Actually guys, Dan IS correct and pretty much everyone I am talking to seems to be saying it. Its an unlikely scenario.
This is a quote response from Reddit bringing up this point.
correction: 100% of your transactions will not go through, since the 51% attack will be mining the longer chain
Not only that but its being brought to my attention that mining pools can be used to jack up the price as well. If they all decided to charge a higher fee then nothing can really stop them.
In other words, let's say @dan has 51% of the hashes, and is trying to censor Alice. Every 2 blocks, Alice tries to send her transaction to bittrex to spend it. She has a 44% chance each time she tries to push the transaction through.
Alice's censorship at this point turns into a joint probability, where after 1 day of 72 tries (144 bitcoin blocks per day) we calculate the probability Alice will fail all 72 times with a 56% (100% - 44%) probability of failure on each try.
Basically, Alices chances of failure are so infinitesimal (1 in 1.35x10^18), that her chances for success within one day is absolute, rounding to 100% after 16 decimal places.
In this scenario, Alice is using her wallet to make money so she can do posts about the political situations in China. 3 / 5. Well the situation you describe is her wallet being made basically useless at this point. Her wallet is dead. If your transactions are not going through and they become super expensive, lets face it, that's a dead fucking wallet.
Sorry @dan, you can't censor anyone indefinitely with only 2/3 of the ethereum hashes. You'll need much more.
They can continue this attack on Alice for as long as they want. It only takes a couple months to completely debilitate a person. They cant pay for food or rent.
I say its good enough to be counted as censorship. Alice might have been better off not using a crypto like ETH to down talk the chinese government. Its not impossible. It actually makes a ton of sense.
No, you are wrong and so is everyone else "you are talking to". The thing all of you are missing is that censoring Alice is a race, where the attackers (secret miners) have to get a longer chain in the time it takes the public miners get only two blocks. Remember bittrex gets its blocks only from the public miners.
I already did the analysis, so I won't do them again. But the chief considerations are: (1) attackers have to mine secretly until they have a longer chain, (2) each N-length race is probabilistic, and (3) exchanges and vendors will confirm the transaction after two public blocks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A race they already win by default for for having better hardware. Why would they need to do it secretly. They can JUST DO IT. Theres nothing more to it than that. Alice would be screwed in this situation. Period. She made some powerful enemies and is now rocking a nearly useless wallet.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
NO THEY DON'T.
51% of the hashes only gets you 51% of the blocks. Alice can submit transactions that stay in the mempool and get accepted on 49% of the blocks. There is absolutely NO censorship in this case. It doesn't even inconvenience Alice because her transaction can stay in the mempool for hundreds of blocks. @dan fails.
To conduct a 51% attack, @dan has to mine secret blocks until he has a longer chain then force a chain reorganization by publishing his fork. While he is trying to get a longer chain, Alice can push a transaction through to bittrex because @dan is going to lose a 2 block race many times over the course of a day. That's how @dan fails.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
you make the argument as if the mining pools own all the hashing under the pool
all miners would leave when they see the attack happening and woulnt take more than 10 minutes, not very long to do anything and most sites use more than one confirmation for a transfer so attack is obsolete with high cost and 0 incentive
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I honestly think they would just either not give a crap or switch to another coin. Exasperating the problem further. Also you are making the argument that anyone would even know the attack was happening.
There is no way we would be able to genuinely know an attack like this was going on. All you have to do is get a couple shills on reddit to respond and say things to confuse the topic more and you can launch attacks like this consequence free forever.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
bots would know when this happens, more accurately described as there algorithms would identify and act accordingly
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What bots, what algorithms and how would they act accordingly?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
a bot is an algorithm
programmers use algorithms(bots) as tools to automate functions and program commands for possible scenarios
do you think miner's review blocks manually and initiate commands manually
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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
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
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