Bitcoins Miner 🍀 • Die TOP Modelle im Detail!

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by VeritasSapere to btc [link] [comments]

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner.

CSW&shills try to claim that intentionally causing reorgs to wreak havoc with the intent of making the chain unreliable and therefore for people, services, merchants and exchanges to lose money is fair game "because PoW".
This is complete nonsense, Bitcoin relies on its incentive mechanisms to prevent exactly that:
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments [causing reorgs], or using it to generate new coins.
An honest miner should never engage in such behavior as incentives are aligned to prevent precisely that behavior. Any miner doing this is defined as an dishonest miner and an attacker per the white paper definitions:
If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes.
It is abundantly clear that any miner intentionally modifying past blocks [reorging the chain] is considered an attacker!
There is no ambiguity here, this has been clear to any reasonable person here but it apparently needs to be spelled out for CSW shills and any newcomers that could be fooled by their selective rhetoric.
So the fact that what CSW&co. are threating to do is in fact an attack is indisputable.
As a side note, since this is clearly defined as an attack, obviously so, anyone losing money as a consequence of these attacks (especially exchanges) could possibly have a legal recourse against any miners/pools executing such an attack as they directly and intentionally [just cite CSW] caused them to lose money by their dishonest actions. So it's possible CSW&co. could get a taste of their own medicine and get sued for damages intentionally caused by them. Could be a long shot but if anyone actually does lose money because of CSW's attacks, they certainly should pursue that.
submitted by mushner to btc [link] [comments]

Cøbra: we don’t let any external entity such as the market, miners, central bank or government define for us what is and isn’t a Bitcoin

"If the unthinkable happens and 2X wins, it doesn’t mean Bitcoin has been “changed”, it means Bitcoin has been temporarily destroyed, and we need to get to work to collectively recreate it. We won’t surrender and we won’t compromise. A new hard fork will be released with a new PoW algorithm and we’ll carry on as normal." - apparently there's only one Bitcoin for Cøbra, and it's called "CobraBitcoin" with new Cobra-PoW algo
submitted by 007_008_009 to btc [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by VeritasSapere to btc [link] [comments]

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot “vote” for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot “vote” for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin submitted by seweso to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Want to make sure people understand this: Jihan is passive player. Hes not a hash war player which is how we lost BTC. Notice how AntPool hashpower on BCH is less than SVpool. Bitcoin is defined my miners, not devs, not exchanges. Blockstream got people thinking devs define bitcoin but they DONT

Want to make sure people understand this: Jihan is passive player. Hes not a hash war player which is how we lost BTC. Notice how AntPool hashpower on BCH is less than SVpool. Bitcoin is defined my miners, not devs, not exchanges. Blockstream got people thinking devs define bitcoin but they DONT submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Believing miners control or define the bitcoin network is like believing the security guards at a tech company own or define the products they make. It doesn't work that way. Miners are paid handsomely to provide security services; and they are disposable

Believing miners control or define the bitcoin network is like believing the security guards at a tech company own or define the products they make. It doesn't work that way. Miners are paid handsomely to provide security services; and they are disposable submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Believing miners control or define the bitcoin network is like believing the security guards at a tech company own or define the products they make. It doesn't work that way. Miners are paid handsomely to provide security services; and they are disposable

Believing miners control or define the bitcoin network is like believing the security guards at a tech company own or define the products they make. It doesn't work that way. Miners are paid handsomely to provide security services; and they are disposable submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Miners do not define Bitcoin

The idea that miners define Bitcoin is a ridiculous notion that some people have latched onto.
Firstly, Bitcoin was from the start clearly not intended to be ruled by miners.
This section of the paper makes no sense if miners define Bitcoin:
As such, [SPV] is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
Satoshi (my emphasis):
Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.
(Safe mode warns the user, but does not follow the longer invalid chain.)
The paper (my emphasis):
We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them.
Satoshi:
The security safeguard [checkpoints] makes it so even if someone does have more than 50% of the network's CPU power, they can't try to go back and redo the block chain before yesterday.
I'll probably put a checkpoint in each version from now on. Once the software has settled what the widely accepted block chain is, there's no point in leaving open the unwanted non-zero possibility of revision months later.
Satoshi:
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Furthermore, the Bitcoin software has always verified and hard-rejected invalid blocks even when not mining. If miners truly were rulers of the network, then there'd be no need for this expensive verification process. I described an alternative cryptocurrency design here which is ruled by miners, and uses this assumption to achieve significantly better efficiency and speed compared to Bitcoin. Why wasn't Bitcoin created with a design similar to what I described there if it was intended to be ruled by miners?
Secondly, Bitcoin would not be secure if it was ruled by miners. Lightweight nodes are possible today because the full-node-backed economy will reject blocks containing invalid transactions, giving miners a strong incentive not to include invalid transactions or build off of invalid blocks, making it sorta-kinda safe to assume that sufficient-difficulty blocks contain no invalid transactions. But if there were no full nodes, then miners would not have any particular incentive to avoid including invalid transactions, only a substantially weaker incentive to avoid doing so much harm to Bitcoin that they'd damage their potential to profit from mining. In such a world, if miners could invent any halfway-believable excuse to inflate the currency, steal/freeze BTC, squash smaller competitors, etc. then there'd be very little stopping them from doing so. Maybe if mining was so decentralized that miners had a lot of difficulty in cooperating, then these attacks would in practice not occur, but in reality mining is very centralized.
Bitcoin actually could work if miners weren't required to include only valid transactions in blocks, but then everyone would have to run full nodes in order to distinguish the garbage data in blocks from the valid transaction data.
submitted by theymos to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Peter Rizun: I support @CobraBitcoins proposal to rewrite the Bitcoin (BTC) white paper. It gives the impression that BTC is cash, nodes are miners, SPV is for users, and that hash power both enforces and defines the consensus rules. This applies only to BCH. BTC needs its own white paper.

Peter Rizun: I support @CobraBitcoins proposal to rewrite the Bitcoin (BTC) white paper. It gives the impression that BTC is cash, nodes are miners, SPV is for users, and that hash power both enforces and defines the consensus rules. This applies only to BCH. BTC needs its own white paper. submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner. /r/btc

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner. /btc submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Cbra: we dont let any external entity such as the market, miners, central bank or government define for us what is and isnt a Bitcoin /r/btc

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"People will always need coal" Or: how those who think miners define bitcoin will sound in the months ahead.

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"People will always need coal" Or: how those who think miners define bitcoin will sound in the months ahead.

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAllTV [link] [comments]

Miners do not define Bitcoin /r/Bitcoin

Miners do not define Bitcoin /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot vote for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot vote for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot “vote” for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin

No, a majority of bitcoin miners cannot “vote” for a particular upgrade and thereby define Bitcoin submitted by seweso to btc [link] [comments]

Amaury’s IFP is Incompatible with Bitcoin Cash

Amaury’s IFP is Incompatible with Bitcoin Cash submitted by jonald_fyookball to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin miner Easyminer Video Setup - YouTube Gekkoscience NewPac - USB BTC Mining (100 GH/s + on ... Gta V Fivem RP Bitcoins mining - YouTube tutorial: Bitcoin mining with CGMiner - YouTube Bitcoin Miner Überblick (2019) - die Profitabelsten

Because bitcoin mining is essentially guesswork, arriving at the right answer before another miner has almost everything to do with how fast your computer can produce hashes. Just a decade ago ... About Us. We are a small team of developers with a burning passion for crypto currency.. @perfectmine_io we created an operating system that was needed by the entire mining community. We like to believe that everyone can start with us today, maximize your profit and have more time for yourself. A computer or computer cluster in the Bitcoin network that adds transactions to the blockchain. Anyone with a good Internet connection can be a miner either using a regular PC, which is less ... Bitcoin USB-Stick Miner bitshopper GekkoScience NewPac 22 bis 45 GH/s Hash-Geschwindigkeit: 22 bis 45 GH/s; Taktrate der beiden Bitmain BM-1387 ASICs kann über CGMiner Softwareparameter eingestellt werden; Kernspannung mittels Potentiometer einstellbar. Meßpunkte für die Feinjustierung vorhanden. Stromverbrauch: 2 bis ca. 10 W pro USB-Port je nach eingestellter Taktrate und Kernspannung ... So, get a dependable power supply which is compatible with the ASIC miner that you purchase. Obtain a bitcoin wallet: Bitcoins are stored in digital wallets in an encrypted manner. This will keep your bitcoins safe. Secure the wallet: Since there is no ownership on bitcoins, anyone who gains access to your wallet can use it without any restriction. So, enable two-factor authentication and ...

[index] [8450] [14407] [43454] [28504] [28009] [30374] [11271] [11680] [4195] [18365]

Bitcoin miner Easyminer Video Setup - YouTube

Instruction book: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81lOfu4a6VL.pdf Driver usb: https://zadig.akeo.ie/ Forum Gekko Newpac: https://bitcointalk... [Release] [ESX] Esx_BitCoin [EN] [PT] https://forum.fivem.net/t/release-esx-esx-bitcoin-en-pt/601599 If you need FiveM Gameserver with one click installation... New video every Tuesday! Today we are taking a look at the Gekkoscience NewPac USB miner. We'll check all the hardware you need for setting it up, discuss so... In this video I show you how to start mining Bitcoins with CGMiner and an account at your favorite miningpool. Get CGMiner at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.... Learn how to use and setup a bitcoin miner to earn bitcoins , litecoins , dogeecoins etc. Download miner from https://easyminer.net/Downloads/

#