Author Topic: Upgrading bitcoin  (Read 13122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monsterer

I still fail to see how any of this is possible without an outside investment large enough to buy all the mining power in whatever coin the attack is directed against.

You cannot just print currency to fund this, it doesn't make any sense.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline ticklebiscuit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
litecoin and dogecoin (merge-mined) are the perfect target. I agree there is a way to do this and a way not to. Attacking bitcoin is likely to do a great deal of damage to us.  If bitcoin is attacked in this way, we should openly distance ourselves from it.  Very very dangerous.  What is runes real life name? So we know who killed bitshares if this attack is attempted against the wrong target.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 09:55:50 pm by ticklebiscuit »

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Rune seems to have an abundance of brilliant ideas, but I would advise caution.  Remember, "game theory" is subservient to the actual world, not the other way around. It would be foolish to underestimate the ingenuity and resourcefulness of thousands of heavily invested and determined people, just because your "models" predict a high probability of success. I know we cannot deny that his idea is compelling, and that it should perhaps even be attempted, but I hope whomever decides to move forward with this crazy plan might carefully consider a few points:

1: It is very dangerous. "Success" could take many forms, none of which are easy to predict.

2: This could blow up into "Blockchain wars" cue Luke Skywalker and the gang. Forget about Bitshares, what if this results in some sort of rift in the general (public) confidence of blockchain technology itself.... Do we want to play with that kind of fire at this stage?

3: Does our benefactor, the great Original, deserve to die such an ignoble death? (I know, kind of silly, but can something truly noble be born of such hostility?)

4: WTF is Litecoin? If someone could explain to me why Litecoin is not the perfect target, please do so.....
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline onceuponatime

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)

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.

Doing it with Litecoin is by far the best tactic I have heard so far.

Rune, are you going to comment on this?

Offline fuzzy

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.

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.

Though I agree that Rune is not affiliated with BitShares (technically), it is important to recognize that what happens will effect us in some way.  Though it is certainly a brilliant plan I see as worth real consideration.  We have seen that our competitors have no problems with attacking us...though, so I am more for this on some level than against it. 

The question is rather that of measured risk-taking or all-out attack.  All out attack imho works against us as much as for us as we are not attacking bitcoin..but its network. 

We first need to put a real nail in the coffin at a PROTOCOL level.  It behoves us to do so in a way that places us in a powerful position from which to act as saviors with a superior protocol as opposed to malevolent attackers.  In this way, we benefit significantly from the open arms of bitcoin's network.  Bitcoin's network would then have to make a decision to embrace BitShares as a brother or attack it.  The political calculus will dictate they embrace us...

A perceived attack will simply push the network into our competitors' arms.

It is all in how it is framed...I sincerely hope whoever does this (as I believe wholeheartedly it will be) takes real care in the decisions they make because it will certainly effect a great many people and that is one of the most important things to consider.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 09:34:12 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
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.

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.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

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.  (+5% 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.

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

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.

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.

These are actually completely legitimate concerns...
However, the psychological aspect of having BitShares in a close #2 to bitcoin sets us up to easily work with them as opposed to against them.  But we can jettison ourselves past their competition with VERY little risk.  The bitcoin-centric members of the crypto-community would be far more inclined (due to the branding) to see bitshares as a a friend who did their dirty work for them and protected their interests.  We automatically gain the recognition and a large part of the network effect...without ever attacking bitcoin.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
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.

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.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

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.

The entire altcoin landscape who would be fighting against it has a combined marketcap far lower than bitcoin--and if bitcoin sees the potential to join bitshares---it is a match made in heaven. 

Let's face it, bitcoin is not too concerned about keeping POW altcoins alive for any reason other than to bleed them dry to avoid its own untimely death. 

Brian can do a short, funny segment with the Invictus Innovations' people stepping off a helicopter wearing "Bitcoin Protection Team" shirts:
 *que slow motion*
 *Cut to each of the I3 team in sequence*  (toast says "let's do this" in slow-motion)
 *Bytemaster puts on Leather Biker's Gloves, puts a cigarette in his mouth---Stan lights it.*
 *Bytemaster takes the lead of a V-formation as they begin walking forward with purpose*
 *Que Beastie Boys "Sabotage"*
  ...fade to black.
End Screen Reads:  DPOS to the Rescue
 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 08:07:33 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline monsterer

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.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile

In my eyes, this would best be done with something like Litecoin

Yes 5% to everything fuzzy said!

Offline fuzzy

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)

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.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 08:05:55 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
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)

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.

Offline monsterer

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)

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.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads