Quote from: mjdamgaard on Today at 08:12:42 AM

@franky1, it's clear that you are not really listening.

Here in this comment:

Quote from: franky1 on August 13, 2024, 08:44:10 PM

Quote from: mjdamgaard on August 13, 2024, 04:12:18 PM

Quote from: franky1 on August 13, 2024, 12:32:13 PM

[...] and services can also delay the withdrawal of the funds so the attacker wont try instigating the attack until after the withdrawal clears to ensure when they finally go backward X blocks they get to truly double spend. it then becomes unworthy of attacking the network just to get a refund, because CEX have other mitigating factors

Isn't this exactly that 'extend the confirmation time' idea I was talking about? You know that this isn't going to do anything to prevent an attack on that scale,

no.. its about YOU need to run scenarios based on the CURRENT mitigating delays services put on the deposits and withdrawals to cause a attacker to have to wait out clearing their settled other currency.. to then go backwards..
its not about asking services to change things from now on..

you are saying that "no, it isn't about extending the confirmation time," and then in the same breath you saying that it is about "delay services" instead. Unless you can somehow explain to me that "delay services" isn't about 'extending the confirmation time,' I will regard you as being dishonest.

again.. these delaying things are actually standard practice that have and are ALREADY been in practice for decades.. again ill explain, its not about services suddenly needing to implement new delays to mitigate a new attack.. its about the mitigations already in practice for decades that already mitigate the attack you want to discuss
again. run your scenario, play it out. think about how long it would take to do your alice to eric fund shuffle.. work out how many blocks that would be of time thats passed. then work out how far back you would have to go and then work out based on 2% extra luck (51% attack) 5% extra luck(60% attack) how long it would take you to then from the position of going back, to then catch up and over take the network. then ontop of that work out would the rest of the network accept your overtaking block as the chain to follow if your blockheights block+1 doesnt include the previous block that matches the honest network
realise how these mitigating factors already in practice do not mean your attack is a guarantee..
emphasis again: current mitigating factors, not requiring adding new unused before mitigating factors
and once you learn the situation we can then progress the conversation to other mitigating factors i have not yet explained.. but first you need to understand the basic ones already mentioned and fully realise how your attack is not as convincing as you want it to be
i know you just want to bypass working things out for yourself, but do try, it will help you to learn instead of bypass it with empty statements of "im not convinced".. so try to work things out, try to play out scenarios, play devils advocate on your own theory

Quote from: mjdamgaard on Today at 08:12:42 AM

You also give me a "hint" that:

Quote from: franky1 on August 13, 2024, 08:44:10 PM

but here is a hint which i did mention already
if a large value transaction got undone. services can red flag a utxo that got undone and if any exchange then got a deposit of that same utxo spend a second time then they can just ban the user from doing any market orderbook trades, (there are other things too but.. before you can run through those factors you need to first walk through the basics factors discussed already and not bypass them

This either assumes that attackers need to do several reorgs in order for the attack to work, or that the attackers are somehow reliant on being accepted by specific crypto exchanges after the attack. If you had paid attention (i.e. to me explaining about the long-range attack above, or the fact that the ultimate goal is to crash the market), you would know that neither of these things are relevant. So either you are not paying attention or you are being dishonest.

it would require several re-orgs.. because you cant just do one double spend and crash the market. because you have other mitigating factor at play.. i would love to discuss the other factors at play and in practice already.. but until you fully understand the first ones i talked about we cant progress the discussion..
i did hint at some, but no point going into depth of those until you gone into depths of understanding the first ones.. but here is another mitigating factor at play right now

if you were to make the btc price come down 5% you will have many other traders selling their BTC for eth at the ~X:YY ratio of btc:eth. then sell the eth for USD causing the eth-usd market to crash, which based on supply on the market orders would crash the eth market by more then 5%. and then using the USD to then buy BTC at a 5% discount to bring back the btc-usd back up.
in short whilst you are arbitraging in one direction to try crashing the btc market. there are whales on the BTC side countering your attempt by arbitraging in the other direction to get cheaper btc which would bring the market for btc back up

so for you to try to keep fighting the btc whales, you would need to keep shifting funds around and then re-orging to double spend again to try again which all takes time. which you are not willing to account or run scenarios to realise how much time it would take to continually put pressure on the market.

Quote from: mjdamgaard on Today at 08:12:42 AM

As for your whole tactic of avoiding argument by pretending that you know something that I don't while being unwilling to say what that is, and at the same time pretending that I'm the one not listening to your arguments while hardly doing anything to point us back to whatever arguments that would be... Well, I don't think I'm the only one who sees through that tactic.

Please stop that behavior, or just leave the thread.

its not about me pretending to know something you dont.. its about you just not knowing all the things that are already in practice within the btc market and economy and mining industry. i simply ask you to try testing out your theory, run scenarios. however its you that dont see all the mitigating factors nor want to look into them. you constantly jsut want someone to beleive your theory and tell you that your a clever guy for mentioning something, however MANY MANY people know the mitigating factors and where you just respond "im not convinced", its became obvious you are not even willing to try to work things out to see if your theory has a high chance of success

again if your end goal is to crash the btc market, but doing so via blockchain re-orgs. you are missing many factors which you have yet to think about that make your theory not as easy as you try to make it seem. also there are other ways to crash the market without even needing to mess with the blockchain. your perceived notion that blockchain re-orgs = market crash, fall flat of guaranteed success due to you not understanding the factors at play.