- A 51% attack isn't a "hack"
- Exploiting obviously poorly written smart contract code is barely a "hack"
- If a flaw were found in ECDSA that was being routinely exploited, now *that* would be a hack worth reporting. https://t.co/2HOFXH2mkd
With compare to normal currency the "value" of cryptocurrency is based on dissipation of resources instead of collecting them (gold and similar monetary reserves). Currently the mining of cryptocyrrency consumes as much of energy as a whole Ireland. This aspect explains extreme volatility of its value and it renders cryptocurrency as economically unstable and environmentally unsustainable - despite it gets promoted just by "environmentalist" pseudoliberals the most. Now the hacking of blockchain stripped the cryptocurrency of its last illusory advantage. See also:
Once hailed as unhackable, blockchains are now getting hacked
The white paper clearly talks about honest nodes controlling the majority of hash power, this title is retarded. Just because you fork your own chain does not make it magically unhackable or immutable. But then idiots in here will use exactly that as an argument to why Bitcoin has no value; because anyone can clone the code and make their own Bitcoin copy, like the code is the only thing that gives it value.
And thus is the reason I like NEM...private compute, public storage...and API can be fixed at any time...ETH is a dream that we will live to experience 15 years from now when all the bugs are worked out by Azure and other things that turn ETH into NEM..lol
I wonder how people will claim that this is good for bitcoin.
Looking at how its done as well the distributed nature actually puts more power in corporates, as they are the gonna be the only ones big enough to get 51% of the processing power and use to to cripple someone they don't want.
Only if you use pools for the consistent payouts, which is pretty much the only feasible way to get returns when mining. It went too far from the ideal end game where everyone mine individually just for security instead of profit.
I am not sure they have ever been described as unhackable. Usually the defining characteristic of a blockchain is their immutability. The inability to change or censor a block that has been included in the past. (Allthough this has been overwritten once with the DAO bailout, where stolen ethereum has been forcibly returned to their rightful owners)
I still think overall blockchain security is great. You just have to keep your digital money in your own wallet and not someone elses (like an exchange). Too many people loose their hard earned money every year because they store their cash in the hands of an inexperienced start up.
51% attacks are a serious threat to smaller chains nowadays because of the abundance of second hand mining rigs that are being sold due to the falling profitability. The problem is likely to get worse over time. The earlier the blockchain economy moves away from mining as a whole, which is unsustainable in the first place, the better in my opinion. I have high hopes for when ethereum switches of their miners in the near future. Other blockchains like nano prove that mining is not necessary to keep a blockchain decentralized, immutable and secure.
You can't make something secure on the basis that it's distributed, it's the same as tearing up a piece of paper and dotting it around a room, if you pick up enough pieces of paper you can change the information on it. It's just as bad as security through obscurity in that sense. The real trick to this would be building a botnet big enough to do it without being caught.
Excuse me but do you understand how blockchains work? Their raison d'etre is basically that they fix exactly the problem you've described: You need a lot of hashing power (=electricity and specialized hardware) in order to gain control over the blockchain, not a lot of clients or users or accounts etc. You can't simply use a "big botnet" or whatever you're fantasizing about.
Oh but you can, you see in order to get access to the specialised hardware and machines to do so you would need to hijack them. It wouldn't be hard with a large enough botnet consisting of GPUs to slip a few calculations in between commands to the CPU. In order to change a whole chain you'd need vast amounts of power and millions of $ of equipment, so unless the exchanges have been hacked somehow, and somehow modified without rewriting the entire chain then it would require exactly one large botnet of specialised mining rigs.
Nah. The title is inaccurate. First vector is a 51% attack, which is hardly a hack, it's more like you gain control over the blockchain by having a lot of mining power. If a blockchain is not decentralized, it's worthless.
Second vector that they describe is not an attack on a blockchain (ETC) but a bug in a smart contract. It's more like finding a vulnerability of an application rather of the OS. If you're not part of the contract, nothing can happen to you.
More and more security holes are appearing in cryptocurrency and smart contract platforms, and some are fundamental to the way they were built.
... revealed that it had secretly fixed a “subtle cryptographic flaw” accidentally baked into the protocol. An attacker could have exploited it to make unlimited counterfeit Zcash.
In September, developers of Bitcoin’s main client, called Bitcoin Core, had to scramble to fix a bug (also in secret) that could have let attackers mint more bitcoins than the system is supposed to allow.
... predicts that51% attacks will continue to grow in frequency and severity, and that exchanges will take the brunt of the damage caused by double-spends.
... a bug in a live smart contract can create a unique sort of emergency. In traditional software, a bug can be fixed with a patch. In the blockchain world, it’s not so simple. Because transactions on a blockchain cannot be undone, ...
Though they can’t be patched, some contracts can be “upgraded” by deploying additional smart contracts to interact with them.
crypto promises add up to water is immutable, its two hydrogen's and one oxygen. everyone will have water.
the beginning part is true. water is that. but that doesnt help anyone actually get water. doesnt matter how immutable the code is. getting people clean water is much, much more difficult.
This is actually a well researched article. Although the part about the flaw in bitcoin that would have let an attacker create more coins is a bit misleading. It was a bug in some software, not all, and as it wasn't a part of the protocol those who supported the existence of these new coins would be forked off. It was still a severe flaw though.
As for shitcoins being susceptible to attacks? Yeah, that been pretty clear since the beginning.
Its not a very well researched article to techophiles. To us, its damn near ignorant. This is supposed to be a technology site for techophiles, it better damn well be accurate.
Its a pile of dog shit really.