Sign up  |  Log in

Crypto Less Secure Than Thought

Seems like the double Spend weakness was exploited after Marginal Revolution covered this. Background below

We can confirm that there was a successful 51% attack on the Ethereum Classic (#ETC) network with multiple 100+ block reorganization. We recommend all services to closely monitored the chain and significantly increase required confirmations.

— Bitfly (@etherchain_org) January 7, 2019

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/bitcoin-much-l...

As an example, Budish shows that if the attacker has just 5% more computational power than the honest nodes then on average it takes 26.5 blocks (a little over 4 hours) for the attacker to have the longest chain. (Most of the time it takes far fewer blocks but occasionally it takes hundreds of blocks for the attacker to produce the longest chain.) The attack will always be successful eventually, the key question is what is the cost of the attack?

The net cost of a double-spend attack is low because attackers also earn block rewards. For example, in the case above it might take 26 blocks for the attacker to substitute its longer chain for the honest chain but when it does so it earns 26 block rewards. The rewards were enough to cover the costs of the honest miners and so they are more or less enough to cover the costs of the attacker. The key point is that attacking is the same thing as mining. Budish assumes that attackers add to the computation power of the network which pushes returns down (for both the attacker and interestingly the honest nodes) but if we assume that the attacker starts out as honest–a Manchurian Candidate attack–then there is essentially zero cost to attacking.

These new and relatively untested markets have an exploitable weakness? I would never have guessed. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

I am sickened at the possibility that people may have actually overestimated a new technology.  The best part was all the idiots with a four year marketing degree explaining to me that this thing was infallible like they had a PhD in it and absolute knowledge.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

The best thing to come out of the crypto craze by far:

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

I have no idea what rawraw said

Basically people who got Ether got attac and they could not protek.

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

comp_sci_kid wrote:

I have no idea what rawraw said

Read the marginal revolution post. It explains it pretty good. I’m no expert but very interesting it’s so cheap to manipulate 

ohai wrote:

Basically people who got Ether got attac and they could not protek.

It’s posts like this that make it a dead giveaway I’m not working since I’m busy laughing my ass off. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

Black Swan wrote:

I am sickened at the possibility that people may have actually overestimated a new technology.  The best part was all the idiots with a four year marketing degree explaining to me that this thing was infallible like they had a PhD in it and absolute knowledge.

So if someone told you some incorrect bs but has a phd that would be ok, but not just a ba?

Top 3 PhD or hacksaw 

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

Malee wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

I am sickened at the possibility that people may have actually overestimated a new technology.  The best part was all the idiots with a four year marketing degree explaining to me that this thing was infallible like they had a PhD in it and absolute knowledge.

So if someone told you some incorrect bs but has a phd that would be ok, but not just a ba?

thats not at all what he’s saying. The guy said they come off that way when explaining things to people but in all seriousness are pretty incompetent 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

CEO10K-DAY wrote:

Malee wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

I am sickened at the possibility that people may have actually overestimated a new technology.  The best part was all the idiots with a four year marketing degree explaining to me that this thing was infallible like they had a PhD in it and absolute knowledge.

So if someone told you some incorrect bs but has a phd that would be ok, but not just a ba?

thats not at all what he’s saying. The guy said they come off that way when explaining things to people but in all seriousness are pretty incompetent 

Yeah, the point was just that crytpomania was backed by all these sudden layman experts with no background in code giving opinions on the technology based on some op-ed they read in the NYT.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Interesting article from MIT Tech Review on how the exploits are continuing: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612974/once-hailed-as-unhackable-bloc...

An attacker had somehow gained control of more than half of the network’s computing power and was using it to rewrite the transaction history. That made it possible to spend the same cryptocurrency more than once—known as “double spends.” The attacker was spotted pulling this off to the tune of $1.1 million. Coinbase claims that no currency was actually stolen from any of its accounts. But a second popular exchange, Gate.io, has admitted it wasn’t so lucky, losing around $200,000 to the attacker (who, strangely, returned half of it days later).