\[Bushstar Response Incl\] Fork and 51% the chain of event, including 33000
-
Although BTC-e has acted accordingly to the situation, we have to do something as well. A quick solution is to release a new version of the client with a higher number of confirmations required for transaction. We can also implement some kind of central checkpointing for a while or even proceed further to PoS. If we do nothing, repeated attacks may destabilise the network as many valid transactions get into orphaned blocks.
[quote name=“Radacoin” post=“6294” timestamp=“1369466192”]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=797.msg6262#msg6262 date=1369440489]
Could be. I remember the lethal 51% attack on CoiledCoin executed by Luke Jr using Eligius hash power, though it was rather easy due to merged mining with BTC. Need to investigate further.
[/quote]Wait what? Luke Jr misused the hashing power of his clients to start a 51% attack? How come he’s not tarred and feathered?
[/quote]He thought of CLC as of another pump & dump altcoin and punished it in his way. Far not all Eligius miners approved this execution post factum, though he got away easy.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/what-is-the-story-behind-the-attack-on-coiledcoin
-
So it looks more like feathercoin is being used rather than attacked, used to make profit from the exchanges.
With the exchanges upping the confirm amount, it will make it harder to sell feathercoin at those exchanges, the price of FTC should establish a more stable base (it will slow down the pump/dump antics).
Its probably being done with other coins also.
-
[quote name=“pyxis” post=“6305” timestamp=“1369473665”]
So it looks more like feathercoin is being used rather than attacked, used to make profit from the exchanges.With the exchanges upping the confirm amount, it will make it harder to sell feathercoin at those exchanges, the price of FTC should establish a more stable base (it will slow down the pump/dump antics).
Its probably being done with other coins also.
[/quote]So if we get the exchanges to up their confirm count then it is much harder for someone to sustain that kind of attack and would probably be better off chasing another coin. I’m going to contact Vircurex and Cryptonit and let me know that they should take action on this immediately.
-
We can’t release updates so fast. We’re lucky to have good pools using the correct version as it is. It took long enough to schedule a hard fork which worked out cleanly.
What we need to do honestly is first help users understand the situation. Losing hashrate is more damaging than not having a superman feature against attack.
This isn’t like updating your instant messenger. Every time you update the client, if you change the way things work, you change the contract with the network.
Also the pools and exchanges have to implement defenses. Longer confirmations (it’s already 120) are what killed novacoin pools. No one will stick around that long.
Proof of stake is also not the solution. It doesn’t mean anything unless there are already transactions that are consumer class and people can see direct benefit from the extra protection.
-
I’m glad we have this thread. We are already making sense of what could be happening. Now that BTC-e has 50 confirms it is safe. I have now contacted Vircurex, BTER and Cryptonit by email. I will go spam their ticketing system in a minute.
If this is a pool it would have to be a scrypt pool. Are there any clues as to whether any hash power left the pools at the time of the attacks?
But then considering the CTB (BTC backwards) in the address it could be a member or members of the BTC cult or the CTB could be misdirection perhaps.
Too much guessing will turn us paranoid so we should not start jumping at shadows.
-
The exchanges will defend themselves in such or another way. The attacks slow down transactions, make them restart due to orphans, people spread FUD, then panic and dump. If the attackers needed 2GH/s to make profit through BTC-e, they can damage the network operations seriously and continuosly with much less hash power. What we have now is 0.3GH/s, too little to resist.
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“6323” timestamp=“1369478026”]
The exchanges will defend themselves in such or another way. The attacks slow down transactions, make them restart due to orphans, people spread FUD, then panic and dump. If the attackers needed 2GH/s to make profit through BTC-e, they can damage the network operations seriously and continuosly with much less hash power. What we have now is 0.3GH/s, too little to resist.
[/quote]I completely agree about hash power. We’re just a little too small at the moment. BTC and LTC cast a big shadow when their hash rate is so much larger than ours.
Any bright ideas to get more miners? Unless I’m missing something I think it should be at the top of our list.
Of course other goals will make mining more attractive. I’m suggesting making all our efforts a means to an end, more value and more miners.
-
I have never been able to contact BTC-e, I approached them a few times in the run up to and on the day of block 33,000 but never got a response.
I would like to know what prompted them to change the confirmations to 50 as this could give us a clue as to what these people are up to.
Are they trying to sell FTC for BTC and ultimately retain both or are they trying to suppress the price. Yesterday we saw massive sell orders pushing the price down and still sat there at a very low price before disappearing.I’m wondering if this incident could have been the reason for the confirms going up. I will go and try to contact them again to get more information.
My thinking is that they are either trying to make money or ruin us. If making money is there goal then with higher confirms on exchanges there are much easier targets now. If they are trying to ruin us then they will stick around and give us an extra incentive to add value.
-
[quote name=“groll” post=“6271” timestamp=“1369445901”]
for 33062 to 33069 their was move of coin. Block mine by he, but only a 33062 orphan as of now without anything very suspicious in my eyes at least. this seems just a i get out as fast as i can (would be a good thing in fact)
or he can try to make a 50 transactions fork :'(edited their is a fork but at 33057. 1M FTC. Back in chain for 33062 was in fact making the orphan. a bit weird
[/quote]There is a 1 million fork at [url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/block/16ffcab392d4c184c27c661ea993419cb1827a61e974a6f0df1980c23ff20ed4]#33057[/url] continued with empty blocks until #33063, then orphaned and got back for another 1 million fork at [url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/block/7e63d91ed9f47d6207ed89a1f96e5db563ce98b3311f218daef0c4457086ad52]#33061[/url]. This was supposed to be the real [url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/block/c95d5e20df89f36939d95d268909e20cd3f5dac211df56fa0d1ec8334b1ff1cf]#33062[/url]. Now we are 20 blocks and counting on their block chain…
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“6320” timestamp=“1369477269”]
I’m glad we have this thread. We are already making sense of what could be happening. Now that BTC-e has 50 confirms it is safe. I have now contacted Vircurex, BTER and Cryptonit by email. I will go spam their ticketing system in a minute.If this is a pool it would have to be a scrypt pool. Are there any clues as to whether any hash power left the pools at the time of the attacks?
But then considering the CTB (BTC backwards) in the address it could be a member or members of the BTC cult or the CTB could be misdirection perhaps.
Too much guessing will turn us paranoid so we should not start jumping at shadows.
[/quote]If my eyes aren’t cheating me it’s CBT not CTB…
-
[quote name=“zerodrama” post=“6258” timestamp=“1369439147”]
You think an LTC pool redirected work toward FTC? (6FeathercoinSucks C T B (btc backwards) seems more of a BTC ONE TRUE COIN tard attack).
[/quote]There you go. I blame zerodrama and then myself for not double checking :) Could it be an anagram or a coincidence?
-
It doesn’t matter ultimately. They will be outed. Give it time.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“6332” timestamp=“1369481630”]
I have never been able to contact BTC-e, I approached them a few times in the run up to and on the day of block 33,000 but never got a response.I would like to know what prompted them to change the confirmations to 50 as this could give us a clue as to what these people are up to.
Are they trying to sell FTC for BTC and ultimately retain both or are they trying to suppress the price. Yesterday we saw massive sell orders pushing the price down and still sat there at a very low price before disappearing.I’m wondering if this incident could have been the reason for the confirms going up. I will go and try to contact them again to get more information.
My thinking is that they are either trying to make money or ruin us. If making money is there goal then with higher confirms on exchanges there are much easier targets now. If they are trying to ruin us then they will stick around and give us an extra incentive to add value.
[/quote]I submitted a ticket asking these questions, and they just replied “We know”. Gosh, they are terse guys.
-
This is interesting. give-me-ftc got the blocks below in quick succession, one with only 753 shares. This could be lucky.
33,060 Confirmed! unifest 2013-05-24 07:22:20 PM 29,294
33,058 Confirmed! nutnut 2013-05-24 07:03:30 PM 753
33,057 Confirmed! nutnut 2013-05-24 07:02:59 PM 818,496
[size=9pt][i]Source: https://give-me-ftc.com/blocksAuth[/i] You needs to login to view[/size]If you look at the block chain this coincided with a orphan chain 7 blocks long.
The orphan chain has 1 million going out in the first block, this is our culprit holding coins in lots of 49999. The orphan chain was generated hours after the original chain.
Give-me-ftc shows that one of the blocks, 33060 was confirmed so presumed not to be on the orphan chain. So this pool generated the blocks that won out over the attacker.
On block 33062 he is at it again sending a million coins but without any orphans, he sets the block chain moving faster.
This looks like a one failed attempt and perhaps using their resources to speed up their own transactions. I will keep an eye on the block chain to see what is going on. I’m guessing that with BTC-e using 10 confirmations their biggest target is gone.
-
btc-e changed 50 confirms to 10 confirms a while ago
-
[quote name=“ftcguy2” post=“6435” timestamp=“1369508201”]
btc-e changed 50 confirms to 10 confirms a while ago
[/quote]Thanks. I have edited my post.
-
Bushstar, we were lucky with the fork at #33057, but they succeded anyway at #33061. The story is not over, see [url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/block/b8ef8a0b28d8182951e46b56380580197419e3b311be5cfbac2ff8c2eece4634]#33086[/url].
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“6424” timestamp=“1369507170”]
This is interesting. give-me-ftc got the blocks below in quick succession, one with only 753 shares. This could be lucky.
[/quote]give-me-* is has always been very suspicious to me.
Had plenty of times where I was mining at high rates and only received payments for 1/10 of the work done. I mined for about a week with them and decided they were either siphoning for personal gain or had other serious issues.
give-me-* admin also runs multiple pools and admins on trading exchanges which is odd. Perfect setup for some manipulation and insider info.
Regardless of if general public likes them, they are in a sweet position for some serious gains.
-
The thing is it looks like give-me-ftc generated the genuine blocks were the attacker failed to get his blocks on to the chain. If someone did throw hash power at the pool it might have thwarted that attempt.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“6480” timestamp=“1369515637”]
The thing is it looks like give-me-ftc generated the genuine blocks were the attacker failed to get his blocks on to the chain. If someone did throw hash power at the pool it might have thwarted that attempt.
[/quote]I find that to be a more plausible story. give-me-ftc has been a well operated pool since the start, and have MUCH more to lose by devaluing the coin by attacking the network than to gain. A 51% attack is a misnomer because the actual likelihood of finding a block is never a certainty, only a statistical probability, so it doesn’t always take 51% of the hashing power to pull it off. Recall that any statistical probability played out approaches 1 (the certainty that it will happen) as time approaches infinity. That means that it’s absolutely possible for a solo miner to perform a 51% attack, it’s just so unlikely to happen we expect it never will before our sun burns out, so when an anomaly shows up, just remember that it was bound to happen eventually.
Really, don’t think about it it too hard, or else you won’t be able to sleep at night.
