Jump to content

Cryptocurrencies


rkbabang

Recommended Posts

 

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this, as a non-expert on this stuff it seems like a big deal, are the other cryptos at risk for this?

 

Every distributed ledger token/coin that uses Bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to a 51% attack. The attack on Etherum has just proved that it can be done, and that if you don't pay the new 'fee' you are about to be asked for, it will also happen to you. If anyone sells any quantity of DL token in 'reaction', the sell-off may be irreversable; so sit quiet, don't do anything stupid, & pay up.

 

Then along came a regulated exchange in Bitcoin options and futures  .......  ;)

Great opportunity, but a sh1tty way by which to make a buck.

 

SD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this, as a non-expert on this stuff it seems like a big deal, are the other cryptos at risk for this?

 

Ethereum (the real Ethereum) was forked years ago to undo some theft (it gave of up immutability). The article you linked is about Ethereum classic, some small (but still top 20, showing there isn't much serious crypto short of Bitcoin) fork of Ethereum that was created at the time for people that thought giving up immutability was stupid (they were right of course but never got traction as the public followed the Vitalik messiah).

 

Neither of these things will happen in Bitcoin. The culture will not break immutability and a 51% attack is economically unviable (Eth classic had a pittyfull hash rate protecting the network because of the low value and overall lack of interest in it).

 

It's also unlikely (but not impossible) to happen to other serious crypto (e.g. LTC and XMR).  Of course a shit show like Ripple already has no immutability (it's not a cryptocurrency but a centralized database so Ripple Labs can do whatever it wants), bcash does all sorts of retardation (hard fork every few months) and most of the token crap everyone seems to like so much is on the Ethereum blockchain to start with.

 

So no not a big deal at all. Crypto is Bitcoin and Bitcoin is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this, as a non-expert on this stuff it seems like a big deal, are the other cryptos at risk for this?

 

Ethereum (the real Ethereum) was forked years ago to undo some theft (it gave of up immutability). The article you linked is about Ethereum classic, some small (but still top 20, showing there isn't much serious crypto short of Bitcoin) fork of Ethereum that was created at the time for people that thought giving up immutability was stupid (they were right of course but never got traction as the public followed the Vitalik messiah).

 

Neither of these things will happen in Bitcoin. The culture will not break immutability and a 51% attack is economically unviable (Eth classic had a pittyfull hash rate protecting the network because of the low value and overall lack of interest in it).

 

It's also unlikely (but not impossible) to happen to other serious crypto (e.g. LTC and XMR).  Of course a shit show like Ripple already has no immutability (it's not a cryptocurrency but a centralized database so Ripple Labs can do whatever it wants), bcash does all sorts of retardation (hard fork every few months) and most of the token crap everyone seems to like so much is on the Ethereum blockchain to start with.

 

So no not a big deal at all. Crypto is Bitcoin and Bitcoin is fine.

 

Exactly.  This just shows how dangerous it is to hold altcoins.  The strength of crypto is that a 51% attack is insanely expensive bordering on impossible, but that is only true for Bitcoin.  This is why the store of value function of crypto is a winner take all market and that winner is Bitcoin.  I'd be willing to bet this won't be the last such attack we hear about, so buy shitcoins/altcoins at your own risk. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for the above.

 

Also in general, people who think a particular altcoin will have more value than bitcoin due to some technical superiority is completely misunderstanding the "store of value" hypothesis. Gold is not valuable because it is the most useful/noble metal, but because of its history and collective consensus that has been built over time. Same with Bitcoin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it.

They do exist, but are tightly controlled.

 

Not so much re the financial. All you need is a small change leveraged many times.

Bitcoin is the only coin with both US futures and options contracts they allow a great deal of leverage, AND where you can be reasonably sure of collecting on your gains.

Potentially a very great deal of money, were you so inclined. 

 

SD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it.

They do exist, but are tightly controlled.

 

Not so much re the financial. All you need is a small change leveraged many times.

Bitcoin is the only coin with both US futures and options contracts they allow a great deal of leverage, AND where you can be reasonably sure of collecting on your gains.

Potentially a very great deal of money, were you so inclined. 

 

SD

 

 

 

I'm not so sure.  If you find a way to steal a ton of gold, you have that gold and it is just as valuable as it alway was.  The same with Bitcoin, if you steal it (hack an exchange for example).  But if you acquire bitcoin with a 51% attack I don't see how you expect to cash out, because once the news hits that Bitcoin has been successfully attacked the price will plummet.  You will have spent many tens of millions of dollars on a supercomputer to steal a crypto currency that is now almost worthless because of how you stole it.  You would have to attack bitcoin, make your changes, and cash out before anyone notices.  I don't think that is possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it.

They do exist, but are tightly controlled.

 

What are you talking about man? None of these supercomputers are double sha256 asics and wouldn't make a dent in the hash rate. Complete hogwash.

 

When people talk about (peta)flops as a unit in the context of Bitcoin mining they don't know what they are talking about (on this topic at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it.

They do exist, but are tightly controlled.

 

What are you talking about man? None of these supercomputers are double sha256 asics and wouldn't make a dent in the hash rate. Complete hogwash.

 

When people talk about (peta)flops as a unit in the context of Bitcoin mining they don't know what they are talking about (on this topic at least).

 

His larger point still holds that it is physically possible to spend $X to build a system that could 51% attack Bitcoin.  My point was that you would never be able to cash out and earn a return on your investment if you did that, because the $X you would have to spend is so high and the price of Bitcoin would plummet immediately upon your attack.

 

The danger is that a state actor does this not to profit, but to destroy Bitcoin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed re the technical, but primarily because you would need a supercomputer processing in the peta-flops/second to achieve it.

They do exist, but are tightly controlled.

 

What are you talking about man? None of these supercomputers are double sha256 asics and wouldn't make a dent in the hash rate. Complete hogwash.

 

When people talk about (peta)flops as a unit in the context of Bitcoin mining they don't know what they are talking about (on this topic at least).

 

His larger point still holds that it is physically possible to spend $X to build a system that could 51% attack Bitcoin.  My point was that you would never be able to cash out and earn a return on your investment if you did that, because the $X you would have to spend is so high and the price of Bitcoin would plummet immediately upon your attack.

 

The danger is that a state actor does this not to profit, but to destroy Bitcoin.

 

State actor can (malignantly, not profitably) attack Bitcoin although today the battle will be close and only the very top of the state actors stand a chance (if they were to collaborate they'd certainly win but that seems unlikely).

 

Mind though that the turn around time (attaining hash power) can be long and hard to keep quiet provoking counter reactions by both other state actors and groups of individuals, both in the increase in hash rate, sky rocketing of mining equipment and/or Bitcoin price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be too specific  .....

 

The hash rate will not change, but the complexity of the hash will skyrocket. And if your supercomputer now wins every hash (as only your CPU has the speed to do these complex calculations, and still be 'first') ... do you not now effectively have 100% control over the mining process? And does it not essentially enable the same outcome as a 51% attack?

 

A 'consortium' invests 100M in a attack on BTC. It also sells a collective 1B+ nominal of BTC futures & options on the Chicago exchanges today, & puts up an average 10% margin. Total investment of 200M. A week from now the attack launches; panic prevails, BTC falls 50%, & the 'consortium' buys back the futures at a 500M+ profit. Net gain of 300M.

 

And it WILL be a consortium, that reflects the heirarchy of the criminal establishment.

If it doesn't, the perpetrators very rapidly sleep with the fishes.

 

SD

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 

That's nuts. Don't hold your bitcoin at an exchange.

 

These things will continue to happen until investment grade custodial services are available. There seems to be some progress on that this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's nuts. Don't hold your bitcoin at an exchange.

 

These things will continue to happen until investment grade custodial services are available. There seems to be some progress on that this year.

 

Fidelity May Formally Launch Its Crypto Custody Service in March

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Crypto, % Below all-time high...

BitConnect: -100%

ICON: -98%

Qtum: -98%

NEM: -98%

Bitcoin Gold: -98%

Bitcoin Cash: -97%

Lisk: -97%

Cardano: -97%

NEO: -96%

IOTA: -95%

Dash: -95%

zCash: -95%

XRP: -92%

TRON: -92%

Ethereum: -92%

Monero: -90%

Litecoin: -89%

EOS: -88%

Bitcoin: -82%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto, % Below all-time high...

BitConnect: -100%

ICON: -98%

Qtum: -98%

NEM: -98%

Bitcoin Gold: -98%

Bitcoin Cash: -97%

Lisk: -97%

Cardano: -97%

NEO: -96%

IOTA: -95%

Dash: -95%

zCash: -95%

XRP: -92%

TRON: -92%

Ethereum: -92%

Monero: -90%

Litecoin: -89%

EOS: -88%

Bitcoin: -82%

 

 

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto, % Below all-time high...

BitConnect: -100%

ICON: -98%

Qtum: -98%

NEM: -98%

Bitcoin Gold: -98%

Bitcoin Cash: -97%

Lisk: -97%

Cardano: -97%

NEO: -96%

IOTA: -95%

Dash: -95%

zCash: -95%

XRP: -92%

TRON: -92%

Ethereum: -92%

Monero: -90%

Litecoin: -89%

EOS: -88%

Bitcoin: -82%

 

 

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure

 

I just posted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto, % Below all-time high...

BitConnect: -100%

ICON: -98%

Qtum: -98%

NEM: -98%

Bitcoin Gold: -98%

Bitcoin Cash: -97%

Lisk: -97%

Cardano: -97%

NEO: -96%

IOTA: -95%

Dash: -95%

zCash: -95%

XRP: -92%

TRON: -92%

Ethereum: -92%

Monero: -90%

Litecoin: -89%

EOS: -88%

Bitcoin: -82%

 

 

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure

 

I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that.

 

I just assumed you were letting the board know that crypto was on sale.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto, % Below all-time high...

BitConnect: -100%

ICON: -98%

Qtum: -98%

NEM: -98%

Bitcoin Gold: -98%

Bitcoin Cash: -97%

Lisk: -97%

Cardano: -97%

NEO: -96%

IOTA: -95%

Dash: -95%

zCash: -95%

XRP: -92%

TRON: -92%

Ethereum: -92%

Monero: -90%

Litecoin: -89%

EOS: -88%

Bitcoin: -82%

 

 

Long term value investor cites short term price fluctuations as indication of long term thesis success/failure

 

I just poted numbers. I didn't make any comments. You did that.

 

Dude, you are one of the most ingenious people I have seen. You knew exactly what you were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you are one of the most ingenious people I have seen. You knew exactly what you were doing.

 

Yeah, I was posting the numbers showing how much various crypto coins were down since their peak.

 

But you're the ingenious one, citing a common value investing saying with regard to something that can't be valued conventionally (what's the IV based on the discounted future cash flows of this? can you value invest in gold or oil or US dollars/Yen/Euros? What's the return on capital there?), and for something that is clearly not just random short-term volatility. When something is down 98%, it needs to be a 50-bagger just to get back. If the thing you're tracking is moving by that much up and down regularly enough that it can be considered just short-term volatility for that instrument, you're gambling, not investing. I don't think the same things apply to long-term investors and long-term gamblers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you are one of the most ingenious people I have seen. You knew exactly what you were doing.

 

Yeah, I was posting the numbers showing how much various crypto coins were down since their peak.

 

But you're the ingenious one, citing a common value investing saying with regard to something that can't be valued conventionally (what's the IV based on the discounted future cash flows of this? can you value invest in gold or oil or US dollars/Yen/Euros? What's the return on capital there?), and for something that is clearly not just random short-term volatility. When something is down 98%, it needs to be a 50-bagger just to get back. If the thing you're tracking is moving by that much up and down regularly enough that it can be considered just short-term volatility for that instrument, you're gambling, not investing. I don't think the same things apply to long-term investors and long-term gamblers...

 

You seem confused.  If I offered you the ability to bet $10 to win $1,000,000 on a 50% odds coinflip, would you not take the bet because the coin doesn't generate cashflow and because munger said gambling is bad? 

 

You're applying an irrelevant framework (investing in businesses which generate cash flow) to a new asset class which is priced as if it will not become a mature asset class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem confused.  If I offered you the ability to bet $10 to win $1,000,000 on a 50% odds coinflip, would you take the bet because the coin doesn't generate cashflow and because munger said gambling is bad?

 

I didn't say gambling is bad. I said it's different from investing, and that sayings/strategies/rules of thumbs that apply to investing don't necessarily apply to it.

 

If I had those odds offered to me, of course I'd take the bet. Offer me those odds, pretty please.

 

Problem is, the odds for crypto are unknown, and they're likely not the ones you made up for that example.

 

You're applying an irrelevant framework (investing in businesses which generate cash flow) to a new asset class which is priced as if it will not become a mature asset class.

 

You're confused. I didn't apply that framework to it, I said it didn't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you are one of the most ingenious people I have seen. You knew exactly what you were doing.

 

Yeah, I was posting the numbers showing how much various crypto coins were down since their peak.

 

But you're the ingenious one, citing a common value investing saying with regard to something that can't be valued conventionally (what's the IV based on the discounted future cash flows of this? can you value invest in gold or oil or US dollars/Yen/Euros? What's the return on capital there?), and for something that is clearly not just random short-term volatility. When something is down 98%, it needs to be a 50-bagger just to get back. If the thing you're tracking is moving by that much up and down regularly enough that it can be considered just short-term volatility for that instrument, you're gambling, not investing. I don't think the same things apply to long-term investors and long-term gamblers...

 

I didn't cite any of the value investing sayings here. You are mistaking me with another user.

 

I also would like to post some numbers:

 

VRX (now BHC) : -90% below all-time high

FTP (now FGE): -98 below all-time high

 

Why am I posting these numbers? To act like you.  8)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...