Under Attack Again
-
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“22239” timestamp=“1374247221”]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]right now ftc is starting to get dumped on btc-e.
-
[quote name=“jeremiel” post=“22242” timestamp=“1374247675”]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=2847.msg22239#msg22239 date=1374247221]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]right now ftc is starting to get dumped on btc-e.
[/quote]Cant wait to buy cheap ftc when the time comes, hopefully right before we’re able to get out of this shitstorm. What i can say is that when ftc survives this one there truly is high hopes for this coin and the comunity!
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“22239” timestamp=“1374247221”]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]I agree. It looks like the attacker has done something to the block chain to lower the difficulty and is proceeding with a 51% attack. Lower difficulty means confirmations are faster, therefore attacker could potentially cash in before the exchanges can react.
-
[quote name=“svennand” post=“22244” timestamp=“1374248184”]
[quote author=jeremiel link=topic=2847.msg22242#msg22242 date=1374247675]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=2847.msg22239#msg22239 date=1374247221]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]right now ftc is starting to get dumped on btc-e.
[/quote]Cant wait to buy cheap ftc when the time comes, hopefully right before we’re able to get out of this shitstorm. What i can say is that when ftc survives this one there truly is high hopes for this coin and the comunity!
[/quote]I was hoping to do that on cryptsy but we’ll see. That also could be the reason for the attacks. They know that ftc will bounce back so they’ll get to buy real cheap ftc. though these attacks the last couple days seem to be going after the foundations of ftc. I mean how do you cause the block chain to go down in difficulty but the hash go up?
-
[quote name=“jeremiel” post=“22242” timestamp=“1374247675”]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=2847.msg22239#msg22239 date=1374247221]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]right now ftc is starting to get dumped on btc-e.
[/quote]Being dumped and going straight back up, people know its still cheap.
-
[url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7u]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7u[/url]
This look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.
-
[quote name=“DaMooMoo” post=“22249” timestamp=“1374249077”]
[url=http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7u]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7u[/url]This look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.
[/quote]yep thats the one take a look at what was going on with this block…looks like 20,000 FTC got rolled back and moved on this block and they also modified the difficulty.
-
[quote]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7u
This look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.[/quote]
[b]nope not attacker this is coinotron[/b]
-
Are the other UNOCS networks under attack as well, or is it just an FTC attack?
Can we hire ninja assassins to go after the attackers?
First question was actually serious.
-
[quote name=“mercsuey” post=“22292” timestamp=“1374262353”]
Are the other UNOCS networks under attack as well, or is it just an FTC attack?Can we hire ninja assassins to go after the attackers?
First question was actually serious.
[/quote]FTC attack. I had a chance to meet with the partners a few hours ago on what we need to do to better protect ourselves as a whole.
-
[quote name=“groll” post=“22284” timestamp=“1374261325”]
[quote]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7uThis look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.[/quote]
[b]nope not attacker this is coinotron[/b]
[/quote]All of the 52423 blocks are from coinotron?
How does that explain the 20k FTC change from the start to the end of the block?
What if coinotron is the attacker, they just did post a “vulnerability”…they could be attempting to mislead us into thinking they are not the problem. -
[quote name=“RIPPEDDRAGON” post=“22297” timestamp=“1374262566”]
[quote author=groll link=topic=2847.msg22284#msg22284 date=1374261325]
[quote]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7uThis look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.[/quote]
[b]nope not attacker this is coinotron[/b]
[/quote]All of the 52423 blocks are from coinotron?
How does that explain the 20k FTC change from the start to the end of the block?
What if coinotron is the attacker, they just did post a “vulnerability”…they could be attempting to mislead us into thinking they are not the problem.
[/quote]Coinotron has in my opinion been an excellent pool partner for ftc.
Just ashame that they have dissabled PPS since the first attack.
Also i do not think coinotron would risk getting bad publicity like that. -
[quote]All of the 52423 blocks are from coinotron? [/quote]
not all, the finder and 2 transaction of past block rewards of ~200 to an address for 10K each. so yes they move 2 time 10K to another address in small batch of ~200 for a total of 20K[quote]How does that explain the 20k FTC change from the start to the end of the block?[/quote]
they just move payout to their out address(probably the address used for payout) as they do regularly this is a practice that make sense as you want to do separation between the input and the payout when calculated in the accounting[quote]What if coinotron is the attacker, they just did post a “vulnerability”…they could be attempting to mislead us into thinking they are not the problem.[/quote]
possible. But not likely they usually got a lot of orphan during attacks and have a rate of >1.5Gh/s in block found. if they are the attacker they have the attacker 2.5Gh/s + 1.5Gh/s (vary between 500K to 2Gh/s depending on diff and profitability) so they would have 4Gh/s yesterday at the time of the attack and the day before.
-
[quote name=“svennand” post=“22306” timestamp=“1374263432”]
[quote author=RIPPEDDRAGON link=topic=2847.msg22297#msg22297 date=1374262566]
[quote author=groll link=topic=2847.msg22284#msg22284 date=1374261325]
[quote]http://explorer.feathercoin.com/address/71om8JdKi72gihUwpsbzHNifmRpot8pv7uThis look like one of the attackers. Notice what happens at block 52423.[/quote]
[b]nope not attacker this is coinotron[/b]
[/quote]All of the 52423 blocks are from coinotron?
How does that explain the 20k FTC change from the start to the end of the block?
What if coinotron is the attacker, they just did post a “vulnerability”…they could be attempting to mislead us into thinking they are not the problem.
[/quote]Coinotron has in my opinion been an excellent pool partner for ftc.
Just ashame that they have dissabled PPS since the first attack.
Also i do not think coinotron would risk getting bad publicity like that.
[/quote]I’m not the biggest fan of coinotron but I agree that them being involved would destroy their reputation. They’ve been good for ftc. Moving along to next item.
-
6zFxrWjwCSzoPNZFudvSVCpBYV9nQTWGdr
I’m sorry, this address has too many records to display.
This is the message I’m now getting on the block explorers. 23:30 19 .7.2013
-
[quote name=“groll” post=“22217” timestamp=“1374241623”]
This comes from Bitcoin as 6 block every 10 minutes so 1 hour of block. this require 51% to sustain as 50% of the block represent 50% of the window. this is different in FTC with 2.5 minutes2 things: make it the other sustains it
The first seems nearly ok you need >50% of the block to do so. a 40% with luck can do. but should be short live if not sustained.
to sustain you should need >50% of the block at current diff so for 2.5 it’s not 6 but 24 so median should be calculated on 49 blocks not 11. reducing the window to 6X2.5 can also be a solution, this will lead to some block rejected for time diff but 15 minutes seems ok. I don’t have time to check this exactly but i think GetAdjustedTime() is current time adjusted by the network time adjustement message. if it’s the case the adlustment should be lower then this to prevent DOS on time. (gettime() + adjust maxed at 35 *60)
note: dayligth saving times should not change anything as it’s UTC so this should have no impact. This was the reason in old time we puts 2h window in time validation of transaction in banking. even so 1-2 blocks would be rejected that is less problematic then what we currently have.
so my correction proposal is to replace the 2 * 60 * 60 by 15*60.
[/quote]That’s right, 2 hours future limit comes from Bitcoin and still there.
[code] // Check timestamp
if (block.GetBlockTime() > GetAdjustedTime() + 2 * 60 * 60)
return state.Invalid(error(“CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future”));[/code]We’re 4x faster, so 4x reduction to 30 minutes seems logical. 15 minutes may be too optimistic, though acceptable usually.
nMedianTimeSpan=11 is also from Bitcoin. Could increase it 4x as well to 44.
GetAdjustedTime() is a bit weird in Bitcoin:
[code]
//
// “Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.”
// Our three time sources are:
// - System clock
// - Median of other nodes clocks
// - The user (asking the user to fix the system clock if the first two disagree)
//
static int64 nMockTime = 0; // For unit testingint64 GetTime()
{
if (nMockTime) return nMockTime;return time(NULL);
}void SetMockTime(int64 nMockTimeIn)
{
nMockTime = nMockTimeIn;
}static int64 nTimeOffset = 0;
int64 GetTimeOffset()
{
return nTimeOffset;
}int64 GetAdjustedTime()
{
return GetTime() + GetTimeOffset();
}
[/code]In fact, it relays what standard UNIX/POSIX time() call says. Return value is seconds since the Epoch (01-Jan-1970 00:00:00 UTC).
There is another limit in AddTimeData():
[code=util.cpp / Bitcoin] // Only let other nodes change our time by so much
if (abs64(nMedian) < 70 * 60)
{
nTimeOffset = nMedian;
}
else
{
nTimeOffset = 0;[/code]Litecoin is more strict, we follow:
[code=util.cpp / Litecoin]// Only let other nodes change our time by so much
if (abs64(nMedian) < 35 * 60) // Litecoin: changed maximum adjust to 35 mins to avoid letting peers change our time too much in case of an attack.
{
nTimeOffset = nMedian;
}
else
{
nTimeOffset = 0;[/code]May limit even more.
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“22337” timestamp=“1374274466”]
[quote author=ghostlander link=topic=2847.msg22239#msg22239 date=1374247221]
I’m afraid we have to act quickly. Either with advanced checkpointing or something else. People start to panic.
[/quote]All this means is that people who are smart are going to make a killing on the flip side.
[/quote]The majority of people are not smart, they just follow the crowd. That’s how democracy works. A serious attack with or without double spend + panic dump may have FTC delisted from BTC-e, and that’s definitely not good.
-
[code]enum { nMedianTimeSpan=44 };[/code]
…and…
[code] // Check timestamp
if (block.GetBlockTime() > GetAdjustedTime() + 30 * 60)
return state.Invalid(error(“CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future”));[/code]Seem like good suggestions that I will review.
-
[quote]Code: [Select]
enum { nMedianTimeSpan=44 };
…and…
Code: [Select]
// Check timestamp
if (block.GetBlockTime() > GetAdjustedTime() + 30 * 60)
return state.Invalid(error(“CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future”));[/quote]
median is better with odd number not even else it need to be the average of the 2 median value in even number so 43, 45, 47 seems better choice. in fact 47 is the 2h value as it’s: 2h target number of block -1. (bitcoin is 12-1 we should have 48-1)for the second one I write it a bit fast when i say 6*2.5=15 it should have been windows +1*2.5=11+1*2.5=30 as bitcoin is 12*10=2*60, 2h. since we up the median range 47+1*2.5= 120 min. so any value below so 120 min. can still be fine. but I would not go bellow 2 time the max adjusted to avoid other attack as explicitly stated in code(can be used to make similar DOS if you can contain the network to your node for a target). if our time can be change we should be inside the allowed time.
the time change need to be looked at. not sure what it is in bitcoin. but FTC and LTC use 35 minutes, putting max future below it is opening door to DOS I would keep this value below 1/2 the max future allowed (35 mintestes for 2h is fine, for 30 i would lower it to 15)
[code]/ Only let other nodes change our time by so much
if (abs64(nMedian) < 35 * 60) // Litecoin: changed maximum adjust to 35 mins to avoid letting peers change our time too much in case of an attack.[/code]going with 47 and keeping 2h would be my suggestion, reducing the 2 hours would require additional special handling as we have block with that . growing the number to 47 has no impact mostly if no time attack is done at that time else it can cause a network split for non updated client. a simple after block X to let poeple update should do the trick for this one
note: 47 will increase the range of time back the 51% can do. for retarget. as he will be allowed to get time 24 block back not just 6
