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

It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

hackingdistributed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#41

Post by wmf »

adventured wrote: post #11
Zikes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't GHash be able to pivot their existing mining power to take 51% of that new blockchain?

Yes, the extrapolation being missed by the article, is that the rich will control bitcoin, and nothing can ever stop that from happening. It goes to the very core of how bitcoin is designed that allows for it to be dominated by a large rich entity with enough processing power. Inherently the 'little guy' will be priced out of bitcoin, it was always going to be that way. Whether it's one or ten entities in question do…

the rich will control bitcoin, and nothing can ever stop that from happening.

But should the rich have control in proportion to their richness or out of proportion to it? That's the key issue that I see behind this article (and the previous selfish mining work).

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#42

Post by emin-gun-sirer »

gojomo wrote: post #32

This is the same panic-prone author (@el33th4xor) who, in early November 2013 with Bitcoin at about $220, wrote "@el33th4xor: You heard it here first: now is a good time to sell your Bitcoins" ( https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/397219415025934336 ) This was just before releasing some research that he thought would cause a confidence collapse. (That is, his prediction was almost self-consciously attempting market…

Nice ad hominems you've got there.

>In fact, the paper just formalized some concerns discussed in the mining community for years.

This is false. Discussed here: http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/09/no-you-dint/

>the "Bitcoin lunatic fringe" this author mocks has been right about the pool(s) having such power refraining from destructive (and self-bankrupting) next steps.

No. The Bitcoin lunatic fringe was adamant that no pool would willingly cross the 50% boundary.

That just happened. Models and reasoning based on "no rational miner would do X" are clearly flawed, partly because the miners may not be rational, or partly because they are rational within a time-frame not modeled. In any case, people who reasoned like you have now been shown conclusively to have the model wrong.

This is an opportunity to fix the protocol, not shill for the price, and certainly not to engage in ad hominems.

Cheers.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#43

Post by dmclain »

Lerc wrote: 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…

The bitcoin protocol defines the longest chain as the correct/canonical chain.

At 51% you have more hashing power than the rest of the network combined, so you can start mining blocks on your own and create your own chain with the knowledge that eventually your chain will be longer than the 49% chain everyone else is working on. When that happens, the 49% will abandon their chain and start working on yours.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#44

Post by im3w1l »

drcode wrote: post #33

ELI5: Miners join in pools to mine bitcoins to even out their earnings. It's a way to diversify their risk. Unfortunately, bigger pools let you diversify the best, and this is currently undermining the core tenet of bitcoin, which is to avoid having any one person with central control over the network. The linked article is suggesting modifying the core software for bitcoin in order to discourage this kind of central…

>bigger pools let you diversify the best

According to the article the big draw is that GHash don't have a fee.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#45

Post by Lerc »

aosmith wrote: post #29
Lerc wrote: 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…

What does "in control" mean in this sense? Is that an equivalent expression to "greater than 50%"?

Also the "Some or all" doesn't seem very specific. What is the factor that makes some become all?

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#46

Post by zheshishei »

c0ldfusi0nz wrote: post #34
aresant wrote: post #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...

This article would be decent if they ditched the hyperbole. Like it or not, this is not Armageddon for Bitcoin - the network is still functioning as intended.

> the network is still functioning as intended.

"as intended" reminds me of this koan from the codeless code[1]. [1]http://thecodelesscode.com/case/135

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#47

Post by woah »

c0ldfusi0nz wrote: post #34
aresant wrote: post #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...

This article would be decent if they ditched the hyperbole. Like it or not, this is not Armageddon for Bitcoin - the network is still functioning as intended.

Well, it's not decentralized anymore.

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#48

Post by Lerc »

dmclain wrote: post #43
Lerc wrote: 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…

The bitcoin protocol defines the longest chain as the correct/canonical chain. At 51% you have more hashing power than the rest of the network combined, so you can start mining blocks on your own and create your own chain with the knowledge that eventually your chain will be longer than the 49% chain everyone else is working on. When that happens, the 49% will abandon their chain and start working on yours.

What kind of chain length differential is enough to cause people to switch. Is it a single block?

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#49

Post by im3w1l »

aosmith wrote: post #29
Lerc wrote: 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…

You could theoretically mine your own chain from the genesis block right?

Re: It's Time For a Hard Bitcoin Fork

#50

Post by dragontamer »

aosmith wrote: post #25
dragontamer wrote: post #16

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.

Then why are you using BTC in the first place? The US Fed and US Government has no reason to act dishonestly. The value of the dollar relies on us trusting the US Government / US Fed to protect it.

If switching over to BTC means "trusting GHash.io"... then nothing has changed.

Post reply on HN