The Bitcoin Tracking Thread

[Sparky]

This is from a different thread, but it seems more appropriate to this discussion. Regarding what bitcoins are used for:

Well their primary use right now is as a store of wealth or a way to transfer value freely anywhere on the globe.
...

If that's the case, then why did Ares unload his at what he perceived to be a spike high? Is this what one does with their stored wealth?

[EE_]

[Ares]

This is from a different thread, but it seems more appropriate to this discussion. Regarding what bitcoins are used for:


If that's the case, then why did Ares unload his at what he perceived to be a spike high? Is this what one does with their stored wealth?

I dumped at the high, and bought back in at 280 to give myself .5 more Bitcoins. Trading is a way to accumulate wealth.

[vacuum]

Here's the other philosophy....lol

[vacuum]

This is from a different thread, but it seems more appropriate to this discussion. Regarding what bitcoins are used for:


If that's the case, then why did Ares unload his at what he perceived to be a spike high? Is this what one does with their stored wealth?

Here's their use to me: they represent the plan within a plan. In that respect, they're actually worth more to me than their monetary value at any given point. If I'm in a jam, if there's an emergency, if I'm separated from my resources, if I need to flee.......it's the ace in my back pocket. I don't consider the money I've put into it to be added in with my "assets", rather, it is a "prep". So if the price goes to zero in 5 years, it will still have served it's purpose. Like any prep, the value is more in what it protects than the item itself. It's the same philosophy as someone who always carries $1000 cash in their wallet wherever they go. You never know when there will be an emergency, where having the right cash at the right time will let you buy something for pennies on the dollar, etc. You don't count that cash in your pocket as necessarily an "investment".

[Horn]

'Selfish miner' attack could devastate Bitcoin
Nov 5, 2013 6:14 AM


Bitcoin is vulnerable to an attack that could have devastating effects on the virtual currency, but it can be fixed with a software update, according to researchers from Cornell University.


The attack involves "miners," or people running computers that verify Bitcoin transactions, said Ittay Eyal, a post doctoral fellow at Cornell University's Department of Computer Science, who co-authored the study with Emin Gun Sire, a Cornell professor.
Every 10 minutes, miners -- who usually collaborate in mining pools -- are rewarded with 25 bitcoins for lending their computing power to Bitcoin if they solve a cryptographic puzzle first. Miners process Bitcoin's transactions, which are recorded in its "blockchain," or public ledger.


It has long been known that if a mining group controlled more than 50 percent of Bitcoin's processing power, the network could be subject to a variety of attacks if the group wanted to act maliciously. But the researchers show that small miners may unwittingly join a malicious group.

Miners are supposed to follow Bitcoin's software protocol. But Eyal and Sire found that Bitcoin could be significantly disrupted if a small group comprising less than 10 percent of Bitcoin's mining power decided to not follow it.


A malicious mining group, or "selfish miners" as termed in the research paper, could "fork" the blockchain, or split it into a competing chain by only selectively revealing some of the transactions they've processed. If the malicious group's blockchain fork grows larger than the legitimate one, it would begin to collect a greater share of the 25-bitcoin rewards.


Miners, seeing the malicious group gain higher revenue, would join the successful pool, even if it was unaware of its intentions. Eventually, the malicious group could control the transaction chain, Eyal said.


"The discovery here is a mining pool of any size can initiate this attack and are better off doing selfish mining," Eyal said in a phone interview.

A variety of attacks are then possible, including spending the same bitcoin twice, which the network is currently designed to prevent. If a merchant received a payment in bitcoins, the miners could "roll back" the transaction to allow the bitcoins to be spent again, Eyal said.
"They could also prevent you from ever using your bitcoins" by not allowing certain transactions into the blockchain, Eyal said.


Fortunately, Bitcoin's protocol can be updated. Eyal said he and Sire have suggested a fix for Bitcoin's algorithm that would limit mining pools to no more than 25 percent of the total number of nodes on the network.


Some mining pools today already exceed 25 percent, Eyal said. "Obviously, we believe that these pools are honest and they don't have any incentive to break the protocol, but like I said before, technically they can and we believe this is not a healthy situation for bitcoin, which we believe is destined for great things," he said.


Gavin Andresen, chief scientist for The Bitcoin Foundation and lead developer for the Bitcoin-QT client, said developers are still digesting the research paper. But he said the consensus in the end will likely be that the attack is not practical.


Although Bitcoin is not controlled by an entity, a team of developers work on its core protocol. Updates to the protocol are periodically released and adopted by the community, although there is no way to force people to upgrade their software.


The update would give people greater confidence in the Bitcoin economy and ensure that people don't have to count on miners' "good intentions," Eyal said.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20608...chers-say.html

[Sparky]

Here's their use to me: they represent the plan within a plan. In that respect, they're actually worth more to me than their monetary value at any given point. If I'm in a jam, if there's an emergency, if I'm separated from my resources, if I need to flee.......it's the ace in my back pocket. I don't consider the money I've put into it to be added in with my "assets", rather, it is a "prep". So if the price goes to zero in 5 years, it will still have served it's purpose. Like any prep, the value is more in what it protects than the item itself. It's the same philosophy as someone who always carries $1000 cash in their wallet wherever they go. You never know when there will be an emergency, where having the right cash at the right time will let you buy something for pennies on the dollar, etc. You don't count that cash in your pocket as necessarily an "investment".

I can accept it as one more prep alternative, as in your example.

[Horn]

I can accept it as one more prep alternative, as in your example.

Sparky also wanted to keep his old insurance plan after the affordable care act was implemented.

After which it consumed everything in its path, and the entire world was thrown into the trash can as it had 0 intrinsic value.

[Ares]

Horn,

I read that article about the selfish miner attack. The Bitcoin Developer came out and said yeah it's feasible, but that's only a short term goal. You'd end up destroying the system you're trying to profit from. We're not bankers.

To give you an example of the people who mine, earlier this year there was a fork in the block chain because of a glitch on how the network handled the new client update. The pools shut down and stopped mining until everyone was up to date. All pools that I know of are extremely transparent. Mostly because they want to prove to the miners who join their pool that their shares and work aren't being stolen by the pool operator. You have each block posted and who received what from the shares.

So yes while it is feasible, especially with the pool I belong too as they have 25% of network hash rate. I just don't think it would happen. Hell the pool I belonged too took the time to return someone's mistyped payment back to that person. Instead of sending 1BTC the person mistakenly typed 10 BTC and hit send. Opps. The pool was able to recover some of the BTC's just not all of them. But even still the pool could of kept it for themselves, but didn't.

[Horn]

I read that article about the selfish miner attack. The Bitcoin Developer came out and said yeah it's feasible, but that's only a short term goal. You'd end up destroying the system you're trying to profit from. We're not bankers.

Do the other E-coins have this massive liability flaw, or is it just the mother of and flagship to all E-coins.

Would it even matter if the mothership then became pirated?