Replies to post #12025 on PlusOneCoin (PLUS1USD)

[StockItOut]

How would one lower the difficulty? Is not the difficulty set, and halving rewards and doubling difficulty over earned blocks/time?

[TraderAI]

Accordingly, whomever did it, committed a crime. Not being able to move coins out of iHub also kind of complicates things for those who ended up with a loss. At $0.05 cents, 10,000 coins is $500 bucks. Now it is worth about $20 or less.

The Verge and Ethereum Classic 51% Attacks
Losses from 51% attacks are real. For example, when the Verge (XVG) network was attacked in April 2018, the attacker absconded with approximately 35 million XVG. As a result, XVG tokens lost 15% of their value in less than 24 hours.

In January 2019, someone 51% attacked the Ethereum Classic (ETC) network and double-spent approximately 88,500 ETC. The ETC attack had less of a price effect, but still caused tokens to lose approximately 10% of their value.

If losses from 51% attacks continue to grow, eventually token holders will want payback. Ironically, a hacking statute from the 1980s seems to provide a remedy.

The CFAA Prohibits 51% Attacks
The CFAA is “principally a criminal statute prohibiting ‘fraud and related activity in connection with computers.’” LivePerson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 501, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Under the CFAA, it is a crime to “knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Conspiracy to commit, or an “attempt[] to commit” these acts is similarly a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(b).

In other words, to violate the CFAA a 51% attack must involve: (1) a knowing, (2) transmission, (3) of some “information, code, or command”, that (5) intentionally (6) causes damage without authorization (7) to a “protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A).