Live data from Hacker News

It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

hackingdistributed.com

21–30 of 154 posts

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#21
IANABME[1], but it seems that a solution already exists to this problem, which is to use a decentralized mining pool. The unfortunate fact is that we're in a time window right now where large miners have not yet transitioned to this ideal solution.

However, any miner in the long run would prefer to join a mining pool that does not require trusting some pool operator over one that does, all other things being equal.

Yes, the current situation is dangerous for the health of bitcoin, but I don't see any solution besides waiting for distributed, trustless pool technology to catch up in terms of usability with the centralized pools.

This problem isn't going to be solved by a hard fork, as any "fixes" done this way are untested, incomplete, and risky.

[1] I am not a bitcoin mining expert

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#22
Their Bitcoin is broken argument doesn't really seem to work. I agree that something needs to be done to stop huge amounts of pooling but this seems to be too alarmist. The initial Bitcoin is Broken post is at http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/ and a counterpoint is at https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/bitcoin-isnt-so-br... .

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#23

You can't stop pool mining, even with a hard fork. Let's say you implement a restriction like "5 blocks in a row max for a given pool". GHash can split into GhashA and GhashB, and keep going.

I don't know why you're suggesting anything along those lines, it doesn't look like the author's link to a method to stop pool mining has anything to do with restrictions like that. It seems instead the author links to a post about allowing arbitrary participants in a pool to steal the entirety of the mining reward. Thus, there would be no incentive for individuals to participate in a pool: whoever finds the solution could take the entirety of the reward.

This kills the GHashA.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#24
I was under the impression that the mining percentage would give you the same percentage chance to cook the books. 51% means you are more likely to succeed than fail in an attempt. Much like buying 51 percent of lottery tickets gives you a slightly better than even chance of winning the big prize.

in that respect, wouldn't 51% be only marginally different to 49%. Both would be a bit of a concern, but neither would be the "position to exercise complete control over which transactions appear on the blockchain" that this article refers to.

Is there some mechanism I'm missing that makes 51% be vastly more powerful than 49%?

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#25

A hash pool at 51% is big news. If this isn't corrected soon, BTC is doomed to fail.

You're assuming that someone with a significant investment in the space would act dishonestly. That's the only reason BTC fails as the result of something like this. Seem like MAD to me, if they were to act dishonestly they would destroy their own investment and profit potential.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#26
>GHash [...] just reached 51% of total network mining power today.

Is this official? Seems somewhat surreal...

Not really invested in this but at the very least I'd expect some posts along the lines of "Pool X is fast approaching 50%...BTC in danger". Not "51%...game over".

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#28
Another solution: assuming as the article claims that GHash grew to it's current size because it had 0% fees. Other pools can respond by lowering their fees or introduce negative ones. I.e. they pay miners to join the pool. Or have fees but introduce a lottery system that randomly overpays members.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#29
post #24

I was under the impression that the mining percentage would give you the same percentage chance to cook the books. 51% means you are more likely to succeed than fail in an attempt. Much like buying 51 percent of lottery tickets gives you a slightly better than even chance of winning the big prize. in that respect, wouldn't 51% be only marginally different to 49%. Both would be a bit of a concern, but neither would be…

From the bitcoin wiki:

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#30
This article feels sensational, but I would say accurately reflects a large portion of the communities feelings.

Great accompaniment is from Peter Todd (Coinkite adviser, respected dev) who announced this AM he is selling 50% of his holdings in bitcoin until this is resolved

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/281ftd/why_i_just_s...

Post reply on HN