DigiByte,

Would it be possible to get the team page updated ( http://digibyte.co/content/digibyte-team ) with a little more specific information about the basic backgrounds and contribution levels of each member? I really like what Vertcoin has done ( https://vertcoin.org/wp/the-team/ ). Something along those lines? Maybe even shrinking the DigiByte logos a bit, or even substituting them with the DigiMan? Would that be possible?

I know it's not exactly what o0o0 has in mind,  
but it would be a step in that same direction,
and it would likely create a more favorable first impression for high end investors.  

Cheap is an understatement! And with the buy order book looking like crap, it could easily get a lot cheaper quick. Of course, the sell book doesn't look much better. (Don't accuse autosells from miners to be the problem here.)

The problem is a total lack of interest in DGB!

We'll get that remedied!

Great to hear that you're doing well. Have a great weekend too!

Thank you DigiByte, for sharing your experience and knowledge on the subject, your efforts along the same lines, your thinking on what the near term future has in store for us, and, most importantly, your support of this little project of mine (to add to what you guys are already doing - every little bit helps).

Providing a rating and advisory service is something that I had planned to eventually do, not as soon as this, but as you know (and as I’ve not so subtlety alluded to when addressing others in these matters) time waits for no man.

When taking into consideration the great Google entry points we’ve got, the fantastic website, the phenomenal videos, and the like, I’ve decided that the most appropriate “mailing” (done via email, of course) for this particular effort should be one of basic introduction and direction to the many varied and excellent resources we already have in place.

I’d like to keep things limited to a one page letter equivalent email that is easy and quick to read, highlighted by the key selling points that make DBG one of the best investment opportunities currently available in cryptocurrencies. I also want to do that within a “Top 10” group of recommendations based on the analysis of development staff, technological soundness, community involvement, future prospects for mass adoption, and, of course, risk/reward appreciation potential.

The initial idea is to break things down into 3 categories: the 1000 to 1 appreciation potential group, the 100 to 1 appreciation potential group, and the 10 to 1 appreciation potential group. DGB obviously falls into the first of the three groups. I’m thinking along the lines of dedicating 1/3 of the page to DGB. NOBL also falls into that group, and would round out the first 1/2 of the page. At this time, VTC, SRC and QRK are all clear candidates for the 100 to 1 appreciation potential group as they clearly get very high marks in all areas of their fundamental analysis. They would get about a 1/4 of a page worth’s mention. The last 5 would assuredly include BTC and LTC (10 to 1 appreciation potential group), but I’m still not sure about the last 3 to round things out. This is one area where I could currently use some help: I’d be very grateful for suggestions about possible candidates to include in the list.

Another item that might seem trivial but that is actually extremely important in my opinion is the subject line. The person who receives the email will decided to either immediately delete or open the email based on what he or she sees in that subject line. All ideas for a 30 character or so subject line would also be most welcomed. “Top 10 CryptoCurrency Investments” looks to be the favorite for the time being.

Finally, and in interest of providing a bit more feedback with the end goal of improving on what we’ve got, I’d like to end with a couple of notes regarding some of the more important criticisms of the last few days. You acknowledge in your reply to o0o0 that you hadn’t been as communicative as you could have been these last few weeks. As I mentioned in a previous post, perception is almost everything (if not everything) and with that happening while price was crashing by over 50%, you left yourselves very open for people to start thinking that what we were seeing was typical “quiet period dev activity” in a P&D world and for them to subsequently begin to draw negative conclusions that put DGB in the same P&D camp as the rest. I can’t stress enough the need to be active and proactive, and much of the time that means simple engagement, posting a link to particular resources or documentation, for example, and essentially steering the conversation in the right direction and keeping things on track. This is another one of those things that looks trivial on the surface but that has great importance when seen from the point of view of the pre-emptive avoidance of all those very unnecessary misunderstandings, blown out of proportion criticisms and general loss of faith. Like it or not, the circumstances are such that the charge can be made based on the facts – true or not – and that very little effort and involvement could have completely avoided any and all possible negative appearances in this regard.

I would also recommend working on creating systematic ways of dealing with routine workplace responsibilities. For example, the neglect of the blog, as has been mentioned, what can be done to address that? A systematic way of dealing with that might be to set in place a policy where any announcement sent out on Twitter would automatically go on the blog too (and this forum as well). The idea here is that if it’s good enough and important enough for Twitter, it most certainly is for the blog. Furthermore, the blog gives you the possibility to expand on the tweet, and, obviously, to include a link to the blog in the tweet itself. As for this forum, a simple 30 second cut and paste of what you just did gets the job done. With that you’ve tripled your exposure with very little additional effort. If it’s good enough for Twitter (I’m only referring to official announcements and communications of course, re-tweets, responses to others, etc. obviously don’t fall into this category), it’s good enough for the blog, and vice versus, if it’s not good enough for the blog, perhaps it’s not good enough for Twitter. This type of systematic time management can actually help with the decision making regarding the dissemination of information as well as saving you time and getting you 3 for 1 coverage at the same time.

In a nutshell, I think if we were to summarize what’s been said recently, good PR is paramount, from adequately explained technicals to seemingly trivial matters like a simple continuous presence (obviously with more important things to say at times and less important things to say at other times, but always there, and with something of substance, even if it isn’t very important – people are always happy to hear about even the most insignificant work in progress). The solution really doesn’t take all that much effort, and the returns are so great that they’re practically invaluable.

Not to harp on things, but just to give one last example: where do you guys weigh in on the idea of a possible algo swap for sha and scrypt? Again, this is not to ask for a definitive decision one way or the other, or even clear ideas, rather it’s just to have a sense of your opinions and evaluations at this particular point in time (and nothing says they can’t change in the future). That kind of engagement, steering and direction of the community conversation is extremely valuable, and I, if I were you, on your side of the fence, would not let any occasion slip away and would always leverage every opportunity to respond (be it a personal or delegated) – there’s just too much to be gained!

Thanks again, and I’ll let you all know when I have a rough draft (and don’t forget about sending me your suggestions everyone!).

The "rally" won’t last long. I think we’ll see some real chaos and panic in financial markets come the 4th quarter. Martin Armstrong is one of the foremost renowned cyclic analysts around and his Economic Confidence Model agrees with that timing. http://www.economicconfidencemodels.com/ http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2

The Chinese stock market has only begun to fall with an intermediate term 1st wave down. A huge sell-off it was, and the “bounce” will be strong as a result, but I wouldn’t bank on it getting back to anywhere near recent highs or on it lasting more than a few months. Europe is falling apart (as much as I personally hate to say so) and that’s going to heat up in the autumn as well. US markets are so overvalued that it’s only a matter of time and finding an excuse (which those first two items just mentioned will provide).

If you think QE in all its forms has been unbelievable, hold on to your hats!

And who are the lucky recipients of all that newly created fiat currency going to be? The same people who were on the receiving end of QE until now, of course (certainly not the little guy, like you and me). And what will they do with that money? Continue “reaching for yield”, of course. And what will that include? You tell me, but what with stocks, bonds, and fiat currencies all losing value, I’ll bet that a couple of dollars will find their way into cryptocurrencies. It’s already begun to happen. I’ve pointed it out in several places recently, most notable here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1095434.0 The same has been reflected in recent news: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1100598.0

So, who gets all the free money?

How about these folks for starters:

Short list of the managers who will benefit from the “trickle up” new normal money management creation we will see.

BlackRock
Vanguard Group
State Street Global Advisors
Fidelity Investments  
J.P. Morgan Asset Mgmt.
BNY Mellon  
Capital Group
PIMCO
Deutsche Asset & Wealth
Goldman Sachs Group
Northern Trust Asset Mgmt.
TIAA-CREF
Prudential Financial
Wellington Mgmt.
NISA Investment
Legg Mason
Goldman Sachs Group
Manulife Asset Mgmt.
Geode Capital Mgmt.
Principal Global Investors
Legal & General Investment  

There will be a lot of money being “thrown around”. It’s not like anyone here expects billions to be thrown into cryptos (not in the short term anyway), not by any stretch of the imagination, and much less so in any one particular crypto (excepting BTC perhaps); however, there will certainly be millions, most likely hundreds of millions, short to medium term, destined for cryptocurrencies.

It’s not like anyone is thinking that we’re going to be able to get a direct interest in DGB either. The truth be said, none of these institutions, or their “smaller” brethren (the long list), take direct interest in anything of this sort. They prefer “baskets” of similar profile investments.

The idea is to get DGB included in those cryptocurrency investment “baskets”. My best estimate based on the money flow is that the large investors who have recently come into cryptos have "baskets" that are made up of 20-25 different currencies (and it looks consistent across the board . . . unless it's been limited to just one individual buyer). In my estimation, again based on the money flow, DGB is currently NOT included in any of those baskets. The goal is to change that, and it doesn’t matter that DGB is a long shot (yes, I think we’ve fallen back into undeniable “long shot” status), these institutions like to have a little bit of “long shot” in their portfolio as well. Get DGB included in those large investor baskets, and get it done ASAP, that would be the goal.

What’s more is that things don’t necessarily have to end in institutional investment – someone might make a personal decision based on something discovered in the workplace, for example, which could even extend to other friends and family. The campaign would be aimed at large known pools of money, but would not be exclusive to them alone, and most probably, like everything in life, would extend beyond the original target to destinations previously unimagined. More than anything we’re talking about making contact with the outside world, as it were, and doing so in the most professional and intelligent way we can.

The window of opportunity is narrow (as it is with everything in this business): you snooze, you lose.

On the other hand, as I’ve said before, if you don’t believe in your product to begin with, then you might as well just end this reading with a big “never mind”.

(This should be considered to only be part of a multi-pronged approach to addressing current adverse issues, in conjunction with things like algo substitutions – great to see so many favorable comments regarding that – and new user target marketing, to name but two other key items.)


Ah, what the hell. I’ve decided to find the time and take third party initiative on my own and send out “recommendations” with basic introductory information. Major institutions like to have independent, third party, analysis so anything I might add independently certainly won’t hurt. Including NOBL adds certain credibility as well. Cryptsy will receive free “advertising” also as a by product. Nevertheless, the main goal, that of informing people with the means and the need of a product they previously didn’t know about but will be glad they finally found out about, will be what's really important. Anyone who would like to help with snippets and ideas on what you think would most interest large investors, please feel free to PM me your suggestions.

Now that's what I mean by making an argument based on hard data, and just in time!

Why is it that it's like pulling teeth to get people in cryptocurrencies to document what they're talking about? Why is it that it takes so much nudging to get this kind of info clearly published? Why is it that devs think the rest of the world should just trust them?

You know what? If that had been said a month ago, it might have gone a long ways towards supporting price since it would have been seen as a proactive announcement back then. Now, coming on the heels of all the prodding that was necessary to get a straight answer, it's actually no longer a positive, and can even be seen as a negative for dragging your feet and coming straight only when there was no other option. The potential investor will ask, "if this is their modus operandi, what will they do in the future?"

Anyhow, that's a very nice start at an in-depth explanation regarding this particular issue and for what's being done. Now let's see what more might be in store for the other burning issues of the day.

Life is all about making good decisions. I encourage all of you to reflect on that basic fact and on how you might improve on your decision making and communication.

BTW, the "common sense" bit was so absurd that it was assumed to be automatically interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek prodding joke, as in "this is so ridiculous that . . ." in the hopes of finally getting something serious in return. Looks like it worked, but as I've just said, it shouldn't be necessary and the fact that it is necessary is very detrimental to DGB.

Traded at 21 SAT.

Now that's something to be proud of, and good reason to kick up your feet and do nothing!

@digitaldoxy, ASIC miners are a problem, they have been, and always will be a problem runningcounter current to widely distributed and decentralized at every step along the way. That reality will never change. If you add up the hashrates for groestl, skein and qubit you'll see we have a nice network base without sha and scrypt. It would be acceptable to also assume that the replacements would themselves add their proportional equivalents. What other argument do you have in favor of sha?

This would also make o0o0's idea regarding the incorporation of an auto miner in the wallet itself more viable since that while it is currently practically impossible to earn any kind of payout with a small miner, the elimination of sha and scrypt would probably change that for the positive . . . and don't forget that we are ACTIVELY going after gamers now, and they aren't using ASICs either. 

Now there's an obvious solution that I'm sure we'll all ask ourselves why we didn't think of that ourselves. I'll sign up for the removal of sha and scrypt and their substitution, but I'm still on the fence about their possible replacements. Great idea. And the huge "security flaw" would be solved at the same time! You get two for one with this one!

Then, of course, lots of marketing to new user target markets, and, if you really believe in your coin, and only if you really believe, a concerted steady effort to get DGB in front of possible investors (in the currency itself, not secondary infrastructure) so they have the opportunity to get involved (just like we did in our day), but, again, only if you really believe . . . otherwise it's best to forget it.

Oh my, look how easy it is!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor
Go to "Institutional-investor types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor#Institutional-investor_types
Double click on “Endowment fund:” and that takes you to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment
Here, in the “See also” section,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment#See_also
you will find a list of lists for the endowment funds for each type.

List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment 150+
List of Australian universities by endowment 20
List of Canadian universities by endowment 25+
List of UK universities by endowment 90+
List of wealthiest charitable foundations TOP 35 in the world

That’s 300+ extremely high quality contacts and that’s only for “Endowment fund”!

You’ve still got the following categories:

Hedge fund
Insurance company
Asset manager
Investment company
Investment trust
Mutual fund
Pension fund
Sovereign wealth fund
Unit trust and unit investment trust

And it goes on and on, like this, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_institutional_investors_in_the_United_Kingdom


Do you find yourself saying to yourself that none of these high quality prospects would be interested in DGB?

Get it out of your head what you think they might think and let them decide for themselves.

Send them information that would interest them AND LET THEM DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!


VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

The creation of a large contact list is “easy” in the sense that the information is there to be had, but very time consuming on the other hand, and requires either a huge community project where everyone works on a part, or a paid employee to do it in-house. (There is also the possibility of purchasing existing, already compiled, lists.)

The carrying out of a contact campaign itself is a similar story except for the fact that this can’t be purchased (it could be subbed out, but probably at a higher cost than an in-house project of this small in size).

Nothing prohibitive when taken in a $250,000 investment perspective. It's peanuts. In fact, I was thinking about doing it myself, in my name of course, but that’s too much work for what I’ve got time for at this time, and this is not my job anyway. This is a DigiByte job, either corporate or community, one or the other.




@ EPLDCC, nice post over on NLG. Nice touch. They’re not our enemies, even if they might have been erroneously thought to have been if we hadn’t faced things head on. Thanks.

@TamiLee, didn't get angry, got direct, which is called for in that kind of situation - it's a "lets get things cleared up now" attitude, businesslike, and to the point, that can be confused with other things - no worries, everyone's cool ;-)

Conversation with MaNI this afternoon.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11844533#msg11844533
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11845200#msg11845200

For those who really care about DigiByte and are willing to defend it.


Add: On second thought, considering that over there I'm a guest whose posts can be deleted, and he can delete his own, and that this is very important for DigiByte, I'm going to re-post them here in their entirety.

Groestl, Skein and Qubit are.

Thank you for retracting. We have some people running around these forums saying that the sky is falling and quoting you as one of their main sources. These people can now be corrected.

For the record and to summarize your various statements from above: there is nothing with which to substantiate your claim, and even though you said that you "have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective", you were only expressing a personal opinion that you cannot support with facts and rational argument.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I did see all those qualifying phrases in you complete post, but since others chose not to pay any attention at all to them, and in interest of getting to the point without distractions, I put the issue to you in the direct, no mistaken, manner in which I did. Nothing personal, I hope you understand, and I'm sure you would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

Thanks again for the clarification, and, if you don't mind, it would be just as appreciated if you help others on the mistaken trail to recover from their error.

Cheers.

I haven't been too keen on cutting the supply, but if there's no will to support a reasonably stable price that incentives participation any other way, this would be it.

Cut the reward by 90%, immediately. Hell, with over 4 billion already in circulation, there's not going to be any shortage any time soon considering current usage.

And when the need arises, that is to say when we're operating at VISA speed and with a justifiable load, we can increase it again.

A reward change is one of the easiest things to do as well, and the "bang for the buck" in terms of price support just might be the best of all possibilities as well.

. . . that is if there is any will at all to really support this coin long term.


CUT IT BY 90%!!

And do it yesterday.


There's just one small problem with that though: miners would disappear and the network would go dry. Devs are f@(ked. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Guess they'll just have to roll up their sleeves like everyone else and start selling this bitch (and defending it too, like its their own - or do you just let anyone come into your home to trash it?).

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.

It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.

To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.

By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.

You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.

Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).

Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.

Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)

Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

And there's zero interest in putting together an Investor's Pack either!



What more . . .

. . . bear with me here, I'll be done in a jiff.

Let's add the very curious phenomenon we've seen here in the last few days/weeks to the fact that there's no interest in "selling" DGB to investors.

Let's start that off with a chart.




Does that look like just about the best picture perfect, textbook example, of what is Pump and Dump?

On a chart, the answer is clearly yes.

In spite of all the constant rhetoric about how DGB is not just another P&D shit coin, the reality of the matter from the viewpoint of the market is that, in fact, DGB is just another P&D shit coin. There's no arguing that. It is what it is. The price chart does not lie.

Of course, the Devs can argue that the market is misinterpreting things, and, of course, that argument would be worth something if the Devs were around on a regular basis informing and keeping everyone abreast, or just engaging at very least.

Traders call it the "quiet period" when a Pump and Dump coin falls into a lower volume sideways pattern. They've named it such because the Devs deliberately stay "quiet" so that price will fall even further. This is an essential part of P&D.

You never see new ideas or initiatives during the quiet period - everything positive is quenched, that is unless it is a "positive" that's seen as being trivial by serious investors, of course, since that positive then becomes a double negative.

Any of this sound familiar?

Please don't take this personally, I'm only citing facts, facts that can seriously alter people's perception, and with perception being as important as it is, it's no wonder that everything possible is done to make perception as negative as possible during the "quiet period".

And then we've got this very interesting phenomenon here at DGB central to add to the template: the recent arrivals of people like barabbas, and, finally, the sudden and urgent need to fix a supposedly super critical vulnerability that has been with us for 7 months now, and that for some odd reason has now become paramount, and (not resembling barabbas in any manner other than their recent arrivals) that has been made present by recent arrivals with their newly found strong convictions (which could very well be sincere, but remember, I'm talking about very strict facts and how they can, and do, shape perceptions). Oh, and I almost forgot, the Dev comes out and says, again after 7 months, YES, this is a problem we need to address . . . but has not the time for the mention of long term positives (I've been soliciting a response on the Investor's Pack for a while now with no luck, hum). Can things get any more negative (other than outside observers finally pointing this out)?

Of course, this could all be coincidence . . .

Does anyone believe in coincidence?

o0o0, you made some good points that I'm sure many share, but it might be even graver than you think. I'm not one to say definitively what something is or isn't, nor do I talk about people's motivations or speculate as to whether something is intentional or not, nor do I judge others. On the other hand, I don't have any problems talking about how facts may be perceived, and what the benefits or damage may be, and in this case, the facts of the matter, circumstantial or not, have done great harm to DGB in my opinion, and it will take a lot of doing to bring me back to the thinking that DGB is not just another P&D and keep me from selling into the next pump.

And I, for one, should know better.  

Thanks for that background material - it's very helpful. You and MentalCollatz certainly are two welcomed additions to the community.

Nevertheless, there's still no statistical analysis there to speak of either. Lot's of great coders, "patching" things without really addressing whether or not the need is real. The probabilistic analysis is severely wanting. How in the world can a "coin [be] vulnerable to 51% attacks by attackers with far less than 51% of the network hashpower"? That just leaves my head in a fog. It must have done the same to 8bitcoder as well since he just left it at that and began working on a "patch" (which is understandable for a coder since the mindset is one of terrible dislike for bugs regardless of their impact).

Okay, and we pick things up from there, no real understanding, at least not documented (so far as I know), of what the real statistical ramifications are, but a 51% attack with less than 51% does cast some doubt, to say the least, on what the real possibilities are.

8bitcoder talks early on about the need to build a "side chain" and that the attacker would eventually catch up to the main network. That is practically statistically impossible, if not completely impossible. Does anyone really think a side chain of equal size to the DGB blockchain could be built? If diff were ZERO then a blockchain of equal size in blocks could be theoretically achieved, but with a zero diff, the "work value" would be infinitely inferior. In order to build a side chain of equal value, we'd need Superman to reverse time for us so that we could start at the same point in time. And don't come back at this by saying a forked side chain would work since by the time the attacker were to catch up that "fork" would be long known to be just that.

Of course, everything I'm saying is just off the top of my head, but without any serious statistical analysis on the part of those that say this is a reality - a 51% attack with less than 51%, or even with 61%, as has been said here - what I'm saying holds the same weight (if not more since common sense tells us that less than half is not equal to half).

Common sense tells us that a 51% attack requires a 51% control of the ENTIRE network, not 51% of 20% of the network, unless you're able to stop the other 4 algos from discovering new blocks over a short period of time, something which no-one has ever said is possible (will this be the next shoe to drop?) and something that doesn't happen regardless of how much one individual algo's hashrate spikes.

WarpTimer starts that thread by saying that in "theory it could be carried out on a single CPU." Seriously? What about the diff needed to generate the amount of work necessary in order to be equal to a real SHA256 block generated on the real blockchain? With a single CPU? Come on, where are we drawing our assumptions from, and, more importantly, just how are we validating them?

He even goes on to say that there needs to be a spike in SHA256 diff in order to begin the attack, and the attacker is going to be the block finder with one CPU? 

Let alone try to mine 2 other algos?

As always with the 51% attack, we're back to the need for some serious computational power, and, in this case, the failure of the other algos.

Don't know how to leave you on this other than to say that on this level I don't consider reddit and BCT comments to be anything more than that, comments, and I certainly don't put them into White Paper category, much less documented research.

BTW, do you have a link to where 8bitcoder moved the discussion on github?

Good contributions. All I can say is that this needs to be thoroughly studied and documented with hard data. If you're correct, then we will have made a major improvement. If not, we run the risk of creating a major SNAFU.

Personally, until we have clear substantiated documentation on the subject (this would be a huge milestone that would make many people look like they would have been better off reading C++ for Dummies), I will remain skeptical and adhere to the original analysis and numbers backed by so many extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs. I find it incredible to think that a 51% attact would be possible with only 61% of one algo, except in the hypothetical case I concluded my last post with (and that is, in practice, impossible): The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

Thanks for that clarification.

One last question for now and then I'll leave this to others who may indeed know more than I do.

"Work" only comes into play when determining which of two simultaneously discovered blocks is added to the blockchain, correct?

Even if the sha256d block contains more work, if block discovery is relatively equal at 20% per algo, how does that change the theoretical percentages necessary for a 51% attack on a multi-algo? Let's say each sha256d block contains more work, but it's still a relative 20% of the total (even if someone control 100% of that 20%) meaning that an incorrect chain could not be created and the attack would not be successful. Let's say that sha256d is worth 100 times more work than any of the other algos, the fact that those blocks are evenly distributed at a 1:5 ratio within the total blockchain would completely mitigate that "superiority", would it not? It's still only one of five.

The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network

"The best chain (black) consists of the longest series of transaction records from the genesis block (green) to the current block or record. Orphaned records (purple) exist outside of the best chain."

suggests that what you are presenting is a major "revelation" that stands the crypto-world on its head and that therefore needs some very serious documentation supported by hard data.


Add: BTW, a google search for "magic work factors bitcoin" yields these results:

https://www.google.es/search?q=best+chain+bitcoin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=upifVdevF4HzUPT5j8AL#q=magic+work+factors+bitcoin

Is your terminology also new?

You still need an average of 51% over the 5 algos. From an easy to understand point of view, why is it technically incorrect to say that DGB is 5 times safer then?

I'm very interested is seeing how the 5 algos are not weighted correctly. On a smoothed average over time there is a 28.64 ratio to individual network hashrates and their corresponding diff (hashrate / 28.64 = diff). That ratio rises as network hashrate rises, and falls as the hashrate falls, of course, since it is an algorithm too, but averaged over time, it's a pretty good rule of thumb. That means that if one algo's hashrate and corresponding diff rises substantially, so do the diffs for the other 4 algos since they all are linked to the same ratio that will automatically adjust higher as one individual network hashrates rises (even if each of the rest of the algos' hashrates remain stable at the time of the notable rise in the other algo's hashrate). Of course, as stated above, the actual block discovery over time supports this as no one algo ever achieves notable differences in actual block discovery.

As sated in this article from Coin Brief http://coinbrief.net/what_is_myriadcoin/ it's not just a substantial majority of hashrate in one of the algos, but a substantial majority COMBINED with important hashrate control in the other 4 algos:

"As each algorithm controls only 20% of the network, a 51% attacker would need to control an average of 51% of each algorithm to successfully attack the network.  For example, if someone brought in enough ASICs to capture 80% of both SHA256 and Scrypt, which would be very difficult on it’s own, that would still only amount to 32% of the overall network.  The remaining 19% would need to be carved out of the Qubit, Skein, and Groestl algorithms, and there are no ASICs in development for any one of those."


Add: Perhaps there is some confusion about "weighting". The algos are indeed weighted differently so that mining is "fairer" for all. The idea was to create a level playing field for all participants. This however, does not adversely affect the individual diffs: as the diff for one algo rises, so do the rest.