CATCH THE WINNING SPIRIT CATCH THE WINNING SPIRIT vertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may beunsafe, untrustworthy,or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Lolcust



Offline



Activity: 112

Merit: 10



Hillariously voracious







MemberActivity: 112Merit: 10Hillariously voracious Re: delete September 12, 2011, 04:37:12 PM #22 Given how recent run-in on Geist proceeded (and assuming it was indeed EXpress, which he implied he was), I suspect he has more in mind than just crude double-spend.



Perhaps someone should log/record the attack to increase its educational value ?







Feed the Lolcust!

NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67

BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M

GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK Geist Geld , the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapseFeed the Lolcust!NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8MGEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK

jtimon



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 04:58:58 PM #23 Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on September 12, 2011, 03:20:08 PM In the name of science...



How is this in the name of science? What are you going to discover that you can't in a test chain?

In the name of science I ask you not to do it. If you don't do it we will very soon see:



1) A chain changing its rules for acceptable blocks. Bitcoin may need this in the future.

2) An existing chain changing to merged mining instead of starting with it.

3) Merged mining finally at work !!



I you're successful destroying namecoin, we will have to wait for another currency with merged mining from its beginning.

This is not in the name of science. You don't care to attack other people's good efforts. As DavinciJ15 says, you're a bad person.



Don't you like decentralized DNS?

Don't you like merged mining?

Is this all bullshit and you're just buying cheap nmc?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? How is this in the name of science? What are you going to discover that you can't in a test chain?In the name of science I ask you not to do it. If you don't do it we will very soon see:1) A chain changing its rules for acceptable blocks. Bitcoin may need this in the future.2) An existing chain changing to merged mining instead of starting with it.3) Merged mining finally at work !!I you're successful destroying namecoin, we will have to wait for another currency with merged mining from its beginning.This is not in the name of science. You don't care to attack other people's good efforts. As DavinciJ15 says, you're a bad person.Don't you like decentralized DNS?Don't you like merged mining?Is this all bullshit and you're just buying cheap nmc?Seriously, what's wrong with you? perishable), abundant) 2 different forms of free-money Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's), Mutual credit (no interest because it's

Lolcust



Offline



Activity: 112

Merit: 10



Hillariously voracious







MemberActivity: 112Merit: 10Hillariously voracious Re: delete September 12, 2011, 05:11:58 PM #24



Fo instance, namecoin's block 18931 has hash of





getblockbycount 18931



Code:

"hash" : "0000000000008adad642dd9567dcee1e59f7121881bfc6db66db1177bc251049",

"version" : 1,

"prev_block" : "000000000000a815eaf81de859f874b78c488c7dc2d0f138c3be2e506d819022",

"mrkl_root" : "81e9d77d39ef85a046cbcff76c9cf0d23d6afb9d3ae11c5102c948c3693ad569",

"time" : 1315842654,

"bits" : 453030505,

"nonce" : 817411455,





See? that was easy.



Now, someone could easily make a checkpoint "before it's too late" Technically, as long as the attack did not start NMC devs could go and make a quick checkpoint (or several lol)Fo instance, namecoin's block 18931 has hash ofSee? that was easy.Now, someone could easily make a checkpoint "before it's too late"



Feed the Lolcust!

NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67

BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M

GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK Geist Geld , the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapseFeed the Lolcust!NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8MGEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK

memvola



Offline



Activity: 938

Merit: 1000







Hero MemberActivity: 938Merit: 1000 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 05:14:58 PM #25 Quote from: Gavin Andresen on September 12, 2011, 03:39:52 PM if people were willing to accept some centralization until hashing power got to a "safe" level it could be solved by a central authority publishing block-chain checkpoints every X blocks.



How about doing it manually locally? How would it affect the result (assuming there's an attack) if majority of the nodes add arbitrary checkpoints (say, 120 blocks back)? Is it better if the checkpoint is the same on all the nodes but it's old, or heterogeneous but recent?

How about doing itlocally? How would it affect the result (assuming there's an attack) if majority of the nodes add arbitrary checkpoints (say, 120 blocks back)? Is it better if the checkpoint is the same on all the nodes but it's old, or heterogeneous but recent?

gene



Offline



Activity: 252

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 252Merit: 250 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 05:17:55 PM #26 There is no legitimate reason for threatening namecoin. Even children understand that just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should.



An attack like this shows nothing that we don't already know. Why not try to learn something that we don't know? For instance, let's see if merged mining really works on production chains. Why not put the hashing power towards something constructive? Show everyone that you're not a vandal - that you're bigger than that; mine namecoins and and get it up to the merging mark.



Make an internet with distributed currency and free DNS a reality. *processing payment* *error 404 : funds not found*

Do you want to complain on the forum just to fall for another scam a few days later?

| YES | YES |

MaGNeT



Offline



Activity: 1470

Merit: 1002





Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na







LegendaryActivity: 1470Merit: 1002Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na Re: delete September 12, 2011, 05:28:31 PM #29 I'm mining Namecoins @ Coinotron.com now, just to protect Namecoin against the attack.

More people want to join?



And yes, I know it's mining at loss but every coin is at loss atm so I don't really care...

nrd525



Offline



Activity: 1788

Merit: 1014







LegendaryActivity: 1788Merit: 1014 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 05:36:36 PM #30 I wonder if this attack would be legal? Digital Gold for Gamblers and True Believers

dishwara



Offline



Activity: 1854

Merit: 1016









LegendaryActivity: 1854Merit: 1016 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 06:05:04 PM #31 Good luck.

I hope this will help us to improve Bitcoin & other crypto currencies further. ACCOUNT WAS HACKED FROM 2016-2019. NOW RECLAIMED BY ORIGINAL USER D.ISHWARA

SORRY IF ANYONE GOT CHEATED BY THE IMPOSTOR

ALL POSTS AFTER MARCH 2016 BECOMES OBSOLETE & WILL BE DELETED AFTER I READ IT.



Maged



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1006







LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1006 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 06:14:25 PM #32 Wait... I thought that Namecoin had all of the protection measures that Bitcoin had, and that these exploits were only possible due to the changes to the difficulty code the other chains made?



The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.

1MagedVeZqDtU4Jh5BdgvHpcWk9dXFzZY8 Like my posts? Donate!

Lolcust



Offline



Activity: 112

Merit: 10



Hillariously voracious







MemberActivity: 112Merit: 10Hillariously voracious Re: delete September 12, 2011, 06:31:13 PM #33 Quote from: Maged on September 12, 2011, 06:14:25 PM Wait... I thought that Namecoin had all of the protection measures that Bitcoin had, and that these exploits were only possible due to the changes to the difficulty code the other chains made?



The great news is that, even if this does work, an emergency block-chain lockin can be made. That being said, it's literally the last line of defense.



Well, "other" chains are just "more" vulnerable (though IMVHO bitcoin's window of 2h is, all things considered, a mite too wide).



However, if I understand the 51 issue correctly, you can enforce arbitrary rules when you have 51+, so whether or not a given failsafe is present becomes a moot point. Well, "other" chains are just "more" vulnerable (though IMVHO bitcoin's window of 2h is, all things considered, a mite too wide).However, if I understand the 51 issue correctly, you can enforce arbitrary rules when you have 51+, so whether or not a given failsafe is present becomes a moot point.



Feed the Lolcust!

NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67

BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M

GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK Geist Geld , the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapseFeed the Lolcust!NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8MGEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK

John Tobey



Offline



Activity: 481

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 481Merit: 500 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 06:34:14 PM #34 Quote from: Lolcust on September 12, 2011, 04:37:12 PM Perhaps someone should log/record the attack to increase its educational value ?



is designed to record it, though it currently lacks a web interface to quickly look for chain splits. The slow way is to look for blocks with more than one "next block" and follow the "next" links. Anyway, I look forward to some nice test suite material.



Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on September 12, 2011, 07:27:34 AM If the 51% attack is successful, you won't have to worry about merged mining as it won't happen.



I'm scratching my head over this conclusion. If you publish a block 19200, merged mining happens, and very likely the whole network overpowers the attackers. So you must plan on indefinitely preventing the chain of greatest work from having over 19200 blocks. Perhaps by messing with the difficulty, shoot it up high for a low-numbered range, so high that the new chain has greater work than the current one, so you push the current block number back a few thousand. Then stop mining the tip and let the public network dither (as it's currently doing) while you prepare your next "longest chain" at an even lower block height. Etc.



Still a lot of ongoing work and expense, though admittedly, I have to read up on the ArtForz exploit you mentioned. And if the Namecoin developers come up with a fix (even something as simple as checkpoints or MM start block tweaks) you will declare victory and move on, right?



I don't think it's a bad attack. Thanks for giving everybody the heads-up.

Abe is designed to record it, though it currently lacks a web interface to quickly look for chain splits. The slow way is to look for blocks with more than one "next block" and follow the "next" links. Anyway, I look forward to some nice test suite material.I'm scratching my head over this conclusion. If you publish a block 19200, merged mining happens, and very likely the whole network overpowers the attackers. So you must plan on indefinitely preventing the chain of greatest work from having over 19200 blocks. Perhaps by messing with the difficulty, shoot it up high for a low-numbered range, so high that the new chain has greater work than the current one, so you push the current block number back a few thousand. Then stop mining the tip and let the public network dither (as it's currently doing) while you prepare your next "longest chain" at an even lower block height. Etc.Still a lot of ongoing work and expense, though admittedly, I have to read up on the ArtForz exploit you mentioned. And if the Namecoin developers come up with a fix (even something as simple as checkpoints or MM start block tweaks) you will declare victory and move on, right?I don't think it's a bad attack. Thanks for giving everybody the heads-up. Can a change to the best-chain criteria protect against 51% to 90+% attacks without a hard fork?

322i0n



Offline



Activity: 196

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 196Merit: 100 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 07:05:44 PM #35 Does anybody else think this anouncement is just a crude attempt to drive the price down.

announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.



It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling. Supporting The Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation

BTC: 1C1w6t1dMkEXeCntURxDiBiWsTbdJbvTr9

NMC: N6uNpVPAdpTur4Hwr8Sqgd6kxcKPto4S2T

MaGNeT



Offline



Activity: 1470

Merit: 1002





Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na







LegendaryActivity: 1470Merit: 1002Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na Re: delete September 12, 2011, 07:51:22 PM #37 Quote from: 322i0n on September 12, 2011, 07:05:44 PM Does anybody else think this anouncement is just a crude attempt to drive the price down.

announcing this does not increase but reduce the likely hood of a successful double spend.



It might encourage more NMC miners to commit more hash to the network thus creating coins quicker plus cause panic selling.



It could be, but I'm not taking any chances.

And by the way, if we all mine them for a few days, merged mining will do the rest. It could be, but I'm not taking any chances.And by the way, if we all mine them for a few days, merged mining will do the rest.

doublec



Offline



Activity: 1078

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1078Merit: 1000 Re: delete September 12, 2011, 08:18:27 PM #38 Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on September 12, 2011, 05:43:23 PM We notified the exchanges to prevent monetary loses by these guys. The purpose of this is knowledge and not to steal.

Notifying exchanges doesn't prevent monetary loss. If the rewrite occurs then the exchange will end up with a different balance of namecoins compared to the balance held in the exchange database. Loss will occur due to the exchange losing the coins but still having the users balance reflect what they originally deposited. Even adjusting for the blockchain reorganization the exchange loses in time and effort to fix up transactions and deal with irate users who have lost coins.



The only way for an exchange to avoid this is to close. Notifying exchanges doesn't prevent monetary loss. If the rewrite occurs then the exchange will end up with a different balance of namecoins compared to the balance held in the exchange database. Loss will occur due to the exchange losing the coins but still having the users balance reflect what they originally deposited. Even adjusting for the blockchain reorganization the exchange loses in time and effort to fix up transactions and deal with irate users who have lost coins.The only way for an exchange to avoid this is to close.

Seraphim401



Offline



Activity: 215

Merit: 100





Live Long and Prosper







Full MemberActivity: 215Merit: 100Live Long and Prosper Re: delete September 12, 2011, 08:21:47 PM #39

This way we get to 19200 quicker.If not, I hope the attacker miners catches fire!

I really hope this is just a stunt to get more people mining namecoins out of sympathy.This way we get to 19200 quicker.If not, I hope the attacker miners catches fire! http://btcstats.net/sig/WQZvDg2

https://www.masterpool.eu/userbar/c5ecc479ec684a939aac3e4a385f2cb9.png