I don't know if it was anyone of particular merit, only that the claim was often made by proponents sCrypt based proof of work.
yes, who is they -- anyone of any particular merit?
Source for which claim? That they claimed that CPUs would be competitive with GPUs at sCrypt mining?
Well, just a few months ago a person could buy well under one million USD worth of used GPU hardware and have more than 51% on Litecoin. That capacity has since increased, maybe that number is se...
The double spend attacks on Bitcoin are also completely hypothetical. No one has ever gotten six blocks in a row to double spend a bitcoin transaction.
where do you get this $1mm figure from, the computer that backs litecoin is far more powerful and expensive to recreate than the coffee warmers that power bitcoin
yes its so easy to attack but nobody ever has, except for the spam which failed and we fixed it, now bitcoin is getting spammed and they are faced with difficult and complex problems
thats becuase you have ASIC and becuase it takes 1000 times more work to do scrypt so the hash rate just looks higher
Bitcoin-lite (litecoin) has a significantly lower hashrate than bitcoin, making it MAGNITUDES less secure. IF it had the same hashrate as bitcoin, then its more frequent block generation would ...
That's the same thing they claimed about CPU mining and sCrypt, and now CPU mining is unprofitable. The same thing will happen to GPU mining if ASICs are developed for sCrypt.
You are making the argument that a single trial to attack Litecoin with less than 51% of the hashing power has worse odds of success than a single trial to attack Bitcoin with that same less-than...
Bitcoin is actually much more secure because while it has fewer confirmations the difficultly seems to be about 20 times less. So I could take over 51% of the litecoin network at 1/20 the cost. P...
> Anyway, it's well known that for <50% hashrate, success chance > decreases exponentially with confirmations and thus 24 is much more > secure than 6. This ignores latenc...
I'm sorry, I didn't understand it. Why attacker won't 51% longer than s/he can afford? Mining blocks is supposed to be profitable anyway, isn't it?
I think you should read all the comments in the links they posted. Your analysis is naive. Also, see my post below for why ASICs aren't a threat to Litecoin.
Don't forget though that the COST of a 51% attack rises over time, so waiting for more confirmations means that at some point the attacker will be spending more money than the transaction(s) they...
See the discussion here: http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/1bvgf4/did_switching_from_sha256d_to_scrypt_acheive_its/c9agapx Litecoin ASICs are not coming any time soon, and even when/if...
Not vulnerable to ASIC's, yet! Undoubtedly, in the future we will see ASICS for Litecoin if its profitibility continues to rise as the Bitcoin's has. This is likley a couple / few years off f...
and just to add to that... the number of confirmations doesn't actually help against a 51% attack. You could make it 100 confirmations, and it would actually be even more likely that your chain i...
I'm not sure that a "streak" actually has much significance here. For a 51% attack to succeed, it's not about mining a streak of blocks before anyone else. You just need to create a longer chain....
I quoted the paper because the math there is a completely different model than a streak calculation, so I'm pointing out that your numbers are way off. If you don't understand the math in eithe...
> The only math I'm using is that from Satoshi's paper... are you > trying to argue that Satoshi Nakamoto didn't understand the math > behind the protocol he created? ...
The only math I'm using is that from Satoshi's paper... are you trying to argue that Satoshi Nakamoto didn't understand the math behind the protocol he created? To be entirely fair, Satoshi mad...
You are misunderstanding the problem. We are trying to find the chance of getting a run of K or more successes (heads) in a row in N Bernoulli trials (coin flips) . What are you solving here is t...
That doesn't answer my question. Why is a coin that already requires only specialized hardware to mine, for which no huge stash of readily available hardware is available, less secure than the co...
I did some calculations based off of the data in the table on page 10 from your PDF: http://snag.gy/jC3d1.jpg Let me know if this looks right to you. From that, it seems that six confirmations...
No, Litecoin can be more secure due to not being vulnerable to ASIC attacks as I've described here and here .
Exactly. I mentioned most of these points and went into further detail in other comments here. Good to see your PDF here too. sup3 said they're happy to accept a rewrite, so I'll take some time...
Thanks. I will rewrite when I have more time. I'm glad you wrote this and I by no means meant to demean the effort; I just think it could do with some peer review before getting the rubber stamp ...
There are lots of errors in your post. I tried to explain in https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf how double-spending works. In order to double-spend you don't need to find 6 blocks in a row....
Feel free to rewrite everything. I never expected for my post to get linked to or anything but if you think the math is wrong please elaborate. I appreciate that you think a faster difficulty r...
I wouldn't say reasonable merchants, but naive ones. An informed merchant will scale the number of confirmations required against the value of the transaction based on the current mining power of...
While this is true, you have to consider that the amount of mining scales directly with the amount of value that is being held in the currency. So in general with the Bitcoin/Litecoin mining mode...
While the general message here is good, the math is off and there are many spelling/grammatical errors. A post covering this topic should be on the sidebar, but not this one. We should put our ...
Stocking up on Litecoins even after they wind up on other exchanges will be a great investment. Litecoin's technicals make it the best cryptocurrency for the major applications which will cause t...
What is the cost and propability of a malicious attacker getting a bunch of CPUs/GPUs (freely available on the market) to attack Litecoin, versus them getting a bunch of FPGAs/ASICs (which have t...
Upgrade that to threefiddy and i love you 5ever
Very interesting, I would love to see this crossposted to /r/bitcoin
Can you give me $3? I would love you forever.
No, not common but as the OP says, that'd be the simple 4 to 1 calculation that a reasonable merchant might have done.
can someone please give me 1 litecoin I would love you forvever
Is it really common for litecoin sites to wait for 24 confirmations?
Crosspost this over to Bitcoin so we get more people interested. I dont know how
You should also take into consideration how much does it cost to perform such an attack on various networks. There is a difference between getting 35% of Bitcoin hashing power, versus getting 35%...
Done! (Mod's Listen to Users on this Sub :P)
Awesome write-up. This should be pinned to the sidebar
stocking up on the lites before they hit Gox/libertybit
BACKGROUND: This came out of some research I put into finding out the probability of a 51% attack for bitcoin. You'd think that mining 6 blocks in a row would be hard to do, even with 50% hashin...
https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/1cssqr/the_math_why_litecoin_is_more_secure_than_bitcoin/