Hmm.. I was thinking about how to convince POC and POC 2 to come up with an attack against the bitshaving.
And realized that POC actually can be bitshaved too. You only store every other hash in the hash chain.
I may have another idea in mind for POC 2 though. One that means you don't even have to plot your harddrive in the first place.
this bitshaving is more expensive than simply storing the data somewhere. if you shave one byte of 64 in each scoop of a nonce you have to check 256 options insstead of one during mining. even if you find a better deadline than the original scoop would yield the network wont accept this solution. so to do a 0,64% shaving you burn much more energy. compared to rig costs this means if you run a 164 hdd rig you save one disk  another way to take statistical advantages would be to only store a reduced number of scoops to optimize your deadlines for the ones you have them stored for. i have not looked into this in detail but the statistical idea is instead of mining with 100tb the whole day to mine on 3.6 blocks with a compareable storage of 1pb. the tricky parts becomes disk io and at current diff levels this does not make sense. but maybe in some years. I think this is true of POC2 which is basically POW. But as it stands.. It's currently better to only store partial plots for current algo. Say you store every other scoop, then if you are supposed to be pulling out of the bucket you have, you pull it from there. If you are planning to pull it out of a scoop that doesn't exist, then you pull it out of the previous one and hash it once to generate it. But what if you just used the users hard drive in the current state, and they submitteded the merkle root for the drive (which would take time to calculate too) then when mining you required that they submit a specific branch of that merkle tree as proof it was their turn to mine? |
|
|
|
|
Hmm.. I was thinking about how to convince POC and POC 2 to come up with an attack against the bitshaving.
And realized that POC actually can be bitshaved too. You only store every other hash in the hash chain.
I may have another idea in mind for POC 2 though. One that means you don't even have to plot your harddrive in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Well I sort of feel like we are waiting to hammer out the details of POC2 before we can really talk to venture capitalists. Maybe that isn't needed. But it probably would be a good idea to start approaching them.. maybe we can try to talk to the same ones that funded Hedgy and tell them we've already got smart contracts working  |
|
|
|
Only way i see to make passphrases harder to brute force is to use some sort of hash on the passphrase, one which takes a lot of cpu power to hash, and where a hash can only ever have one password which led to it. The signing and all that of tx.'s would be done with the hash, but the password to remember is pre hash. Dunno if i make sense but.. Passphrase = "1 happy Tiga" Hash of passphrase(only "1 happy Tiga" can lead to it) is = "asdas23ed2cYGU8gH&*BUJBOINB*(&" (not really, just an example) Now in order to reach that hash, it needs to be complex, and require a lot of cpu. When you login to ur wallet, yes, it might take 2 seconds to just get the hash from the passphrase, but that is worth the wait to make it hundreds of times harder to brute force. In this way even a 7 digit phrase could be secure(as long as it has got letters/numbers/symbols). tx.'s are signed with the hash. Sorry if this is silly and makes no sense, it makes sense to me (also, I dunno about 7 digits being secure, just making a point i guess) Yeah...my passphrase leak was all my fault....big thanks to craig, will defo do something to say thanks. Give him some of my burst  (it's weird, when he already had it all lol) That's an interesting way to make brute forcing hard to do.. though it also reduces the number of transactions the network can process and that kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Hey DEV is there a way to limit brute force wallet attacks while not inconveniencing legit wallet owner?
No  Problem is the public ledger, you can download the blockchain yourself and the formula for turning passwords into account numbers is known, so the attacker can brute force his own version of the database, then only use the 'good' passwords. So no, not without some pretty significant changes. What about adding a secondary passphrase? The primary one can't be changed, but it shouldn't be too difficult to add a secondary passphrase that can optionally be blank, and that can be changed. The primary can't be changed because it's tied to the account number, the secondary can just be a suitably secure hash thats not tied to the account ID. H. Actually POW doesn't really make it any harder to crack.. so forget my idea. The problem is that there already is a secure way to generate a password, use the built in password generator instead of inputting your own easy to crack password! Yeah second password would work well.. maybe if there was a way to enter one password from one device and the second from the other device. Also, if you lose one of those passwords(in other words haven't used it for 1 year or however long) then only one password is needed? |
|
|
|
Hey DEV is there a way to limit brute force wallet attacks while not inconveniencing legit wallet owner?
No Problem is the public ledger, you can download the blockchain yourself and the formula for turning passwords into account numbers is known, so the attacker can brute force his own version of the database, then only use the 'good' passwords. So no, not without some pretty significant changes. Edit: Actually.. you could require the creation of the password to be a POW.. basically somehow prove to the network that you did a POW without also telling the network what your password is. Something along the lines of requiring that all public keys(aka account numbers) are within a certain range(or under a certain target) in order to be valid. Meaning the only way to find a valid account number is to perform a POW that takes maybe 10 seconds on your average PC to find one. Would be a nice combination alongside the wallet.dat file. You'd have to allow access to funds in legacy accounts but this could be considered the way to generate a special 'secure' account. Or even be required after block number X. |
|
|
|
Lovely bitchfest in here as per usual. Keep up the drama guys... That aside Why does it always seem like when a new wallet version comes out, the block finding on the network always seems to get really wonky until everyone is on the same version. Since 1.2.3 it seems like my profits have went down significantly, the number of blocks I've found has also went down significantly (like 1/4 of what it was). It happened with the upgrade to 1.2.2 as well.
It seems to favor the older wallet as well.
yep. I've experienced same thing several times already. After the 92000 fork I mined a fuck ton of blocks (still am) I'm guessing while everyone else is updating their wallet that hasn't. There DEFINITELY is a correlation between wallet version and luck at finding blocks. It seems to favor older wallets. This week was a perfect example of that. Since the release of 1.2.3 I've been mining on a newer wallet, block find drops to nothing (about 25%), new wallet is enforced, everything is back to normal. I'm not sure what's causing this, but it's there and I'm sure other big miners can chime in on this (or keep exploiting it every time wallets update). And they are definitely both on the same fork? I could see the each version mining on it's own fork.. so you're not actually getting paid on the 'real' one? But there are still enough people mining on that same fork to make it look like it's still going? Pretty sure, otherwise when I end up on the right fork they'd disappear from my mined block history right? True.. sounds like you've checked. I wonder if what is going on is that the majority of the network hasn't updated yet and all accounts are favoring the blocks of their own version of over the blocks of a different version? Even old over new? But maybe still accepting new ones or something? |
|
|
|
How is the blockchain being updated? It's not, can't update a torrent But if a new one is uploaded every month or two, it works too. |
|
|
|
Lovely bitchfest in here as per usual. Keep up the drama guys... That aside Why does it always seem like when a new wallet version comes out, the block finding on the network always seems to get really wonky until everyone is on the same version. Since 1.2.3 it seems like my profits have went down significantly, the number of blocks I've found has also went down significantly (like 1/4 of what it was). It happened with the upgrade to 1.2.2 as well.
It seems to favor the older wallet as well.
yep. I've experienced same thing several times already. After the 92000 fork I mined a fuck ton of blocks (still am) I'm guessing while everyone else is updating their wallet that hasn't. There DEFINITELY is a correlation between wallet version and luck at finding blocks. It seems to favor older wallets. This week was a perfect example of that. Since the release of 1.2.3 I've been mining on a newer wallet, block find drops to nothing (about 25%), new wallet is enforced, everything is back to normal. I'm not sure what's causing this, but it's there and I'm sure other big miners can chime in on this (or keep exploiting it every time wallets update). And they are definitely both on the same fork? I could see the each version mining on it's own fork.. so you're not actually getting paid on the 'real' one? But there are still enough people mining on that same fork to make it look like it's still going? |
|
|
|
Haven't been posting here for a while now, but I've been mining and trading BURST. What I want to say is: LET'S PUMP! For the last month I kept selling at top buy, then buying like 10-20% below, and I turned 1 BTC into 1.5 BTC. I still have 1 BTC the buy book @120. And selling 500k more, and will make another buy order with the BTC If everybody did that, the price would be rising. Just holding the coin and waiting for the price to go up does not work, or at least doesn't have to do anything with you holding the coin. Everybody should sell like 10% of their coins at top sell, like say 133 at the moment, and then don't withdraw the btc but make a buy order 10% below the price you sold, which would be at the moment 120 If everybody did that, the price has to rise, because of the buy orders. I know some people advocate investing in PR, but that's no longer necessary, nor will it do the trick. The coin is already on Poloniex and Bittrex, so the PR did their job a long time ago. Now it's our job to pump it. Everybody, just sell a few of your coins and put the BTC on the buy book, and then the price will increase. That's how it works. I see there was a buy up to 134 today, so somebody is buying, now it's a good time. And what's up with burstbank? dead?  In my opinion.. short term, low prices are good, we need to attract more developers and entrepreneur types and let miners who are mining for short term profit go ahead and dump.. the more business and development minded people we get on board at these prices, the better long term. |
|
|
|
Would making a blockchain that has the difficultly target 1 week be too long for any reason?
Too long for what? For an interplanetary currency with miners as far away as Eris? Sure, one week sounds like a good target. Maybe even two. Call it ten Earth days. The speed-of-light delay would make anything shorter than that infeasible. However, we don't have an interplanetary economy, and nobody here on Earth is willing to wait weeks for confirmations, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. I'm thinking that maybe issues with miners getting off and online would cause problems?
No. Why would it? Is there someway to use smaller blocks but throw away all of them except for the ones that are one week apart?
No. Timestamps can be faked. Only the block hash can determine if a block is valid. This means that you will occasionally get blocks very close together, resulting in orphaned blocks from miners on distant planets. This is unavoidable and happens with Bitcoin, too (except for the part about distant planets, obviously). Trying to make something other than a currency that has a decentralized checkpoint once a week.. I was wondering about fake blocks because it'd be nice if there was not huge variance of a few weeks or even months to find a block sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone is talking about shorter blocks.. I'd like to make longer blocks. As long as I can make them while still being secure.
Would making a blockchain that has the difficulty target 1 week be too long for any reason?
I'm thinking that maybe issues with miners getting off and online would cause problems? Is there someway to use smaller blocks but throw away all of them except for the ones that are one week apart?
|
|
|
|
You're all idiots for wasting your time and money on this shitcoin that will never amount to anything.
Says the guy who decided to start his own Burst clone a couple months ago... and runs a computer store and admits that any time he gets a computer to repair he'll look through the users drive trying to find BTC passwords. haha.. hope he isn't invested in it! Wouldn't want this guy to get rich someday.. it seems that burst didn't be updated for more than 2.5month, and the dev seems disapear for a long time, i am wondering whether the dev is still developing this coin? i have asked the same question one month ago, it seems lots of people said the the new update will come soon, but i didn't see any updates from the top of the thread now?
also poc2 is developed and will be implementet parallel with poc. so you can mine with you gpu AND with your hdd. with poc2 you need no so much hdd space as with normal poc. that will bring the coin to much more people who has their gpu mining rigs allready at home. atm we all wait for the world first acct that will be done, if qora is ready this month. hmm...I'm not sure if GPU mining is such a good idea. It was always about low power usage when mining this coin. And now we should throw away one of the main advantages? PoC was a revolutionary approach with all those GPU/ASIC coins.. POC2 will not really allow GPU mining much more than POC Basically the idea is that if miners hack it, they can store only partial proofs on your hard drive and use their GPU to try to figure out in real time what those missing bits should be. However, realistically it doesn't make sense given that it is still much more cost and energy efficient to spend that money on an extra hard drive rather than a GPU. Anyway, people are getting impatient.. but trust me, big things are happening in the background. That being said.. please dump more coins! I'm trying to make an effort to attract more developers and people who might have some venture capital for us and I'm sure they'd prefer to buy in cheaper!! Not that I'm having much luck yet.. but you know. Plus I told myself I wasn't allowed to buy any more Burst.. but at these prices, I splurged.. really hoping I don't regret it in the long run, though I really just don't see any way that Burst doesn't beat BTC some day. And after some very through analysis of POC vs POS and POW.. POC has a lot more potential than most people realize. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10292524#msg10292524Using single sha256 for nonce as a reference, the ballpark for conventional hardware of this TMTO is 25/75 pow/poc (bruteforce 8 bits of each 32bit nonce during a readout - assuming a disk can read 10Mnonce/s a second (*4 byte = 40Mbyte/s), that translates to 2560M nonce/s for top of the line GPU. The shorter the nonces are, the easier the PoW part is. With dedicated hardware, 50/50 or more in favour of PoW. As for your energy argument - if you have 1PB cluster eating 1kW and with a tiny (compared to HDDs) investment for PoW "booster" you have effectively 2PB cluster eating 2kW ... guess what most miners will opt for. Big appeal of current PoC is that most of capital investment is the equipment, not energy. POC2 as it is will drastically shift it towards conventional PoW. On the upside - this can effectively get rid of NaS. Fixing POW2 involves making the nonces large enough (at least 64 bit) so PoW becomes impractical for all intents and purposes. What do you think about this fix for NaS? Basically every block instead of getting a block reward you get votes, so simple example, I get one vote per block I mine. I can later use those votes to vote for a block on the correct chain say 1000 blocks later. This vote can be redeemed between blocks 1010 and 1210. You get 1/3 of your block reward immediately, 1/3 if you include at least one other vote into your block, and 1/3 when your vote it used. Note this method does have an issue and I'd prefer to say have it so that you get 10 votes, each only redeemable during different periods but that's the basic idea. The only thing is, I can't tell whether or not that opens the door to a Byzantine General's issue, meaning we have a 33% attack on the system.. don't understand the Byzantine General's thing well enough. Just started looking into that today. I don't see why that would be an issue but if anyone understands Byzantine General's, please explain how you could attack that. I'm thinking it is not an issue because the Byzantine General's attack is only an issue if someone carrying the message can change it, which due to the signature from someone who can be trusted due to their high POC, this can be trusted? Regarding POC2 vs POC: The motivation for POC2 was to make it faster to verify blocks, this should both improve the speed of blockchain parsing as well as limit the likelihood of a DDOS attack where someone can throw out random numbers claiming they are valid POCs and require all the miners to work through all 4096 hashes to get there. Here are my thoughts on how you could combine POC and POC2: https://burstforum.com/index.php?threads/poc2-and-asic-resistance.796/idk.. maybe it's not worth it. Question is, how long does it take to verify a hash and does making it 500 to 1000 times faster to verify a block significantly decrease DDOS attack risk? What about how long would it take to verify a couple years worth of block headers? Burstdev did come up with an interesting way to essentially checkpoint our chain so that customers could only download one blockheader per week.. maybe that fixes the problem and this is no longer needed So, to me the most important number is, how long does it take to do 4096 Shabal256's vs 1 Shabal256. Anyone have a precise number? |
|
|
|
it seems that burst didn't be updated for more than 2.5month, and the dev seems disapear for a long time, i am wondering whether the dev is still developing this coin? i have asked the same question one month ago, it seems lots of people said the the new update will come soon, but i didn't see any updates from the top of the thread now?
also poc2 is developed and will be implementet parallel with poc. so you can mine with you gpu AND with your hdd. with poc2 you need no so much hdd space as with normal poc. that will bring the coin to much more people who has their gpu mining rigs allready at home. atm we all wait for the world first acct that will be done, if qora is ready this month. hmm...I'm not sure if GPU mining is such a good idea. It was always about low power usage when mining this coin. And now we should throw away one of the main advantages? PoC was a revolutionary approach with all those GPU/ASIC coins.. POC2 will not really allow GPU mining much more than POC Basically the idea is that if miners hack it, they can store only partial proofs on your hard drive and use their GPU to try to figure out in real time what those missing bits should be. However, realistically it doesn't make sense given that it is still much more cost and energy efficient to spend that money on an extra hard drive rather than a GPU. Anyway, people are getting impatient.. but trust me, big things are happening in the background. That being said.. please dump more coins! I'm trying to make an effort to attract more developers and people who might have some venture capital for us and I'm sure they'd prefer to buy in cheaper!! Not that I'm having much luck yet.. but you know. Plus I told myself I wasn't allowed to buy any more Burst.. but at these prices, I splurged.. really hoping I don't regret it in the long run, though I really just don't see any way that Burst doesn't beat BTC some day. And after some very through analysis of POC vs POS and POW.. POC has a lot more potential than most people realize. |
|
|
|
Do you mean AT and ACCT with big plans? if it is yes you can contact with qora team. I believe they could help you coz they are testing AT and ACCT on qora wallet and they ll implement AT in the wallet soon.
You can find a developer between them.
Yeah, they are helping us out, that's true. We could just definitely use more developers and I'd like to get them invested now rather than later. |
|
|
|
|
Hello,
We've got some big plans for Burst. I've figured out all the algorithms and know what we need to do for blockchain trimming and instant transactions, and even have figured out a way to create a coin that has a stable value that also increases the value of Burst as you buy more of it. We've already got hard drive mining going for us, which is a far larger advantage than most people realize (happy to further discuss this with anyone)
The problem is that the burstcoin developer and I can't do it all on our own as fast as we'd like. So the question is, how can we find more developers who will help us out? Anyone have ideas?
I'd be happy help a developer get started as much as possible. I could even pay a little bit out of my own pocket and we've got others who could chip in a little bit. Ideally we'd like to find developers before marketing the coin much more in order to get a few developers invested before the coin takes off.
Thanks,
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
Who around here knows any Java developers? I'm ready to share that paper with people who we could lure over to Burst.
|
|
|
|
Burst is still profitable.. it'll take a little bit but it's profitable. Especially if you hold on to it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
