JLH lotto prizes 100,000 NXT, 50,000 NXT and 25000 NXT for three prizes. If tied, each prize is split between the winners
libertynow will be posting more info. NXT-PY3K-SDTG-PHTV-GLYDA is the only account that will be earning lotto tickets, so if you are wanting the JLH lotto tickets, make sure you are buying from the GLYDA acct
James
P.S. there is a small chance existing assetholders will veto this lotto, but I think it is quite unlikely
Here are the details of the JLH lottery. Please PM me if you have any questions or need to get on Slack. This is a really fun exciting experiment which will increase liquidity and demand. Good luck to everyone!!! JL777HODL New Year's Day Dividend Lottery (Nov. 1, 2014 - Dec 31, 2014) Every 100 assets purchased from account (includes past purchases): NXT-PY3K-SDTG-PHTV-GLYDA will receive 1 lottery ticket to a massive end of the year dividend prize payout. Prizes will be paid to the top 3 winners... 100,000NXT for 1st, 50,000NXT for 2nd and 25,000NXT for 3rd. Winning tickets will be randomly selected via the SHA256 of a random phrase selected early on. James will post a provably fair method that can be verified, along with the source code telepathy calculation, to calculate the closest buyer's txid. The closest will recieve 1st place and so on. Ties will share the prize for the place won. Prizes will be awarded during the first week of 2015. There will be a total of 5000 tickets available. If successful, there will be an ongoing monthly dividend lottery. Please do not try to game the system. The algo will take into account net purchases, so if you buy and sell and buy and sell (or transfer), it wont help as only the purchases from GLYDA is obtaining a ticket, but any sale or transfer after that is burning a ticket If I find some other unexpected method of trying to take advantage, I will make the adjusted calculations to make it right as I see it to make sense. So, if you just buy and HODL, it is the safe and easy way. Try to cheat, then likely you will lose tickets and possibly the winning ticket also the technical details libertynow posted isnt quite right. I will combine all GLYDA purchase txids for each account and that becomes the first ticket. Then for each additional ticket you have purchase I will generate that by taking SHA256 of the previous hash. The txid is just the low64 bits of the hash, but the hash chain will be applied to all 256 bits. James |
|
|
|
As SuperNET goes up in price BTCD will tag along
James
This gave me the mental picture of a little boy holding his mother's hand, walking down a sidewalk together  I guess boys like to run ahead of their moms... |
|
|
|
|
As SuperNET goes up in price BTCD will tag along
James
|
|
|
|
|
UNITY at ATH in terms of NXT and BTC
|
|
|
|
Is anyone else repeatedly kicking themselves in the balls for not trading any of their BTCD for SuperNet during the ico?
i would be kicking myself in the balls even harder for not diversifying if supernet flopped/flops +1 I think a flop is likely just like many overpriced ICOs how is selling the ICO at slightly more than book value overpriced? clearly you have not done any research on SuperNET it has a new OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=762346.msg8592943#msg8592943Also it is #2 on http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/ and half a dozen more assets in the top 20 are part of superNET. There are almost 300 people in the SuperNET slack. James |
|
|
|
So anyone is seeing double spend in any of the PoS coins we have so far since 2013 ? I think not.
This whole conversation about that PoS supposed to be a vulnerable and PoW not ? Lol give me a break.... maybe you should check how easy is it to make a 51% Attack on PoW with Ascis ? You don't need more then 70k~ $ btw... so do your research where it is needed.
I'm a huge supporter of PoS and I think everyone should be working towards that as a goal for all crypto, but there have been double spends and attacks on PoS coins this year. Off the top of my head I remember Navajo Coin had a problem with that and then the big one being Vericoin which really hurt its market cap after they rolled back. Weren't they both related to exchanges holding a large proportion of the coins and being hacked? Or maybe being 'hacked'? Not sure exactly what the circumstances were. Exchanges had something to do with though yeah. Maybe the exchanges weren't staking their reserves or something. I thought that the exchanges got doubled spent against, but I'm not sure. A lot of Vericoins were stolen off of Mintpal, this had nothing to do with PoS/PoW. There were doublespends in Navajo (PoS), and there were doublespends on Worldcoin, Whitecoin etc. (PoW) PoS1 != PoS2 correct. Also the current NXT PoS is more like PoS4 or PoS5 and from what I can tell it is more advanced than PoS2, though PoS2 is starting to incorporate some aspects of NXT PoS more improvements are in the pipeline for NXT PoS James |
|
|
|
I haven't kept up with PoS developments lately, but how do people address the following issue. PoW and DPOS have coin ownership and network control as separate parts. For other PoS models, coin ownership grants network control. Since exchanges and "bitcoin banks" tend to monopolize the control of coins into a small number, or single entity, shouldn't regular PoS be called, "proof of trust in exchange platform"? Then you also have the possibility of a rogue exchange performing a history attack.
for a young coin, it is indeed an issue where a large percentage of coins could and have been on a single exchange, which then gets hacked. However for a mature PoS, like NXT, even the largest exchange has less than 5% of all NXT, so even if they went all evil, not much they can do. It also seems quite unlikely for an exchange that is earning regular revenues from a coin to effectively sabotage it by attacking it. With decentralized exchanges getting more and more traction, this issue will get smaller over time. Over time there is more distribution, not less, so not sure where you get this assumption about monopoly control. I guess the fact that bitcoin mining pools have this exact mechanism might be predisposing you to this false assumption James |
|
|
|
He asked a logical question: If you don't have time to understand it - why do you have time to comment on it?
The logical answer is: I wanted to highlight the conclusions of the paper, since people have linked to it, misquoted it, and misrepresented it as some kind of "debunking". I mentioned that I don't have time to study it deeply because I don't. Hey, at least I skimmed the paper... Some people aren't even reading the paper and throwing around their worthless opinions. One of the biggest arguments in favor of
proof of work is that it costs more to attack
the network than to participate in its security.
So where is the difference? Buying 25% of the POS coin would not be a high cost? Well, for one thing, you can buy coins and sell them, or spend them, either before or after an attack with PoS. Secondly, if you already have coins, you can try to double spend with them. you come across as a reasonable sounding guy, maybe a bit too busy, but you are now repeating a claim that I thought I did not believe was true: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg9884322#msg9884322so this magical instant selling is to me nonviable, which means the N@S will cost you the amount to acquire the stake, so a lot at stake. Secondly, where is this "you can try to double spend with them" coming from? The whole debate is about how this double spending is not possible with enough blocks, rolling checkpoints, maybe even some sort of preventing of chain jumping. If you just ignore all this and just make statements like just double spend them, it seems you are really short on time to make any coherent point. I was looking forward to some deep insight about this issue from you. James |
|
|
|
i love seeing the PoS fudsters being slaughtered lol seems only the most hard core fudsters are left to fight their dwindling corner.
There is nothing wrong with PoW and actually the latest NXT lets you even create a new PoW coin with a single API command. so everything has its pros and cons and logical analysis is the way to determine the best course to take |
|
|
|
actually you can sell your coins first and then attack...
since the nature of an attack is a re-org on the blockchain,
how would anyone know you don't own the coins that
you owned several blocks ago? That's another aspect
of N@S.
so in several blocks you spread out your orders to sell 15% of the currency. Well I am no rocket scientist, but I would think that still you would run into some liquidity issues. Actually it might create more of a panic. Imagine a 100,000 BTC sell order, then another, then another, then another, .... That would probably be more panic creating than a single million BTC sell order. And by selling the coins, your entire attack is based on the false chain you cleverly made so you get one shot to make it pay off. Next you might propose to buy the coins over 6 months, conduct the attack, sell the coins over 6 months and then use a time machine to go back 6 months. But you know about the clever algos that make it so after some amount of blocks, say one day's worth that it is set in stone? So this shrinks your sell the coins and attack timeframe to a day. Spreading out the million BTC orders over a day, hmmm, still seems to be causing market meltdown and all the capital spent to acquire the coins are gone and hence something is at stake. I think maybe you are liking the EMP attack I came up with. This one requires simultaneously taking out all the nodes of a PoS network, then get your totally made up blockchain as the only one for all the nodes to connect to. I think this EMP attack would actually work, but I think it would work with any coin PoW or PoS. also some logistical problems with finding all the nodes, obtaining the EMP's, deploying them, etc. and also you need to just convince a few of the genesis keyholders to just give them their keys to you. Oh, after that there wont be anybody with a working computer though so who will know about your false chain? So, if we are leaving the world of the practical and believable, anything is possible. I think it is better to have some scientist types analyse the math in the consensus paper and then make some improvements. Dont you agree? James |
|
|
|
And if it requires actual stake to do a N@S attack, then there is definitely something at stake!
You don't seem to understand what the Nothing at stake problem is about. (Yes, obviously you need to own coins, but you could attack and then sell your coins.) Nothing at stake refers to the fact that the best strategy is forging on multiple chains at the same time. The conundrum is that PoS really seeks "free" security. Would be nice to have a secure network that establishes distributed consensus without security costs, but is it feasible? One of the biggest arguments in favor of proof of work is that it costs more to attack the network than to participate in its security. So you obtain a stake and then magically sell the coins after you attack it. Since it would take time to accumulate enough coins to attack it, then you are doing this simply to destroy the coin. But who would buy the coins back after it is attacked successfully? Ever try to sell even 10% of a coin supply all at once? Pretty much no market can withstand such things. What would a 1 million BTC sell order do to its price? so if N@S requires an insane millionaire to conduct it, then this madman can easily buyout the top mining pools right? to use a wild card against one approach but not the other is not quite an objective analysis. Now if N@S now is requiring to obtain a meaningful stake before conducting the attack then it would be fair to say: One of the biggest arguments in favor of proof of stake is that it costs more to attack the network than to participate in its security. James |
|
|
|
noashh got a way for anybody to chat in the slack! https://chat.supernet.org/no logins, no emails needed. just click URL and you are in the general channel, sort of. James |
|
|
|
Vitalik's comment on Jordan Lee's 'solution': What they've figured out is a way of discounting double-votes from scoring, not disincentivizing people from making them And then goes on to say: So, the system still relies on weak subjectivity, so it's basically just another security deposit-like mechanism that as far as I can see has exactly the same properties. Hopefully Vitalik can comment on the Consensus Research paper. |
|
|
|
I don't have the time/energy to fully digest what the paper is saying, but the conclusions of the author seem to say that Nothing at stake is a real problem that hasn't been solved. As we have all the algorithms developed to simulate N@S attack we
present result in the separate paper along with possible ways to resist it.
Giving some results now we present not the full picture of the problem. Fol-
lowing this section it is reasonable to get the impression that this problem
actually matters and we concentrate to possible solutions at the moment....
...The open question for the future work are: (1) the PoS consensus depen-
dence on the measure function (2) the ways to avoid N@S attack if any (3)
the optimal confirmation length investigation (4) the optimal multibranch
depth investigation. My understanding is that the more severe long range attack does not exist and even the short range attack is quite difficult to achieve. Also with more confirmations, the required attacking stake keeps going up. And if it requires actual stake to do a N@S attack, then there is definitely something at stake! So by definition this paper is very close to proving that when properly done PoS cannot be attacked with nothing. Of course if you throw enough resources to buy 51% (or probably 30%) of any PoS, you can do all sorts of nasty things to it. just like if you are able to control 51% (or is it 33% due to minority attacks) of mining power, you can do all sorts of nasty things to a PoW. Dont want to get into a discussion about how likely it is for anybody to obtain 51% of PoW mining power or 51% of a PoS currency, as the point of this thread is about Nothing at Stake attack. OK, maybe just a little. Mining power costs are not coupled to the PoW coin, so you can simply buy arbitrary amounts of mining hardware with the limit only being the manufacturing capacity of the vendors. Certainly a mass buy will raise the cost of the mining hardware due to the increased demand, but surely not more than 2x and only until the manufacturers start making new production runs. [this is totally ignoring the logistics cost of some "special" team to infiltrate three mining operations, let us stay within the laws for this discussion] Now let us imagine you are wanting to buy 51% of a PoS currency. What would happen to the price? What would the cost be? Maybe if you are patient, over time you can accumulate a large amount of anything, but any meaningful inflow of capital into a market will necessarily increase the price. will it be 2x or 20x or 200x by the time 51% is obtained? of course, depends on the coin, but the fact that there is a feedback loop to the cost for any financial attacker provides some level of protection. If there is no attack without anything at stake, then it seems that something is at stake, which is the point of PoW right? to have a cost. Seems like you need to have a significant stake and fancy algos and computing resources to conduct a short range attack, which is thwarted by having more confirmations. At the high level, it seems that both PoW and properly implemented PoS are able to require capital investment to obtain the coins. I am actually a PoW/PoS agnostic, I just want the coin to be secure and the small number of mining pools that control BTC mining output worry we far more than someone doing a N@S attack. The days of just declaring PoS as impossible should be behind us. We now have academics with equations, so let the debate be resolved by logic and math, instead of rhetoric. Clearly any crypto if improperly used will be vulnerable https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581411.0 and the first implementation of PPC PoS had a coinage vulnerability, but that does not mean that all PoS is flawed. Now what happens if 90% of BTC miners stopped? Like after a multipool abandons a coin after a diff adjustment, the blocktimes will slow down, a lot. This is not an attack scenario, but a real possibility if this bear market continues for another 6 months. With BTC diff readjustments 2000+ blocks, how long will things be in slow motion and if it slows to the point where all the blocks are full and it overflows, then what happens? So, there are potential problems with all such things and the ideal algo has yet to be made. Ideally the best ideas from PoW can be combined with the best ideas of PoS. James |
|
|
|
|
_organization_ (index | latest)
all-things-anon (index | latest)
announcements (index | latest)
api (index | latest)
asset-descriptions (index | latest)
atomicdac (index | latest)
bestseller (index | latest)
btcd (index | latest)
charts (index | latest)
codereview (index | latest)
coin2 (index | latest)
coinimal (index | latest)
cryptozin (index | latest)
faucet (index | latest)
feed-jl777-posts (index | latest)
freebieservrs (index | latest)
freemarket (index | latest)
general (index | latest)
gui-development (index | latest)
instantdex (index | latest)
jl777hodl (index | latest)
libjl777-github (index | latest)
litewallet (index | latest)
marketing (index | latest)
melodius- (index | latest)
mgw (index | latest)
neodice (index | latest)
nxt-general (index | latest)
nxtstudios (index | latest)
nxtvault (index | latest)
opal (index | latest)
pangea (index | latest)
privacyservers (index | latest)
privatebet (index | latest)
public (index | latest)
random (index | latest)
skynet (index | latest)
sn-radio-network (index | latest)
snetcoindev (index | latest)
snn (index | latest)
sovereigncoin-_svc_ (index | latest)
sponsoredserver (index | latest)
supernet-faq (index | latest)
supernet-newsletter (index | latest)
tech-trees (index | latest)
test (index | latest)
tipper-test (index | latest)
tradeoffers (index | latest)
translators (index | latest)
tweets (index | latest)
vidioshare (index | latest)
vpncoin (index | latest)
vrc_vericoin (index | latest)
website (index | latest)
whitepaper (index | latest)
wiki_supernet_org (index | latest)
windowsdev (index | latest)
The above are the current channels in the SuperNET slack. anybody can create one, so it is quite decentralized.
James
|
|
|
|
I'm still trying to understand SuperNET...
https://github.com/jl777/libjl777or come to slack! just PM me your email to get an invite, you can check out the logs from the URL in my sig |
|
|
|
Kudos to 5000bitcoins!
He got this thread back to Announcements!!
James
This is actually big news... To celebrate this, I updated the OP with a more better version from apenzl |
|
|
|
Like it or not we now have a thief as one of the large stakeholders on the rich list.
He has no motivation to dump, anymore than any large stakeholder does. Who knows, he might even make donations to help his investment.
So, please stop with all this worrying. It doesnt help, does it? Or maybe that's the point?
OPAL dodged a bullet. Let us be thankful that there no rollback to deal with forever in the future and we can get back to improving things.
James
I'm not worried, it just 'sucks'. Difference is, his entry point is 0. No one else got in @ 0. He will always be 100% profitable. Believe me, by no means in this instance would I have liked a roll back, I really, truly hope, that people stop trusting every fkng thing they see written on the internet.. dont go to funky links, pay attention..never ever trust something is @ face value.. this is simple web browsing 101. If there is any silver lining here, it is that due to his zero cost basis, at some point in the future some lucky buyer will get below market OPAL, if he decides to dump cuz his cost basis was 0. If he doesnt, then there is no problem. So the worst that happens is a temporary price drop, we congratulate the lucky buyer whose buy order they never thought would fill, filled. And we move on. What else to do? OPAL's value is not affected by the fact that one guy has zero cost basis for it. James |
|
|
|
I guess, here lays the question.. how much are you willing to 'pay' the scammer, for his services. I farking HATE scammers..cant blame the devs.. but GD I can blame stuipd people.. all fkng day.
are the OPAL that the scammer has any different than the OPAL you have? if someone steals some gold does that taint all the gold in the world? Or is it still gold? James P.S. I am not saying to invite the scammer for a picnic, but in my experience fretting over something you have no control over just creates stress. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
