0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Seriously, Bitshares should not be in the business of attacking other coins. Even if it works.We can win due to a superior product, there is no need to be the bad guys and launch attacks on other coins networks.
Bitointalk and /r/ Bitcoin have a rough crowd. Kudos to you for trying this. Glad you are focusing on promoting BitShares for now.
We have a new target now : we could upgrade sparkle once it's up ! It would give us some battlefield experience, and show the world that DPOS has anti-cancerous defensive measures
Heh. Well. If it was that easy then no DPOS coin deserves to survive. Anyone who tries to pull it off will have my full support.
Quote from: Rune on November 19, 2014, 04:52:29 pmIf "attacking us" means they're going to pump the price then please go ahead and attack.Really?PumpElect evil delegatesDumpAttackPretty much cost neutral because by the time anyone realises what's going on its too late.
If "attacking us" means they're going to pump the price then please go ahead and attack.
Quote from: Rune on November 19, 2014, 12:23:53 pmHow exactly do you envision this "counter attack" happening? They're going to bribe all stakeholders to only vote for delegates who don't create blocks?Same way as you'd do it to them. Use buying power to buy a controlling voting stake - last I heard that was something like 13% of market cap. Then you just vote in a bunch of bad delegates and 'whoops wheres your blockchain'.
How exactly do you envision this "counter attack" happening? They're going to bribe all stakeholders to only vote for delegates who don't create blocks?
Hi fuzzy,I know eagle eye opinions and this are opinions of any mainstream business managers which sees everything as a war. That is why I was so happy to find bytemaster who had different approach to life and business. I am not knowledgable enough to understand every detail that Rune is talking about, but I keep hearing word like attack which goes against my life philosophy of cooperation and help. I thought that we are in this community trying to build new way of doing business and not follow old way of hostile acquisitions. Have you ever wondered why bytemaster is not commenting. My guess is that he knows in time we will get better and overtake our competitors fair and square without resorting to use of force. If our technology is better than bitcoin than let's people choose it without being forced to do it. Aloha fuzzy
Quote from: Rune on November 19, 2014, 11:00:07 amI agree that beginning with a scrypt coin to test the economics is the best strategy. It needs to be presented in a way that is clearly profitable to the altcoin: after their coins have migrated to the main chain the next target is bitcoin; if the strategy is succesful against any POW altcoin, it will be successful against bitcoin.There is no way to sugar coat this. This will be seen as an attack, and will likely be met with a counter attack and then it's just a case of bigger market cap wins. Last time I checked, litecoin had a bigger cap than bitshares. Feeling lucky?
I agree that beginning with a scrypt coin to test the economics is the best strategy. It needs to be presented in a way that is clearly profitable to the altcoin: after their coins have migrated to the main chain the next target is bitcoin; if the strategy is succesful against any POW altcoin, it will be successful against bitcoin.
Quote from: Ander on November 18, 2014, 10:40:47 pmQuote from: ticklebiscuit on November 18, 2014, 09:52:45 pmlitecoin and dogecoin (merge-mined) are the perfect target. Attacking dogecoin almost seems like an even worse idea. Who would want to attack such a nice community? All they care about is tipping each other and making fun pictures of dogs.Seriously, Bitshares should not be in the business of attacking other coins. Even if it works.We can win due to a superior product, there is no need to be the bad guys and launch attacks on other coins networks. Let us not be the one to initiate use of force. I thought that was what most of us agreed upon, but it looks like I was wrong.
Quote from: ticklebiscuit on November 18, 2014, 09:52:45 pmlitecoin and dogecoin (merge-mined) are the perfect target. Attacking dogecoin almost seems like an even worse idea. Who would want to attack such a nice community? All they care about is tipping each other and making fun pictures of dogs.Seriously, Bitshares should not be in the business of attacking other coins. Even if it works.We can win due to a superior product, there is no need to be the bad guys and launch attacks on other coins networks.
litecoin and dogecoin (merge-mined) are the perfect target.
You might be able to swing it as a environmental crusade.
A video using these song lyrics but modified slightly could be used as a chat up line for mating with dogecoin: (marketing)http://rock.genius.com/Bloodhound-gang-the-bad-touch-lyrics/"You and me doge aint nothing but mammle-coinsso lets do it like the do it like they do on the discovery channel, coins"(plus it strengthens the brand message of doge as it would strengthen the image of being connected to an animal. :p)
Can't we attack our own pow coin: PTS?
Attacking litecoin first is significantly easier to do given the costs are smaller. They will also have a harder time fighting it due to fewer resources. Not a lot of VC money to help back a defense. I do not know the politics behind litecoin though so I might be wrong. ( to whoever had this idea)If you do decide to do it, don't tie it into bitshares. Please. Tell people you have chosen dpos from bitshares as the new coin basis but make it clear you only do that because DPOS is the best. You'll need a small mining pool or create your own because no big pool is going to risk their position.
Quote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 06:31:23 pmQuote from: monsterer on November 18, 2014, 06:24:08 pmQuote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 05:00:55 pmSorry I didn't even notice this earlier. It's from a PM discussion on reddit, and obviously taken out of context, but he does seem to think it will work and even did an ethereum talk in the past about a similar theoretical concept (assembling a 51% attack by paying external rewards for blocks)I don't want to sound dismissive, but it's obvious that you can buy your way into a 51% attack. 'All' you do is buy 51% of the mining power, then you can do whatever you want.Yep, that's what makes it impossible to make a general defense against, and what makes it risk free for the attackers since they're using the market cap of bitcoin to pay for the attack. The biggest hurdle is to set it up in a way that means it is most beneficial for both parties to follow the rules set out by the social contract, ensuring everyone can trust it.Even something this simple is going to be close to impossible to explain to most bitcoiners though... They will have to observe it happen in front of their eyes before they'll believe it.This is a great idea in theory but what are the downsides? In my eyes, this would best be done with something like Litecoin as it would decrease the risk of failure and is not seen so badly in the eyes of the entire bitcoin media. Litecoin doesn't have as many active devs and big guns to fight against this so they will likely just jump ship and onto the new coin in hopes of 1-upping bitcoin. Attached to that, you get the full attention of the Doge community--as they all watch it unfold before their eyes and choose to jump the "merged-mining" train they boarded only months ago. They went to this for profit first and foremost and will be easier to convince than the bitcoin-centric minds who will go down with the bitcoin ship so-to-speak. It will also be easier to attack both those chains than bitcoin itself, and will likely not create a wave of potentially hysterical destruction of all crypto that an open attack on bitcoin might cause if people lose confidence in bitcoin. The people who hold bitcoin but know little about blockchain tech will likely just hold onto their BTC and learn a little bit at a time about the flaws of BTC without being confronted by a complete loss in confidence in the market. It will still jettison nearly every DPOS-based chain in value and will likely increase the value of BTS to a level that easily makes us #2--and Ripple will be out of bullets with which to attack when they are overcome, yet again. Get Bytemaster to issue a statement on how to fix the "obvious flaw in bitcoin" to mitigate the threat to bitcoin...(hint--switch to DPOS). And you automatically have an in for Sumantso's plan to merge with and potentially overtake BTC in the future by soft coup. Make it look (hell make it BE) completely benevolent---"BitShares comes to the Rescue of Bitcoin--Bytemaster Protects Satoshi's Gift to the World, with a Gift of his Pwn."This is actually a really good idea. The only issue, I think, is that we risk a great deal on many levels attacking bitcoin directly (and not all of them are obvious). There are ways to shake confidence in the protocol without destroying confidence in the entire crypto-market, which unfortunately is one of the primary problems with attacking Bitcoin.
Quote from: monsterer on November 18, 2014, 06:24:08 pmQuote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 05:00:55 pmSorry I didn't even notice this earlier. It's from a PM discussion on reddit, and obviously taken out of context, but he does seem to think it will work and even did an ethereum talk in the past about a similar theoretical concept (assembling a 51% attack by paying external rewards for blocks)I don't want to sound dismissive, but it's obvious that you can buy your way into a 51% attack. 'All' you do is buy 51% of the mining power, then you can do whatever you want.Yep, that's what makes it impossible to make a general defense against, and what makes it risk free for the attackers since they're using the market cap of bitcoin to pay for the attack. The biggest hurdle is to set it up in a way that means it is most beneficial for both parties to follow the rules set out by the social contract, ensuring everyone can trust it.Even something this simple is going to be close to impossible to explain to most bitcoiners though... They will have to observe it happen in front of their eyes before they'll believe it.
Quote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 05:00:55 pmSorry I didn't even notice this earlier. It's from a PM discussion on reddit, and obviously taken out of context, but he does seem to think it will work and even did an ethereum talk in the past about a similar theoretical concept (assembling a 51% attack by paying external rewards for blocks)I don't want to sound dismissive, but it's obvious that you can buy your way into a 51% attack. 'All' you do is buy 51% of the mining power, then you can do whatever you want.
Sorry I didn't even notice this earlier. It's from a PM discussion on reddit, and obviously taken out of context, but he does seem to think it will work and even did an ethereum talk in the past about a similar theoretical concept (assembling a 51% attack by paying external rewards for blocks)
Quote from: Ander on November 18, 2014, 08:06:07 pmQuote from: monsterer on November 18, 2014, 07:48:34 pmIMO consider actually doing this attack will result in a counter attack against bitshares, and with the much lower cap and vulnerable voting apathy problem, you might find this idea backfires quite horribly. I wouldn't recommend trying it.I agree, any such attempt to attack would not result in bitcoin's death, but would rather kill the attacker. We have a great product and lots of future potential in bitshares, and I would hate to see that destroyed by a foolish attempt to kill bitcoin.Even if successful, bitcoin's true believers would simply fork an older version of the block chain and continue on, and try to convince everyone to return to it. And they would probably be successful, because the bitcoin community would be so angry that the rug had been pulled out from under them. This crisis would lead to changes in bitcoi nto make it less vulnerable to attack, and then it would continue on stronger than ever, while the fury of hatred against the attacker would destroy it forever.The only way to beat bitcoin is gradually, with bitcoin believers being converted over time to seeing that proof of stake is better than proof of waste.I am extremely skeptical about this idea, but I don't see it as bitshares attacking anyone. Rune is not an official spokesperson for bitshares in any way. It really has little to do with bitshares.
Quote from: monsterer on November 18, 2014, 07:48:34 pmIMO consider actually doing this attack will result in a counter attack against bitshares, and with the much lower cap and vulnerable voting apathy problem, you might find this idea backfires quite horribly. I wouldn't recommend trying it.I agree, any such attempt to attack would not result in bitcoin's death, but would rather kill the attacker. We have a great product and lots of future potential in bitshares, and I would hate to see that destroyed by a foolish attempt to kill bitcoin.Even if successful, bitcoin's true believers would simply fork an older version of the block chain and continue on, and try to convince everyone to return to it. And they would probably be successful, because the bitcoin community would be so angry that the rug had been pulled out from under them. This crisis would lead to changes in bitcoi nto make it less vulnerable to attack, and then it would continue on stronger than ever, while the fury of hatred against the attacker would destroy it forever.The only way to beat bitcoin is gradually, with bitcoin believers being converted over time to seeing that proof of stake is better than proof of waste.
IMO consider actually doing this attack will result in a counter attack against bitshares, and with the much lower cap and vulnerable voting apathy problem, you might find this idea backfires quite horribly. I wouldn't recommend trying it.
In my eyes, this would best be done with something like Litecoin
Quote from: Rune on November 17, 2014, 10:23:11 pmOur greatest accomplishment so far is vitalik telling me "if you bribe existing miners with some quantity of BTC that definitely will work too."Source?
Our greatest accomplishment so far is vitalik telling me "if you bribe existing miners with some quantity of BTC that definitely will work too."
Quote from: gamey on November 18, 2014, 03:09:18 pmWhat will happen is pool operators will patch their code to remove the signature. Miners don't deal with transactions, thats what pools do. So they patch the 4 pools to detect these transactions and remove them. You're going to need to run your own pool for these miners... Then what happens? You're giving rewards on this 2nd chain in the belief that the chain that was used to bribe/destroy btc will be used by BTCers in the future? There are other countermeasures etc. This has big fail written on it, but good luck. All the VC money being poured into BTC will just make them code around you. They'll implement difficulty in terms of transaction latency or something (no longer having 10 minute blocks). Then your whole idea is thrown out the window like that.edit - although it'd be ugly to code around you. Blocks would no longer have the same rewards etc if they did difficulty based on transaction latency. Maybe they wouldn't do that, but they'd find something to nullify the effectiveness of this. This would be a better sell to start at the next halving... or other points in the future when the blockreward is smaller.Honestly i think you should go for it. It will gather attention for DPOS at least.If a miner wishes to claim the vested coins they will move to whatever pool supports it. We can even bribe a pool to joining us early by giving the first large pool that commits to making only ERB's an extra vested stake to distribute, pitting all large pools against each other in a game of prisoners dilemma to see who will take the instant reward at the cost of the collectives future mining profits.
What will happen is pool operators will patch their code to remove the signature. Miners don't deal with transactions, thats what pools do. So they patch the 4 pools to detect these transactions and remove them. You're going to need to run your own pool for these miners... Then what happens? You're giving rewards on this 2nd chain in the belief that the chain that was used to bribe/destroy btc will be used by BTCers in the future? There are other countermeasures etc. This has big fail written on it, but good luck. All the VC money being poured into BTC will just make them code around you. They'll implement difficulty in terms of transaction latency or something (no longer having 10 minute blocks). Then your whole idea is thrown out the window like that.edit - although it'd be ugly to code around you. Blocks would no longer have the same rewards etc if they did difficulty based on transaction latency. Maybe they wouldn't do that, but they'd find something to nullify the effectiveness of this. This would be a better sell to start at the next halving... or other points in the future when the blockreward is smaller.Honestly i think you should go for it. It will gather attention for DPOS at least.
You can read the full strategy to get the details. The money will simply be inflated at the time of the upgrade and be included in the migration block.
I want to read your marketing materials on the coin itself. The coin that people will have to destroy BTC on hopes of future value.You might be able to swing it as a environmental crusade.
Quote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 02:12:08 pmThis also how majority support for soft forks is achieved, I think they simply include the message in the nonce.Ok, so assuming, for arguments sake that you manage to get them to mine these blocks and therefore they have access to this side chain - how do you propose to raise more than 1,312,500 BTC mined each year + their investment in mining hardware which is probably equal to that sum again in order to make the transition profitable?And your investors, aren't they taking a massive risk investing such a large sum into something which is likely to fail?
This also how majority support for soft forks is achieved, I think they simply include the message in the nonce.
One can start and offer an interest on the vested BTC on the 'sidechain' .. thus however gets to mine those blocks first can get interest on the vested stakes in BTC2
Are we talking Pool operators or pool miners? because the miners most certainly don't even see the transactions included as they mine on the merkle tree and guess the nonce .. they have no idea how the merkle tree was spanned .. afaik .. so the only thing the miners see is a hash to mine on .. not the transactions ..the pool operators construct the merkle tree from the set of transactions they include ..
Quote from: xeroc on November 18, 2014, 01:47:17 pmsince when do miners 'care' about the block they mine?I don't think they 'care' in the traditional sense. More likely due to them using non-standard builds of the client, suited to their needs.
since when do miners 'care' about the block they mine?
Quote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 01:31:58 pm and all they have to do to get these vested coins are to mine blocks with a simple message that supports the upgrade.Still got the same problem. Miners don't even mine non-standard transaction scripts, so they certainly aren't going to mine some amount of arbitrary non transaction data baked into a transaction.
and all they have to do to get these vested coins are to mine blocks with a simple message that supports the upgrade.
Still got the same problem. Miners don't even mine non-standard transaction scripts, so they certainly aren't going to mine some amount of arbitrary non transaction data baked into a transaction.
I support the community consensus of making rune do what we want him to do.Make him conform to us against his will.Dan invented a nuclear coin and rune is terifying.
Quote from: Rune on November 18, 2014, 12:24:18 pmIt's as simple as paying 51% of them more than their current expected return. Using incentive structures that abuse the tragedy of the commons inherent in POW mining can reduce the price even further.You can't pay them without 51% of them simultaneously agreeing to accept the payment. That is the key failure mode of this idea.
It's as simple as paying 51% of them more than their current expected return. Using incentive structures that abuse the tragedy of the commons inherent in POW mining can reduce the price even further.
Rune, why are you trying to do this? How would this possibly benefit the BTS community in any way?
First of all it wont work. Second of all it will put Bitshares on the permanent blacklist by Bitcoin power brokers.It's not worth it. It's better to work with rather than against Bitcoin at this time. They have the market cap and like it or not the entire industry rides on the success of Bitcoin. They might not have the greatest technology but they will be the first crypto everyone hears about rather than the last.
This idea is madness. How much money do you think the bitcoin miners have invested in their warehouses of liquid-cooled, custom built racks of ASIC mining equipment, which are specifically designed to solve SHA256 hashes?You seriously expect 51% of the mining power, with all that investment to all simultaneously agree to throw their existing tried and tested business model, equipment and infrastructure away on the promise of some untried, untested idea?
I prefer a stealth attack where BitBTC poses as friend, starts getting used interchangeably with Bitcoin, and slowly captures part of the marketcap (channeling it into BTS).
I'd prefer the strategy to let me figure it out themselves without aggressively attacking the chain .. though theoretical discussions are a !!!