quick question with BTC prices so low does that mean i get more zeit for my buck?
more bitcoins, more ZEIT |
|
|
|
btw, my concerns have not been answered
if you are satisfied by the answers provided you do not understand the semantics of those answers and merely accept them because they sound ok to you.
Well, that's because we here are not interested in answering a trolls questions...go find the answers somewhere else if you're so adamant about finding them... i was not asking the question again, only pointing out facts to correct assumptions my concerns are valid, i am not a troll my worst concern is the lack of code literacy and understanding |
|
|
|
|
btw, my concerns have not been answered
if you are satisfied by the answers provided you do not understand the semantics of those answers and merely accept them because they sound ok to you.
im not gona bother any further, 51% attacks are of no interest to me, the public fear is, but seems the public is uninformed and slow so im not too worried anymore.
i have setup a test and will be observing ZEIT closely after it drops to 1 ZEIT/block.
|
|
|
|
How many days until pure PoS? Is there a countdown counter?
PoW isnt suppose to end, but i suspect it will be impossible to mine PoW blocks A counter would not be very usefull since the block rate is far from being exactly 1 every 30 seconds In 32 hours week 5 will end, based on the block count. expect it to end in 20-32hours due to higher block rate week 5 took 3days and 17hours assuming week 6 takes the same amount of time we will be at 1ZEIT/block on april 3rd |
|
|
|
if i were right, PoW would be useless in the event of an attack, because the high rate of PoS blocks would cause difficulty to jump into unminable levels
 As you can see here, the PoW blocks have a different and independent difficulty algorithm than PoS blocks. If you start getting a lot of PoS blocks in a row, the chance of PoW block generation increases in order to achieve the PoW target; so after each PoS block is generated the likely-hood of generating a PoW block as the next block goes up, and after every PoW block, the chance of generating a PoS block goes up. They are both integrated with block targets and difficulties that are independent of one another; so one cannot perpetually overpower the other. This is why PoS/PoW hybrid is more secure vs just PoS only. And, it is also worth noting that over time, the Mintcoin networks actually will get more secure with age, whereas a PoW only coin has the potential to get less secure due to centralized mining processes. Mintcoin is protected from PoW overpowering, as well as PoS overpowering. You cannot know for certain the future of the Mintcion blockchain (at least very far). With Pure PoS, you know the future will always be a PoS block next, and with PoW you know that the future will always be PoW blocks next, but you cannot know the future with hybrid PoW/PoS like Mintcoin. Makes a lot of sense! Way to boss that explanation coolbeans. looking at the code, there doesn't seem to be any difference for PoS when it comes to target calculation and difficulty calculation they are not independent look at the times in the image you posted, you will see why the difficulty is at 22 on that block and the others are much lower |
|
|
|
It seemed to make sense from my limited understanding and lack of awareness in the specific algorithms for proof of stake
currently looking at the source code, its likely i was wrong
if only it wasn't such a disorganized mess i could of avoided this embarrassment
having a mini freak out are we? haha I understand what you getting at, but im sure this was thought of by who ever created the original concept of pos as this is a clone! fortunately there are other coins ahead of us so we can see what happens and get out before the shit hits but I highly doubt it. Please post your findings here if you dont mind i would need someone more versed with the code to explain how it all fits together, my limited grasp is not good enough and my C++ skills needs some refreshing it may not be possible to do enough consecutive blocks without too many interrupting valid blocks to do 51% attack altho from what i understand i cannot guarantee it cant happen it seems possible to cause constant high difficulty and make PoW block mining impossible im currently on the fence until someone can explain how the PoS block limitations work, the whole you need >51% supply for an attack seems to be a myth based on the code i have read Im also not sure about this 51% business, iv read that it needs to be in the 80's for it to even be possible! I'd hope who ever came up with the concept of POS was an intelligent individual and therefore would have thought about what we are discussing. 51% allows you to maintain the longest chain and therefore set what transactions get included, you can do Denial of Service by not allowing any transaction in the blocks or double spending by making it accept in one block but then continue on an other chain with another transaction and make that one longer, making the tone the merchant thought valid, invalid. but the possibility of this can cause panic and loss of faith in coin. someone or some group may have an interest in DOSing a coin the more i think about it the more doubt i have about how much consideration was done for making sure PoS is infallible. Humans cannot consider everything and with code only a few understand it would be hard to catch all the possible inconsideration's in time. some blocks i got a few seconds apart not using TX timestamp, using the block timestamp TX amount 11764.905757
TX date 2014-03-02 03:18:43
PoS date 2014-03-22 05:50:39
TX amount 36431.654419
TX date 2014-03-02 04:31:20
PoS date 2014-03-22 05:50:41
TX amount 35010.984549
TX date 2014-03-02 14:42:45
PoS date 2014-03-22 20:21:39
TX amount 33558.460203
TX date 2014-03-02 16:36:21
PoS date 2014-03-22 20:21:53
|
|
|
|
It seemed to make sense from my limited understanding and lack of awareness in the specific algorithms for proof of stake
currently looking at the source code, its likely i was wrong
if only it wasn't such a disorganized mess i could of avoided this embarrassment
having a mini freak out are we? haha I understand what you getting at, but im sure this was thought of by who ever created the original concept of pos as this is a clone! fortunately there are other coins ahead of us so we can see what happens and get out before the shit hits but I highly doubt it. Please post your findings here if you dont mind i would need someone more versed with the code to explain how it all fits together, my limited grasp is not good enough and my C++ skills needs some refreshing it may not be possible to do enough consecutive blocks without too many interrupting valid blocks to do 51% attack altho from what i understand i cannot guarantee it cant happen it seems possible to cause constant high difficulty and make PoW block mining impossible im currently on the fence until someone can explain how the PoS block limitations work, the whole you need >51% supply for an attack seems to be a myth based on the code i have read |
|
|
|
Please if anybody can answer this guys questions, it would be great for ALL PoS coins. Idk why this was only shared with mint forum... im still on the fence can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
return false;
im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply I am not sure I totally understand the question but the network will reject blocks with a time stamp more than 2 hours off hence POS blocks generated with future time won't help you now. If you save the found blocks and broadcast the result when time is due, remember that any unspent tx finds a POS block, this tx will not be allowed to find a POS block in 30 days, and the POS reward will be proportional to the coin age of the tx. That means you can't use this method to get more than your reward than the stake you have. All you get is better compounding of POS reward ("interest of interest"). im talking about TX's generated something like a second apart, a huge consecutive set of TX's 20 days from that point, will i see a huge set of consecutive PoS blocks? the wallet software may have delays and take many tx inside a time window, but this cannot be relied upon since someone could make a wallet without such limitations or do the attack with multiple wallets |
|
|
|
Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?
I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.
Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...
The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed. right? If anything else, the overall inflation would be less because it would transition to the lower inflation rate sooner? according to int64 nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365;
the 20% does not account for compounded rewards Okay so how does that change: "The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed." And please, why are you still only scrutinizing and posting on mintcoin when every PoS coin is affected by everything you are saying here. same as what? it wont be the expected 20% you are looking at a maximum of 22% but it wont be that because not all coins are minting with perfect 20 day cycles, some are not staking and some are being spent resetting the age btw, i only answered out of my own will, im not scrutinizing mintcoin, i happen to be here with the source code open |
|
|
|
Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?
I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.
Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...
The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed. right? If anything else, the overall inflation would be less because it would transition to the lower inflation rate sooner? according to int64 nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365;
the 20% does not account for compounded rewards |
|
|
|
im still on the fence can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
return false;
im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply |
|
|
|
Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?
im not interested in mint value so coincidence |
|
|
|
The formula is coin age + number of coins. We've seen orphans from people who's coins weren't sufficiently aged, or they didn't have enough of them. These have to be re-staked.
Just based off of that alone, his proposal is impossible. The micro transactions would just be orphaned. Anyway, we've allowed him to take over the thread with a half baked theory, which has now been debunked. Moving on.
from my observations, its exactly 20 days, no matter how much coins you have orphans are immediately re-staked, usually caused by another block being accepted before yours propagated spending coins will affect previous coins, which usually explains those who get delays |
|
|
|
looking at the source to double check
Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how. less damage asking on smaller coin forum there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right? Less damage? If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins. You would not be spreading uncertainty on a new coin which is most vulnerable to such fud. I'm just trying to figure out what the reasoning is for posing here.. it makes no sense if you are trying to prevent damage... also, based on what is discussed here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=401.0"There are a lot more PoS blocks than Pow. Once you mint a block with your coins they are locked in stake for 520 blocks, and the PoS mints with a transactions size ie if you get 1000PPC and the transaction is old enough it will mint and your PPCs will be locked in stake. There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..." Pure PoS coins sound way more vulnerable, so why not inform them first or at all? if i were right, PoW would be useless in the event of an attack, because the high rate of PoS blocks would cause difficulty to jump into unminable levels Okay, Still haven't responded the first point of my posts: "If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins." Also, How does this not apply to what you are saying: "There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..." How can you generate PoS blocks at a reliably and sufficiently high rate if there will be PoW blocks interrupting you and other people's PoS blocks interrupting you? Woudn't those PoW blocks and PoS blocks reject your blocks, and you would lose your stake? i was hoping someone better versed could tell me otherwise, i did not really plan where i was posting, mint was closest to mind for PoS coin you dont lose your stake if a block is rejected, difficulty is calculated using PoS blocks also, so the difficulty can quite easily be pushed up (depending what the re-target time span is but for mint it is every block) im trying to find how it is that you cannot generate PoS blocks in a row, if that limitation is built into the wallet, then it can be curcumvented |
|
|
|
looking at the source to double check
Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how. less damage asking on smaller coin forum there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right? Less damage? If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins. You would not be spreading uncertainty on a new coin which is most vulnerable to such fud. I'm just trying to figure out what the reasoning is for posing here.. it makes no sense if you are trying to prevent damage... also, based on what is discussed here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=401.0"There are a lot more PoS blocks than Pow. Once you mint a block with your coins they are locked in stake for 520 blocks, and the PoS mints with a transactions size ie if you get 1000PPC and the transaction is old enough it will mint and your PPCs will be locked in stake. There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..." Pure PoS coins sound way more vulnerable, so why not inform them first or at all? if i were right, PoW would be useless in the event of an attack, because the high rate of PoS blocks would cause difficulty to jump into unminable levels |
|
|
|
looking at the source to double check
Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how. less damage asking on smaller coin forum there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right? It is coins * coin age. So the more coins you have and the longer you wait before activating minting, will affect how fast once you start minting it will succesfully get block generation. There are algorithms and randomness controls built into it so that the chance of one person being able to get even 10 consecutive blocks is remote, let alone 60. Overall, PoS/PoW is more secure against a perpetual 51% style attack. Just wait for your confirmations, that is what they are there for. Wait for 200 confirmations if you are worried about security. for PoS generation it is only coin age, if it was what you say, you would generate PoS from 1million MINT in 34seconds im looking at the source atm, i may be wrong |
|
|
|
looking at the source to double check
Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how. less damage asking on smaller coin forum there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right? |
|
|
|
He don't know. HE KNOW FUD
If you have more coins you get the blocks sooner, so to do 60 mints in a row is near impossible. Ya, it doesn't have anything to do with the transactions. The more coins you have, the larger your stake. You would need 51% of coins to take over the blockchain. At which point the coin would become worthless because other people cannot use the coin. Therefore a person would have to be stupid (and rich) to do it. I really don't know what this guy is talking about. People can google the literature on 51% attack and PoS if they like. you're just regurgitating what you have been told. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LARGE YOUR STAKE IS FOR BLOCK GENERATION, STAKE SIZE ONLY IMPACTS HOW MANY COINS YOU GENERATE Here ya go buddy: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=401.0This guy had the same idea as you, but he asked about it before he posted in HUGE RED LETTERSBy the way, if you could post that huge red letter thing over at blackcoin, that'd be great. that is not the same case |
|
|
|
|
looking at the source to double check
|
|
|
|
He don't know. HE KNOW FUD
If you have more coins you get the blocks sooner, so to do 60 mints in a row is near impossible. Ya, it doesn't have anything to do with the transactions. The more coins you have, the larger your stake. You would need 51% of coins to take over the blockchain. At which point the coin would become worthless because other people cannot use the coin. Therefore a person would have to be stupid (and rich) to do it. I really don't know what this guy is talking about. People can google the literature on 51% attack and PoS if they like. you're just regurgitating what you have been told. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LARGE YOUR STAKE IS FOR BLOCK GENERATION, STAKE SIZE ONLY IMPACTS HOW MANY COINS YOU GENERATE |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
