOfHere »

dmurray wrote: post #36
OutOfHere wrote: post #19

The answer to this problem is in the original Bitcoin whitepaper itself. It gives the formula for the required number of confirmations. The Monero PoW community has had to deal with such nonsense, as have other smaller PoW coins. With ε=1e-3, the expected number of 6 confirmations works only so long as the largest pool size does not exceed 12%. For a pool size of 30%, at least 24 confirmations should be required in B…

TFA observes that it would be disruptive and socially difficult to move systems to expect requiring 24 confirmations, and expresses relief that other responses are possible. Perhaps this is more suitable as a response over months or years to a long-term shift in the composition of Bitcoin miners than as a short-term measure when it appears that someone has suddenly acquired 30% of mining capacity today.

Yes: "Not aligning with reality is disruptive." Some lessons have to be learned the hard way if they're not learned the soft way. The problem is not reality.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#42

Post by ycombinatrix »

mvkel wrote: post #34
roenxi wrote: post #28

The Eyal & Sirer paper is pretty interesting - they basically point out that there is actually some game theory involved in when miners should reveal that they mined a block to compete most effectively with their fellows. If a pool can set up a situation where they mine a block and wait X seconds to reveal it, they can force other miners to waste X seconds of has power and gain an advantage. It looks like a result wi…

Isn't this the same thing as saying "if everyone just agrees that a dollar bill is actually just a piece of paper, USD becomes worthless"? Albeit at a smaller scale

I don't think it is the same thing. Everyone agrees that mining the next block is valuable.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#43

Post by D13Fd »

bujkopl wrote: post #38
gerdesj wrote: post #2

TIL: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci - quite horrifying! EDIT: For comparison: https://gridwatch.co.uk/

Since when is incentivizing low cost renewable energy horrifying?

Because every unit of electricity causes climate change and burns resources (even renewable sources of electricity - they just burn them slower). From a societal point of view we are dumping huge amounts of electricity and resources into a hole to accomplish nothing that couldn’t be accomplished with a database and a trusted third party at a billionth of the cost (or less).

The vast majority of transactions are speculation on what other people might pay for a bitcoin (i.e., a line on a spreadsheet). And even then, that speculation and trading often occurs on secondary markets which rely on trusted third parties - thus rendering the entire ordeal even more pointless.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#44

Post by Mistletoe »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #7
DJBunnies wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Top Tip: If you find the orange site's conversation on crypto to be repetitive you can change the top bar. Conversation stays the same but the colour can be changed!

Wow thank you, I'm about to be on the blue site. I never knew this and really don't like the orange.

0000FF gang, unite!

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#45

Post by bujkopl »

This article is FUD. No one is spending $30B+ for an attack that gasp extends the required confirmations to a few hours until a re-org can be achieved and accounts settled.

In fact, wiping out the derivative markets would be seen as a net-postive by most individual hodlers.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#46

Post by bujkopl »

D13Fd wrote: post #43
bujkopl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is incentivizing low cost renewable energy horrifying?

Because every unit of electricity causes climate change and burns resources (even renewable sources of electricity - they just burn them slower). From a societal point of view we are dumping huge amounts of electricity and resources into a hole to accomplish nothing that couldn’t be accomplished with a database and a trusted third party at a billionth of the cost (or less). The vast majority of transactions are specu…

Better shoot down the sun then.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#47

Post by cheschire »

ycombinatrix wrote: post #42
mvkel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the same thing as saying "if everyone just agrees that a dollar bill is actually just a piece of paper, USD becomes worthless"? Albeit at a smaller scale

I don't think it is the same thing. Everyone agrees that mining the next block is valuable.

Unless they didn’t.

There’s nothing inherently valuable about crypto beyond what value people assign to it in their minds.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#48

Post by krupan »

cheschire wrote: post #47
ycombinatrix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is the same thing. Everyone agrees that mining the next block is valuable.

Unless they didn’t. There’s nothing inherently valuable about crypto beyond what value people assign to it in their minds.

Same with all money. Please research more before parroting this argument. You are not the first person to think of it.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#49

Post by cheschire »

krupan wrote: post #48
cheschire wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they didn’t. There’s nothing inherently valuable about crypto beyond what value people assign to it in their minds.

Same with all money. Please research more before parroting this argument. You are not the first person to think of it.

GP was arguing against GGP’s point and I was simply pointing out that the argument was hollow.

What are you referring to with “research more”?

Post reply on HN