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

Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

ccn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 555 posts

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#541

Post by wpietri »

conanbatt wrote: post #532
wpietri wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense at all, and is not how business works. Most economic activity is positive sum. When I'm hungry and on the go, a taco is more valuable to me than raw taco materials, so I pay more for it. Value has been created. The taqueria owner takes money in, pays their expenses, and is left with a profit. Taxes are paid out of that profit, and you could just as well model it as another kind of expense, a socie…

> Value has been created But not dollars, which is what you are using to classify gambling as negative-sum. > Many countries use value creation as an explicit taxation model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax If the gobernment collected that tax but didnt spend or issued money, even VAT ends up capturing all the money supply. This is an unnecessary long argumentation. Gambling is not negative sum because…

That is not in fact what I am using to classify gambling as negative-sum. It is also negative-sum in cash terms, but I'm speaking of value.

I understand you are claiming the entertainment value outweighs the harm of exploitation and addiction. I strongly disagree.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#544

Post by throwaway37585 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #397
throwaway37585 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please post something relevant to the topic under discussion? There’s enough noise on this thread as it is.

You needed a throwaway account just to tell someone off?

I did not make a throwaway account “just to tell someone off”, and you could’ve figured that out in 5 seconds by looking at my comment history.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#545

Post by wpietri »

GuthL wrote: post #539
wpietri wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I wouldn't. Most people don't want digital cash for the same reasons they don't use real cash: your risk of theft is higher, it's not as convenient to use, transactions can't be reversed, and you lose a lot of buyer protections. I use technology to solve problems for people. The few niches Bitcoin has found (e.g., speculation, money laundering, ransoms, light drug crime) are not really what I would call s…

Your personal opinion on cash is irrelevant to the subject. Cash has property you say you don't want. Some people might and do want them. Just have a look at what the relationship between Germans and cash. Bitcoin has property similar to cash to many extend. It was not technically possible before its invention and as such as it is a real intrinsect value (dont ask me to quantify it)

It wasn't my personal opinion. In the US, the use of cash is below half of personal transactions and has been declining for years; most countries are similar. I personally am more like the Germans here, but I recognize that I'm an outlier.

Regardless, your point doesn't make a lot of sense, because many Germans surveyed on this say they use cash because it gives them better control over spending and more clarity as to where their money goes. Bitcoin is in no way superior to a debit card in that regard.

The value of new possibility isn't really intrinsic; you measure it through seeing if people actually use it. With Bitcoin they mostly don't, which suggests that it is at best more useful to a small slice of people.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#546

Post by stale2002 »

nicky0 wrote: post #522
stale2002 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... Then I guess that means it is safe then right? The whole point of crypto is that you are relying on the fact that 50% of the network is honest. So yes, you are correct that it relies on half the network being "benevolent". That's how ALL cryptos work.

You are missing the point. Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash use the same hash algorithm. Bitcoin Cash has about 15% of the total available SHA256 hashpower, and Bitcoin the other 85%. So it only take's a fraction of Bitcoin's miners to turn against Bitcoin Cash to attack it.

Yes, and the Bitcoin network ITSELF can be attacked with a faction of the total hashpower on the Bitcoin network.

Specifically, the fraction is 51/100, or 51 percent of the network. This is for the main Bitcoin network.

The fraction for Bitcoin cash would be around 15%, or 15/100, expressed as a fraction.

The Bitcoin cash network would require a smaller fraction, yes. But this still isn't a huge concern.

If it is 3 times easier to attack bitcoin cash, that is still extremely difficult.

Fractional hashpower attacks, (51% attacks) are all explained quite clearly in the white paper.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#547

Post by cutler »

comboy wrote: post #443
cutler wrote: post #139

So much energy from the brightest minds of our age dedicated to getting something for nothing. I'm outa here.

Yeah, producing software is insane.

I was referring to those out to game the system, not the creators of the software. Then again, I have the same contempt for stock market traders, currency speculators and purveyors of financial "products", "instruments" or any other crazy term invented to make getting something for nothing sound respectable.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#549

Post by pgwhalen »

physguy1123 wrote: post #252
pgwhalen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting thought, but in practice, trading derivatives affects the value of the underlying pretty strongly. Whoever is selling you those puts is selling bitcoin (or futures) to hedge, which would drive the price down as you try to put on your position.

With options, buying deep OTM puts won't result in an immediate impact on the underlying market because they have such low delta and market makers aren't going to move a lot of spot to hedge it.

It wouldn't be immediate, but the second you put on a trade with any kind of size that far out of the money, the market makers will wise up.

Re: Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose Millions

#550

Post by hndamien »

Arbalest wrote: post #534
hndamien wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be ignoring the status quo. I only need to prove it better than the current system, you need to prove that the current system is better. Those families and businesses that start from nothing still need money. Just that currently the money they do get is going to be worth less in the future.

Right, which means it is worth being spent. If spending is not worth it, then spending by and large dries up, resulting in a reduction of income to others, reducing the multiplier effect, and reducing the amount of actual trade that occurs. People continue to save as income opportunities dry up, and those with no income get royally screwed. With no risk taking occurring, things go back to bare essentials, which we ar…

THIs is a wonderful story that doesn’t make any sense. You are suggesting that there are two sets of people, those with BTC that is increasing in value and those without. Those with are spending nothing and getting fabulously wealthy not spending their appreciating asset. Meanwhile, on the outside the no-coiners suffer from the lack of trade and become destitute and the economy drives to a halt.

This makes no sense for several reasons. The no-coiners could just buy a tiny fraction of a BTC with whatever fiat they have and become fabulously wealthy. When they do this they would be setting the market price even higher for all the rich Bitcoiners. All the of these fabulously wealthy holders think against deploying any capital to either enrich their life or increase their rate of return over asset appreciation.

It is absurd to think that as an entire population becomes wealthier that was risk taking occurs, when it it people that are mired in debt that often take less risk.

Before you respond remember these facts, the market price is set by buyers and sellers (trading). Bitcoin is infinitely divisible despite a capped supply. Gresham’s Law dictates that people will spend bad money first. Your no-coiner set has at least the ability to provide a service to begin wealth accumulation.

Post reply on HN