51% attack pool against ETC

1246

Comments

  • dukuudukuu Member Posts: 3
    user769 said:

    dukuu said:

    Who exactly is innocent among ETC buyers? Most are speculators who just care about profits. Not to mention creating a market for stolen property. I mean sure, the hacker found a glitch and abused the code, let's reward him, screw the investors who actually risked capital to give functionality to Ethereum as a platfom.

    All of this is just too toxic and sometimes wrong. I am not necessarily against ETC, but hearing all the trash talk about bailouts (no it wasn't a bailout, it was fixing a glitch and returning lost property), or ETC about being immuteable (no it's not, if ETH was forked, ETC can be too) makes me sick.

    Oh and Chandler's statments reeks of manipulation. So when ETC holders were everyone in the network who owned ETH before the split, 51% was ok, but now, when speculators (let's not kid ourselves, most are speculators) are in for the ride, it's not ok anymore?

    It was a bug in the DAO

    NOT ETH

    There was no glitch in ETH
    I never said it was a glitch in ETH.

    Anyway, I am curious to see how everyone will react when the hacker will dump his 7+ mil ETC on the market.

    http://gastracker.io/addr/0xb136707642a4ea12fb4bae820f03d2562ebff487
  • rocket790rocket790 Member Posts: 5
    The hacker has had access to that etc for a few days now, he has not even touched a single coin, for all we know Satoshi could have been behind the dao hack...
  • user769user769 Member Posts: 5
    dukuu said:

    Who exactly is innocent among ETC buyers? Most are speculators who just care about profits. Not to mention creating a market for stolen property. I mean sure, the hacker found a glitch and abused the code, let's reward him, screw the investors who actually risked capital to give functionality to Ethereum as a platfom.

    Well the DAO investers were speculators as well. They should carry the risks involved...

    Isn't the whole crypto world one big speculation? Or am I missing something here.

    And technically, most of the ETC tokens are owned by ETH users - so they are the same "innocent" buyers. The difference being in that small amount that was mined since the fork till today - which is a drop in the ocean considering the total supply of ETH/ETC.

  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @user769 he never said there was a glitch in Eth... everything @dukuu said looks quite correct to me.
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    smokybear said:



    "Today i will turn on my 120GH for the ETC chain to protect ETC"

    Thank you smokybear. Love to the panda <3
  • MrYukonCMrYukonC Member Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    rocket790 said:

    The hacker has had access to that etc for a few days now, he has not even touched a single coin, for all we know Satoshi could have been behind the dao hack...

    I guess you don't understand how DAO code works then? The exploiter DOES NOT have access to those funds yet. He had to split into yet another child DAO and wait out another 21 + 7 (I believe) days before he can withdraw. That puts it sometime in late August before he can gain access to his STOLEN funds.
  • user769user769 Member Posts: 5
    work said:

    @user769 he never said there was a glitch in Eth... everything @dukuu said looks quite correct to me.

    Well I just wanted to make it clear. ETH by itself never had a glich and did not have the need to fork.

    I kinda get why they forked but I never really liked the idea, I had a feeling there would be a shitstorm like this.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @MrYukonC a succesful chain-takeover on ETC could prevent TheDarkDAO from ever cashing out at a decent value. That alone may be good reason for this whole idea.
  • MrYukonCMrYukonC Member Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    work said:

    @MrYukonC a succesful chain-takeover on ETC could prevent TheDarkDAO from ever cashing out at a decent value. That alone may be good reason for this whole idea.

    Good point.

    I can imagine if a 51% pool of some sort were to come anywhere close to matching (say 350+ GH/s) the current ETC network hashrate, I imagine it would would place immediate downward pressure on ETC's price.

    It's like having nukes -- just their presence alone is usually enough deterrence.
  • MrYukonCMrYukonC Member Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    bitcanuck said:

    A successful 51% attack won't stop trading on Bfx & Px, and therefore won't render ETC completely worthless.

    Um, yeah, it would. Blocks would be overwritten with empty blocks. Any TX's (ALL TX's for that matter) from any exchanges would censored / nullified.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    @bitcanuck if all withdrawals get stuck and nobody can deposit to exchanges, combined with the ETC hashrate returning to Eth en-mass, it's hard to see the coin not trading at close to 0 quite quickly.

    @MrYukonC agreed. And in fact, thanks to the auto-switching pools, the threshold for a chain takeover is quite a bit lower then matching the existing hashrate. At the moment, with ~13% of Ethereum's network difficulty, I estimate it would take about 8% of Ethereum's hashrate to successfully fork and take-over the ETC chain.

    The use of chain weight (total difficulty) to decide the dominant chain in Ethereum creates an interesting opportunity when starting the fork as well. By waiting to start the private (to-be-published later) chain until the pool has an extremely high ethash-valued block (e.g. 100x the current net diff, discarding a few candidate blocks initially or publishing them immediately) it would be possible to orphan a significant number of blocks with only around 25% of the existent ETC hashrate. Once you orphan an initial pile of blocks, network hashrate should start to fall off, and dominating the chain gets easier and easier until almost nobody else is mining on the chain. This gets even more severe if you always try to start the chain at n-1 (mining on the just previous block, immediately orphaning block n) - given a decently high value block on the public chain, you can match that with a huge block, and then include the prior block as an uncle (therefore absorbing it's chain weight). Now this is talking about seizing specific opportunities and creating shorter chunks of orphans initially, but I bet it could be done reliably with as little at 15% of the network hashrate. And that 15% should grow quite rapidly into 50%+ as ETC miners switch back to Eth when they realize ETC is less profitable.
  • MrYukonCMrYukonC Member Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    bitcanuck said:

    MrYukonC said:

    bitcanuck said:

    A successful 51% attack won't stop trading on Bfx & Px, and therefore won't render ETC completely worthless.

    Um, yeah, it would. Blocks would be overwritten with empty blocks. Any TX's (ALL TX's for that matter) from any exchanges would censored / nullified.
    @MrYukonC Trades on an exchange don't go on the blockchain. It's only when you want to transfer in or out.
    Yes, you are right about that. But if trading were to continue even as the chain was being filled in with empty TX's, then that would be a display of 100% cluelessness and ignorance on the traders' parts. Continue to trade a token who's blockchain is literally being wiped clean? LOL I can't imagine the exchanges continue to trade it at that point.
  • MrYukonCMrYukonC Member Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    work said:

    @MrYukonC agreed. And in fact, thanks to the auto-switching pools, the threshold for a chain takeover is quite a bit lower then matching the existing hashrate. At the moment, with ~13% of Ethereum's network difficulty, I estimate it would take about 8% of Ethereum's hashrate to successfully fork and take-over the ETC chain.

    The use of chain weight (total difficulty) to decide the dominant chain in Ethereum creates an interesting opportunity when starting the fork as well. By waiting to start the private (to-be-published later) chain until the pool has an extremely high ethash-valued block (e.g. 100x the current net diff, discarding a few candidate blocks initially or publishing them immediately) it would be possible to orphan a significant number of blocks with only around 25% of the existent ETC hashrate. Once you orphan an initial pile of blocks, network hashrate should start to fall off, and dominating the chain gets easier and easier until almost nobody else is mining on the chain. This gets even more severe if you always try to start the chain at n-1 (mining on the just previous block, immediately orphaning block n) - given a decently high value block on the public chain, you can match that with a huge block, and then include the prior block as an uncle (therefore absorbing it's chain weight). Now this is talking about seizing specific opportunities and creating shorter chunks of orphans initially, but I bet it could be done reliably with as little at 15% of the network hashrate. And that 15% should grow quite rapidly into 50%+ as ETC miners switch back to Eth when they realize ETC is less profitable.

    Nice explanation. And yeah, I was thinking simply starting at n-1 has the potential to simplify things a LOT.
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    This is going to hurt Poloniex so badly that i can't even think about the shockwaves it's going to send through the crypto community. Just think of people like shapeshit if they have a hot wallet stuffed with etc.

    And it's all been published here. Wow, this will give the lawers a feast.
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    Who will touch ETH after that, who will host trading?
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    greenuser said:

    Who will touch ETH after that, who will host trading?

    Everyone that already does...
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    Are you sure, price manipulation of another coin via 51% attack?
    So Eth can profit? Is that legal?
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    I would talk to Poloniex and see what they say if i were you.
    Talk to a lawer too.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @greenuser it's part of PoW, and it's made easier by uncles. Chain take-overs are part of the design, and it's an open network with no authorization scheme. Sounds like what ETC supporters want from all the rhetoric I've seen thrown around.
  • ImAMiner?ImAMiner? Member Posts: 208 ✭✭
    greenuser said:

    I would talk to Poloniex and see what they say if i were you.
    Talk to a lawer too.

    Since when is polo the crypto police?

    Traders control the price of any coin, not miners.
  • greenusergreenuser 50.8862°N 4.5537°WMember Posts: 439 ✭✭
    Are you sure you will have the support from the crypto space as a whole?
    Hay, I was happy to support both, mine both and just see what happened.
    But getting yourself mixed up with Sean Zawadski? Attacking a competitor and publishing your strategy too.

    The people that host this pool will just disappear. It's easy to do in Eastern Europe, but you “work”. Wow, you could be done for conspiracy to ...... defraud? ...and all the miners hashing at 51pool too.
    Well let the lawyers decide that. I'm sure you have looked into this well and have your defence well worked out?
    So sad you feel this way,

    Are you really that full of hate?

    I will leave you to it, I have done my best and said my bit. I'm off for a sandwich and a cup of tea and maybe some frolicking, I need to relax.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @greenuser I think the only people "filled with hate" in this scenario are some of the people supporting the losing chain. I have no idea who Sean Zawadski is, nor do I care. I don't see ETC as a competitor - not in any way shape or form; it's the losing fork of a blockchain split by every metric that exists.

    There's also, quite simply, no defense to make, as there is no law anyone can point to that would be violated. People have tried pointing to some pretty ridiculous things (like unauthorized access to a network - which patently does not apply), but they simply aren't relevant.

    I'd like to take a brief moment to quote myself earlier in this thread:
    work said:

    @dlehenky heh, ya... my "anger" (hint: not at all angry) in this thread is mostly sarcastic, but it's intended to make a point too.

  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    I'd like to remind folks how this whole thing started: a small group of BTC fanatics attacked The DAO with the intent, publicly stated, of disrupting the Ethereum project. Why? Simply because it's not BTC and had gained a lot of traction in the crypto world. Without that event, there wouldn't have been a HF, there wouldn't be ETC. Now that ETC exists, those same BTC fanatics are using it, again, to try to disrupt the Ethereum project, again, simply because it's not BTC and has attained a prominent place on the crypto scene. So, as all the finger-pointing goes on and on about the current ETH/ETC situation and various actions that are being considered, pause for a moment and remember how and why it all started. Just sayin' :)
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @dlehenky nail on head, drove it straight in with one paragraph.

    Looks like George Hallam deleted the pool thread, for anyone wondering:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4vi0qj/disgusted

    TBQH, I'm kinda happy that thread is gone, but I'm not very happy about the massive number of posts getting deleted and censored around here recently.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    bitcanuck said:

    dlehenky said:

    I'd like to remind folks how this whole thing started: a small group of BTC fanatics attacked The DAO with the intent, publicly stated, of disrupting the Ethereum project.

    @dlehenky David, you seem to be getting emotional again. I doubt you have any objective proof of who (what person or persons) did the DAO attack. And calling them "BTC fanatics" seems to be a purely subjective term. Suppose I am one of the DAO attackers, and I did it to try to make some quick money. I'd be a "BTC fanatic", would I?

    Appeals to emotion are common logical fallacies. I see appeals to support the group (i.e. our tribe vs. theirs), and appeals to "fairness" (punish the DAO attackers). Some have bordered on the "your're either with us (ETH) or against us (ETC)" argument that brings them down to the intellectual might of people like W...
    I guess you never read the public statement by TheDAO attacker shortly after the attack.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    As far as I'm concerned, I think everyone should just mine whatever chain they choose, or both, nor neither. There's going to be no end to all this otherwise. This situation is starting to look a lot like the long standing conflict in the Middle East. In the end, an eye for an eye doesn't cut it, all it does is perpetuate destruction. There's is no good in it. On that note, I'm taking a break from the forum. I just can't deal with all this constant drama, and there are considerably more productive things to do with my time and energy. -Best Care, David

    P.S. I believe my prior comment about how all this came about was misread by some. I was trying to make the point that a small group of people with a myopic, almost religious view on an issue (BTC) has managed to bring chaos, discord, and negativity into what is intended to be a very positive and promising initiative (Ethereum).
    Post edited by dlehenky on
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @bitcanuck the "attacker" was quoted as saying pretty much exactly what dlehenky is aluding to, in an IRC conversation. People were fairly confident in the source. And even ignoring that, it's all pretty obvious.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @bitcanuck I do indeed, interestingly; but it's not a number I'd throw around. People that were present were very confident of the source validity at the time. Providing cryptographic proof would be foolish, to put it mildly.

    I say it's obvious mainly based on the actions and statements of a few people in particular from blockstream/core. There's plenty more to go on as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.