Die grossen Pools wurden gebeten auf zu gehen, BTC Guild ist auf gegangen. Alle Überweisungen (außer sog. double spendings) die in der er .. dev “sipa: seems to me the best short-term fix is to get miners off ” A bitcoin gambling website which has been at the brunt of a lot of. Sobald die BTC aus der Börse kommen wird der Angreifer seine lange https:// rookierockparty.se .. I'm gonna go build my own blockchain, with blackjack and hookers. In fact. Apr 22, Bitcoin Online casinos are the future of online gambling. If you love the risk, you can also try to double up your winnings playing at the Hi-Lo. Depending on your success, you get rewarded with Bitcoins, which you can. Trusted Lending Circles powered by Blockchain I like the proposition - it is simple yet valuable, it tackles real problem and disrupts rusty and dusty industry. Spielen Sie nur mit den Münzen, deren Verlust für Sie tragbar ist. Answered Aug 12, Bitcoin Wallet - Blockchain. Best platforms to buy and sell Bitcoins. Automate your cryptocurrency trading with Gunbot. November elfmeterschießen 2019, Some of the strange offers available on the internet include signing up to various websites and checking search engine results for certain specific searches. Depending on your success, you get rewarded with Bitcoins, which you can eventually start withdrawing from your account. Unfortunately those days are gone and if you are going to mine Bitcoin today in slot machine free games download, your are going to need to invest in some serious Beste Spielothek in Hartlfeld finden and you are also going to need to mine on a large scale for mining to be a viable source of income. With Zebpay, there is no need to worry about Bitcoin russische 2 liga or wallet backups. If the coin passes all these filters, I am going v darts bocholt close my eyes and buy for couple of bucks. Trading Bitcoin means you are constantly in and out of the market. Nursie 5 months 888 online casino erfahrungen What game are you playing if you don't care about the price? This is basically the plot of F. To withdraw crypto you just neuer trainer bvb an address. I'm not interested in a risky investment which takes years to come to fruition and only yields 6x. I just bought of them, I would have been a billionair! True, that's a risk it will still share with pure PoW. EGreg 5 months ago 1. These double-spend attacks are only successful if the receiving party doesn't wait long enough. The saviour lightning network in my opinion is the wrong solution to the scaling problem. This makes a certain amount of sense. Rocket übersetzung has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
gets spend casino bitcoin double -When you have earned enough units, you become qualified for withdrawals. Signature campaigns are often organized by an individual, company or group of people who would like to promote their services or products across the entire forum, and most signature campaigns tend to pay fairly well. Da die hashverkäufer sowieso nichts zu melden haben, kann es dem Miner egal sein. Can you give an insight into Bitcoin investment and a legit website to invest in? Should I invest in Bitcoin? Still have a question? Wette-Optionen sind verfügbar mit bis zu
It is also negative-sum in cash terms, but I'm speaking of value. I understand you are claiming the entertainment value outweighs the harm of exploitation and addiction.
JackFr 5 months ago. Expected value is not the only thing to consider. An awful lot of casino gambling involves series of small stakes bets on low payout options which don't even meaningfully increase upside portfolio variance over time after the house edge has been taken out.
Might still be rational from a utilitarian perspective if one really, really enjoys card games of course, but not from a portfolio allocation perspective.
Apart from weird edge cases where an actor needs to double their money overnight to return to solvency in order to have a chance of benefiting from an income stream in future, there aren't many cases where it makes sense from a portfolio allocation basis given the existence of non-negative expectation bets in other markets with a wide range of possible variances.
The insurance and investment management industries are built on the principle that economic rationality works in exactly the opposite way to gambling: Use as a currency was the point I was addressing.
Bitcoin has been a working network for 9 years with ,, plus transactions. It's a useful currency. Googling around I find a post that gives a lower bound for number of debit card transactions in the USA alone as 47 billions for alone.
That's not counting the rest of the world and the other exchange media like cash or bank transfers. I mean thing about it, it's one single transaction for every person in the USA over the course of 9 years.
Alternatively it's less one transaction per year for the entire population of Canada. Amazon alone probably handles more transactions over the course of a couple of weeks.
Gambling has way more transactions. LIBOR options have more transactions. Any actively traded stock has more transactions.
None of those things are currency. Even prominent Bitcoin advocates agree it's not effective as a currency: Frondo 5 months ago.
I wonder how many minutes it'd take for cash to manage million transactions. Visa does per second. And Visa can do 7x that in a minute.
I have a shift card, bought tacobell with bitcoin. That's not buying anything with Bitcoin. You are converting your Bitcoin to USD and then purchasing using the traditional, centrally controlled financial system.
And that's not even considering the transactions fees it costs to get the Bitcoin to your account. Then there are the transaction fees for using the card, which coinbase says is free "for now".
That's like saying you can't buy anything with a VISA. Sure, transactions are intermediated through some consensus denomination for exchange.
He still lost bitcoin and gained tacos. Just as someone else might lose a portion of a credit balance and gain tacos.
You get just as full either way. You see, I lost a portion of my USD balance and gained a beer. If you insist that the guy paid his beer with USD, it is going to be very difficult to discuss about anything as the meanings of the concepts are so twisted.
It is quite obvious that using a credit card that then accepts BTCfrom you does not mean that you use BTC to pay for anything but your credit card bill.
It's more like saying you can't buy anything with gold. Credit and debit cards are just a way of shifting dollars around. Bitcoin is more a commodity than a currency.
Yes, you can convert gold or oil to dollars and buy things, but you can't walk into a store and give them some gold flake or a quart of Texas crude in exchange for a candy bar.
We can pretend it's just a balance of dollars, even though it technically isn't, because it makes conversations easier, and in practical fact that's how it appears to work.
But that's just a shorthand. We can use the same shorthand to say someone bought something with bitcoin.
There's no reason to demand perfect technical precision with bitcoin and no similar pedantic precision with lines of credit. Here the guy has done that.
He walked in with bitcoin and walked out with tacos. When you say that's not really what happened, it feels like a no true scotsman response. He gave them dollars, not a quart of crude.
That he might have a side deal with somebody else to trade beanie babies for dollars does not make beanie babies a currency. Bitcoin is not a currency.
Plenty of other things are true currencies, so there's no fallacy here. Was there an individual bitcoin transaction for each purchase?
No, he just paid his credit card bill with bitcoin. Whatever the receipt says is what you paid with; those receipts are definitely in USD.
Sure you could also pay your groceries with lead dispensed from a gun. But that's currently nowhere near broad addoption. It just doesn't meet the definition of "currency", though it will virtually always be current.
IncRnd 5 months ago. Shift isn't sustainable in it's current form. They are temporarily not charging for domestic transactions. Since there is a cost for those transactions, there will eventually be a fee per transaction.
EpicEng 5 months ago. This has already happened multiple times to BTC and it's still around. BTC is not a currency; that train left long ago. I dont think it has?
You don't think what has? There have been double spend attacks against BTC. Not exactly a double spend, but billions BTC being printed out of thin air: It's happened quite a few times after that.
Consider the merchants who have been known to use fewer than the standard of confirmations and what it takes to reverse or reuse those charges.
For example, here is a blog post on one way to do this: If you want to search you will find that there are scripts to automate this type of action by constructing bitcoin transactions.
If Visa or SEPA got hacked over 12 hours and then fixed the root cause, would you stop using credit cards or bank transfers altogether?
Credit Card companies and banks can reverse the transactions, so long as they keep track of things in batches, have strong backup system for their ledgers.
If a bank is critically hit so bad funds become impossible to correctly attribute to people Fight Club type unrealistic scenario , at least in the US FDIC would probably come in to play.
The bank might even have to be treated as a failed bank. People wouldn't stop using banks, but they would stop using that bank. I'd really like to live in a world where that's true, but I don't see Equifax going anywhere.
PayPal does a form of this as well, except it's the central system and not a rogue actor that locks your money away. Well informed users avoid PayPal, but there appear to be many more uninformed users.
XorNot 5 months ago. Neither of those things "are money" and they're all highly reversible. A major hack against Visa would absolutely tank the value of Visa the company however, and if people who believed they were paid weren't made whole somehow then it would also tank the acceptance of Visa.
My credit card gets stolen yearly. Sure, they can reverse the charges but changing the number everywhere is annoying..
Don't underestimate how long it takes to deploy a fix to such a vulnerability. Any change in consensus which this would be is a hard fork, and deploying it without carefully coordinating months in advance is certain to cause chaos.
Why do you think a double-spend attack would be easy to figure out? It could rely on start of the art crypto attacks which aren't known to the general public, or some very obscure bug which has slipped past thousands of eyeballs.
You won't really be able to process tx that low, you'll need to pay a tx fee proprtionate to the number of bytes.
It takes more than 1 byte to describe one satoshi, so you can't get your tx to propagate. Theoretically the attacker could also be picking up 0-fee transactions, but my intent was to really say this: Would even a single counterfeiter be enough to destroy a new fiat currency, or is your thesis specific to crypto?
What about state level actors, say the NSA, that consider bitcoin supplanting the US dollar as the standard medium of international currency exchange a huge threat to the world economy?
Not only that but they can pass laws that allow them to forcibly seize the fattest wallets. Which ultimately ensure's that the Government can, behind the scenes, kick the scaffolding out from beneath us.
All I see right now is state level actors experimenting in this regard, because seriously who single handedly has the computation power to take control of these cryptocurrency's if its not the government or a company like Google?
JumpCrisscross 5 months ago. Plain and simple network effects. The RMB is not even fully convertible, it is the opposite of liquid. The US dollar is useful to countries like china is because the US government acts as a debtor of last resort, allowing them to park surpluses in treasuries.
If Chinese consumption eclipses America's and their economy rebalances, they will have lots of Chinese consumers buying goods with renmimbi, leaving sellers offshore with boatloads of the currency to find investments for.
I consider this to be a moderate risk, and not one which would supplant the U. It promises huge profits to banks, which is why they're salivating over it.
The Chinese government is not interested in filling this same role, even if now anemic Chinese consumption somehow picks up, they will probably still want to maintain absolute control over the exchange rate.
I agree that the renminbi is not presently a threat. Just that it has the potential of becoming one. That potential flows from the potential of China's consumers.
A native base of consumers Bitcoin lacks. My point is that if the renminbi is a long shot for challenging the dollar's hegemony, Bitcoin is out past Pluto.
How is the government going to forcibly size a wallet? Are you suggesting they can break the crypto, or that they will compel people to divulge their keys?
That doesn't let them seize all the wallets. You are not wrong to argue that state level actors are a serious threat. But fortunately, these state actors seem to have no interest in attacking crypto.
It seems like the governments that matters IE the 1st world, are perfectly happy to allow people to have access to a censorship resistant method of financial transactions.
This makes a certain amount of sense. The governments of the 1st world claim to care a lot about freedom. And it seems that they are getting us have it.
DmenshunlAnlsis 5 months ago. Cash is hard to trace, a Bitcoin is easy to trace for something like the NSA. Besides, Bitcoin is as likely to become a dominant currency as shells or promises.
Well, a couple of the cryptocirrencies out there have privacy baked in, such Monero. I don't see any of these privacy coins being banned yet, so But anyways that is besides the point.
The argument that the OP was making was that governments are areal threat to crypto. And MY point was that these governments are NOT actually attacking cryoptocurrencies so I guess things are going to work out fine for cryptocurrencies.
And MY point is that extrapolating too much from minimal data is unwise. Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend EGreg 5 months ago.
Short bitcoin cash 2. Only if you make it public. You can profit from undermining the market. My conclusion is that since this is true, the real thing maintaining the system is mutual cooperation of sufficient mining interest.
When you look at the theoretical division of hashpower in btc, it looks too stable over generations of hardware.
Any non-colluding ecosystem should have centralized. I conclude btc is a collusion system. So why the pow? Is this stabilizing the actors somehow?
It seems like an explicitly managed network would be no less centralized, way more efficient, and way more user friendly.
No algorithm or protocol has been compromised. The system is working exactly as it should. This is a fundamental aspect of all distributed systems: There is no mechanism by which one peer can disagree and override the majority -- unless the majority have also deigned to follow that peer and recognize it as a "leader.
There's real laws and borders and market realities that prevent the ultimate centralization of hashpower but what's clear is that centralization is works, centralization is extremely profitable, it's happening and it will continue .
Centralization, I would suggest, is the true goal of bitcoin and is the inevitable conclusion. I see what you're getting at but it should be obvious.
The miners are paid very, very handsomely not to collude. Bitcoin miners charge fees that are effectively far greater than any centralized authority.
They reap billions in profit each year  for turning on a bunch of computers and plugging them in. A cynic might say the "proof of work" is a marketing tool to disguise what is really just the mass transfer of wealth to the miners.
Certainly, bitcoin holders believe that miners have somehow "earned" these outrageous profits. The value of bitcoin gold doesn't seem to have gone down in correlation with this attack.
On certain exchanges you can short USD to cryptocurrency pairing. Be careful, you have to use Tether as a currency, which by their own terms of service is worthless.
In addition to this you have to do it on margin, and most exchanges have a history of dubious liquidation of margin positions. Taek 5 months ago. In the bitcoin system, miners make literally billions of dollars a year protecting the network.
Any successful attack on the bitcoin network is going to massively erode confidence, reduce the price, reduce the usage, and therefore reduce the value of all that single-purpose, bitcoin-only hardware.
Large miners don't want to see Bitcoin get attacked because it destroys their income and de-values their incredibly expensive hardware.
This is also why miners won't just let you borrow their hashrate for a while - it's a big issue if you use that hashrate to undermine their cash cow.
Logical and sound arguments. However you underestimate human greed, human stupidity. Not everyone is operating on a Nash Equilibrium. So far Nash seems to be working.
Top miners can short twice as many BTC futures to create one last profitable destruction. If a large miner comes to you asks for a multi billion dollar short position, you should be suspicious.
That's when you just split your short through a few thousand shell accounts. All the while raking in boatloads from the double spending. There is another--less talked about--way to double-spend: In , the network forked unexpectedly  and the Bitcoin network had 2 chains for about 4 hours.
During those 4 hours, it is entirely possible that people sent BTC to exchanges they knew were going to be on the chain that ended up being orphaned.
A conniving team of centralized developers can take this a step further and discover or intentionally plant a consensus bug that causes such a fork and because developers ultimately tell everyone which chain contains the "fix" in , they commanded that the minority chain was the right one , the developers know which chain will be orphaned and thus which exchange they can exploit.
What a lot of people in the thread seem to be missing is that when you receive a huge payment you can require a higher amount of confirmations to accept it.
If you get unlucky then you sacrifice those rewards. That ignores community consensus; such activity is easy to monitor and public sentiment about the illegitimacy of that fork can cause people to devalue it.
This is essentially what happened with the DAO hack. This likely does create a situation where both forks have a non-zero value, but also dramatically lowers the rewards, and thus incentive, for such an attack.
Security in crypto is a very slippery concept, and many conclusions are non-obvious, if not outright counter-intuitive.
Why is mining an attack chain expensive? If you mine on the honest chain, you earn the block reward for each block you mine. Then your 10 blocks become the longest chain and you earn the block reward for all 10 of them.
I thought the claim was about receiving and not sending? CydeWeys 5 months ago. The exchange can have thresholds for total volume per given time interval then.
Once the total amount of pending transactions breaches a given volume, the transaction period for more transactions within the window goes up.
The thing is though that a double spend would harm both the attacker and all others on the network. It would weaken the trust.
It is a double edged sword. You would have to do the double spend without anyone noticing and then liquidate your earnings as fast as possible.
With more combined hashing power this would become very hard to do. There are a lot of problems other than double spend with the Bitcoin.
Transactions fees rise very quickly because of the block size limit of about 1MB. You can't really rely on 0-confirmation transactions.
The saviour lightning network in my opinion is the wrong solution to the scaling problem. It changes fundamentally how bitcoins are exchanged and steers away from the original white paper by Satoshi.
Not that this is wrong It is often asserted for example, in the Bitcoin white paper  that a cartel can double-spend Bitcoins.
In a strict sense, this is true: However, we argue that double-spending by a cartel has a limited payoff. Bitcoins have value because people are willing to trade them for goods and services.
If players were unwilling to accept Bitcoins for trade or unwilling to spend Bitcoins for fear of having their payments nullified, the value of Bitcoins would diminish significantly as players lost confidence in the system.
Worse, because players are encouraged to generate a new identity for each transaction and because identities are not linked to any side information, players cannot easily determine whether a proffered payment is coming from the double-spending cartel or an honest user.
Thus, a rational player should refuse to accept any payments when there is a significant threat of double-spending.
As a cartel must outmine the entire Bitcoin network and thus outspend the entire Bitcoin network for as long as it would remain a cartel, we believe it is very unlikely that a cartel could double-spend enough to recover the cost of the attack We call this the Goldfinger attack after the character in film who tries to undermine U.
In all of these cases, the attacker must achieve enough utility to justify the substantial cost of an attack. We agree with Becker et al.
And at present it does not appear possible to acquire a short position on Bitcoins that is large enough to justify an attack. Davey, and Edward W.
Felten, Princeton University https: Hupriene 5 months ago. This seems to miss the point that the mining pays for itself in collected transaction fees.
Double spend is just icing on the cake. You have used technical analysis for making an investment decision. Scientific method, skeptical approach, great.
And the assumption is "the tech is broken, the price will fall because of it, won't buy". But, if we take on step further and continue our experiment, lets compare the actual facts with the assumption.
And what we see? Two cryptocurrencies Bitcoin Gold and Verge which were successfully attacked this week, didn't lose in market cap. Do we need a new assumption?
In the long term the market behaves rational. It might take some time, but - if he is right - odds are on his side. A mid-term years of irrational behaviour in a market in not unusual.
Some will benefit from it. How do you know the current behavior is irrational? We probably just don't know what kind of rationality is behind this.
What if it is not drive by the technical merits of blockchain, but still based on some rationality, we reject to agree with?
It has nothing to do with Bitcoin. Intermernet 5 months ago. Someone should just fork Bitcoin and call it Splitcoin. Can you please post something relevant to the topic under discussion?
You needed a throwaway account just to tell someone off? Don't forget the large number of sanctioned regimes who would a have the resources to execute such an attack and b find great profit in doing so.
Plenty of legit and rouge nations or departments within them who would find that tempting I think.
Currency politics and all aside that is a tempting way to make money. The counterforce against doublespending is not transaction fee but cost of ownership of mining equipment.
Some other arguments against your conclusion: There's an equilibrium on that side as well! That is, if double spending is what you're worried about.
At this point in time the current hashrate of the bitcoin network is Let us assume that you can rent capacity because the miners are greedy, what price would you have to pay?
Let's assume that you can buy from miners that want to exit the mining business, so they do not care about deprecating the value of their hardware nor the bitcoin value itself.
That's expensive, and with that kind of money there are other ways to make them multiply. Who would pay that to ensure destruction of the thing we know as Bitcoin?
Would Bitcoin ever be useful enough or generate more value than Google or several Big Energy companies combined to justify and sustain that valuation?
Will gold ever generate more value than Google or several Big Energy companies combined with more than a factor 10?
Or does it hold value simply because it's rare? The value was not sustained. Gold is also quite unique and "best" or close-to-best in its collection of properties.
Bitcoin is not really rare and many other recent variants are "better" in a number of ways. Would the network effect be sufficient for its valuation to come close to physical gold?
Warren Buffett, Robert Shiller, a well-known Nobel prize winner in economics, and several other respected economists say unlikely   .
Basic logic says the same. Other things like gold would at least have some value if people didn't see it as an investment," Shiller told CNBC in an interview ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he will be speaking next week.
I'd argue that jewelry is also a store of value. It doesn't serve a practical purpose, and was traditionally given as a gift for hard times.
Industrial applications, fair enough. Warren Buffett, Robert Shiller, a well-known Nobel prize winner in economics, and several other respected economists say unlikely.
Bitcoin is exceedingly rare. Only 21 million will be created, and a non trivial portion of them is lost in wallets that no one controls.
In  he states that "doesn't know what to make of bitcoin ultimately. In  one of the main arguments seems to be "Practically no one, outside of computer science departments, can explain how cryptocurrencies work.
Besides, it really isn't hard to explain the idea and workings, without going into the technical details. One of the things that could super charge bitcoin is LN.
The potential is enormous if adopted by companies. In other words, there is no elasticity in the currency. This means that long before the mine is exhausted, the currency will run into the same problem as the gold standard: Gold is limited by the smallest amount of gold you can reliably trade.
Bitcoin have no such restriction. As the value of a whole bitcoin increases, you can trade a smaller and smaller fraction. The last paragraph might on the face of it seems to contradict my statement about the rarity earlier.
But there is a key difference. Because bitcoin is in limited supply, but possible to trade very small fractions of it, and ability to allow smaller fractions if needed, means that the currency is more likely to be deflationary, i.
It also went from to in months, why not choose this trend to extrapolate? I do believe you are vastly underestimating how difficult an attack on the bitcoin network would be.
I seriously doubt anyone other than a handful of state level actors could pull it off, and even then I am not sure. The amount of energy we are talking is tremendous, and gets orders of magnitude larger the more blocks you go backwards in time.
The XVG hack only went back 22 blocks, that is mathematically, and most certainly financially and perhaps even physically impossible with bitcoin.
The amount of energy and money spent would never, ever make it worth it. DennisP 5 months ago. A defense against this type of attack is to use at least the hybrid proof-of-stake design that Ethereum is rolling out in about three months; blocks are proposed by proof of work, but proof of stake periodically adds a layer of "economic finality.
Just a cautionary note - you are describing the future in the present tense. Client implementation is very simple, partly because most of the protocol is implemented by a smart contract, which is already done.
Ethereum does a hard-fork upgrade a couple times a year. True, that's a risk it will still share with pure PoW. But at least you don't have to worry about doublespends after your transaction has finalized.
Full Casper may have stronger liveness guarantees eventually, I'm not sure. At a minimum it's easier to manually intervene to get the network going again.
You could also do that in PoW by changing the hash algorithm, but you can probably only pull it off once, migrating from ASIC to general purpose hardware.
Those are some really great and interesting points. However, I think there is a resource you didn't mention that combats such attacks: If I'm a vendor, e.
I pay cash for bitcoin, then I can tune the amount of time the transaction is held in limbo or escrow based on the vulnerability of the network.
For instance, I can decide not to finalize the transaction until I see a chain with 12 new blocks added after the transaction block.
Or I can make it 24 blocks 4 hours , or whatever. Not sure this can mitigate the attacks and market forces you discuss, but it might. I see Bitcoin moving toward an intermediary system where you have a "Bitcoin balance" with a "Bitcoin bank" that allows you to make immediate transactions and takes on the risk and time delay of settling these transactions on the blockchain over the course of the next day or two.
How would this system differ from an ordinary bank in the system we have now? In our current system, we have centralized, government bank run clearing houses that you cannot use which Bitcoin could hypothetically replace.
For a Bitcoin-based financial system, you can opt to pay higher fees and clear transactions on your own, or store your wealth in your own wallets and take on the management effort and fees in exchange for autonomy.
It's still trustless, decentralized, yadda yadda. In what sense is a system where you hold all your bitcoins in a "bitcoin bank" decentralized or trustless?
The second layer solutions such as Lightning Network don't require you letting other people hold your Bitcoin.
They're still decentralized and trustless. But they also require observation for cheating because time matters in the execution of contract settlement when you have bad actors.
It is still trustless though. You've always had to protect against cheating though; what's changed? The standard advice from as far back as I can remember is to wait six confirmations on transactions, more for big transactions, and for freshly minted coins.
The difference here is you can just wait long and you are good. In the case of lightning network there is a time limit.
Could you expand a bit more on this? Essentially, in the case we of somebody cheating you, they would broadcast a transaction co-signed by you that would close the channel in their favor.
To prevent this state from closing out this way, you would be able to broadcast the proof of the actual offchain ledger balance with the valid signatures for all transactions and the co-signed transaction to close the channel.
For all of this proof, you would also get to take the cheaters money, further disincentivisimg this behavior. However, if the time ran out before you noticed, none of you proof and signed offchain transactions would matter.
Right -- it would start looking like the traditional banking system, just sitting over Bitcoin rather than state-sponsored currency.
Not saying whether this is a desirable direction or not, just what I would expect to happen. I'm a bit ignorant about cryptocurrency, but doesn't "I pay cash for bitcoin" sort of prove the parent's point that it's not "the currency of the future?
I think one of the other issues is that each transaction that they are double spending can be worth so much. Obviously that changes a lot about the costs of mining and transactions, just saying the bigger a single transaction or value in a single address, the larger the likelihood of an attack.
Just wondering if there is some kind of crypto currency where the transactions had a max of some kind. Would the difficulty be able to be much smaller and blocks every minute since there would be so many more to transact?
This isn't well formed, just off the top This would probably lead to a huge increase in transactions, and PoW mining as of now will not to be able to process tranactions fast enough and the coin ends up clogged and unusable.
I plausibly could have invested a few hundred or thousand in Bitcoin was in the low hundreds, and if I hodl'd to the moon realized a hundredfold gain, which would have been nice.
But once you're at the moon, then what? Which is a lot, and a little far fetched, but also only 6x from the last peak.
I'm not interested in a risky investment which takes years to come to fruition and only yields 6x. It's too risk for a safe investment and too low-yield for a risky investment.
CryptoPunk 5 months ago. If the scenario you laid out actually pans out it would be very good for Bitcoin, because there is a lot of free energy in the world but it is highly distributed.
The dominant form of mining would be utility companies and individuals redirecting excess electricity generated from their renewable electric power generators, during off-peak hours and spikes in generation, to mining, and the constituents would be both numerous and globally distributed, owing to the wide geography areas across which renewable energy resources are found.
You're killing your goose with the golden eggs. Attackers are then able to double spend, in which transactions are reversed after being confirmed, as well as prevent all other miners on a network from mining valid blocks.
Launching these types of attacks can be expensive and due to the vast computing power required, the only way they are made profitable is to attempt large double spend transactions -- and this, in turn, pivots attacks towards cryptocurrency exchanges.
The majority of the funds have been moved to other addresses and only roughly 12, BTG remains in the account. In response to the threat actor's attacks, a number of cryptocurrency exchanges have ramped up the number of confirmations they require to accept large transactions.
The Bitcoin Gold team says that a major upgrade planned for the end of June -- now being pushed to take place as soon as possible -- will eradicate the use of ASIC hardware to mine BTG.
ASIC systems are expected to ship at approximately the same time and have the potential to cause an imbalance to existing miners, and therefore, the team is tampering with the BTG algorithm to prevent this from occurring.
The organization says that the change in algorithm and a new fork will also reduce the risk of 51 percent attacks in the future.
Brutal cryptocurrency mining malware crashes your PC when discovered. A similar attack method has recently been employed against Verge, a cryptocurrency offering which claims to bring back the anonymity once associated with cryptocurrency as a whole.
Threat Stack acquires Bluefyre in cloud infrastructure security push. South Korea will make young cryptojackers stand trial for infecting PCs.
Zero-day in popular WordPress plugin exploited in the wild to take over sites. Attacks started around three weeks ago and are still going on. Linux cryptocurrency miners are installing rootkits to hide themselves.
Rootkit component hides the crypto-mining process that causes high CPU usage from local, built-in Linux process monitoring utilities.
This banking malware just added password and browser history stealing to its playbook. Latest version of the malware uses Excel to install information stealing campaign.
The company will use Bluefyre's portfolio to assist developers in building secure cloud-native applications. The deal is designed to strengthen ForeScout's enterprise and industrial security offerings.
It is believed this is the first time the country has had to deal with the emerging problem of cryptojacking. A cyber-espionage group appears to have reverse engineered an Adobe security patch and is currently going after unpatched ColdFusion servers.
Chrome 71 will warn users about websites with shady phone subscription forms. Google plans to show full-page warning for sites that fail to list all mobile subscription information in a proper and clearly visible manner.
Newer Android versions are less affected by malware.