Йотопиарщик - хозяин своего слова: сказал "в воскресенье" - отменил воскресенье.
Теперь дал слово во вторник дать слово о дате запуска. Также дал новое слово, что в среду веб-сайт и GUI-кошелек будут запущены. Но не дал слово - в среду какой недели. Одно слово - хозяин!
Открылись новые обстоятельства, из-за которых передвинули дату. Тебе девушки всегда отдаются в тот день, который пообещали? Бывает же, что голова резко заболит. |
|
|
|
А так есть возможность лечить пациента на лету без откатов и хардфорка? Не исключено, что есть уязвимые места не в коде, а в алгоритме выбора вершин тангла при формировании транзакций, точнее в его критических точках и границах определений?
Если проблема в выборе вершин, то это можно лечить на лету без откатов. |
|
|
|
well, thats just f. great for those of us who are colorblind  Eat the both, maybe? |
|
|
|
Да, эфир дал жару) что посоветуешь с джинном делать? придержать пока, или поменять на йоты?)
Поменяй на мои ёты. Какую цену предложишь? Пиши в личку. |
|
|
|
CfB and you were not the escrow in these deal, so you don't have to use your power to save people
This reminds me about moral problems of Clark Kent from "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice"... |
|
|
|
Seeing how there was no attack but shitty code that allowed an observant individual to execute it as written
TPTB aka Anonymint had zero to do with it.
~BCX~
I bet you are wrong, only TPTB is smart enough to conduct such the hack. Oh, and probably Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Ну что там? Проэкт скорее жив чем мёртв?  Жив, скоро релиз. Я вот прямо сейчас пересматриваю код, чтобы уменьшить шанс повторения драмы как в Эфириуме. |
|
|
|
yeah but they don't even share same core code...
It's humans. Irrationality is their main trait. |
|
|
|
so why da fuck ppl are dumping?
All smart-contract based platforms have got negative trust from investors. |
|
|
|
and CfB
 |
|
|
|
But messing with the solution of a "centralised intervention on the network", as proposed (e.g. CfB freezing accounts on the ledger, etc) would greatly hurt the "decentralised nature" of everything that we are doing here, IMHO...
Iota wasn't launched yet, so the case has a little related to (de)centralization. |
|
|
|
I call on people to boycott all coins launched via IPO/ICO. They are all shit and are destined to die. There have been so many IPO/ICO scams it really is not funny anymore, people get burned over and over and over again and they learn jackshit.
Alone you won't change the status quo. You need money for a big campaign. If you can't fund it from your pocket you could conduct an IPO/ICO... |
|
|
|
I still don't understand your point I'm afraid. I'm not subsidising transaction creation. PoW "transactions" are not really transactions at all, as they have no inputs.
Perhaps you could fully describe your purported double spend attack?
Well, my claim is that it's impossible to have generation of new coins in a DAG-based currency without sacrificing the security. Unfortunatelly, I can't find the thread where all this was discussed... |
|
|
|
What if by freezing CH's account I'm doing the same disservice as VB to Ethereum community with that fork? The lesson won't be learned if I babysit those who decided not to use an escrow service...
Sorry for all buyer, but CfB are true for this situation!! Well, actually it doesn't matter if I'm right or not. The ultimate decision will be made by David (aka iotatoken), I'll just provide technical assistance in case if the freezing is possible. |
|
|
|
|
What if by freezing CH's account I'm doing the same disservice as VB to Ethereum community with that fork? The lesson won't be learned if I babysit those who decided not to use an escrow service...
|
|
|
|
Не дали мне победу, хоть и первый, и быстро решил  Как-то аргументировали? |
|
|
|
cfb 18:12
nodePort
next version will have hardcoded 14265 port Тот, кто знает английский, наверняка читает английскую ветку... |
|
|
|
|
Hodlers think that all smart contract platforms are vulnerable, it seems.
|
|
|
|
Since what you wrote was rather ambiguous, let me clarify how I'm understanding you: I presume all letters are PoW transactions, and arrows show inheritance. So by a double spend, you must mean a double claim of transaction fees (from the otherwise burnt half), since without access to my private keys, you obviously can't spend my outputs (and PoW blocks do not have inputs in any case).
As ever, the network selects the TDAG (in this case, branch) with higher total transaction fees paid. People making PoW transactions have very strong incentives to pay seriously high fees (e.g. 25%) because otherwise they risk their PoW transaction being replaced by another with the same parents but which pays higher fees. (Two people finding a solution to the PoW puzzle at roughly the same time is not that uncommon.)
So, if you are paying sufficiently high fees, the network may switch to your TDAG. But if mine is well enough embedded in other transactions (paying fees), then even if you pay 100% fees, you might not be able to produce a switch.
In any case, it seems that all you're describing is a classic 51% attack.
Arrows are showing timeline direction. My point is that if you subsidize transaction creation then miners will be invalidating each others branches with doublespends leading to consensus divergence. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. Perhaps I'm being stupid.
A broadcast transaction (be it standard of PoW) will not be accepted by the network if its ancestors contain a double spend. So any transaction fees the new transaction purported to claim will in fact remain unclaimed.
In this add-on proposal, I am not proposing that 50% of coins are generated via subsidy; rather, I am proposing that 100% of coins are generated via PoW.
Ok, 100% is fine. Imagine that you are extending this branch: A -> B -> C -> D My hashing power is higher, so I generate: N -> O -> P -> Q -> R -> S -> T What will happen if N is a doublespending of A? Note that my branch becomes visible to you with some delay. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
