Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Empirical1

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 59
136
General Discussion / Re: How to attack Bitcoin Mining
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:50:00 pm »
Quote
withholding shares can be be detected with some smart heuristics

Is it possible for a pool to discern you're witholding winning hashes and block your hashing power specifically from a pool?

If you divide your attack hash power among 1000 accounts, then the probability that any one of those accounts would find a block in a given a given year is effectively 0.  No way to distinguish "unlucky" from "withholding" without a large enough sample size.   Keep the accounts small enough and you will be indictable.   (Sybil Attack)

Thanks. The latest feedback from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=744926.0


Step 4)  Don't submit winning hashes, reducing the REVENUE of competitors by 3%

When mining you don't know if you have the winning hash until after you submit it (sometimes not even then).

Neil

137
General Discussion / Re: Sending to Wrong Name
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:26:50 pm »
this particular dev's opinion is "BTSX namespace is ruined and that's ok". We have another DAC for that. What is your opinion about the state of gmail's namespace?

I may have misinterpreted the question.

Gmail, can no longer market convenient user accounts as a primary selling feature as the majority of favourable account names have been taken. If micro-payments were possible and a new significant mail service was launched, I think there would be some value in monetising certain forms of account names even for an email address, particularly for businesses. (As they use them to interact with customers)

As demonstrated by your concern about people sending funds to Toast by mistake. Canonizer wanting their account name. & the problem demonstrated in practice with people sending funds to the incorrect Bter in this thread, I personally believe BTSX account names have more value than say Gmail. (Again as they use them to interact with customers, and for money in this case, like bter, unlike Riverheads Scottrade name.)

I personally believe many online businesses and in future even my local restaurant/hardware store/plumber/individual users, when it comes time to pay by BTSX or BitUSD would prefer an account name that matches their business/taste and they would be willing to pay a small premium for it.

I also think we can market it as a unique feature for the first 24 months that a lot of favourable account names are available, but a $5000 attack could damage that and leave us with about the same level of account names you could expect to get if you signed up for a gmail account today. Ie. Toast7391@gmail.com  Which is why I think raising the cost to $0.1-0.25 is good idea.

Edit: I think I read that this can be mitigated some other way though, I forget.

It's just my opinon. 


138
Follow My Vote / Re: let it be beneficial to vote for the right one
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:26:37 pm »
What's the meaning of this? Adding the complexity of system I think.

It's a possible solution regarding voter apathy. (people being too lazy to vote and vote well.)

139
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum & BitShares Partnership?
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:09:45 pm »
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs"  ;)

I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.

 +5%


he is proud... and he is right to be  ;)

Yes for sure  :) 

My  +5% was for being concerned about the personal security of BM.

140
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum & BitShares Partnership?
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:53:37 pm »
dpos is a great upgrade security wise for the blockchain technology...
But what about your personal security on this real world guys?
Hope your photographer is behind you not only to take pictures, but because they are "watching your backs"  ;)

I worry about this as well. I'll bet 1000btsx that Stan is the photographer.

 +5%

141
-5%


why do you don't warn us before www.bitsharestalk.org was going "down" for maintenance?
and why don't you inform the public on the home page about this ?
it not good for bitshares image!!!

Unscheduled down time due to a DNS issue beyond their control.


thats explains it...


PS By the way it's a good way to attack bitsharesΧ "indirectly"... "just" by attacking the forum... just saying  ;)

Unfortunate timing to be sure.

It reminds me of a friend last year who decided to refurbish his store right before Xmas. Long story short, a lot of unforeseen circumstances lead to his store being closed over Xmas.

The plan looks good though. Hopefully the forum will be back online shortly.

142
General Discussion / Re: How to attack Bitcoin Mining
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:56:44 pm »
As you're part of their pool though you would receive $27 million. So you may be at a loss too but only a $1 million or two and for that you get to make the main mining pool unprofitable.

This lets you drive hashers to your competitive pool which could then easily accumulate 51% hashing power.

I think it's something like that.

I think the shortfall is made up in the merge mining so you're not actually losing money.

You are purchasing control of the Bitcoin network for a cost much less than 51%

Yes, MUCH less. Seems pretty epic.

Edit: Apologies, I hope no-one minds, but I re-posted it on the Bitcoin forum https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=744926.0

The only potentially constructive feedback I've seen so far is

Quote
withholding shares can be be detected with some smart heuristics

Is it possible for a pool to discern you're witholding winning hashes and block your hashing power specifically from a pool?

143
General Discussion / Re: Sending to Wrong Name
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:02:22 pm »
de-registration would be nice, but it would make trading names easier  :-\
Won't happen .. every .. already discussed issue :)

I think they should at least raise the cost of registering a name to $0.1-$0.25.
It seems one of our key selling points is easy account names, but at less than $0.01 per name, you can take out 5 million names for $50k and significantly damage that selling point on our blockchain.

I've been told by the BitShares devs though that '*I* should stop acting like names have value'
So I'm probably wrong on this one.

Edit: My maths was wrong I think a name is only $0.001 so you can take out 5 million names with $5000?

144
General Discussion / Re: Sending to Wrong Name
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:54:09 pm »
 +5% +5% Clains!  :D

145
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum & BitShares Partnership?
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:43:12 pm »
So far the response from the Ethereum community has been very negative.  I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised since it's the "one chain to rule them all" fan club but it's still disheartening to see such vocal closed mindedness.

I'm thrilled to see Vitalik and Dan have a good professional relationship and am looking forward to hearing more about the challenges faced by both parties in developing these ecosystems.

Yes, at the very least it seems like they've stimulated and helped each other in certain areas so that is positive.

If BM's perspective is correct, that Vitalik sees POW as pretty much dead, then it's quite a big rift, if the other main Ethereum dev/s disagrees. I personally can't see Vitalik wanting to spend his talent and effort developing Ethereum on a base he perceives as having a limited future.

I haven't invested in Ether myself yet at all.

146
General Discussion / Re: How to attack Bitcoin Mining
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:51:36 pm »
I must be missing the forest for the trees. Would a pool even notice a 3% hit to their profits? Or is it that it's 3% of their total revenue and their margins are less than 3% therefore pushing them into a red position?

Some very rough number crunching shows that it would take about $4.5MM USD to gain 3% of the total BTC hash. Assuming a pool large enough to make this attack worth while has 20% of the BTC hashing power you're looking at under a million dollars in HW. Pocket change considering the $7BB USD market cap of BTC.

I think it would be a 3% hit to their revenue not their profits.

If there were a $1 Billion in new coins made a year then a pool with 30% hash power could expect to earn $300 million in revenue. However Bitcoin margins are tight. How tight I don't know but I doubt they're making more than $15-30 million profit.

Your 3% secret hash power not submitting winning hashes would take $30 million of revenue from them, making them unprofitable.

As you're part of their pool though you would receive $27 million. So you may be at a loss too but only a $1 million or two and for that you get to make the main mining pool unprofitable.

This lets you drive hashers to your competitive pool which could then easily accumulate 51% hashing power.

I think it's something like that.

147
General Discussion / Re: BM Black Swan insurance fund proposal
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:06:33 am »
Speaking of insurance. At the moment a lot of the BitShares talent is co-located, which seems to have worked out great. However that's not very decentralised. While there's no insuring BM. Are there people not currently co-located that are incentivised and capable of delivering BitAssets in their current form to DACsunlimited for release on BTSX.

To be totally honest I have never, ever, understood any of alt's posts (my hoe has always been that the people that matter, do).
Reading this I feel the same way totally lost, as what do you mean.
Can you please re-phrase.

I think the BitShares development team should be more decentralised.

148
 +5% sounds good

149
General Discussion / Re: BM Black Swan insurance fund proposal
« on: August 18, 2014, 12:47:38 am »
Speaking of insurance. At the moment a lot of the BitShares talent is co-located, which seems to have worked out great. However that's not very decentralised. While there's no insuring BM. Are there people not currently co-located that are incentivised and capable of delivering BitAssets in their current form to DACsunlimited for release on BTSX.

150
General Discussion / Re: Proposal: Max Delegate Pay = Approval Rate
« on: August 18, 2014, 12:11:20 am »
I have an idea to encourage users to vote, for 101 delegate.
like LOTTO, for example, we have 101 delegate active now, they have get their votes, maybe totally 40,000,000,000 votes.
we generate a random number between 1-40,000,000,000 every 24*60*6 blocks.
we can get this lucky vote's address
then give a lucky reward  to this address, part of  the destroy fee at this day.

to increase the chance to get the reward, users need to vote more delegate, and to the right delegate.

A lottery that users are entered into by voting for delegates. I like it!  +5%

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 59