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 have discovered a flaw with current PoS implementation you can easily do a 51% attack with PoS blocks without needing large holdings since PoS blocks are generated on a coin age basis, you could create TXO's delayed by a time offset at the minimum TXO cost for a future attack period so after creating 10000 TXO of 1 MINT separated by 0.5 seconds to make sure 60 consecutive blocks are generated at repeated interval by your wallet 20 days in the future, the attack would last 1 hour and 40 minutes enough to put the security and function of a coin in question couple that with the fact the difficulty calculation includes PoS blocks, that would mean difficulty would jump to stratospheric levels making it impossible to mine PoW blocks are people really not concerned about this? YOU CAN 51% ATTACK ANY POS COIN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR 51% OF SUPPLY OR ANY PoW HASHRATE AT ALLHi all. Just thought I'd share some of the joy we've been dealing with on the Mintcoin thread. Have a good night. Check our code i'd say  No explanation? I'm not computer savvy enough to get the answer from the code myself so I was hoping somebody who knows the blackcoin code could explain. It seems that this type of attack is prevented by hybrid PoW/PoS since the PoW blocks have a different and independent difficulty algorithm from the PoS blocks, and you cannot predict with any certainty what the next block in the chain will be (trying to build x consecutive PoS blocks to form an attack with would be interrupted by the generation of a valid PoW block). If that is true, I still don't understand how a pure PoS coin would deal with this. I've got a lot of money invested in this coin and other PoS coins so I would like to know my money is safe, and I would appreciate a concrete answer other than "your money is safe" or "we've figured out how to prevent that" because I'm the type of person that only trusts something if I understand why. This flaw was addressed by the author of PoS, Sunny King, earlier this year: Official release build is now available http://www.ppcoin.org/ (via sourceforge) What's in 0.3.0 release: Stake generation protocol upgrade (protocol switch March 20th) Qt UI support Fix compatibility with vanitygen (note: private keys dumped in v0.2 is no longer importable into v0.3.0, must dump again from v0.3.0 client) Miscellaneous bug fixes and improvements The protocol upgrade in 0.3.0 includes a new algorithm to derive proof-of-stake hash modifier, the entity that scrambles computation for stake owners, which replaces the current proof-of-stake difficulty used as modifier in 0.2 protocol. The design was started late September last year, when I first began to realize the issues with using difficulty as modifier. Honorary mention also goes to Jutarul, who independently discovered and verified an issue with using difficulty as modifier and published on bitcointalk in December last year, while successfully executed a demo attack on the block chain. Other changes in the protocol include starting hash weight from 0 at the 30-day mininum age, and requirement that coinstake timestamp must equal block timestamp. Overall 0.3 protocol should significantly strengthen the proof-of-stake protection and resolve the current known vulnerabilities. My sincere appreciation to co-contributors of 0.3.0 release: Robert VanHazinga of Hartland PC (dreamwatcher) for the vanitygen compatibility fix Jutarul for demonstrating stake generation vulnerability EskimoBob for reporting issue fixed in 0.3.0 +1 thank you for quick and helpful response |
|
|
|
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 have discovered a flaw with current PoS implementation you can easily do a 51% attack with PoS blocks without needing large holdings since PoS blocks are generated on a coin age basis, you could create TXO's delayed by a time offset at the minimum TXO cost for a future attack period so after creating 10000 TXO of 1 MINT separated by 0.5 seconds to make sure 60 consecutive blocks are generated at repeated interval by your wallet 20 days in the future, the attack would last 1 hour and 40 minutes enough to put the security and function of a coin in question couple that with the fact the difficulty calculation includes PoS blocks, that would mean difficulty would jump to stratospheric levels making it impossible to mine PoW blocks are people really not concerned about this? YOU CAN 51% ATTACK ANY POS COIN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR 51% OF SUPPLY OR ANY PoW HASHRATE AT ALLHi all. Just thought I'd share some of the joy we've been dealing with on the Mintcoin thread. Have a good night. Check our code i'd say No explanation? I'm not computer savvy enough to get the answer from the code myself so I was hoping somebody who knows the blackcoin code could explain. It seems that this type of attack is prevented by hybrid PoW/PoS since the PoW blocks have a different and independent difficulty algorithm from the PoS blocks, and you cannot predict with any certainty what the next block in the chain will be (trying to build x consecutive PoS blocks to form an attack with would be interrupted by the generation of a valid PoW block). If that is true, I still don't understand how a pure PoS coin would deal with this. I've got a lot of money invested in this coin and other PoS coins so I would like to know my money is safe, and I would appreciate a concrete answer other than "your money is safe" or "we've figured out how to prevent that" because I'm the type of person that only trusts something if I understand why. |
|
|
|
What's the latest news about Mint? It is my baby, my heart belongs to Mint but it hasn't has some breaking news for along time. It looks lifeless.
Thunderclap tomorrow/today, sign up if you haven't already! https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/9388-free-mintcoin-giveawayThe mintcoin foundation is in the works atm. Supposed to be a Android wallet on the way, too. Lots of new merchants, as you can see, and more continue to be added very often. Sleeepy time for me. |
|
|
|
Yes, please if anybody here can explain this it would be great for ALL PoS coins. 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 Pllllease somebody, this is important for every PoS coin out there. |
|
|
|
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 (assuming any of it is true). |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
If anybody here can answer this it would be great for ALL PoS coins. I don't know why, but this was pretty much only posted on the 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 have discovered a flaw with current PoS implementation
you can easily do a 51% attack with PoS blocks without needing large holdings
since PoS blocks are generated on a coin age basis, you could create TXO's delayed by a time offset at the minimum TXO cost for a future attack period
so after creating 10000 TXO of 1 MINT separated by 0.5 seconds to make sure 60 consecutive blocks are generated at repeated interval by your wallet 20 days in the future, the attack would last 1 hour and 40 minutes
enough to put the security and function of a coin in question
couple that with the fact the difficulty calculation includes PoS blocks, that would mean difficulty would jump to stratospheric levels making it impossible to mine PoW blocks
are people really not concerned about this? YOU CAN 51% ATTACK ANY POS COIN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR 51% OF SUPPLY OR ANY PoW HASHRATE AT ALL |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Yes, please if anybody here can explain this it would be great for ALL PoS coins. 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 |
|
|
|
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 IMO this is another reason why you should be directly asking devs- people who are likely versed in the code and how exactly what these variables represent- instead of possibly crying wolf on a public thread. |
|
|
|
Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?
im not interested in mint value so coincidence Well to be fair I wasn't suspecting you are interested in Mint value. I was suspecting that you are interested in the value of another, possibly "competing" coin. Or perhaps you are just interested at getting mint at a lower value because you know how awesome it is  ? |
|
|
|
this is what you said on the Zeit forum, over an hour ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=487814.msg5962705#msg5962705"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" |
|
|
|
|
Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?
|
|
|
|
but joining the multipool will overall boost the price rather than mining individually.
sigh.. its not joining the multipool that magically boosts the price... what boost the price is the multipool buying btc and then using it to buy bc... but if they are getting less btc out of your hashrate and therefore less bc out of your hashrate, then individuals, as a collective, can produce greater overall buy support- thereby raising the price more- by mining on better paying multipools and converting all the btc to bc themselves. because the overall bc/hashrate is better the overall buy support/hashrate is better. this is assuming miners are capable of remaining true to the cause without the psychological rally of the multipool and covert all their btc to bc themselves without the convenience of the multipool. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Prisoner's dilemma at work here...
Multipool payouts are not what most miners expected, causing many to stupidly panic sell and point their miners elsewhere, causing the multipool(s) to have less oomph, causing less BTC -> BC buying power (which by my simple calculations maybe is now only buying 7 BTC worth of BC per day using roughly 400 MH/s scrypt, 350 GH/s sha estimates).
If miners were more organized (and rational) towards having 1 dominate competitor to BTC (fuck Litecoin) and stayed put pointed towards the BC multipool(s) they all would have benefited...more miners = more oomph = more BTC -> BC buying from the multipool(s)= your accrued BC are worth more and more as prices increase and eventually miners have large enough profits to upgrade mining rigs to gain even more BC and so the multipool(s) buys more BC and the price continues to go up. It's a fucking positive feedback loop and we will all win.
Rambling-on Alert
Imagine being able to someday tell your grandkids about how you still have BlackCoins you mined/bought when it was going for 3 fucking pennies per coin in 2014, and imagine them saying in disbelief "grandpa, you're a lying sack of shit" and then you show them your BC address and absolutely blow their minds. Today's baby-boomers/grandpas had stock certificates, baseball cards, stamps, coin collections, etc. when they were young, which weren't worth much then, but fuck did those things accrue value up to today. But thanks to third-world countries now being able to make (or forge) just about any physical thing under the sun, our generation will not see any equivalent physical items becoming valuable collectibles 50+ years from now.
However cryptocurrencies, and specifically those cryptocurrencies which survive/thrive/flourish in the coming months/years/decades, are going to be the stocks, baseball cards, stamps, coin collections of this generation.
Anyhow, who knows if miners will ever rationalize-the-fuck-up and come back to BC's multipool(s), but them coming back or not is all that matters right now for BC to survive/thrive/flourish with BTC over the coming months/years/decades.
JL
Well, except the actual economic principles of the multipool are kinda flawed atm.. That is, until they are as profitable in terms of (btc => bc)/hashrate. If miners can go to another multipool where they will get more btc for their hashrate and therefore can buy more bc per their hashrate, then they are actually providing more buy support (assuming they spend all of the mined btc on bc). the only advantage of the multipool is psychological- which can have a profound and hard to estimate/predict effect, though! |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
from 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..." This does have me wondering how a pure PoS coin prevents this, since there IS a guarantee that the next block will be PoS... |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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" since you claim to know how. I don't know enough about these systems to dispute what you are saying on a technical level- other people on this forum already have that covered, anyways- but I know enough about human behavior to see what is happening here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
