51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing the blocksize increases centralization at a time where miners have unprecedented power.
How does it increase centralization and why have miners more power than 5 years ago? (Just because the value increased? Do they have more influence to the community?) Could you pleace elaborate on that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do a double spend attack of any significance, the other party will notice. Unless you are doing something completely anonymous, the other party will also know who you are and be able to pursue other remedies (eg. sue you for fraud).
How could you possibly sue someone for double spending on a blockchain? I don't get it, isn't the point of this blockchain stuff to be the wild west? What is the grounds for a lawsuit? Why would a 51% attack be illegal? "Code is law", right?
If I agree to buy $100,000 worth of bitcoin from you, and you take my money without giving me the bitcoins you engaged in fraud and are liable to be sued. The fact that you did this through a double spend attack demonstrates a clear intent to defraud me.
When the BTC-BCH split happend I didn't really understand what everybody was talking about transaction fees. So after BTC continued to rise the past months and we have transaction fees >20$ I understand what was discussed earlier this year. I just wonder why the core devs were against increasing the blocksize. Yes, it would not have been a solution for the next 20 years, but at least it would have left the fees at a…
Bitcoin is not a business-coin. Bitcoin is an idea-coin. It was never about the price, the price is just a side-effect. For many early adopters and developers, Bitcoin is about changing the world. Not in a marketing bullshit-world, but in a real way. We really believe that the world would be a better place if we've put a stop to government and banks monopoly on controlling the money. You may disagree, and it's fine. We believe in it, and we want to have the most secure, uncensorable and attack-resistant value transferring network. If it takes $30 to pay to transfer on such network, so be it. Increasing the block size compromises on that property, so we are not willing to do it, even though it's painful for everyone. We will wait. We have credit cards, we PayPal, and we can use altcoins before we get there. The price will rise and fall, users will come and go. We held at $1, we held at $10, we held at $20k, and we will hold at $10 again if it's required. We will get our layer 2 solution and get both our uncensorable, government-resistant network and instant cheap micropayments. That's why most of us dumped BCH coins without thinking twice.
What most other coins are (not all!) is a business-coin. They are mostly pointless. Ethereum could be really a centralized smart-contracts platform run by Google or Amazon, and noone would care much. Actually, I believe that's how ETH is going to end. I believe Amazon engineers are working on it already. Because who cares about centralization or censorship resistance, if the main use case is breading virtual cats? No government will be interested in censoring that.
What BCash is, is a scam coin. It's all about ASICBOOST and Roger Ver's hurt pride. He would like to be a pope of Bitcoin, but noone really cares about him. Except for a talent for scamming people for his own gain, he is noone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do a double spend attack of any significance, the other party will notice. Unless you are doing something completely anonymous, the other party will also know who you are and be able to pursue other remedies (eg. sue you for fraud).
If double-spend detection rather than prevention was enough, you could build a much cheaper and more efficient payment system than Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin interesting is the fact that you don't have to resort to the legal system for final arbitration.
If I am engaged in a $100,000 transaction, I would definitely be willing to sue you.
Not to mention the fact that a double spend attack still involves a large capital investment, greatly limiting the number of people capable of pulling it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And eventually when the attack dies down you'll get your wealth back. Here's the attack the author is describing: block 42: exchange sends 1 BCH to foo block 42: in secret , BTC meanies solve a different block 42 block 62: foo is comfortable believing the transaction is confirmed, so is the exchange block 62: in secret , BTC meanies are now solving secret branch block 63, or possibly secret branch block 64/65/etc.…
Sure, but that is still a costly one-time attack. It only affects those who transfer coins, not those who hold them. So if you're holding wealth, it will be safe. It will certainly tank te price for a little bit, but the market will readjust based on the probability that it will happen again. And the theory is that miners would need to choose between spending $180k to execute this attack for a couple hours, causing r…
I'm curious to, however, whether a 51% attack has ever been pulled off.
I can't take any criticisms against Bitcoin Cash seriously when the authors knowingly refer to it as BCash. It's not just a shortening of the name, it's part of a concerted effort by detractors to distance the chain from the Bitcoin legacy. Any author that purposefully uses the term BCash is, on the face, incapable of being objective because they're advertising that they're detractors already. The Bitcoin Core (no on…
It’s called bcash in hopes that too many newbies won’t go deposit bitcoin into a “bitcoin cash” address and sadly lose it all.
The truth is that the money can't be lost. If you have the Bitcoin Cash private keys for the deposit address, you have the Bitcoin Core private keys on the Core chain. All that happens is that someone accidentally receives Bitcoin Core instead of Cash.
I like the math and theory on this. But really why would someone who's making millions on the status quo risk tanking the market for a one time gain? Seems unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it would. This article is surprisingly ignorant of past discussion of the %51 attack.
It also fails to account for the possibility that Bitcoin Cash becomes more valuable, and then Bitcoin is the "vulnerable" chain. It also doesn't mention the name of the author, and the HN user who posted this was created two hours ago. HNers should understand there is a huge political divide in the Bitcoin community right now on this very subject. Anonymous write-ups of known attack vectors framed as genuine warning…
When the BTC-BCH split happend I didn't really understand what everybody was talking about transaction fees. So after BTC continued to rise the past months and we have transaction fees >20$ I understand what was discussed earlier this year. I just wonder why the core devs were against increasing the blocksize. Yes, it would not have been a solution for the next 20 years, but at least it would have left the fees at a…
There are many technical reasons, but I'll respond differently. Bitcoin is not a business-coin. Bitcoin is an idea-coin. It was never about the price, the price is just a side-effect. For many early adopters and developers, Bitcoin is about changing the world. Not in a marketing bullshit-world, but in a real way. We really believe that the world would be a better place if we've put a stop to government and banks mono…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s called bcash in hopes that too many newbies won’t go deposit bitcoin into a “bitcoin cash” address and sadly lose it all.
Again, this is a myth spread by people trying to tarnish Bitcoin Cash's image. The truth is that the money can't be lost. If you have the Bitcoin Cash private keys for the deposit address, you have the Bitcoin Core private keys on the Core chain. All that happens is that someone accidentally receives Bitcoin Core instead of Cash.