/biz/ - Business & Finance

Xi is behind this hack.

It's obviously better to consult miners rather than protocol devs. As miners would be the ones executing the reorg.

Yikes

Embarrassing tbqh

>>13557877
checked. has jihan even shown signs of life recently? I thought he got suicided by chink mafia

>>13557877
jihan rules crypto you fucktard.

Ahh excellent. Just the good news we need to push to 7K. All is well that ends well. This is a very stable, very normal market.

Embarassing

>>13557877
>tfw jihan is actually dead and cz is just having some kind of psychotic schizophrenic attack

>>13557877
>this is good for Bitcoin

>>13557877
It's most likely that CZ knows jack shit about crypto and shot his mouth off remembering the ETH hack many years ago that spawned ETC. I'm sure he didn't realize what he was saying and Jihan shut him right the fuck down for it. Losing 40M is trivial in the face of "keeping face". Even the avg /biz/tard (me) knows that... BTC will continue to climb. See you at 90k.

IT'S DEAD JIM
The fact that 'the most trustworthy' Ex owner even brought this up.. shits fucked

"I decided that I wasn't able to."

>>13557877
LOL!
The damage is done. Credibility is fucked.

Imagine still buying BNB after this....
"Decentralized"
"Trust"
"Safe"

Top kek

>>13557877
ROLL YOUR MOTHER IF YOU WANT TO ROLL

>>13558026
>satoshi: bitcoin ledger will be immutable
10 years later
>cz: we will reorganize the ledger
45min later
>cz: you can't reorganize the ledger, who knew

>>13558050
Cz listened to jihan, that was a huge mistake

>>13558058
You think he should have not listened to Jihani and still think a rollback is possible?

>>13558065
You can't roll back a btc transaction after its mined. This is one of the core principals of bitcoin. Its called immutability. It's simply unfeasible as cz has now admitted.

>>13558065
Basically cz was talking out if his ass when he said he can roll back btc

>>13558096
>>13558102
Damage control.
Cope.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

>>13558096
>>13558102
Yes, that is what the guy was saying: CZ is stupid to think a rollback is possible. CZ was right to trust Jihan.

>>13558115

You don't understand what the btc blockchain is then. Do you know why its called a chain? You should find out then you'll see why its impossible to do it on btc

>>13557877
I honestly wish Jihan would have pushed for a reorg.

>>13558146
DO YOU KNOW WHAT's A 51% ATTACK YOU MOTHERFUCKING STUPID REDTARD?

C O P E . FAGGOT

>>13558143
Oh jihan told cz its not possible? I misunderstood

On that case jihan is right. Its not possible to roll back a btc transaction after its been mined

>>13558157
51% attacks can't rollback after a block is mined though

>>13557935
>It's most likely that CZ knows jack shit about crypto
True
>BTC will continue to climb. See you at 90k.
False

>>13558156
No doubt Craig would have instantly offered to help.

>>13558157
To your point of a 51% attack,

you need to buy twice the number of miners in existence right now, buy power for all those miners, just to keep the attack going for 1 week. After the first week, you'll need to buy twice as miners after, and buy the power for it. Same thing the next week.

Week 0: you need to buy 2 million miners, power all of them
week 1: you need to buy 4 million miners, power all of them
week 2: you need to buy 8 million miners, power all of them
week 3: you need to buy 16 million miners, power all of them


You can't even make miners fast enough let alone power it.

The cost to attack bitcoin for 1 week is way more than 40 million (7k btc). Even more so, there's been a constant addition of blocks to the BTC blockchain since the hack. You'll need to do a lot of catching up, not just mine at the same pace.

So I go back to my statement of you don't understand BTC and how the blockchain works. It's called a chain for a reason.

Also, i's funny that you take CZ's words as a fact when he said he wants to re-org but you ignore that he later said it's not possible.

> To put this to bed, it's not possible, bitcoin ledger is the most immutable ledger on the planet. Done.

>talked to jihan
they allow visitors on the gulag?

>>13558227
That's not how a 51% attack works, you literally just need more than 50% of current hash power.
A single pool has managed a 51% in the past, but they realized and voluntarily cut down their own hash power for the safety of BTC.

>>13558227
not necessarily
as CZ pointed out you only need to bribe a few mining farm operators then you will be good

>>13558227
Lo iq
>>13558267
Hi iq
>>13558298
Very high iq

>>13557921
Proof of ghost is best protocol senpai

>>13558331
>lo
>hi
>iq

>>13558267
>>13558298

The transaction happened on block 575012

BTC is on block 575090

You need to rewrite 78 blocks at a difficulty of 6,702,169,884,349.

Every block that goes by, the harder it is.

The 49.9% of other miners will be mining the actual chain which would increase the real chain's block count.

So in order to make this "reorg" possible:

You need to go back 78 blocks (as of this post, probably more if you're reading this later)

then you have to take 50.1% of the hashing power away (why would miners agree to this? they can mine the actual btc chain and get the block reward but assume they do)

meanwhile, the 49.9% of the miners are mining the real chain.

So let me do the math for you. Right now it's 78 blocks so I'm going to use 78 blocks. Again, if you're reading this in the future it'll probably be more blocks and the numbers will be higher

78 blocks * 2 (because you only have 50% of the hashing power) * 10 minutes (time on average per block) gives you 1560 minutes or 26 hours. Now, that only brings you to block #575090. You need to account for the other 49% of miners mining the real chain while you're trying to catch up.

You're literally asking 50% of the miners to mine nothing for a minimum of 26 hours.

These miners aren't mining for free, they have electricity cost and other cost. To "bribe" these miners, you'll have to give them a lot more than $40 million.

This is if the attack starts right now. If you start the attack tomorrow, it's 144 + 78 blocks you have to rewrite.

>>13558382
You're right. CZ is just a retard who doesn't realize that what ETH did was a HF.

>>13558382
>To "bribe" these miners, you'll have to give them a lot more than $40 million.
Why? 24 hours worth of mining is currently about 1,700 BTC for the entire network to share. So they would be losing about $6 million collectively.

Kek CZ backing off realizing the huge mistake it would be to acknowledge that he can fork all of BTC in a night with a 51% attack

Dumb fucking chink lmao

>>13558382

So another analogy would be

you're going 50.1 mph (bad miner)
the other car is going 49.9 mph (good miner)

Except the car that's going 49.9 mph has a 26 hour head start (because it's 78 blocks ahead)

every 10 minutes, the car going 49.9 mph is getting more than $12.5 dollars for gas (block reward)

you have to pay your own gas every 10 minutes

The question is, who would you bet to win?

Again, this is if you start the race right now. If you wait 24 hours, it'll be 4440 minutes which is 74 hours. The 49.9 mph car is getting a 74 hour head start if you wait just 24 hours.

all these so called hacks are just scams of exchanges. once hacked I never touch it again.

>>13558415
$6MM or even $40MM is not enough to cover the massive negative of erasing part a non fungible currency for the miners!!!!

>>13558415

26 hours of mining = 6 * 26 = 156 blocks missed. That's 1950 BTC just in block rewards but you also have to include transaction fees. Looking at the latest block right now, the miner got a total of 14.05735655 btc for mining that block so it's more than just 12.5 BTC.

So 1950 BTC is the minimum you're going to lose. That also brings you to just block #575090, not the latest block. You'll have to mine for more than 26 hours (I just don't know how much because I don't know how fast the good chain will grow).

On top of that, you're not mining BTC's chain but you're wasting all the electricity for 26 hours, you need to consider the electrical cost of 1 million+ antminers (I believe there's around 2 million miners).

So instead of you earning 1950 BTC, you're losing money.

Then on top of that, if someone just flips 0.1% hash rate (or add new hash rate) of just 0.2%, you will never catch up. If you're in a pool and your miner isn't mining the real BTC chain, you're going to switch pools and go to pool that's mining the real BTC chain. You literally have to own 1 million miners and mine at a loss for a long time (at minimum, 26 hours as of this post, longer if the blockchain is longer) just to re-org a transaction.

This is much bigger than a $40 million gamble.

>>13558520

I should also add, if you own 1 million miners (those things didn't come for free)

Once this attack happens, BTC price will go down (dunno by how much) so you literally shot yourself in the foot because a 1 million miner investment + all the electricity contracts you have, you will lose a lot of money.

So if you're a bad miner (50%) you lose money if the attack fails (electricity & time wasted when you could've mined the real BTC chain)

you lose money if the attack succeeds (all your equipment loses value as btc price falls)

It's a lose-lose situation for miners if they collude. This is why proof of work is important & BTC is the most immutable chain that exists. It's designed to be that way.

>>13557877

>>13557877
1. cz deleted a tweet saying its hard to tell apart scammers from people who pretend to be scammed: it's him right there

2. supposedly delisted BSV because of a 5000$ bounty, calling it toxic, two weeks laters opens a 10000$ bounty against CSW, what an hypocrite

3. he said it was standard routine maineinance, pls pls no fud, it's actually and ''''''''''hacking'''''''''' and he himself is fudding it now. he thinks we are stupid, he thought he could make it without getting caught. just like the criminal he is

4. BNB is shit, the exchange is FULL of hidden orders. try this: imagine there is a sell order for 149 link. go all in with that with limit, you will get 2000 links at least. in ''my trades'' you see green buy, in ''market trades'' you see a sell. what a fucking scammer.

5. he's chinese

6. he thinks his shitty exchange does inspire trust in bitcoin and that its shortcomings influence BTC negatively. like who the fuck cares?

7. >wanted to reorg. (cws is right)

8. doesn't help you with lost funds, wrong address, wrong memo, but thankses coinbase and other exchanges cause they'll block his txids

9. the greatest BNB referral coder has a balance of 1280 bitcoin and it's probably him, the second being that waifu of his.


10. toxic, venomous, poisonous fraud. binance more like bisexual finance.

11. he wanted to fuck up your bitcoin with a reorg for his lunch money

>>13558574
go back to /pol/

>>13558625

He can't re-org the BTC chain, I've explained why already in >>13558382 >>13558520 >>13558568

Maybe your post is just spamming some copy pasta? Not sure.

>>13558625
So don't use binance. what use is there whining about it on /biz/?

>>13558642
can't but asked for it.
yes Im spamming the truth and I will do this forever.

>>13558663
Yeah, it was a pretty dumb thing to ask for.

>>13558659
sorry? his best marketing was made on biz

>safu

time to fuck his stupid scammy business.

cz lurks here, what do you think?
the worse he feels, the better it is.
he basically has to suffer.

thanks for reading.

>>13558669
/biz/ collectively accounts for about 0.00001% of all trading volume.

>>13558688
but 2% of his self worth and smug.
>we are hurt, not broke

good. may he read. he also goes to hell in all religions.

>>13557877
They conpletely can, but realized having this be public knowledge is a bad idea. There is no question if it would work, it would, but with the potential of a lot of unforeseen circumstances(beyond the obvious possibility of causing a sell off). Not to mention the core cucks would probably raise alarms or outright refuse.

>>13558669
Your shitty, incoherent copy-pasta with Pajeet tier English really doesn't help your cause.

>>13558708

Please, read >>13558382 >>13558520 >>13558568

on why it's not going to happen

>>13558708
>the core cucks would probably raise alarms or outright refuse
Who cares if they refused.
Miners decide.

>>13558703
kek imagine being this buttblasted

>>13558726

miners don't decide, maybe on alt coins they do.

>>13557877
how long until they figure out it wasn't a "hack" but someone taking advantage of an unfixable flaw with segwti?

>>13558763
It was a breach of their systems. had nothing to do with the bitcoin network itself.

>>13557877
Just use decentralized exchanges like sdex and dont get scammed.

>>13558382

Oh and don’t forget to bribe the miners you have to do that in person, with cash.

can somebody give some fucking context reeeeeeeeeee

>>13558763

If there's a segwit flaw, you'd think they'd steal more than just 7k BTC and it would've happened on a lot more exchanges at the same time

So that theory doesn't make too much sense.

>>13558568
except the mechanism you just described also applies to POS. Instead of equipment the stakes lose value

>>13558788

tl;dr - It's not possible to reorg the BTC blockchain. CZ was talking out of his ass but he corrected himself later on twitter that it's not possible to reorg the BTC blockchain. His ego and wanting revenge got the best of him.

To understand why it's not possible, see

>>13558382 >>13558520 >>13558568

>>13558796

No. On a PoS system, if you control 51% of the stake you own the network because for all consensus issues, the 51% will always win. The 51% will never lose their stake because for all situations, they'll have the votes to win. It is the 49% or less that will lose their stake. The cost to attack a PoS system is the initial staking funds. After that, it's free (because there's no difficulty adjustment, unlike a PoW system, the difficulty adjustment forces you to add hash rate)

>>13558026
How can you run the biggest exchange in the world and have no clue about the most fundamental property of the shit you sell. These exchanges man...literally counting dollar signs, getting a free pass for almost any shady thing they do and not giving a fuck about the world until they get hacked and then everyone makes pikachu face. Those shameless crooks deserve more scrutiny ffs.

Redpill me on what happens if someone hacks 500 million or something like that. Large enough that it will be a major problem.

What happens? Would miners just roll back or fork like they did on ETH when that guy deleted 140m or whatever it was?

>>13559075
Probably losing 40mil in a day had him considering alternatives on sleep deprivation

>>13559366
There will be no roll backs. I've described that its not possible because the miners are in a lose lose situation. Maybe its possible on alt coins with a tiny hash rate and thus a lower difficulty but it won't happen on btc. We're talking about creating millions of asic miners per week and the amount doubles per week, starting at 1 million asic miners per week. Even if you combine the manufacturing output of entire countries its not possible because the requirements double per week. You also need to find the infrastructure to run these miners and that infrastructure also needs to double every week.

This is the cost of attacking btc's pow algorithm and that is why people say its the most secure system ever.

>>13560321
If the attack is successful, all the miners (millions of them) are worth way less now due to btc price drop. So miners are heavily incentivized to behave and collect their mining rewards

>>13557877
>CZ trusts talking with Jihan

ohh.. chinks trust only other chinks.

what's a surprise.

>>13560321
>>13560349
Ok, sure, but correct me if I'm wrong but surely there is a point where it IS profitable to try a 51% attack right? What's the number

Also, what happened with ETH when they just forked the coin?

>>13560321
And it might not be possible now but in future who knows right?

I'm curious HOW the hack happened

>>13560363
>there is a point where it IS profitable to try a 51% attack right
Pretty much only when you want to make a double-spend that's worth more than 6 block's mining rewards (or whatever the verification threshold of the receiver is, could well be more for such a large transaction), or about half a million bucks, and that's assuming you have 75% of the mining power, the less you have the more costly the attack and the fewer transactions it would apply to.

And that's not accounting for the loss in value from the huge price drop in result of a successful 51% attack on the market leader. With that you'd probably talk about 10x as high a price.

>>13558568
You are literally the only one in this thread, maybe even board, who remotely understands btc's incentive structure and PoW system.

>>13558146
No, all CZ had to do was offer a higher fee to the miners than the 12.5 bitcoin coinbase for each block they already mined. Since he lost 7k bitcoin, as long as the number of blocks to reorg divided by the new fee is less than 7k bitcoin then CZ loses less bitcoin and the miners get more. The reason it didn't happen is because the miners thankfully were smart enough to realize that this would destroy the value prop of Bitcoin causing everyone to lose a lot more than 40mil.
The fact that this is even a possibility within the inner circles of the Chinese mining cartel is completely ridiculous. Last night I finally realized how fucking stupid crypto is

>>13558669
/biz/ only uses binance for link. I promise you i want to use another exchange

>>13558820
that’s not how PoS works. the size of your stake only determines the likelihood you will be selected to produce a block

>>13557877

Chinks are an embarrassment that discredits cryptocurrency.

>>13560363
So to have a 50.1% attack, I can provide the minimum cost. That's the cost of 1 million ASIC miners @ 300 a piece is 300 million.

To have the infrastructure, power lines / cabinets / cooling equipment / housing / etc will at minimum be another million

Each antminer s9 consumes 1350 W and if you're billed at a conservative 0.06 per kWh, it comes to be $1.944 per antminer per day, 1 million antminers is $1,944,000 dollars per day. 1 week costs $13,608,000.

After 1 week, everything doubles because bitcoin's difficulty adjusts upwards. You'll need 2 million miners so you have to pay another 300 million and the electrical costs to run 2 million miners becomes $2,7216,000 per day. The 3rd week, you need 4 million miners... etc. You can do the math.

This particular 51% attack is just to prevent a transaction from going through, aka censorship of a transaction. You can't even make up random transactions (say everyone paid me 1000000 BTC) or change the block reward (changing the block reward to 100000 BTC instead of 12.5 BTC).

This is assuming the best conditions, because once you attack the network, the "legit" miners will immediately start adding hash power and at every step, you'll have to match that hashing power. Otherwise, you won't produce blocks as fast and your blockchain won't have the most work done on it and the network will reject your chain. As mentioned in my previous posts, if they the good guys have 49.9% of the hashing power, they just need to add 0.02% to thwart the entire attack and the 1 million ASIC miners you purchased is now useless (unless you plan to a good miner).

There are obvious physical limitations as well because I don't even know if you can produce a minimum of 1 million miners in a week let alone buy the infrastructure and power to support it. Producing just that much raw material like silicon and the chips needed is probably more than what the entire world can supply.

>>13561101

So in conclusion, that's why it's not possible for a 51% attack to work, you can't produce the hardware that fast and all the hardware that's produced (if the attack is successful) loses it's value significantly because BTC price will drop. So there's a very strong incentive for miners is to never do this and be good actors.

To your point about ETH, I've explained it here >>13558820

You have the initial cost of buying the staked tokens but after that, you control the network. You continue the attack for free because there's no difficulty adjustment.

The cost is significantly less because you don't need the ASIC miners plus the electrical cost per day to attack the network.

>>13561101
Thanks for the post, very informative
So it's basically not possible unless everyone agreed which is most likely never going to happen

>>13557935
>>13558026
To be fair, it is technically possible to 51% BTC. It would just be really really hard to do. If he just wanted to fuck the hackers, he could refund the BTC out of pocket, and put up the 7000 stolen BTC as a mining reward for participating in the reorg.

>>13561008
If you have 51% control of stake, the law of large numbers say you will get 51% of all new block rewards.

You therefore, have the majority. Once you have the majority, then you control the consensus. You do not need to perform any additional tasks to have full control because all new coins generated, you'll get 51% of it (the majority).

Certainly, there can be variations where maybe you get maybe only 49% for a couple of minutes but then you'll get 52% to make up for it and on average, you'll have 51%. This is less likely to happen on ETH for example, because ETH blocks are produced really fast so any variations will be corrected faster than say BTC (because BTC blocks are produced once every 10 minutes)

>>13561140

Yes, the vast majority needs to agree to throw their investment out the window and pay the electrical cost out of pocket in order to prevent a transaction on the BTC block chain to go through. To me that sounds extremely silly. You have to realize the mining pools don't control the miners. If you have a miner you can mine at any pool you want, especially if the pool you're on isn't mining the main BTC chain. So mining pools technically don't have that much power because they can't force your miner to attack the network.

>>13561233
The attack can also fail at any time because the good miners can add hash power too so it's extremely stupid (from a miner's perspective) to behave maliciously.

>>13561233
Yeah so it would have to be someone with large access to miners themselves and not a pool since individual miners in the pool will know what is happening and just pull out

So only someone with access to millions of miners that can keep meeting the doubled hash difficulty and a lot of money then

>>13561276

Yeah but it makes no sense either way and up to a certain point. Probably just the first week, the world doesn't mine enough silicon and other raw materials in order to make these ASIC chips in the first place. Even if you suck up all the global chip manufacturing they can't make it fast enough. So this is a physical hard limit. You cannot mine the raw materials to produce the chips and therefore, you cannot maintain the attack on the network. It doesn't matter what access you have.

>>13557877
ill try an analogy for a brainlet like you:
- core cucksare the government
- jihan (bitmain) are the FED
who do you think has more power over the fate bitcoin?

>>13561332
So why then do people make such a big deal about the 51% attack if it cannot possibly happen?

>>13557877
Proves my suspicion. I've yet to see a 2017 shitcoiner actually have any understanding of how Bitcoin works. Newfags like CZ need to leave this space and never come back.

>>13558050
except you actually can you brainlet, they just didnt do it because it would absolutely shater bitcoins credibility. CZ is retarded and showed to thr public that if it is required, the mining cartel CAN do it.
satoshi initially invisioned distributed hash power, which in that case would be near impossible to revert. but in reality what we have is mining cartels that can 51% attack at any time they want, its just not good for them (yet)

>>13561350

I'm not sure. The game theory behind bitcoin's PoW algorithm isn't easy to understand. If you're a news writer, saying BTC can get attacked generates way more clicks. If you're holding an alt-coin and you think you missed the BTC train, then there's monetary incentive to constantly mention a 51% attack.

There's many motivates or simple lack of understanding (it is a complicated subject). But bitcoin doesn't give a fuck at the end of the day. Every "attack" against BTC has failed. The resiliency and being battle tested in the real world works in favor for bitcoin in the long term. It's why some people compare bitcoin to the honey badger.