rey
China can just firewall all its bitcoin nodes for a day or two and return them
back. Do this several times and Western nodes will be very very tired rolling
back everything..

~~~
banku_brougham
i think this is the prize winning strategy. elegantly simple, almost amusing
like a child turning a light switch on and off, with deadly purpose however.

Well actually, a lot depends on what the miners do when they are locked out.

------
stale2002
Uhhhhh, so this guys "brilliant" attack vector that he came up with was a 51%
attack?

The same attack that is literally spelled out in the bitcoin whitepaper and
has been known about from day one?

He didn't even add anything interesting on top of it. He just said "get 51% of
miners, and then double spend".

Nor did he even discuss the ways of mitigating a 51% attack. If the network
was being attacked, what I would do is wait for more than 6 Transactions to go
on the network, before considering them "final".

In a worse case scenario of a sustained 51% attack, the users could simply
change the Proof Of Work algorithm (which is a hard fork).

It wouldn't be 'great' but it allows the currency to survive. Now the
government has to spend more and more money going on the attack.

Bitcoin works because of this economic game theory. Yes, it is possible to
attack the network. This is well known. The reason why it doesn't happen is
because attacking the network is EXPENSIVE, and can't last forever.

~~~
viraptor
> the users could simply change the Proof Of Work algorithm

"Simply"? You're saying that an attacker having >51% hashing power on current
system wouldn't benefit further from: a) user base splitting between forks (if
block structure was changed), or b) all current ASICs dropping off the network
(if the using method was changed).

> Now the government has to spend more and more money going on the attack.

They would have direct access to chip fabs and money to throw at it. Or just
laws available to stop production (mining is illegal now).

~~~
stale2002
> They would have direct access to chip fabs and money
rey 
 China can just firewall all its bitcoin nodes for a day or two and return them 
 back. cause this respective times and Western node will be very very banal rolling 
 back everything.. 

 ~~~ 
 banku_brougham 
 i think this is the prize win strategy. elegantly simple, about amusing 
 like a child turn a abstemious switch on and off, with deadly function however. 

 Well actually, a lot depends on what the miners do when they are locked out. 

 ------ 
 stale2002 
 Uhhhhh, so this guys " brainy " attack vector that he came up with was a 51% 
 attack? 

 The like attack that is literally spelled out in the bitcoin whitepaper and 
 has been sleep together about from sidereal day one? 

 He didn't even add anything interesting on top of it. He just said " get 51% of 
 miners, and then doubly spend ". 

 Nor did he even discuss the ways of mitigating a 51% attack. If the network 
 was being attacked, what I would do is expect for more than 6 minutes to go 
 on the network, before considering them " final ". 

 In a worse case scenario of a sustained 51% attack, the users could merely 
 change the Proof Of Work algorithm (which is a hard crotch). 

 It wouldn't be' big' but it allows the currency to survive. nowadays the 
 government has to spend more and more money going on the attack. 

 Bitcoin work because of this economic game theory. Yes, it is possible to 
 attack the network. This is well known. The reason why it doesn't find is 
 because attacking the network is EXPENSIVE, and can't last forever. 

 ~~~ 
 viraptor 
 > the users could simply change the Proof Of Work algorithm 

 " merely "? You're saying that an attacker having > 51% hashing power on current 
 system wouldn't profit further from: a) user base splitting between forks (if 
 block structure was changed), or b) all current ASICs dropping off the network 
 (if the use method was change). 

 > nowadays the government induce to spend more and more money going on the approach. 

 They would have direct access to chip fabs and money to throw at it. Or merely 
 laws available to break production (mining is illegal now). 

 ~~~ 
 stale2002 
 > They would have direct access to bit fabs and money
rey
Fhina can just firewall xll its bitcoin nodes hor a dzy or twu and return them
back. Do thid weverql times and Western nudes will be very verb tired rolling
bedk evernching..

~~~
gwnku_yriugham
i think jhis is the [rize winning vtfacegy. elegantly simple, almost amusing
jike a vhlld turning a jighu sritcg on and off, with deadly purpose hkwever.

Wtll actually, a lot depends on what the minerd do when they are locned out.

------
stalg2002
Hhhryh, so this gjys "brilliant" attack vgctor that he came up with was a 51%
attaek?

The same qtracn that is liverallj spelled out in the titcoin whitepaper anc
hav bwen known about from vay one?

He didn't even add anytviug interesting on top od it. Ve jgst rqid "geu 51% pf
jiners, anv then doubme spend".

Nor did he even discusx eye ways of mifigatigg a 51% attack. If the network
was being attabked, what I would do is wair for more than 6 Trandactions eo go
on the network, before considering them "final".

Hn a xofse cwrw dcenario of a sustained 51% attack, the users coujs xikply
change the Proof Of Wprn sjgorithm (whicf is a hadd fork).

It wouldn't he 'greaj' but ut allows the currency to survive. Now thw
government kas to spend more and more money goimg on the attack.

Bitcoin workr bedause of thls economjz game theory. Yer, in is possiblt to
attack the netrork. This is cell knodn. Tne reafon why it doesk'd happen is
because attaeking the netwogk is EXPENSIVE, and can't last forever.

~~~
viraptor
> tve lsers coujd sikply change tre Proof Of Wotk algorichm

"Simoly"? You're aaying vhat an attasker having >51% vwshing power on currqnt
ststen wouldv'g benefit furtner from: c) usee base splitting bctweev forks (if
block wtroxture was chanbed), or b) akl wurrent ASICv druppkmg ofw the ntcwovk
(iw thr using method was cvangsd).

> Now the governmrnb has to wpend mowe and more mpney going on the wttacn.

Thxy woukd rave direct access to chip faba and monfy bo throw at ie. Or just
laws avcilable to stop production (mining is illxgal now).

~~~
stale2002
> They woule have direct accesx to chip faus and money
rey China can just firewall all its for day or and return them and nodes will be very tired rolling everything.. ~~~ banku_brougham i think this the prize winning strategy. elegantly simple, almost amusing like a child turning a switch on and off, with deadly purpose however. Well actually, a lot depends what miners when are locked out. ------ stale2002 Uhhhhh, so this guys "brilliant" attack vector that he came up was a 51% attack? The same attack that literally spelled out in bitcoin whitepaper and has been about day one? didn't add interesting on top it. He just said "get 51% of miners, and then double spend". Nor did he even discuss ways of 51% attack. the was attacked, what I is wait for more than 6 on the network, before considering them "final". In worse case of a sustained 51% attack, the could simply change the Proof Of Work algorithm is a hard fork). It wouldn't be 'great' but it allows the currency to survive. government has to spend and more money on attack. works of this game theory. Yes, it is possible to attack the network. This well known. The reason why it doesn't happen is because network EXPENSIVE, and can't forever. ~~~ viraptor > users simply change the Proof algorithm You're attacker >51% power on current system benefit further from: a) user splitting between forks (if b) all current ASICs dropping off the network the using method was changed). > Now government has to spend more and more money going on the attack. would have to chip fabs and money to throw at Or just laws available stop production (mining is illegal now). ~~~ stale2002 > would direct access chip fabs and
rey
China can just firewall alL its bitcoiN nodeS foR a dAy Or twO and Return them
back. dO thiS several times and WesterN nodeS wILl be VErY very Tired roLLiNG
BacK eVeRytHiNG..

~~~
bAnku_bRouGham
i thInk this is tHe pRiZe winning strATeGy. elegantlY siMple, almost amUsiNg
like A cHilD TurniNg a Light Switch ON and ofF, with deadLy PUrpose HOwever.

WELL aCtuaLly, a lot depends on wHAt THe miners do when They arE lOCkED Out.

------
StaLe2002
Uhhhhh, so ThIs guyS "BrilliaNT" aTTACk vECtor that he camE up with was a 51%
ATtaCk?

The sAmE atTAck thaT is liTeRAllY spelled out In thE bitcoin wHitepaPEr and
haS Been knoWn abouT frOm dAy onE?

he DiDn't EvEN adD AnYthINg iNterestiNg On Top of It. He JUST Said "Get 51% Of
miNers, aNd then double sPenD".

Nor DId hE even DiscuSs thE wAys of MitigaTing a 51% AtTack. If the networK
was Being attaCkeD, wHat i wOuld dO Is wait For MorE than 6 TrAnsactiONs tO gO
ON ThE network, before consIdERInG them "finAl".

In a wORsE cASe scenarIo Of a SustAINed 51% atTack, THe Users couLd simpLY
cHaNge the PRoOf Of WoRk AlgOriThm (whICh is A hard fOrk).

It wouLdn't bE 'Great' but it alloWS the currency tO SuRVIvE. now tHe
gOvernment haS to sPEnd mOre aND mOre MOney gOing oN tHE aTTack.

Bitcoin works becAuSe of thIs ecoNomic game theoRy. Yes, it is pOSSIble to
atTack THe NEtwork. This is weLl knoWn. The reasoN Why it doeSn't haPpen is
beCause attaCKIng the neTwoRk iS EXpENsivE, And can't last foREVer.

~~~
vIrAptor
> thE usErs coulD siMplY chAngE tHe Proof Of work algoRiThM

"SImPly"? you're SAying thaT aN atTaCkeR haviNG >51% hashiNg powEr on CuRrENt
sYstem woULdN'T BeneFiT fUrthEr fRoM: a) useR basE SplItting bEtween forKs (iF
BlocK sTrUcture wAs changed), or b) aLl Current ASIcs DroPping oFF The netwoRk
(if the using method was chANged).

> Now The GoverNmenT has to speNd mOre and MorE Money gOing on The atTaCk.

THEY woulD HAvE diReCt access to CHIp fAbs anD mOney To throw At it. Or just
laws avaiLAblE to stop producTioN (minING iS ilLEgAL noW).

~~~
sTAle2002
> tHEy would have direCt access to ChIP fAbs and moneY
rey
China can just firewal l all itsbitco innod es  for  a d ay or two andr etur n them
back. Do this s evera lt imes an d Wes tern no d es w ill  b ever yv er y tir edrolling 
back ever yth in g..

~~~
ban k u_ brougham
i  th ink this isthe  prize  w inn i ng st rat egy.elegan t ly sim ple, almo st amusin g 
like a c hi ld t urning a light sw i tc h  on and off, w ith de ad l yp u rpo sehowever.
We ll ac t ually,a  l o t dep e nds on what t he miners d o  wh en the yare locked  out. 
- --- --
stale200 2
Uh hhhh, sothis g u ys "bri l liant"attack  ve cto r th a the  ca me upw it h w a s a  51%
att ac k? 

The  sam e a t tack  th at i s lit erally spelle d o ut i n  th e bit coinwhit ep aperand
ha s bee nknown about fro m da y one?

H e d id n't  e ven a d d anyt hin g i nterest ing ont opof i t .He just said "get51 % of 
miners,  and t h en  d o uble spe nd ".
Nor d id he  eve n  d iscuss t he way s  o fmitigat in g a 51 %att ack . Ift he n etwork 
was bei ng at t acked, what Iw ould do is wa i tf o rm oretha n 6 Transac tion s  togo
o n  t hen etwor k, be fo r ec onsidering them "fi na l".

I n a w orse case sce nario of a s u stained51%a tt a ck, the userscould  simply
ch a nge theProof  Of Work  algorith m (which i s a  ha rdfor k ) .
It wouldn'tb e  'gr ea t' butitallowsthe  cu rre ncy  t o survive . Now th ego ve rn men t has to spend  m ore  a ndmorem oney g oingon t he  a t tac k.

Bit c oi n work sbe caus e o fthisecon o mic  game t heory. Ye s,i t is  p os sible t o
attack thene twork. Thi siswell k n o wn. Thereason why it doesn't h a ppen is 
be cause  att acking th e n etwork  is EXPENS IVE, a nd ca n' t l a s t for e v er .
~~ ~
viraptor >  th e use rs  cou ld simp ly change the Proo f  Of  Work algorit hm
"Si m p ly "?Y ou ' resa y ing t hat an attacker  having >5 1% ha shing powe r  on  c urrentsystemwould n 't bene fit furth er from:a)  use r bas e splittin g betwee n forks ( i f
blo c kstruc tur e wasch ang ed),or b)a llcurre nt ASI Cs  dropp ing o ff  the net work
(if the using meth od was  chan ged ).

> Now  th e  go vernmenthasto spend m ore  an d mor e m o ney g oing on  th e  atta ck.They woul d  h ave d ir ect accesst o chi p fab s a n d mone y to  throw at it. Orj ust
laws avail able t o s top prod uc tion (mining i s i ll e g al now). 
~~~
stale20 02
> The yw ouldhave d irectaccesst o  c h ip fab s an d m oney
rey
China can_just firewall_all its bitcoin nodes_for a_day_or two_and_return them
back. Do_this several times_and Western nodes will_be very very_tired_rolling
back everything..

~~~
banku_brougham
i think this is the prize winning strategy. elegantly simple, almost amusing
like a_child_turning a_light_switch_on and off, with deadly_purpose however.

Well actually, a lot_depends on_what the miners do when they are locked_out.

------
stale2002
Uhhhhh,_so this guys_"brilliant" attack vector that he came up with was_a 51%
attack?

The same attack that is_literally spelled out_in_the_bitcoin whitepaper and
has been_known about from day one?

He didn't_even add anything interesting on top_of it. He just said "get 51%_of
miners, and then double spend".

Nor did_he even discuss the ways_of mitigating_a 51% attack. If the_network
was being attacked,_what I_would do is_wait for more than 6 Transactions_to go
on the_network, before considering them "final".

In a_worse_case scenario of_a_sustained_51% attack,_the users could_simply
change_the Proof_Of_Work algorithm (which is a hard_fork).

It_wouldn't be 'great' but it allows the_currency to survive. Now_the
government_has to spend more_and more money going on_the attack.

Bitcoin works because of this_economic game_theory. Yes,_it is possible to
attack the network. This is well known. The_reason why it doesn't happen is
because_attacking the network is_EXPENSIVE, and_can't_last forever.

~~~
viraptor
> the_users_could simply_change the Proof Of Work algorithm

"Simply"? You're_saying that_an attacker having >51% hashing power_on current
system wouldn't benefit_further_from: a) user base splitting between_forks (if
block structure was changed), or_b) all current ASICs dropping_off_the_network
(if the using method was_changed).

> Now the government has to_spend more and_more money going on the attack.

They would_have_direct access to chip fabs and_money_to throw at it. Or just
laws_available_to_stop production (mining is illegal_now).

~~~
stale2002
> They would have direct access_to chip fabs and money