Live data from Hacker News

The Verge Hack, Explained

blog.theabacus.io

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#11
post #2

PoW coins outside Bitcoin will never work. This will continue to happen over & over again to every smaller PoW chain

Well on point, PoW dint work on Bitcoin as well. The only reason it dint become a problem was that Bitcoin wasn't famous at that time. From Digital Gold by Nathaniel Popper:

Laszlo’s CPU had been winning, at most, one block of 50 Bitcoins each day, of the approximately 140 blocks that were released daily. Once Laszlo got his GPU card hooked in he began winning one or two blocks an hour, and occasionally more. On May 17 he won twenty-eight blocks; these wins gave him fourteen hundred new coins that day.

Satoshi knew someone would eventually spot this opportunity as Bitcoin became more successful and was not surprised when Laszlo e-mailed him about his project. But in responding to Laszlo, Satoshi was clearly torn. If one person was taking all the coins, there would be less of an incentive for new people to join in.

“I don’t mean to sound like a socialist,” Satoshi wrote back. “I don’t care if wealth is concentrated, but for now, we get more growth by giving that money to 100% of the people than giving it to 20%.”

As a result, Satoshi asked Laszlo to go easy with the “high powered hashing,” the term coined to refer to the process of plugging an input into a hash function and seeing what it spit out.

But Satoshi also recognized that having more computing power on the network made the network stronger as long as the people with the power, like Laszlo, wanted to see Bitcoin succeed.”

One can imagine the outrage it will cause if it happened today.

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#12
post #4

This is because, in decentralized networks that obstinately refuse to grant any special authority to third parties, accurately enforcing time synchronization is no simple matter. That depends on what you’re going for. The concept of time is actually a local phenomenon, as relativity shows. To compare whether events A and B happened first, you must first trace some path from A and B to a third party C (maybe C = A or…

Relativistic effects are irrelevant at the level of precision required for running a system distributed across the surface of Earth, what you are describing is just due to a lack of properly synchronized clocks. Place an atomic clock at each node and there is no need for any C deciding the ordering of A and B. Alternatively you may also be able to use logical clocks like a Lamport clock or a vector clock to establish an ordering in a distributed system in absence of properly synchronized clocks but that depends on the use case.

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#13
"Exactly how the largest protocol-level hack of a cryptocurrency in recent memory could preceed said cryptocurrency increasing in price and then announcing a partnership with the most trafficked porn-site on the internet is a question I’m forced to leave open-ended; my personal pet-theory is that it has something to do with the fact that the world makes no sense and human beings are all completely out of their goddamn minds."

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#15
post #12
post #4

This is because, in decentralized networks that obstinately refuse to grant any special authority to third parties, accurately enforcing time synchronization is no simple matter. That depends on what you’re going for. The concept of time is actually a local phenomenon, as relativity shows. To compare whether events A and B happened first, you must first trace some path from A and B to a third party C (maybe C = A or…

Relativistic effects are irrelevant at the level of precision required for running a system distributed across the surface of Earth, what you are describing is just due to a lack of properly synchronized clocks. Place an atomic clock at each node and there is no need for any C deciding the ordering of A and B. Alternatively you may also be able to use logical clocks like a Lamport clock or a vector clock to establish…

No. Relativity is actually a special case if this general principle.

For a large and complex network, events A and B which are very far apart cannot be compared in any canonical way. The larger the network the less they can be compared.

However, A can come before B relative to some reference point C.

That’s enough to achieve most things. The point is that you shouldn’t have a global and continuous sense of time in distributed systems. Leslie Lamport has developed many things including vector clock over the years to address this.

Our PTN is just the latest in a long line of examples.

When you say that you have “no need” for C once you have synchronized clocks, not only are you ignoring relativity but you are also ignoring the byzantine generals problem. If Han Solo can benefit from claiming he shot first, why would I trust his clock? If you’re implementing a video game or cryptocurrency in a byzantine resilient way, how exactly would you have a continuous global sense of time? Go ahead the floor is yours.

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#16
post #6

>>>In both cases, this hack presents a strong argument for tending towards sticking to things proven to work and to be wary of overcomplicating things and thereby introducing unnecessary risks when people’s financial assets are involved. Which, I suppose, means two points for team Bitcoin. What? The same bitcoin that is betting everything on an untested and incredibly complex second-layer protocol called "lightning n…

It's indeed delusional to claim that Bitcoin developers have peoples' financial assets in mind when they celebrate fees of $50 and produce nothing else than "wait for second layer solutions they will magically solve everything".

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#17
This hack results from a basic design error: for difficulty adjustment to work properly, the window of recent blocks it considers must be relatively immune to time stamp manipulation. In other words, the allowed timestamp drift must be much smaller than the adjustment time window. Bitcoin allows a 2 hour drift, but has an adjustment window of 2 weeks.

In verge's case, both are identical, at 2 hours. This is an open invitation to difficulty adjustment abuse.

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#19
post #15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativistic effects are irrelevant at the level of precision required for running a system distributed across the surface of Earth, what you are describing is just due to a lack of properly synchronized clocks. Place an atomic clock at each node and there is no need for any C deciding the ordering of A and B. Alternatively you may also be able to use logical clocks like a Lamport clock or a vector clock to establish…

No. Relativity is actually a special case if this general principle. For a large and complex network, events A and B which are very far apart cannot be compared in any canonical way. The larger the network the less they can be compared. However, A can come before B relative to some reference point C. That’s enough to achieve most things. The point is that you shouldn’t have a global and continuous sense of time in di…

You are mixing two things up - figuring out the time an event happened and trusting a timestamp that someone attached to an event. Within a single inertial reference frame there is a canonical way to order events, namely by the time coordinate in that reference frame which is the same everywhere. And for all practical purposes of building a distributed system on Earth, Earth is an internal reference frame. Ensuring that nobody cheats when assigning time stamps to events is an entirely different problem. As said, hand an atomic clock to everyone and you can know the order of any two events, relativity plays no role. Making sure that nobody can or will cheat will require some more effort, but again relativity plays no role.

Re: The Verge Hack, Explained

#20
post #17

This hack results from a basic design error: for difficulty adjustment to work properly, the window of recent blocks it considers must be relatively immune to time stamp manipulation. In other words, the allowed timestamp drift must be much smaller than the adjustment time window. Bitcoin allows a 2 hour drift, but has an adjustment window of 2 weeks. In verge's case, both are identical, at 2 hours. This is an open i…

> In verge's case, both are identical, at 2 hours.

Naive question - is verge adjustment window defined in block time (as opposed to "human" time)? because

> Bitcoin allows a 2 hour drift, but has an adjustment window of 2 weeks.

The adjustment window is technically 2016 blocks, which is about two weeks in human time, but can in theory vary greatly if mining capacity fluctuates.

Post reply on HN