It doesn't really matter value-wise to let the difficulty stagnate, it's just like trickle blocks and then getting payday at the end of the month for a few days. In the end the same amount of coins should be averaged out, it does seem silly that there's no 'agreement' by the clients that "hey, difficulty won't be hit in two weeks at this rate, after two weeks retarget" I mean it's obviously easier to agree on a block number based on math of +2016 blocks or whatever, instead of an arbitrary time, but there's got to be some way to retarget sooner.

I'm no professional on the subject, but if you doublespend and not really use the spendings to cash out profit from it, it won't really be harming anything in the long run. Especially if you do it to two homemade wallets for yourself in a VM or another pc. You'd be able to test it and not harm anyone then.

In that case you could have tested with a much smaller amount of power on like bitcoin testnet anyway, so my guess is you're intending to profit off the attack which I can't condone or help you with.

Already registered .bit names shouldn't get hurt, you only pay the fee when you register a name, the rest is just swapping amount around, if you're not using register commands in the attack, you'll be only attacking the currency part of the coins themselves, it would only have an effect on exchanges if there was an absurd amount of coins hitting the market, obviously you'd be able to sell off at any price and still be profiting so you could crash all the bid orders.

It will happen 276 blocks later (@19200).

You could probably stop anyone else registering domains. In effect you would be the icann of .bit because no one could send registrations without your say.

BitcoinEXpress, are you the guy who makes the BitcoinExpress iPhone app?

hu?

+1
it may be difficult to implement without vulnerabilities for Art to game

merged mining is a big horror.


I like the experiment you want to run but please do not hurt namecoin too much - it is by far the best fork.

Say you start your attack at block 18950, build your chain to 18970, then release it. Everything that anyone did - transfer coins, change create .bit names, etc - between those 2 blocks will unhappen.

So if I transfer 200 mnc to an exchange in block 18951, the exchange waits until 18957 to confirm, I exchange for x btc & withdraw. After your chain is released, my 200 nmc appear back in my wallet. I still have the x btc, and the 200 nmc. The exchange is down by x btc.

To mitigate the effects of the attack, people only have to cease trading, as DoubleC has done.

Mining the minority chain is also a waste of effort.

Threatening an attack, credibly, is a DoS on the chain - until people are confident that the attack is over, noone will use it or mine it.

To truly test this, you will need to ensure that some of your hashpower remains on the minority (existing) chain, to process the transactions that will "disappear" when the new chain is released. A malicious attack relies on the minority chain continuing, so that the malicious transfers can be processed.

Interesting to see it in action....

Bad people like BitcoinEXpress exist in our society most them work for governments but the rest that where too evil even for government exists in the public.  This attack will show the world the power of bitcoin if namecoin survives it.

I'm feel like selling 40K of gold to kick this ass hole to the curb.   But I must be clever and out smart instead of out spend.

So sad people are destructive not productive even sadder is some destroy for sport.

Ah well Like I said it's part of life we (good people) need to deal with it.

How does difficulty retargeting affect network strength? Hashing power is hashing power. I'm probably missing something here...

There's one easy way to stop the attack; everyone start mining Namecoins.

you can only go back to the last checkpoint. are there any in namecoin?