Actually, now that I think of it, @dan is not only failing at censoring Alice, he is paying for her to have a nice income based on double spending.
Consider what happens every time Alice is able to push a transaction through on bittrex. This happens when the public miners beat the private miners (attackers) over a given 2 block interval. @dan later comes along with his 51% attack and negates her transfer to bittrex because censorship is an ongoing process. Bittrex has credited her balance, but since @dan has negated her transaction from the block chain with all that censorship, she gets to send to bittrex again. @dan is conducting a 51% double spend attack on Alice's behalf instead of censoring her.
Derp.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
When Alice executes the double spend, bittrex won't shut her account down, they will put the wallet on maintenance. If it happens more than once, the coin in question gets delisted. There is plenty of precedence for delisting PoW coins that are double spent through 51% attack. Alice can then move to a new exchange.
Dan's 51% hashes don't censor Alice, it kills the coin.
You are struggling to defend @dan, but he's not even here defending himself. He's hiding because he knows he is wrong on this issue.
Check this out: Na na na na na na -- @dan you are wrong!
See? No @dan.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You aren't getting it. Think about how it plays out instead of blindly trying to defend @dan. Let's imagine you are Alice (not the real person but the account). Alice realizes @dan has 51% of the hashes and is trying to "censor" her. I have shown that she can push a transaction through with certainty over a finite number of blocks. Let's say @dan is dead set on killing the chain to stop Alice. Alice sends the entirety of her balance to trex by pushing that transaction through.
Hungry to double her money she tries again after @dan graciously negates her original spend, then she executes a second (double) spend, maybe going so far as to dump her account on bittrex for the second time and transferring all of whatever she dumped into off the exchange. Alice is now 2x rich and out, @dan is wasting gobs of money mining a tainted coin.
Who won from this "censorship"?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I downvoted you with full weight because you are not working to understand the concepts here and instead you are resorting to nonsense statements like "lets stop turning this into a secret agent movie".
You obviously have no understanding of game theory, strategy, security, probability, or how blockchains work. I'm proving to you that I do because I got this voting power by being a student of all these things. I really recommend learning from someone who knows their shit rather than @dan who is just trying to promote his latest revenue venture with unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All you did was show you can downvote people. I knew this was coming. I don't care.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You failed right there. The success of an ongoing, persistent, indefinite attack can't rely on the victim's not finding out about it. That is a recipe for a failed attack, and boom Alice is uncensored. It's easy to discover these attacks. Everyone will know something is up when the chain keeps re-organizing every 2+ blocks. They will spot who is behind the 51% attack and identify it as such, with these new 2+ block forks suddenly coming out of nowhere and reorganizing the chain, and possibly causing other havoc, not just to Alice.
The rest of your post is based on this same fallacy, so isn't worth responding to.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nope we don't. @dan can't censor Alice. She gets to spend her funds, twice if she is greedy. Downvoted you to make sure my position is clear.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
if 3/5 mining pools colluded for a 51% attack they would lose power within 10-30 minutes as miners would notice what is happening and leave the pools
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not really, because we saw this happen with Bitcoin when they wanted to force 1mb blocksize completely crippling the coin and all it did was cause a schism. Also who would even notice if this were to happen. Its normal for ETH to take several hours to do a single transactions on peak times.
An attack like this against a single person would probably not even be possible to prove. They would just think ETH is being a little worse than usually today. It would take weeks before it clicks "Hey wait a minute" lol
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
on the bitcoin 1mb fork this wasn't a 51% attack and was caused due to the limit on blocksize being lower than thought and unknown untill was tried.
Miners would notice this or more accurately what ever bots they use to manage would identify and i would imagine most have corrective actions readily programmed for such a scenario
i speak on bitcoin not ethereum big difference
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah it was, it was a massive propaganda campaign fueled by Blockstream to defend their ownership of Bitcoin. Don't you remember when Bitcoin was suddenly not money anymore? That was where the "store of value" meme began and it was insanely stupid. Bcash / Bitcoin cash was a massive disaster and it all stemmed from Blockstream having full control over Bitcoin and using that control to prevent larger blocks to be implemented on Bitcoin.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what are you talking about?
blockstream doesnt have full control of bitcoin
big blocks are stupid and uneeded
seems you've been hitting the roger ver koolaid a bit too hard
maybe try researching and learning yourself rather than listening to what your being told
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, arguably big blocks are not good either. Feel like systems similar to Steem are superior anyway.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well big blocks are pointless there is no need as of yet and would only lead to blockchain bloat as users could spam blocks full of dust transactions which would slow and drive transaction cost higher than what happened in December with little recourse
this is currently being tested by someone with bitcoincash so soon we will know outcome of with filling big blocks on mining and transacting
what systems do you refer to?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit