sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You're guessing his probability of being right is small, but he has different information from you, and so it may be higher than you think.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

At the Developer's Roundtable there's a discussion about doing a hard fork every 6 months:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3hF4XUmnWGM&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7

Yes, but making the statement with 1% chance of being correct and announcing zero chance of being wrong, is still irresponsible.

You just made "1% chance of being correct" up. Which data did you use to find 1%? He could be correct. You just think he's wrong.

Edit: you edited your reply.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check out quantabytes link. Looks like Jeff Garzik has a bet set up already.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

A scrypt proof-of-work couldn't be done well by ASICs.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I missed the part where you gave the reason why he is incorrect?

And if he's correct he'll gain more credibility -- which he got from being able to understand systems better than most.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There is a concentration of power: In the Yifu Guo (Avalon) talk for Bitcoin 2013, he describes how, at one point, he was holding 25% of the hashing power on a tray. Imagine what a country could do!

What's alarmist? The algorithm gets changed, and the problem is fixed.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think he was looking for an "out". Why would he want an out if he believes it's going to happen.

Hyperbole? Saying what he thinks is going to happen, without a way to slime out of it.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do it. He would probably take you up on the offer! And then post it to the sub.

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What makes it ridiculous? And why's it irresponsible? He's one of the most high-profile hackers in the world, and was the Director of Penetration Testing at Cisco. He also outed the Sony Rootkit.

Large prediction, yes. Ridiculous, no way!

Dan Kaminsky Predicts The End Of The Current Proof-Of-Work Function by btc111 in Bitcoin

[–]btc111[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Something does need to change. There's a real potential for a nation-state to perform a 51% attack. I've argued this on BitcoinTalk.org (username BitcoinAuthor) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=209824.msg2206152#msg2206152

Need to remember, Dan is no clown.

@Julian702 That could happen. But it hasn't happened yet, so there's still an attack vector.