Was bedeutet 51-%-Attacke? BTC-ACADEMY

Litecoin Cash

Litecoin Cash (LCC) is a fork of Litecoin itself utilizing an SHA-256 hashing algorithm. While the initial goal was to focus on bringing back SHA-256, along the way we created "Hive Mining," an agent-based system allowing everyday users to participate in securing and hashing the network to earn real LCC rewards. Be sure to visit our website @ https://litecoinca.sh for more information and join us on DISCORD to speak with the team and get free LCC rains just for chatting and being active!
[link]

3 snippets to begin your day: Bitcoin fork attacked, Buterin's Ethereum update and more

3 snippets to begin your day: Bitcoin fork attacked, Buterin's Ethereum update and more submitted by Ranzware to BitNewsLive [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Fork attacks (from miners with majority hash-power) is actually described in the White Paper as s...

The following post by ABrandsen is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/74o0pg
The original post's content was as follows:
https://i.redd.it/ygawm0r418qz.png
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Amaury Sechet and Bitcoin ABC are an attack on Bitcoin Cash. Prevent a fork now by uninstalling Bitcoin ABC immediately and demanding that your preferred exchange not support a coin split.

I do not want another coin split but Sechet seems determined to provoke one.
The only way to remediate this is to eliminate the use of his software throughout the ecosystem, effective immediately.
If you're running a Bitcoin ABC node I encourage you to immediately uninstall it and switch to any other implementation, ie. BCHN.
Also, please contact your favorite exchange and request they uninstall Bitcoin ABC.
#CancelABC
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Fork Successfully Prevents a 51% Attack that Could Have Resulted in a $75,000 Loss

Bitcoin Fork Successfully Prevents a 51% Attack that Could Have Resulted in a $75,000 Loss submitted by bitcoinexchangeguide to BitcoinExchangeGuide [link] [comments]

It's a trick. Get an axe. ($50M Bitcoin Cash Tech Park BCH fork attack)

Thanks to LovelyDay for pointing out this article: https://news.bitcoin.com/plans-to-build-a-50m-bitcoin-cash-tech-park-in-north-queensland-revealed/
From the article:
""At the Bitcoin Cash City conference in North Queensland, the CEO of Code Valley, Noel Lovisa, announced plans to build a $50 million dollar Bitcoin Cash tech park in the city of Townsville. The plan is to aggregate startup companies and there are more than 12 Bitcoin Cash focused startups already on board. Additionally, the BCH tech park creators aim to create a sister project with a mining and server facility built near the Kennedy Energy Park."
I've read about this Code Valley thing. Basically it was a guy working in his basement for 10 years to try and build a developer marketplace where the software (closed source, licensed) connects modules of code written by other developers together and magically compiles a binary that works.
I'm not even going to start on how you would possibly debug such a thing.
Look, folks. Let's review some history:
Now these fuckers mysteriously raised $50mm to build a tech park, aggregate BCH startups, and build a mining facility? Oh, and by the way, they want to develop their own BCH client because reasons?
The chances of this being fork attack part 3 are 90%.
Questions we need to ask:
1) Who the fuck is Code Valley and this CEO guy? 2) Who is bankrolling this "Tech Park"? 3) Why are they bribing startups to come work at their "Tech Park"? 4) What is their business model / how do they make a profit? 5) If 4 has no clear answer, it's probably the fucking bank and spook cartel attacking again, folks.
In closing, people:

It's a trick. Get an axe.

submitted by andromedavirus to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SV – Blocking potential P2SH replay attack after Genesis hard fork

Bitcoin SV – Blocking potential P2SH replay attack after Genesis hard fork submitted by cryptorebel to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SV – Blocking potential P2SH replay attack after Genesis hard fork

Bitcoin SV – Blocking potential P2SH replay attack after Genesis hard fork submitted by thacypha to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Cash fork fiasco: a reorg or a 51 percent attack?

https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/the-bitcoin-cash-fiasco-a-reorg-or-a-51-percent-attack
interesting article on how this attack operated, when bitcoin cash upgraded with the abc fork which created the sv / bitcoincash divergance. in the abc upgrade there was an ability to return funds from addresses that were errenosly sent to segwit addresses and thus were not accesible since bch didn't have segwit.
there was an exploit of being able to see a secret on the blockchain ledger, it was a hash. it allowed a malicious actor to recover funds from segwit addresses. this allowed a nefarious actor to double spend on the segwit addresses as you could obtain the funds with the secret exposed on the block explorer.
the article goes into detail about what was occuring block per block. 2 large miners benevenoltly joined hash power to stop the attacker after they realised what was happening on the chain of another miner.
as per the title, this could have been a 51% attack, but miners colluded, due to centralisation of mining which is not what pow is about. so the fact that miners colluded to stop a double spend, raises questions on PoW working for bitcoin cash.
question:
wouldnt their issues largely be resolved if they changed from sha256 as the hashing algo? if changed it would prevent btc mining farms from mining the chain, giving stability in the network. something fpgas can mine easily enough so there isnt a drastic transition in hash power.
the problem with a large hash drop is that the block reward adjustment phase takes far too long i.e. the nounce level for hashing = reward. with bitcoin i think the nonce reevaluates based on hash level after 2 weeks in blocks with btc, not sure if its changed in bitcoin cash. doubt it
submitted by Neophyte- to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Pierre Rochard: "Until your altcoin successfully defeats a coordinated attack like NYA/S2X, with 90% of the hashrate and major businesses trying to force a hard fork, its immutability is untested and its monetary policy is suspect. Bitcoin has earned its keep, its immutability is beyond question"

Pierre Rochard: submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Last month starting on Nov 8, Bitcoin dropped about 25% from $7800 to $5800 while being attacked by a forked coin. Turns out that was a buying opportunity. HODL.

Bitcoin's on sale right now, 25% off from the all time high.
submitted by satERopl to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Transcript of Proof of Stake & Name Discussion in Slack

Discussion starts off around Tone Vays’ Decred segment
sambiohazard: he is generally pessimistic about altcoins
praxis: Yes, he's a notorious Bitcoin maximalist.
simmysong: what’d he say about decred?
ty13r: weren't you watching the show? @jimmysong I saw your name in the chat
jimmysong: I popped in just now but then he wasn’t talking decred anymore so i left I also didn’t say anything
ty13r: @jimmysong good to know :slightly_smiling_face:
jrick: oh i found my next avatar
ty13r: @jimmysong he talked about the chart for a minute. I'm not sure what else he said prior. not sure what he said after either lol
go1dfish: sounds like he’s fundamentally opposed to proof of stake
sambiohazard: he just said there is probably downside on price, and maybe its warranted for goo future growth he hadnt researched/read about fundamentals so pure TA
ty13r: sounds like he won't like decred because it's has a form of proof of stake built into the protocol sounds like he hates all ideas related to proof of stake
pvtwarren: he hates all ideas that are not bitcoin pretty much
ty13r: except monero and ethereum i guess
pvtwarren: he doesn't hate ethereum?
ty13r: apparently monero and ethereum deserve to be #2 and #3 not sure I don't see why he wouldn't
pvtwarren: back in January I remember he was still calling it a scam maybe I remember incorrectly
cryptocasca: His problem with PoS guys is the "rich people control the blockchain" problem He told me himself
go1dfish: since when is mining cheap?
cryptocasca: He just needs to hear how our devs got around that I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs
dustinb: Congrats on the news y'all - what do you think this trend means for the industry at large?
ty13r: Well I'm not exactly sure we really differ. People who hold a lot of decred and stake it, directly control the future of the blockchain.
cryptocasca: I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs The more decred you stake the more say you have.
cryptocasca: There's a cap though @ty13r on the ticket amount that can exist
ty13r: No That's what the sdiff algo does
cryptocasca: Well not a hard one Right
ty13r: I think that's nice though Anyone can participate at any time With enough funds of course
cryptocasca: That's not how he spins it. And we need to combat that mentality. He thinks if you're just a mega whale and buy a bunch of coins that you control the show. That essentially DCR is a system run by whales not people
davecgh: So, regardless of the specifics here, I think this is very likely going to be one of those cases where there will simply be a fundamental difference of opinion on the topic. While a lot of people love to rail on the rich as being evil (while simultaneously wanting to be rich -- the hypocrisy there is quite amusing), the fact of the matter is people with more skin in the game have more incentive to keep their stake more valuable. Loving it or hating it won't change the facts.
cryptocasca: Yes. I agree.
ty13r: Yep.
cryptocasca: I think the staking aspect is important here.
ty13r: But same can be said for PoW mining
cryptocasca: The locking up for 28+ days
ty13r: Buy more miners, you have more say. Well also just like PoW mining anyone can participate at any given time. And people are getting paid for putting skin in the game 142 days is a long time in crypto land Which is the period it takes for a ticket to expire.
dustinb: The problem isn't just that the rich have control, it's that the rich get richer. PoS is similar to compound interest.
go1dfish: the power over traditional bitcoins is in the mining hardware and that is not specific to the currency they back, which is why you have worries about bitcoin forks attacking each other
coin_artist: But also earlier contributors who earned decred build the grassroots community
go1dfish: @dustinb I think that’s a large aspecting driving anti-pos perception but it applies similarly to mining hardware
dustinb: Ya @go1dfish - the combination of long term staking + PoW changes things, I need to think more on it. Tendermint's solution has always been the credible threat of hard fork if anyone's stake gets too big.
go1dfish: but mining also ends up specifically favoring some people due to external factors like power pricing
davecgh: The other thing here is something which doesn't exist yet, so it's completely understandable why it's not considered, but there is a huge difference between hard-fork voting and proposal voting.
dustinb: Proposal wouldn't solve it. The non-majority would have to hf.
ty13r: I believe this is another reason why 60% of the reward goes to PoW
davecgh: Hard fork voting is changing the rules. It's the kind of thing where you could destroy the currency if you aren't careful. That, in my opinion, should consequently very much have a high barrier to entry. Proposals, on the other hand, should definitely have a lower barrier to entry and thus would be much more inclusive.
dustinb: Ya - that's the exact reason I like decred, save the hfs for the big stuff.
davecgh: These things are not the same and they shouldn't be treated as such. Again, this is my own opinion. I'm sure not everyone agrees.
ty13r: @davecgh but how will you differentiate them economically?
davecgh: e.g. you wouldn't need a full ticket to vote on proposals, but you would for HFV.
ty13r: You might split tickets 32 times, but 1 ticket is still worth 32 votes.
davecgh: On the HFV side, yes. However, you can count them however you want on the proposal side. It's l2. You don't need to weight them the same.
ty13r: So a split ticket weight might have the same weight as non-split ticket? But if that's the case couldn't someone stake their funds with splits to get more votes? Without some sort of identity system it seems difficult to prevent Sybil attacks in that case.
davecgh: I'm spitballing here, so don't take this as gospel or anything, but you could definitely look at the snapshotting tickets and see there are 40960 tickets in total and those tickets are split up such that there are 163,840 participants. So, when you do the proposal system vote, the majority is required to be X% of 163,840. Meanwhile, the on-chain HFV is still 1 ticket = 1 vote.
dustinb: I like making it difficult to hf, but is the goal to make it impossible? Not only does that goal technically seem unlikely but aren't there some advantages to hf when we have very serious disagreements within a network about how to proceed?
davecgh: It's not impossible at all. There is a very nice distribution of holders.
ty13r: We're referring to the proposal system vote right now
dustinb: ah.
ty13r: Basically the signaling mechanism for work and spending funds.
davecgh : The other thing to keep in mind is that the l2 system can be wildly different if we so choose. You can create HLTCs to locked up funds for "layer 2" tickets that can potentially have arbitrary division. You don't have all of the limitations as the on-chain system.
ty13r: The HF vote makes it real. @dustinb we just had what should have been a contentious vote that passed with ease surprisingly.
davecgh: Then, you still have demonstrable skin in the game, just much much less for participating in the lead-up to a hard fork. However, the actual hard fork vote, a.ka. the thing that actually changes the rules, will, necessarily, use the on-chain system. Again, I totally get this is rather abstract right now since it isn't fully built out and mostly just still in our heads.
ty13r: But doesn't attacking the l2 system pose a larger risk? Definitely :slightly_smiling_face: It's like controlling the seeds And the hf vote is like controlling when to harvest If the seeds never get planted there will never be anything to harvest I'm all in favor of lowering the barrier to entry, but increasing the favor of Sybil attacks seems tough to juggle if tickets can have a different weight on the l2 system.
davecgh: Well, people with more skin in the game will still have more influence. So, the majority would still win in that case. It just means it allows more inclusivity, which I think we all desire.
ty13r: Yeah I think that's fair. @davecgh so could the proposal system have completely separate tickets not related to the HF tickets? For example...
davecgh: If we so desire, absolutely.
ty13r: I have a bunch of decred that I'm not HF staking But there's a proposal vote going on that I want to vote for I lock up tickets in the l2 vote for a week (no reward) and get my funds back after the vote has concluded
davecgh: You'd need to think through the adversarial cases as we've done with the on-chain system in order to prevent the case where you vote, all of your locked funds immediately unlock, and then you dump. So, you'd want some type of randomness factor in there to prevent gaming of it.
ty13r: People HF staking still got to vote as well, but so did I without having to lockup my funds for a longer, unknown period of time. What do you mean by dump?
davecgh: However, from a pure perspective of whether or not it's possible, you can definitely have a different ruleset. For example, one of the biggest differences, everything else aside, is that the voting period duration will be much faster. Rather than taking a full month, only having 5 votes per block, etc, in the proposal system, the vote would go on for, say a week, and so long as you own a ticket, you can vote whenever you want within that period. Notice how that ruleset is entirely different already. I personally can envision a need for differing voting periods too. There will very likely be time-sensitive things that need to be voted on more or less immediately and maybe they are only 2 days. On the end of the spectrum, perhaps there are things that need longer than a week.
moo31337: murmurs something about how not interesting ticket splitting is
davecgh: By dump I mean something like "Lock up a bunch of coins, vote down some proposal, all of my coins immediately unlock, sell all of my coins". If you can do that, you no longer necessarily have any incentive to vote according to increasing your holding's values.
moo31337: you really dont want my raw opinion on it
davecgh: That doesn't apply to the on-chain system because you can't snap vote. Your coins are locked, potentially for months, and you can't influence when they unlock at all. So, if you try vote in a way that would decrease your holding's value, you would be doing so to your own detriment.
ty13r: Let's hear it @moo31337
Davecgh: I can sum it up easily!
ty13r: That's what she said
moo31337: @davecgh nailed it
ty13r: Yeah splitting seems like it has a lot of obstacles
moo31337: I super dont want to write that code
ty13r: @moo31337 assuming increasing the ticket pool size was easy (which I know it's not and could hurt the network) would you be in favor of that? Also increasing votes per block proportionately of course
jy-p: I wouldn't from a on-chain footprint perspective having a "ticket split" similar to a stock split would be a ton of work even having 32 split would lead to a massive footprint for offchain votes in the proposal system let's say you have 100 B for each vote in the proposal system, then take 100 B x 40,960 = ~4 MB for the proposal vote multiply that by 32 to get ~128 MB of offchain data to track for proposals this is one proposal too we'll be experimenting with ways to shrink this footprint soon, so this constraint may improve substantially with time
ty13r: Yeah and on chain votes are even bigger
jy-p: exactly imo, the real solution to the ticket price barrier is to allow tickets to be purchased via a variation on LN
davecgh: Agreed, and that's why I was talking about l2 tickets above.
ty13r: how do you keep people from getting more voting rights though?
davecgh: You don't. Just like in the on-chain system. If you're willing to lock up more funds, you get more influence. However, it allows "smaller fish" to participate too. They just have influence proportional to their stake.
ty13r: But if you own 51% of a ticket you can vote it however you want So you could turn 100 tickets into more tickets
davecgh: Oh, I see your confusion. Yeah, your talking about buying partial tickets. We're talking about just having more tickets period.
ty13r: Ahhh ok sorry So more tickets...but anchored through the LN
davecgh: No worries! Like I said, abstract stuff is always fun to discuss for this reason! Right.
ty13r: I like it.
jy-p: there are a variety of approaches we could take, e.g. fractional voting that is tallied via L2 and rolled into a single ticket we'll start with the simple stuff and see what we can get done first
davecgh: Yeah, one of things you guys might have noticed is we're pretty keen on taking things one step at a time. Trying to do everything half-assed at once is a recipe for failure, imo.
ty13r: So for example you'd have maybe 5 tickets vote directly on chain and 5 tickets vote via LN? Definitely agree with that
davecgh: It might look great on paper when you can tout via marketing that you have X, Y, Z, and a BBQ too! The reality is that if all of those systems are poorly implemented though, it isn't going to make it long term.
moo31337: 40k tickets ought to be enough for everyone one ticket one vote!!!
ty13r: Another reason why I advocate for this project is you guys spend the painstaking time to do things right. So I definitely appreciate the non rush to the finish line mentality.
moo31337: oh there is a rush we just tend not to compromise when it matters I think we need a code is boss meme
davecgh: Right. We do have quite aggressive timelines. However, as @moo31337 said, if we have to bump an estimated release date to make sure something is right, that's what we'll do.
jy-p: speaking of which, i think we're nearing time for 1.1.0 release. that will include the proposal system backend
moo31337: you don’t want my working hours and certainly not @davecgh hours; i dont think anyone understands how @davecgh puts 28 hours in a day
ty13r: I know you guys work your asses off. Feels weird when dave goes offline for a few hours honestly lol Feels like he's been gone for days :joy:
reddit thread suggesting name change appears
ay-p: Ahhh that daily "let's change the name" thread
jy-p: I'm 100% sick of these posts
ty13r: lol I was about to say the same thing
jy-p: "I know you're named john, but i think you'd sound much more attractive if you were named " look at the names of these other major projects - they are beyond retarded
go1dfish: you just know it’s going to be a popular proposal when that system is ready.
davecgh: I'm actually looking forward to that proposal. It will be voted down once and for all. Then, in the future we'll just be able to link to the failed proposal. No fuss.
davecgh: I'm never going to shop at Amazon because it has too much to do with rivers and jungles and women warriors!
jy-p: the word Amazon triggers me b/c of the systematic destruction of the rainforest there
moo31337: see my turquoise was dead on! colors are hip for branding these days and it has to be calming
go1dfish: I like the name I think where the branders can win the fight is in suggesting good unit names decred works as a project name, but it seems a bit clunky as a unit name.
davecgh: Well, we probably shouldn't be so dismissive, but after seeing the same thing so many times, it's kind of comical. What is especially funny is that if you actually followed some of the others that people now claim are "good" names, there were the exact same threads about them not being good names too. Now, they are magically good names though because they're popular.
submitted by Pvtwarren to decred [link] [comments]

BashCo, allowing these bullshit attacks on BCH while banning everything which explains the economics and motives regarding our fork is EXACTLY why you’re a little tool and why we call you a muppet. I’m banned and so is everyone who can ever explain why Bitcoin Cash is NOT a scam. Thus, Fuck you.

BashCo, allowing these bullshit attacks on BCH while banning everything which explains the economics and motives regarding our fork is EXACTLY why you’re a little tool and why we call you a muppet. I’m banned and so is everyone who can ever explain why Bitcoin Cash is NOT a scam. Thus, Fuck you. submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

A refusal to implement replay protection on the 2x fork will be treated as an attack on Bitcoin - "decisive action against it, both technical and legal, has been prepared" - Eric Lombrozo

submitted by Qubane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Fork attacks (from miners with majority hash-power) is actually described in the White Paper as something the bitcoin network is designed to withstand

Fork attacks (from miners with majority hash-power) is actually described in the White Paper as something the bitcoin network is designed to withstand submitted by ABrandsen to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Looks like Bitcoin Unlimited had considered implementing checkpoints after the BCH fork as a defense against BTC chain attacks (rescinded 3 months after fork).

Looks like Bitcoin Unlimited had considered implementing checkpoints after the BCH fork as a defense against BTC chain attacks (rescinded 3 months after fork). submitted by devalbo to btc [link] [comments]

Slush: Now it is clear how they can get that "free" hashrate to attack #bitcoin with empty blocks after @BitcoinUnlimit fork. #ASICBOOST

Slush: Now it is clear how they can get that submitted by slacker-77 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

#crypto #cryptonews #bitcoin #It's a trick. Get an axe. ($50M Bitcoin Cash Tech Park BCH fork attack)

#crypto #cryptonews #bitcoin #It's a trick. Get an axe. ($50M Bitcoin Cash Tech Park BCH fork attack) submitted by nrposter to Cryptoandme [link] [comments]

I like how SV proposes to eventually lock down the protocol, so it is hard to change. I think forking every 6 months is dangerous and a vector for attack, like when politicians attach many changes to a bill. Satoshi made a lot of changes in the early days, but as Bitcoin scales we need stability.

How does everyone else feel about eventually locking down the protocol? Regardless if you hate csw or whatever, lets discuss ideas not personas. I think hard forking every 6 months is dangerous and will lead to a vector of corruption and oligarchy to creep into the system. How does everyone else feel? Is a hard fork every 6 months too much? It is important to maintain a balance and be able to progress and tweak changes that allow us to scale worldwide. Satoshi made many changes in the early days, and we are still in the early days. But as the system grows and scales, I think stability becomes very important, and is even an emergent property of Bitcoin. As it gets bigger it is going to be harder to change. We have seen this in Core, as it grew it became more difficult to change and get blocksize limit increases.
This could also be an argument to make more changes now before it becomes harder later, which I think is also a valid argument. I think even eliminating the blocksize limit is an important thing to do soon, before others come in and try to Block the Stream again. So it seems there are multiple angles to this issue. Those that want to push changes, and those that want to be more conservative. Also there are those that want to push changes now and then soon after "lock down the protocol". Then there seems like others that just want to push continual changes forever, every 6 months. I also think people should be charitable when contemplating what it means when they say "lock down the protocol". I think this means to just make changes a lot harder and difficult, but still allow common sense changes to occur. Perhaps saying "lock it down" is even an attempt to stretch the overton window, in order to counteract the other side that is pushing continual change. I think the balance is somewhere in the middle, but I am interested to see where the community lies, and hope we could have real discussion and not ad hom troll wars.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

3 FAILED Fork Attempts to Attack Bitcoin: What's Next, Bitcoin Extreme? Bitcoin Super?!? (Submit Your Guess in the Comments!)

submitted by failedforks to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If I wanted to attack Bitcoin, I'd use a hard fork

I've been thinking about this for the past few weeks. It looks like Bitcoin is starting to undergo a series of chain splits with the underlying intention to increase overall Bitcoin or fiat holdings. (Yes, that statement is politically charged, but stay with me for few minutes.)
The Bitcoin Cash fork was successful in that those who sell their Bitcoin Cash are able to accumulate more Bitcoin as a result. And now we have Bitcoin Gold coming in a few days, and the great Segwit2x battle next month. In both cases, there will be a lot of sellers who want to gain more BTC by selling off their split chain coins.
The greatest threat until now has been replay attacks, in which a transaction on one chain could be replayed on another chain if both transactions are otherwise identical. We all know that both Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin2x are unlikely to include any form of protection from this. In the event that either doesn't, and the chain stays alive long enough for people to trade, BTC holders will have to defend themselves either by never using the alternative chain, or by migrating their BTC coins to new wallets following the split (taking the risk that a replay attack could occur on the other chain).
Even though public sentiment is heavily weighted towards sticking with the current Bitcoin chain and selling off alts, both chains will probably live long enough to be used and contain value. Therefore, the chains are largely viewed as cash cows and little else.
Here's the rub: if someone wanted to take down Bitcoin, they could implement something far worse than a lack of replay protection. If wallets on the alternative chain used weak transaction signing and sabotaged encryption, they could make it far easier to derive private keys. In this event, hackers wouldn't need to use replay attacks - they could just simply determine private keys as they're used on the alt chain and test all of them on the BTC chain, emptying wallets that haven't already moved their coins. An attack wouldn't even have to be this sophisticated: the wallets could simply contain malware that emails your private keys to the hackers.
If the code and the binaries provided for miners and wallets aren't completely verified, and if the chain survives, then all BTC holdings that aren't transferred out from their original wallets prior to using the same private keys on the alternative chain are at risk. This problem is significant for exchanges, in which most Bitcoin holdings are usually kept within a few (large) wallets.
The crypto community should be vehemently against any Bitcoin fork that isn't properly and thoroughly audited by security experts. When the developers of a fork aren't known, and the code isn't revealed, the potential for an attack is significantly higher.
Right now, I think most crypto users are blinded by greed in an attempt to profit off the alternate chains, thinking that replay protection is the worst of their worries. It isn't, and an attacker knows that.
tl;dr - A Bitcoin fork could contain malware, and anyone who uses their wallets or miners could be putting their BTC at risk.
submitted by theocarina to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Follow up: Bitcoin Cash 51% attack vulnerability worse than first thought... double jeopardy as can't be fixed without a sustained crash in the price or hard fork

Follow up: Bitcoin Cash 51% attack vulnerability worse than first thought... double jeopardy as can't be fixed without a sustained crash in the price or hard fork submitted by johnhardy-seebitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

The #bcash $bch @bitcoin attack has been started; it will continue to run as we work to amplify it over the coming months. We expect to have 5000 Bcash attack nodes in roughly 6 weeks and then we will multi-fork the chain. @rogerkver will now cry . #hacking #skills #security

The #bcash $bch @bitcoin attack has been started; it will continue to run as we work to amplify it over the coming months. We expect to have 5000 Bcash attack nodes in roughly 6 weeks and then we will multi-fork the chain. @rogerkver will now cry . #hacking #skills #security submitted by unitedstatian to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hard Fork - Risk of losing Bitcoin in November? - Programmer explains Burstcoin Network Fork and Under DDoS Attack (Forked) Ethereum Classic Gets 51% Attacked Replay Attacks Bitcoin and SegWit2X Hard Fork! Part 1 Bitcoin Q&A: Proof-of-work, attacks, and ASICs

Bitcoin Gold: Creating a Hard Fork to Prevent 51% Attack 51% attacks have been the subject of many speculations for the past several weeks as cryptos like Verge and ZenCash got exposed to the attack while having both users and the network jeopardized that way. Verge, a ”privacy coin” famed for the zealotry of its community, has fallen prey to a 51% attack. A malevolent miner gained majority control of the I am having a question regarding forks. We had a discussion about attacks on bitcoin in class recently. One of the attacks was about how an attacker gains some advantage if he is able to mine a block and hold it back. He would release the block only if another miner finds a block in order to create a fork. Definition: 51-%-Attacke. Eine 51-%-Attacke ist ein Angriffsvektor in Proof-of-Work-basierten Netzwerken.Angreifer versuchen dabei, mindestens 51 % der Hashrate aufzubringen.Mit der Mehrheit der Netzwerk-Hashrate wäre der Angreifer so etwa in der Lage, Double Spends zu tätigen oder Transaktionen rückgängig zu machen. A majority attack (usually labeled 51% attack or >50% attack) is an attack on the network.This attack has a chance to work even if the merchant waits for some confirmations, but requires extremely high relative hashrate. The attacker submits to the merchant/network a transaction which pays the merchant, while privately mining a blockchain fork in which a double-spending transaction is included ...

[index] [34557] [45167] [32396] [48124] [10979] [16674] [36405] [32141] [45392] [35322]

Bitcoin Hard Fork - Risk of losing Bitcoin in November? - Programmer explains

The team behind Bitcoin Gold announced on twitter today that it suffered a massive DDoS attack on its cloud site, but they are working with the providers to ban all the IPs. This was after it ... 50+ videos Play all Mix - Fork Attack - Proof of Beats ft. Andreas Antonopoulos YouTube; Proof of ... Buy Bitcoin is Not too Late - Andreas Antonopoulos - Duration: 30:36. Bitcoin Money Maker ... BlockCypher did an analysis of the Bitcoin network's tumultuous month of July, by analyzing the BIP66 fork and subsequent spam attack: what happened, the consequences, and strategies to mitigate ... HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM A REPLAY ATTACK! sunny decree. Loading... Unsubscribe from sunny decree? ... What a bitcoin fork actually is - Duration: 6:48. Money Insider 74,617 views. 6:48 . How ... Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack - Duration: 2:16. Rodolfo Díaz 23,441 views. 2:16. Ethereum Constantinople Hard Fork 2019 - What You Need To Know - Duration: 7:39. ...

#