Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient? That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation. Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation: sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1 scrypt: 23.7 * 4096 groestl: 152 * 512 skein: 1070 * 24 qubit: 47.6 * 1024 This adds up to 1.38e6. Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution. Asics are to blame. When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution. But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up. It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances. I'm not going to throw stones at marketing. As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong. Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims. +1 MentalCollatz would be the proper authority to answer this. And yes, at the time of our first hard fork to multi algo we did not know this formula was incorrect. We are always working to improve things. We have worked in his changes to the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork that will make things much better. Also @Mental, we would love to chat some time and run some ideas by you we have for modifying OP_RETURN. Thanks for stopping by and answering this! Okay, Digibyte, my question is for you too so we can all understand this: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent? When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal. Correct, or not?This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain. Correct, or not?That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved. Correct, or not?And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations. Correct, or not?BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that. Would you really consider a pull request based on half a day's analysis?(And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?) Now, inquiring minds want to know just where the "error" is and how it really affects DGB.  |
|
|
|
Seriously? People are questioning Jared? Man, I don't even know if there are more honest people in crypto than him.
And what 's the point of buying up a coin with the investment? I don't think that's the purpose of an investment....
I think questioning is good in this community and it should be encouraged... devs should respond to such questions as it gives as active appearance and faith for the community and builds a strong base and price. To not agree with this means that you pretty much blindly follow and you end up with another paycoin / Joshua Garza which crypto doesn't need. Jared should be addressing these concerns in the forum topic as part of his daily schedule. There is only this topic and the digibyte forum. For him to reply and reassure people would only take 30 mins of his day for this topic. I encourage Jared to do this. Digibyte growth is dependant on its customer base which means the devs should take the time to address these investors queries. Its not about attacking Jared its merely about opening the channel so the public can address and converse with him direct. Its a little lacking at present (sorry but i'm just being honest). Communication channels that happen between specific members of the public and the dev lead to a closed system where people suspect things aren't always right. Be out and open and reply to all queries from all people direct. Just my 2 digibytes. Very nicely put o0o0. I would add that every question is an opportunity for DigiByte to shine. Every question is an opportunity to post something of value, and that, my friends IS real value! Smart PR uses their media outlets wisely and to their advantage. BitCoinTalk is DGB's number one means of exposure, there is nothing else even close. In fact, when giving his "acceptance speech" someday, I hope Jared remembers to first tell everyone just how much he owes to BitCoinTalk (in the place where others thank their parents).  Every question = the opportunity to respond positively and thereby further promote DGB. If it's too time consuming for just one person, then it's time to begin delegating more: break things down into categories, assign the different categories to distinct people responsible for them, and every time there's a question then the person responsible for that category gets on the board ASAP with a response. Wow, that even looks professional and corporate! Speaking of the devil: In the mean time if anyone would like to prepare videos, images, memes or anything else people might find interesting or have ideas for this please let us know.
How about a PDF format Investor's Pack Brochure? You know, something that someone could put alongside brochures for gold, Bitcoin, and the Swiss Franc, for example. Something that all those people who invest in inflation hedges could use to compare DGB with the other alternatives. @ycagel, great to see you back! |
|
|
|
Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient? That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation. Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation: sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1 scrypt: 23.7 * 4096 groestl: 152 * 512 skein: 1070 * 24 qubit: 47.6 * 1024 This adds up to 1.38e6. Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution. Asics are to blame. When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution. But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up. It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances. I'm not going to throw stones at marketing. As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong. Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims. Okay, I'm no advanced expert, and with that disclosure out of the way, my question is: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent? When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal. This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain. That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved. And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations. BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that. (And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly.) |
|
|
|
. . . (i would nominate halinyo, HR, tamilee, o0o0 and Verias) . . .
You might know us better than we know ourselves, and human nature too, and I'd have to say that that looks like a pretty good list if only seen from the point of view that it would be impossible to get us to agree on anything that wasn't completely undeniable to begin with!  On a more serious note, I say they're all good questions, many of which have been gone over at length (they don't become mute just for having been dealt with before . . . it is a lot of reading . . .) and which I see EPLDCC has addressed as well. I think the transparency issue (not limited to DGB by any means) is one that we'll be clamoring about for a lot of years to come (everywhere in Altcoinland) and there will always be limits as to how much can be disclosed and when, and, in the end, sometimes we need to trust in this supposedly trustless environment. P.S. Where is our Community Liaison BTW?  Also: Great to see the open discussion continues to be lively. I for one am reading everything, enjoying myself as I do, and I like the ideas and the things I'm picking up. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Simply unbelievable...
Like I told everyone here months ago: Run, don't walk, from this thing...
But since you just choose not to, have what you so fully deserve. In spades.
If you can only spread unfounded negativity, then you won't be missed. Goodbye and farewell. Good for a laugh anyway. |
|
|
|
We got to build a bridge from the isolated cryptocurrency world to the real economy.
+ 1000 |
|
|
|
What actually is going on behind the scenes to make Digibyte more than just another trading shitcoin?  I mean, I initially invested in Digibyte because I thought they were going to change the world of micro-payments? I know it's too early to expect results yet, but shouldn't Digibyte already be heading in that direction before some other coin does? Or is Digibyte going to wait till somebody comes up with an altcoin payment system and then use that system? I much rather see Digibyte develop their own payment platform and as soon as possible... I share your sentiments 100%. It's the catch 22 I referred to earlier, this time seen from a different angle: if you don't have the widely distributed user base, you'll be unable to set up a successful micro-payment system (because there will be no-one to use it), and if you don't have a successful micro-payment system, you'll be unable to create the widely distributed user base (because there is nothing to use). Hence the unbelievably important need to sell the investment potential. It's all we've got, and it's the make or break item. It gives us the widely distributed user base, key building block, from which the micro-payment system and everything else will be built, and without it, I do believe you can kiss DGB goodbye. |
|
|
|
You know, we keep hearing that we need more services and products, and what we hear most about is the “marketing” campaign that we’re going to see once more products and services are in place. In other words, there’s nothing we can do until then.So WTF are you all doing here? If we can’t get a marketing campaign going until there is more in place to market, WTF are you doing holding DGB?YOU? That’s rhetorical, of course, because I have the answer: You’re here because you’ve INVESTED in something you believe has appreciation potential.THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INVESTMENT AND USE!Marketing campaigns are for end users once there’s something to be used, and everybody’s right about saying that we have nothing to market to end users yet. HOWEVER, EVERYONE IS WRONG IN THINKING THAT WE ARE THE ONLY “INVESTORS” ON THE PLANET.There are thousands like us, who are willing to INVEST IF THEY KNEW ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY!Or how do you intend to explain to everyone just how special and unique you are in being a member of a very select club of DGB illuminati? That is absurd. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of ordinary folk who are just as smart as us and just as willing to get involved in DGB IF THEY KNEW ABOUT DGB!THERE IS NO MARKETING CAMPAIGN and there won’t be one for a long time until there is something for end users to actually use. In the meantime there is AN INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY that needs to be disseminated.The functionality of the base product is working phenomenally well. The development continues its steady pace full steam ahead. Leave those things alone, and give your minds a break. IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT! WORK WITH WHAT YOU’VE GOT!
AND YOU’VE GOT A GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH OTHERS.(Of course the short term traders are not going to want to have anything to do with something so positive for both the short and long terms, or anything for that matter that will change the P&D dynamics of cryptos - certainly you haven't missed the P&D looks of the long term DGB chart - nor will those hoping to get back in on the cheap.) |
|
|
|
|
Look, simple supply math doesn't work. Yes it's easy to do, but it is a very inadequate measure of relative worth.
Look at DOGE with over 100 billion coins ALREADY in circulation, and its price is 75 SAT.
Doing a very simplistic comparison with eventual float, one would have to say that, in simple "supply terms", DGB should be worth almost 5 times that, and if compared with current outstanding coins, it would be over 20 times more valuable.
Again, simple supply analysis is very primitive, and if we were to limit ourselves to an only supply analysis of price, and if we were to use DOGE as our basis, DGB should be currently priced at least at 375 SAT!
Go figure.
Perception is much more important than supply.
Just to name one other factor.
DOGE is much more well known . . .
We need an Investor's Pack to send out to everyone any of us think might benefit from getting to know DigiByte.
|
|
|
|
The question at hand is: how do we get more people buying?
with services and products where the people pay for these, if these are not available , the supply must be reduced. productcreation and services needs a lot of time. or you create a sense to keep the coins. a other way, increase massiv the fees as a shrink, but only 85k transaction, this would be not a big shrink-option. This is a catch 22 situation. If you shrink the supply today, then you won't have the coins necessary in order to provide the eventual services and products that DigiByte has planned for tomorrow. However, if you don't shrink the supply today, then the price will continue to suffer short term. First, I think the long term priorities have to win out over the short term. Secondly, that leaves us in the same boat as before: not enough buyers yet (and the eventual services and products aren't going to be attracting new buyers anytime soon). Therefore, we've got to deal with what we've got. There's no getting around that. Imagining what things might be like if something else presently existed already doesn't get us anywhere. We need to be reasonable and accept reality as it is, and reality for DigiByte at this point in time is a very good foundation with very good prospects, and that is our only selling point ATM. Nevertheless, that isn't that bad - in fact, it is a very good selling point considering the novelty of cryptocurrencies. In fact, this is an extremely good selling point - a very good foundation with very good prospects - but it is something that only investors are interested in and will only work with them, and we need to leverage that to the hilt! |
|
|
|
how many unique people are in the dgb-network? 100 or 1000 thats to low for this massiv supply. the network has only 14 nodes? my wallet connected after 4 days only to 30 Peers, this is to low! in other networks I have 80 Peers and more.
That's where the target marketing of gamers comes in. I think this part of things is more than covered at the moment and that we're going in the right direction here. The question at hand is: how do we get more people buying? And since the one and only real selling point right now is investment, the people we need to target on that point are investors. |
|
|
|
I say leave it. this happens every time the price drops, drives me insane, I usually avoid the forums during these times. Currently you are rewarding early adopters and making a solid entry into the Digibyte market easily affordable. We have changed the reward once, is it really going to achieve anything long term by cutting it again?? Looking forward to the news For miners it's a paradise but in 5 years it will be investors paradise as much less coins produced. I mine with almost free electricity so I just keep all coins I make, so please keep rewards the same for early adopters who take the risk. In 5 years' time it will be investors profit takers' paradise. It is investors paradise TODAY!!! We need to get the word out by creating an investor's pack and posting it online
so that people can send it out to potential investors TODAY! I'm tired of the naysayers. This is an absolute must if you really want to create buy support. Miners only mine, or, said slightly differently, they PRODUCE. Once a product is produced, it needs to be sold. We have a fantastic product that is continually being improved upon and that needs to be sold. I've always said that tipping campaigns only go so far. I was a big proponent long ago, last year, of targeting gamers, and that's being done. That is a huge niche we are going after. Unfortunately, it's oriented towards mining and not purchasing, and that means that we are a little behind the curve as this would have been great 9 months ago, but now it's only going to add more short term sell pressure. Don't get me wrong, I do think it's still a good idea - the more widely distributed the miner base, the more secure the network, and we do need that of course - but, as with all endeavors, it's limited. I was also an early proponent of the algo change as everyone here who's been around for a while can attest. I've usually been on the right side of "DigiByte History" and I can't be more direct than I'm being right now when I say that we need to focus our efforts on, and give our highest priority to, marketing DGB to investors of all types with a special emphasis given to high profile speculative investors, and that starts with an investor's information pack focusing on product > future plans and prospects > appreciation potential of DGB > long term INVESTMENT RETURN, and it needs to be PLACED IN CONTEXT as well (for ideas on that, please see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1100598.msg11734428#msg11734428 - also quoted below for your convenience).
Yeah, it’s not direct investment in cryptos per se, but it is an investment in the underlying technology nonetheless, and the fact that they’re interested in the technology itself can only be a good sign since the vast majority will not be so keen on reinventing the wheel and most likely will directly invest in the best of existing cryptocurrencies.
It’s not a question of if, rather it is a question of when (and I believe it has already begun, albeit in trickle mode still).
In my opinion, there is huge investment potential in cryptocurrencies. To get an idea of what I’m talking about, take the over 10 trillion USD aggregate M2 money supply for the U.S. alone and use that as your comparative calculative base, and then, being conservative, give the top 50 cryptocurrencies an aggregate value of just half that: 5 trillion USD.
If we assign equal parts of that 5 trillion USD of equivalent value to each of the top 50 cryptocurrencies, each would have the equivalent market cap of 100 billion USD. That means that each BTC would be worth $4,761.91, each LTC $1,190.48, each WDC $376.77, each DGB $4.77, and each DOGE would be worth around 1 buck (with the removal of its original cap of 100,000,000,000, similar to the fiats, it should initially lose around 5% of that value yearly in the coming years due to its now inherent inflationary component).
Does this sound far fetched? Why should it? Why shouldn’t cryptocurrencies have a similar value to their fiat cousins? After all, wasn’t that the original intent behind cryptos to begin with?
What’s more, the combined USD equivalent money supply of the developed world easily exceeds 50 trillion USD, 5 times the U.S. and 10 times this imaginary cryptocurrency aggregate figure. Is it really that far fetched to imagine that the best cryptocurrencies could one day have an aggregate value equal to a very modest 1/10 that of the developed world's aggregate fiat money supply?
Considering that the appreciation potential is greater than 1000%, is there any wonder that big money is looking vivaciously at cryptos?
We've got to roll up our sleeves and do the necessary "work" to get the word out in a polished and professional manner.
Yes, it's absolutely got to look corporate and be up to the same standards as the promo video, no doubt about it! |
|
|
|
-- and most particularly this one: HOW THE HECK IS DIGIBYTE'S PRICE STILL SO UNDERVALUED?
OVERSUPPLY...thats all. I´m almost sure its somebody pressing the price down hardcore,The sell orderbook is stacking right after a market buy. Couple of weeks ago i market bought for 5+ BTC and 1 hour later everything went back down, That is not natural,Thats not oversupply Some of the recent downward pressure seems to correlate to the recent release of Cryptsy's hosted mining service Mintsy? I'm not saying that is the cause ... just pointing out a possible correlation. Very good catch. That probably has more to do with the recent decline than anything else . . . other than buyers are also stepping back at the same time.  @DigiByte My initial knee jerk vote would be to keep a steady course for now, to keep working on what's being worked on, and
to get that investor's pack created and posted online
so that people can start sending it out to potential investors! |
|
|
|
Hey,
I tried to send noblecoins from my wallet (old wallet but synced) to Poloniex last night, been about 9h but no verifications/confirmations. 0/5. Whats wrong ? What should I do ?
Generalized questions about specific issues are impossible to answer. You need to provide detailed information about your specific issue. Open your Noblecoin wallet and select the "Transactions" tab. Right click on the transaction you want to investigate, and click "Show transaction details" in the contextual menu. Select and copy the contents of the of the Transaction detail window. Paste your copied transaction details here. |
|
|
|
|
Is it necessary to have to split minted coins into two blocks?
It seems logical to think a same sized output would be equally viable and easy to code . . .
What are the main pros and cons of each?
|
|
|
|
There has been a lot of old coins pumping for no reason, all the activity seems to be from China. My theory is that profit takers from the overblown Chinese stock markets are using their money to buy or pump altcoin. Volume is still low however, so it can't be many people.
Next week will be interesting, as we should see what will happen in Greece.
Chart from ZeroHedge showing how things are affecting BTC: The rest of the story, complete with various charts showing a pretty nasty picture in fiat land, is here: The important takeaway is how well BTC is responding in the face of these fiat problems, and just like it was designed to do. Add: you're probably right about China too. |
|
|
|
this POS wallet is totally a crap..i sent all my coins to a new address(myself) at 01/June due to minting issue but it seems doesn`t work at all..after more than 25 days and now when i try to mint..it says" Not minting because you don`t have mature coins" ? what the frak!
was the wallet open these 25 days ? look at the graphs above. with enough amount of coins you can easily reach a lowest staking level in 25 days, in reality it stops staking at all, right as you said - no mature coins. wallet was opened several times among these 25 days and everytime it shows the same informations about no mature coins,and today when i opend and unlocked my wallet and see the same issue still around and it piss me off...as far as i know ..all our coins are supposed recorded in blockchain and by that mean after i removed it for 25 days,my coinage are supposed 25 days old and since minimum coinage that can be mint is 2 hours,that is really ridiculous after 25 days it still "unmature",if this coin need to open wallet 7/24 just for minting..then yes..this coin or wallet is really sucks! Are you sure wallet was unlocked? Usually "unmature" means it is still locked so minting cannot happen. If it was unlocked could you try the following: 1. generate new receiving address in your wallet (or get address from an exchange) 2. send there money (in case you sent money to an exchange you need to send it back to your wallet) 3. after 2 hours you should see wallet is minting If you have more than 2 000 000 coins send them in several batches between 500 000 and 2 000 000 in size. This will increase competitiveness of your wallet. that is very different between the information of "not minting besause wallet is locked" and "not minting because you don`t have mature coins"..i'm not a newbie in POS coin and in fact i'm a fan of POS coin,i'm pretty sure this wallet is something wrong with it for i have been tested on it for far more than 2 hours and today when i checked it again couple minutes ago..you guess what-------->"Not minting because you don`t have mature coins" . Well, it was advertised from the very beginning when we considered going PoS II route that PoS II has several unique features. One of them is providing incentive for big holders to split their transactions into smaller chunks. I do believe this makes sense since if someone holds 50% of coins in one transaction this would seriously lower whole network security. So providing such incentive for big holders works for everyone benefit. I do not know how many coins you hold so just speculating - if you hold 10 millions (in one transaction) or more and start your wallet every 1-2 months it is quite possible you will not be able to mint. Solution to this would be to split your holdings into several chunks between 0,5 - 2 million in size each. 5.6 millions if you would like to know that the volume i'm talking about...the fuuny thing is..i did have an unacceptable for about 618 minting coins next day after removed(to new address myself),but the weird part is how come there was an unaccptable POS if i do not have mature coins? ,and i already told that(in previous post) my wallet has been unlocked several times to test for minting among these 26 days,so,can you explain to me why i still getting the information of "Not minting because you don`t have mature coins" ? Screenshots ranging from Coin Control list view to error messages would be a big help. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it’s not direct investment in cryptos per se, but it is an investment in the underlying technology nonetheless, and the fact that they’re interested in the technology itself can only be a good sign since the vast majority will not be so keen on reinventing the wheel and most likely will directly invest in the best of existing cryptocurrencies.
It’s not a question of if, rather it is a question of when (and I believe it has already begun, albeit in trickle mode still).
In my opinion, there is huge investment potential in cryptocurrencies. To get an idea of what I’m talking about, take the over 10 trillion USD aggregate M2 money supply for the U.S. alone and use that as your comparative calculative base, and then, being conservative, give the top 50 cryptocurrencies an aggregate value of just half that: 5 trillion USD.
If we assign equal parts of that 5 trillion USD of equivalent value to each of the top 50 cryptocurrencies, each would have the equivalent market cap of 100 billion USD. That means that each BTC would be worth $4,761.91, each LTC $1,190.48, each WDC $376.77, each DGB $4.77, and each DOGE would be worth around 1 buck (with the removal of its original cap of 100,000,000,000, similar to the fiats, it should initially lose around 5% of that value yearly in the coming years due to its now inherent inflationary component).
Does this sound far fetched? Why should it? Why shouldn’t cryptocurrencies have a similar value to their fiat cousins? After all, wasn’t that the original intent behind cryptos to begin with?
What’s more, the combined USD equivalent money supply of the developed world easily exceeds 50 trillion USD, 5 times the U.S. and 10 times this imaginary cryptocurrency aggregate figure. Is it really that far fetched to imagine that the best cryptocurrencies could one day have an aggregate value equal to a very modest 1/10 that of the developed world's aggregate fiat money supply?
Considering that the appreciation potential is greater than 1000%, is there any wonder that big money is looking vivaciously at cryptos?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
