Discussion in 'World Economy' started by Tadhg Gaelach, Dec 4, 2017.
You mean how will Venezuela control it?
No. How would you, as an attacker, take control of it?
Me? An attacker?
Perhaps you mean that the CIA will carry out terrorist attacks on the Petro. That's quite possible. I presume the Venezuelans have thought of that.
Yep. :) Or financial bucaneer or whatever. How would you take control of the Petro?
Why would I want to do that?
In this scenario, you are the attacker. If you want you can adapt the scenario so that it is the Amero and it is US backed. How would you attack such a currency with the aim of controlling it?
I presume you don't simply mean hacking. Without a doubt, the US Régime has enough money to target the Petro with buying pressure, but it's not so easy to short cryptos. Can be done of course, but its not so easy.
But how would you take control? What part of the system can be exploited?
A chara, how about you just come out and say what you want to say?
How would you take control of a digital currency? Simple question.
I've heard quite a bit about "Modum"
I have no idea.
The problem is, that like a lot of investors in digital currencies, you are not alone. A country backing a cryptocurrency is painting a big target on its back.
For sure its going to be targeted. And not just by your privateer hackers, but by everything the CIA has got. I presume the Venezuelans have thought of this. I hope so anyway.
Btw. My only flutter into cryptos is documented here. It worked out well for me, but I was quite prepared for it to go against me.
Watch the Bitcoin Bubble Burst
Anyway, I guess there will be a lot of people buying a few Petros, regardless of the dangers (or even because of them), and like myself, they won't care too much if they loose money. There is a little bit of history going on here.
The problem is that many of these people will be investing because of their politics. In the real world of crypto and hacking (as opposed to the cargo-cult rubbish in TV shows like Scorpion etc), systems can be compromised in seconds because someone discovered an exploitable vulnerability that others had not noticed. Backing the Petro is certainly a brave decision but a key point of many cryptocurrencies is that miners can create their own wealth and that is what drives a lot of them.
Anyway, I guess the Venezuelans have thought of all this. If they haven't its not going to be good for them.
Might be relevant to some, just dumping my thoughts on what i know
Bitcoin uses blockchain. But the blockchain is something on its own, at its basic level it is a global ledger.
If this is anything like bitcoin and is a decentralised network then the below would be applicable
This is the white paper on bitcoin https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.
The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
How can you attack bitcoin.
Bitcoins - Secured by NSA designed Encryption or Backdoored ?
"The integrity of Bitcoin depends on a hash function called SHA-256, which was designed by the NSA and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)."
So is this as secure as we think.
Overwelm the network
The network is lots of computers connected over peer to peer. If you can get 51% of the hashing power in the network, you can control the network.
Bitcoin - Wikipedia
"In 2014 mining pool GHash.io obtained 51% hashing power which raised significant controversies about the safety of the network. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and called other pool to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network."
From the white paper above
"Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In
this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed
timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes."
So if an attack had enough computing power they could take over. However this is not likely unless it originates from the network that is currently there now.
The network is far too big to be overwelmed by any new outside group.
A sell off
Each coin that is mined takes more and more computing power. So obviously the early mining took little time to produce.
So Satoshi or whoever started it, mined a million bitcoin to start the ledger off.
If at some point they reappeared and sold off all those bitcoin, say good buy to this crypto currency.
How Many Bitcoins Have Been 'Lost' Forever? | Seeking Alpha
This thing was so allover the place in its history they are saying 25% of the coins are lost.
Even still, a major sell off by a hedge fund or someone who had bought a lot early on could kill it as a store of wealth when all the new money gets scared and follow suit.
There was a lot of market manipluation throughout its history, but there is enough money in there now that this is harder to do. Still a big player could fuck it up.
Net neutrality/Political will/Banking and hedge funds pull the plug
If the ISP's and corporations take over the net completely, and the political will behind it, they could attack it.
Or the political will and the banks take a hard line with the hedge funds etc.. and or tax the crap out of all this, which is coming either way.
However this may only effect the west, and not the east, or it may just means bitcoin gets hit and we get a more level field with regard the cryptos alongside a more official global SDR backed by blockchain/basket of currencies.
However if it is more like Ripple, which i would assume it is
White paper on https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf
it would be a public trusted network, eg. centralised network, and so access controlled by the government itself.
So it is unlikely that a 51% attack could happen as anyone acting out of order would no be allowed into the network.
The SHA is still relevant. As well as the market manipulation and outside forces not so much if it is to be used internally, but if its
As an aside
Is gold a currency ?
In certain countries it can be, as in people will accept it as payment, but in general it is a store of wealth or asset, that needs to be converted to a national currency to pay for things.
Bitcoin is the same, this may change over time, but it is not a currency.
Gold could be considered as money, as in it is a store of value and has maintained its value over long periods of time. How fungible or interchanable it can be specfific too what country your in, like above but it has a long track record and so people consider it as money mostly.
The issue with bitcoin is its new and due to the speculative nature and volatility and lack of interchangeability, it is hard to classify it as money.
Right now, Bitcoin in general is an asset like gold is and is higly speculative. Its value is based on brand and the amount of money that has been pumped into it.
Technically it has brand because of the number of people who have been backing/supporting it, this was where the hardwork in making the brand was done.
This is not what most people pumping money into it now see, they see the price on the market in general rising.
Saying that it has value because it costs more and more electricity to generate the next one is the cart before the horse.
You do not mine gold or drill for oil because it costs more and more as you get less. If it is cost effective you will mine/drill. Fuck all all to do with anything else.
The value is all down to what someone will pay for it today.
The primary reason that money is going into bitcoin is that there has been a global inflation of fiat around the world because the central banks are all printing money at the same time to prop up the global financial bubble.
Getting your money into something that keeps its value is the only counter, some people can invest in housing, some in gold some in crypto. Same thing the hedge funds are doing.
Most of the other crypto currencies act like they are tethered to bitcoin in some way or as an alternative to bitcoin.
Otherwise you will need to peg your crypto to a basket of currencies, or backed by gold/oil reserveres etc.. and so the value of such is dependent on more then brand, but on market values.
A lot of the issues above would not be a thing if the crypto is one that is one created by a government. If it says its a medium of exchange then the rest will quickly follow.
In today's world, gold is the highest power money. When things are going wrong, people want gold. The next highest power money is the US dollar. This is the world's reserve currency and has the most widespread acceptance of any fiat currency. But, being a fiat currency, it does not retain its value as gold does. We see that today it takes about 1270 US dollars to buy one ounce of gold, whereas in the early 2000s it only took about 350 US dollars. It isn't that gold has increased in value, its that the US dollar has lost two thirds of its value because it is being printed with nothing to back it up.