1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

XTRABYTES.TODAY 51 Percent Attack Protection Is At Hand

Discussion in 'Blog Posts' started by XTRABYTES, Nov 11, 2017.

  1. XTRABYTES

    XTRABYTES Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why the 51 Percent Attack Rule is a Misnomer


    As ingenious as bitcoin is, the cryptocurrency still retains a few weaknesses. In particular, it remains vulnerable to attack when any mining pool comes close to controlling a majority of the overall network hashrate. Indeed, the phrase “ 51 Percent Attack” has become popularized to denote such an attack. With that amount of control, an attacking group can double spend, freeze out other miners, quietly blacklist addresses, and even shutdown transaction processing entirely.

    [​IMG]However, as Blockstream Co-Founder Matt Corallo has noted, pulling off a such an attack may not even require 51% control of the network hashrate. Indeed, Corallo believes that 45% control of a network hashrate might suffice. At that rate “their likelihood of winning — if they are trying to mine a fork or six blocks or whatever — is pretty damn high. It’s all just a probability.” Having higher hashing power simply enables the attacking group to modify more past blocks & control more future blocks on the blockchain.

    If 45% hashrate control is feasible for an attack, just how much hashing power is needed to pull off an attack? “Statistical models have shown that attacks on the consensus mechanism, under certain circumstances, can occur with as little as 30% of the hashing power” (Florian Hansmann). Given the right circumstances, this small but problematic vulnerability has the potential to fully undermine bitcoin governance.

    Recent History: A Harbinger of Things to Come?


    Is the concept of a 51 percent attack merely theoretical? Recent history suggests that this particular vulnerability might encourage a future power grab. We saw the outlines of such a possibility take shape earlier this year with the Segwit controversy. What might happen when the stakes are higher – and a bitter dispute over bitcoin governance gets out of hand? Consider the all-but-ready scheme Bitcoin Unlimited contemplated earlier this year:

    Before SegWit, Bitcoin Unlimited’s Peter Rizun considered a type of 51 percent attack on a minority of miners as a legitimate form of “anti-split protection”. That is, a means to defeat the original blockchain in favor of a new chain with the capability to mine larger blocks. For Rizer, such a scenario might come to pass if a majority of hash power indicated support for Bitcoin Unlimited’s position in this matter. With controlling hash power, the majority supporting Bitcoin Unlimited could conceivably reject any blocks which did not indicate similar support. As Rizer puts it:


    “Miners will orphan the blocks of non-compliant miners prior to the first larger block to serve as a reminder to upgrade. Simply due to the possibility of having blocks orphaned, all miners would be motivated to begin signaling for larger blocks once support definitively passes 51%. If some miners hold out (e.g., they may not be paying attention regarding the upgrade), then they will begin to pay attention after losing approximately $15,000 of revenue due to an orphaned block.

    While unsuccessful, this scenario might prove more probable if international conflict breaks out between large nation states (say, between China and the US).

    Full Protection Against A 51 Percent Attack


    [​IMG]Eliminating the risk of a 51 percent attack requires moving beyond the need for mining and securing a hack-proof network. In contrast to Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake algorithms, XtraByte’s Proof-of-Signature consensus and network design offers full protection against a 51 percent attack.

    The foundation for this protection flows from XtraBytes decentralized node network. Comprised of 3584 ‘STATIC’ (Services, Transactions, and Trusted in Control) nodes, XtraBytes issues transactions fees to its STATIC node owners rather than to miners. Network security is dependent upon these STATIC nodes signing each transaction block (thus, the name Proof-of-Signature). A private virtual network interconnects these online STATIC nodes, creating VPN-like functionality for the nodes.

    Here is how the XtraBytes non-technical whitepaper puts it:


    With Proof-of-Signature requiring that every node sign every transaction, the entirety of the STATIC node network would need to be compromised simultaneously to undermine the integrity of the blockchain. Furthermore, by leveraging the use of digital signatures extensively in security algorithms, the XtraBytes developers go several steps further than SSL and Microsoft’s signed software to ensure the security of the signature protocol…


    …if a signature is compromised, the associated [node network] signature will automatically be revoked as the consensus among nodes has been violated. The owner of the affected node is then warned to generate a new signature before the node can resume participation of the network…


    …If a disruptive agent attacks and disables a STATIC node, one or more of the other STATIC nodes will take control of the virtual node until the original STATIC node has been brought back online. The transmissions between the STATIC nodes to verify consensus are always protected by encryption

    The XtraBytes team has created system of real and virtual networks that is impervious to a 51 percent attack. The system relies upon trust and signature verification. Its simplicity is its strength!



    The post 51 Percent Attack Protection Is At Hand appeared first on The XTRABYTES News Blog.

    Continue reading...
     
  2. Groovy

    Groovy Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    So if someone took down 3583 nodes via Denial Of Service attack, that would only leave one up and running (and supposedly that is enough to keep the system up and running), then the owner of that node could do some naughty stuff I assume?
     
    molten likes this.
  3. Upspwnage

    Upspwnage Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This is what will seperate Xtrabytes from everyone else! I love it!
     
  4. dikiy

    dikiy Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    On one of forums I saw such opinion that attack can be made by means of a capture under control of 51% of knots of a network.
     
  5. dikiy

    dikiy Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I meant 51% STATICs.
     
  6. dikiy

    dikiy Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    On how many it is truthful?
     
  7. Sokolakis Ilias

    Sokolakis Ilias Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The security XBY brings to crypto world is amazing.
    XBY = Game changer
     
  8. molten

    molten Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I would like to see an answer to Groovy's post
     
  9. enki

    enki Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's a good question for the 777. I will post this for the tech guys to see.
     
  10. jcpbs

    jcpbs Member

    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    One possible outcome: In the case of a possible 51% attack, not all the servers/nodes are online at a given time. If a node comes online and detects the network being compromised, it will scale back and try to restore to the last known "safe" position, before the attack. Compromised nodes will be flaged and "suspended" from the network, i guess. Another situation is how a hacker can ddos half of the known node ips at the same time. It needs to be a very well coordenated attack that will take huge amounts of resources to pull it off and be profitable. If the sync fails for a few miliseconds, while trying to highjack nodes, the uncompromised nodes will be aware of the attack.
    As i see it, with XTRABYTES, all nodes would need to be compromised for a ddos attack to succeed (including all online and offline nodes). But by doing this, u are basically turning off the whole network, something near impossible in a decentralized network.

    One more thing: When a node goes offline, it saves "configuration records". Even when nodes are offline, they still keep receiving information (Like how email works. We still receive emails when we are offline). So, when it comes back online, it will try to match those configurations against the current configurations.

    After typing all of this, I just want to add that I could be wrong!
     
    enki likes this.
  11. ecoiner

    ecoiner Member

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Is there any infograph or any table to identify the differences between 51% attack, Quantum attack and ASIC resistant, Equihash resistant.... Any help would be much appreciated
     

Share This Page