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

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#701

Post by tal8d »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #685
tal8d wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Malicious actors can't give a bogus header, because you can verify the bogus header doesn't have enough PoW. Ok, I guess you don't know how verification works. Here are the 19 steps: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules#.22block.22_messag... Step 4) "Block hash must satisfy claimed nBits proof of work" The bad actor has full control of that, he just has to make sure the fake header has enough leading 0s in pho…

What kind of a response is this? They said anyone can verify the proof of work and you are saying they can verify the proof of work. Where is the contradiction? Verifying blocks is trivial. You aren't still saying that needing to receive 900KB is a big deal are you? You seem to be acting like there is some sort of prediction that there will be a problem. Ethereum already produces blocks every 13 seconds at three time…

> Where is the contradiction?

I said that you can't verify the header until you have downloaded the entire block - meaning the time between a false header being submitted and the last transaction in the block being downloaded is time the miner either abandons its work on the last real block and then sits idle or risks hashing a new block prior to verifying the false header. He implied that you can somehow verify using the PoW. I demonstrate that you cannot. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#702

Post by joshspankit »

An interesting (paraphrased) perspective from someone who bought one of Beeple’s $999 pieces and watched the value go up above $80k:

“I’m in an interesting bind. On one hand I can prove ownership to Beeple and claim my physical piece, but on the other hand, I could keep what is essentially the ultimate unopened package.”

I feel like Beeple might lose out on storage fees, but this is a stunning perspective. What if someone could buy a 20 year-old token that allows them to have the piece delivered direct from the artist’s house where it’s been untouched the whole time?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#703

Post by [deleted] »

Kiro wrote: post #608

What prevents someone from creating another NFT platform for tweets and do the same thing? The tweet is only unique on the Cent Valuables platform, not on the blockchain itself. Or am I missing something?

[deleted]

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#704

Post by tal8d »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #699
tal8d wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where are you getting ideas like this? How fast do you think internet connections are? As fast as the packet source wants? The only way to defend against a slowloris DoS is by accounting for it at the application layer, which is both unusual and difficult - as DoS attacks are usually handled at the transport layer. In this case that could mean applying a deadline for the block announcement in its entirety - which m…

Now you are trying to say that for after 11 years, miners will for some reason sit and wait for someone that isn't sending them a block fast enough and that other miners will attack people like that. No one is waiting. If someone tries to send out a block slowly, someone else mines that block and sends it out fast. This is not difficult to understand. It's amazing all the made up nonsense you've thrown out to try to…

Check the reference client buglist, they got hit with a slowloris resource exhaustion combo. They fixed the resource exhaustion (kind of), they did not address the slowloris vulnerability. So again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Doubly so if you didn't write the backend of a major mining pool - because you're just running your mouth about code you haven't seen otherwise.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#705

Post by CyberDildonics »

tal8d wrote: post #694
CyberDildonics wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers. What are you even talking about here? 900KB takes a fraction of a second to transfer on a modest internet connection, any miner with $10 a month for a VPS can transfer that is a millisecond. No one said anything about downloading fractions of blocks, you hallucinated that. > Anyone si…

> What are you even talking about here? 900KB takes a fraction of a second to transfer on a modest internet connection... You are assuming that there are no bad actors in the network who might not want to transfer a block in a fraction of a second, and don't have to because they control the packet rate. Also you seem really hung up on this 900KB figure, you've repeated it in 8 recent posts. You know bitcoin's 30 day…

> You are assuming that there are no bad actors in the network who might not want to transfer a block in a fraction of a second,

No, you are assuming that it matters if people try this. Who cares if someone sends slow? No one waits for them. They send a block slow, someone else mines the block and sends it out fast. You have hallucinated this attack, it doesn't happen. Show me evidence of this having any effect if you can.

> bitcoin's 30 day average block size has been above 900KB since 2018-10-24

This is not true. 900KB is where the MAX size of the blocks. The average is much lower from variance. This is not difficult to see:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#3y

> But why would you harp on bitcoin's block size when you are advocating for a max block size that could accommodate all of Visa's transactions?

Where did I say any of that? All I've done is point out that the things you say have no evidence and don't even make sense.

> Ah yes, that has worked out great for several exchanges and various other cryptocurrency related services. The cloud has been great, fill it with all the things.

This is just vapid sarcasm. There are no problems with exchanges. If you have evidence, show it.

> You don't seem to understand how packet switched networks function either. Go lookup "MTU", I look forward to hearing how even the most modest internet connection enjoys IPV6 with a 300MB jumboframe policy spanning the entire network path!

Focus please, confront the topic at hand, stop with irrelevant nonsense.

> It isn't that it'd take them 10 minutes to download the entire block... it is that they are at a 0.92 second disadvantage to their competition - this drives the physical centralization.

Show evidence that this happens and is a problem to anyone.

> lol, the salty salty tears.

This is not evidence of anything. Ethereum and bitcoin cash do have more transactions going through them than bitcoin. I will show you the actual information:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-bc...

> And yet they do it, because it has been mathematically demonstrated to be a winning strategy - even before block bloat induced propagation delay. The rest of the statement is simply nonsensical.

It isn't a winning strategy, it is a mild attack that accomplishes very little and loses money from not including transactions. Bitcoin cash does not have capacity problems so people don't even notice. Sitting on blocks accomplishes very little since the rest of the network is more likely to out mine you as time goes on.

> If you can consistently verify the newest announced block 1 second before every other miner - then your average solve rate is guaranteed to be 1 second faster than their average solve rate.

The time it takes to verify a block is trivial. If it was so important, why aren't all the blocks empty?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#707

Post by CyberDildonics »

tal8d wrote: post #701
CyberDildonics wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of a response is this? They said anyone can verify the proof of work and you are saying they can verify the proof of work. Where is the contradiction? Verifying blocks is trivial. You aren't still saying that needing to receive 900KB is a big deal are you? You seem to be acting like there is some sort of prediction that there will be a problem. Ethereum already produces blocks every 13 seconds at three time…

> Where is the contradiction? I said that you can't verify the header until you have downloaded the entire block - meaning the time between a false header being submitted and the last transaction in the block being downloaded is time the miner either abandons its work on the last real block and then sits idle or risks hashing a new block prior to verifying the false header. He implied that you can somehow verify usin…

No, he said that blocks are verified to have enough proof of work put into them. You were confused.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#708

Post by gruez »

detaro wrote: post #688
gruez wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people pay extra for signed books? A signed copy is literally identical to a non-signed copy aside from the signature ink.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question of reselling stuff?

My prior response was at the "why would someone pay for a NFT when you can download an identical version for free" question of the parent comment.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#709

Post by CyberDildonics »

tal8d wrote: post #704
CyberDildonics wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you are trying to say that for after 11 years, miners will for some reason sit and wait for someone that isn't sending them a block fast enough and that other miners will attack people like that. No one is waiting. If someone tries to send out a block slowly, someone else mines that block and sends it out fast. This is not difficult to understand. It's amazing all the made up nonsense you've thrown out to try to…

Check the reference client buglist, they got hit with a slowloris resource exhaustion combo. They fixed the resource exhaustion (kind of), they did not address the slowloris vulnerability. So again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Doubly so if you didn't write the backend of a major mining pool - because you're just running your mouth about code you haven't seen otherwise.

Are you actually saying that a bug in bitcoin is a reason that no cryptocurrency can scale to many times more transaction throughput? Why do ethereum and bitcoin cash work so well?

Did you write the backend of a mining pool and build in a bug where you wait for a block to be sent slowly? That's a pretty crazy mistake to just wait on a single connection.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#710

Post by gruez »

imtringued wrote: post #657
gruez wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the same dynamic exists with NFTs. The issuers can limit supply to ensure value for collectors.

Physical goods have a counterfeiting risk. Is it possible to use NFTs to prevent counterfeiting by verifying that a product is genuine? If not then they really have no use. Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed.

>Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed.

The same can be applied to physical goods as well. Why do people pay millions for the original painting, even though they could probably get a replica that's identical to the naked eye for much less? Clearly they're interested in more than it being "as good as the original".

Post reply on HN