From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.
Although it is called a 51% attack it is really more a >50% attack. As long as the spawning genesis has more hashes and can be extended out to form a chain (or subchain) that can be accepted by the parent, then a 51% double-spend type of attack can occur. Fundamentally speaking, any coin that has less than 50% of all of the possible hash for a given algorithm shoulbe be considered unsecure. |
|
|
|
I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.
If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.
As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.
Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.
In the current configuration the noblecoin network is not secure. If an attacker can rent a huge amount of asic hashpower at any time there is risk. I think the argument is "we will buy asics to secure the network". what I'm saying is that the asics you buy today will be useless in a couple months so you will have to continue to buy more/upgrade, etc.. The only winners are ASICs manufacturers. There will always be a bigger gun out there. Thats just my opinion on it. Fair enough. It is very true that the mitigating circumstance for Noblecoin is whether it can be one of the few coins that will garner enough hash from the upcoming sCrypt ASIC generation. And the biggest problem is that ROI budgets for ASICs are very tight. Because of that, it may end up being very hard to maintain stable hash from ASICs especially if they need to use multipools to break even. Either way, there was going to be a lot of risk; but since Noblecoin had decided to take this path, they need to stick with it as long as reasonably possible. On a side note, I do agree, the primary winners are going to be ASIC manufacturers (with the very early adopters getting a good chunk of the winnings too). I always use the example of Lamborghini when it comes this issue. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.
If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.
As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.
Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.
|
|
|
|
Why would people attack this coin?
Do they target all scrypt coins and try to make double spend attacks?
Or is it noble that get a special treatment for some reason?
From all the puzzles that i collected, i think that someone has something personal to Rofo, maybe after reading the PDF's and Rofo's strong points there. So that person(s) wants to prove that Rofo's coin fails (and in that way prove that his opinions are also wrong). Which, as we all know, is very childish. So, as they form maybe a group with LOT of btc (look at extraction. also consider that only the last attack should have costed easily more than 12-15 btc, depends if the rigs were rented), now they can do all kinds of dirty tricks (dbl spending, fud on this thread, ddosing the pools (?), renting high hashrates from time to time for another fork etc.) just to prove some point and without any obvoius reason. At least to me. And the funny part is, that you cannot even prove who is "they", because they never stand clearly in the front row, telling: "My name is... AND I want from your coin this and that." No. Always messing things up from the background, speading fud and dezinformation, playing those little kid's games. ... Something like 4chan but worse. I definitely see glimmers of that on a more and more regular basis with NOBL. To me, it looked like within the last two months the effort has been centered around one of two things: 1) Pump the price and then crash it back down so that people will avoid this coin (along with the according "sky is falling" posters in this thread). 2) Attack the coin directly (using various types of concerted efforts) to maintain consistent downward pressure on NOBL (along with the according "this coin is crap" posters in this thread). When I take a look at a bunch of these posters that fall into one of these two categories, they only post on this thread a few times but their post history usually shows hints of an allegiance to another coin that has had a community subset that has attacked NOBL in some fashion. |
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree that a retrace back to $550-$600 would be "healthy" or at least be a catalyst to give a prop for another run up. Stabilization at $550 for a few weeks would actually look favorably for various EMA indicators.
The way I see it, stabilizing at $650 on the other hand actually implies having hit another roof of around $700 in the medium-term (the indicators that I see MAs, Bands, and Volume Swap look fairly negative in this case).
|
|
|
|
|
Let's be honest, it's not the holders of BTC/LTC that are preventing other coins from having a sustained marketcap at a high price; it's the fact that there is virtually no infrastructure built around those coins. No one is stopping those coins from being used as a "currency."
Sure it's nice to have nifty features, but without any usage besides as a speculation tool it's basically being asked to be something to pump and dump with no long-term endeavors.
|
|
|
|
noble if you're having an asic problem.. the easiest way to combat this is to change the algorithm.. perhaps to the grostl algorithm. i think now all of us realize that asics dont pump the price.. investors do. and the less coins they have to face on the market each day the easier it is to pump the price. but with growing asic power i can tell u.. asics are not interested in anything else atm but dumping to regain their investment in said asic.
i have supported noble from the very beginning in the sidelines. and still support it as i can. anything i recommend is for what i believe, the best for the coin.
noble should consider adding pos, oir some form of anonimity code no matter how meagre... or both. these are features that are in demand and proven with small pos interests like 1-3% generate a larger interest in holding the coins from both a miner and investor/trader perspective.
i see no problem with changing algorithms as we move along to asic resistant ones.. each time the asics follow us.. we can implement the latest algorithm to which they cant yet use.. but they will always eventually catchup and be able to use that algorithm. crypto just like all other technology must travel with the wind. and not resist it's change or advancement.
Yeah, rah rah rah, bla bla bla, Noble could, Noble should, Noble would. What happens? Nothing..... ASICS? Who in the world needs ASICS to challenge this piece of shit? Every other hobby miner could fork you any day twice now. Clearly you are overwhelmingly enamored with NOBL becoming successful aren't you? Rofo has stated his intent with NOBL in regards to other algorithms. Frankly at this point it’s a matter of deciding which is the greater of two evils: doing a short-term change that’ll likely lead to a bunch of necessary forks as time goes on or attempting to stick it out with the craziness that currently pollutes scrypt coins. Each has their own pros and cons. I do agree that there are some who can easily 51% NOBL at the moment, but they aren't gonna be “hobbyists” as you state so blasé. |
|
|
|
0.01PPC tx fee is an antidust measure. It's working.
The fee is very cheap in absolute terms at current exchange rate. Any user are broken by the fee? SK said the fee could be adjusted once PCC appreciates significantly. What better answer do people want?
Having a man behind the curtain constantly adjusting fees isn't really an acceptable solution to most people. The fee should already be set to where if the currency goes up 10x in price overnight (which just about any successful coin seems to do) then the transaction fee wouldn't be a problem. Also, please tell me what school of economics you're using that says decreasing liquidity is somehow a good thing... And what school of economics says that a "currency" that goes up 10x in value (against another currency) is a good thing? |
|
|
|
if they build it we will come.
It seems that this is a fair consensus among a lot of the posters, so I'll throw this out again: [Since newbies most commonly get caught in these scams, we could...] prevent newbies from viewing posts in the announcement section. Or maybe we prevent them from viewing announcements from other newbies.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with having a longer period before being listed on coinmarketcap.com. Usually a long period tends to weed out most of the crapshoot (i.e. people usually don't want to wait that long to cash in on a scam).
That said, there are some that will be "patient" enough to wait it out.
Frankly, the best solution is continuing to educate the newbies.
This might seem a bit draconian, but maybe instead of preventing people from posting, we prevent newbies from viewing posts in the announcement section. Or maybe we prevent them from viewing announcements from newbies. Since newbies are more frequently the ones who get scammed, making it difficult to find the scam information might end up making it harder on the scammers.
|
|
|
|
You have to remember, in general (at least in the U.S. since that’s the example that you used), the majority of people tend to be risk-adverse and are keen on more immediate gratification. And well, Bitcoin, as it stands, is on the polar opposite of those things. Bitcoin, despite all of its development, is still a significant risk and gains have tended to occur in relatively short intervals (i.e. spikes) although the floor has steadily risen.
Completely agree, which is why it continues to amaze me that the vast majority of people year after year invest in an asset that has steadily decreased in value every single year for 100 years (the dollar) and who's managers openly state they will continue this policy (the FED). Haha! Very valid point. Admittedly, we know that a lot of Americans also don't think like that; all they perceive is the status quo that they grew up with. That perception makes them think they are "safe." That'd involve a chunk of critical thought. And let's face it, doing that would be much too difficulty for many of them. As an American who was born in south america and lived several years as an expat in both the EU and north Asia, my experience has been the opposite. Yes most Americans are sheeple who don't question anything, but I've found the ratio of ones who do to be higher in the states than elsewhere. Of course that could be because my last stint was in Korea where thinking is shockingly uniform to a disturbing degree, I love Korea and the people there, but there is absolute following of authority. Very true. In my experience, I've noticed that complacency tend to stem from reasons though. In America, it's more or less chosen out of laziness. In other countries, it's more due to family loyalty and not wanting to bring shame. Either way though, everyone still has a choice to critically think and enact reasonable steps to fall in line with that ideology. |
|
|
|
This is very positive for Bitcoin; however, just because the CEO holds a certain sentiment, it doesn't necessarily mean that the company will have to follow suit. Like it has been mentioned, lobbying to the company's board is an entirely different situation.
That said, I think the board should be lobbied to; that would actually be a much bigger step than stating it in some sort of press release.
If there is money to be made they will get in line. That is the nature of commerce. or they could protect their current business model by getting lobbyists to go against bitcoin. That would be a very short sighted way to go about it. Beliathon's Blockbuster example is spot on. Adapt to a changing world or go the way of the dinosaurs. I agree that lobbying against it would be very short-sighted but other companies have already started the cogs rolling in that direction (i.e. Mastercard). Naturally adopting new, up-and-coming technologies is the way to go. There is one key difference between Blockbuster and eBay: their business models are predicated on completely different things. As long as traditional credit and fiat transfers are viable, I think eBay is safe. And frankly, there isn't any particularly substantive reason to believe that will change anytime soon. Like I said, lobbying it to a business board (especially one in a company like eBay) would at least start a discussion among business big-wigs. |
|
|
|
|
This is very positive for Bitcoin; however, just because the CEO holds a certain sentiment, it doesn't necessarily mean that the company will have to follow suit. Like it has been mentioned, lobbying to the company's board is an entirely different situation.
That said, I think the board should be lobbied to; that would actually be a much bigger step than stating it in some sort of press release.
|
|
|
|
What i think....Its heading summer, the stock exchange market gettin low volume during summer months. Share holders/ daytraders packed it up for holidays, trying to get most money out of the exchange so they dont have worry during holidays.
Perhaps the traders that are left still want to make money and join the bitcoin market because of the action
I'm confused by this comment. Are you talking about people who trade on traditional stock markets or about Bitcoin day traders? |
|
|
|
You have to remember, in general (at least in the U.S. since that’s the example that you used), the majority of people tend to be risk-adverse and are keen on more immediate gratification. And well, Bitcoin, as it stands, is on the polar opposite of those things. Bitcoin, despite all of its development, is still a significant risk and gains have tended to occur in relatively short intervals (i.e. spikes) although the floor has steadily risen.
Completely agree, which is why it continues to amaze me that the vast majority of people year after year invest in an asset that has steadily decreased in value every single year for 100 years (the dollar) and who's managers openly state they will continue this policy (the FED). Haha! Very valid point. Admittedly, we know that a lot of Americans also don't think like that; all they perceive is the status quo that they grew up with. That perception makes them think they are "safe." That'd involve a chunk of critical thought. And let's face it, doing that would be much too difficulty for many of them. |
|
|
|
Id just hate for the miners to open up and dump like what happened to LCL. hope this makes some sense. weird to me to have an ipo and a mining period.
That's what would really scare me about this coin. Even if it manages to hold its own pricewise, I'd be afraid of dumps. Even LCL was in the ballpark of ipo prices for a while, until miners really destroyed the coin. miners is what makes a coin wtf kind of kool aid you drinking? =\ Unfortunately, dumps are always going to be a short-term threat. After all, the immediate profit motive is what brings lots to this scene. Compound that with miners needing to recoup costs and that’s what spikes down the price a lot of the time. That said, a lot of the time, mining is just an excuse to justify profit motive; but it is what makes a lot of these coins “work” (even if they don’t have “financial grounding”). Frankly, investing in these kinds of coins only makes sense if you think you have the savvy to outpace all the people trying to make short-term gains or if you think there is longer-term potential. Although, seeing that the creator of this coin set a total valuation over $350,000 is interesting (draw your own conclusions). mining justifies profit motive in the sense that miners are not willing to dump under the price it cost for them to create the coins they mined. this changes if they are expecting or recieve new features (price up) or are rushing out the door (price down) but should be stable that if it takes someone 3 hours to mine a block and their costs are whatever for electricity & hardware & a normal profit. In this situation the mining only will happen in a short period (2 weeks) we still end up with a situation post vote where every satoshi put in by ipo is still only distributed evenly amongst the total investment * 20% of the coins to be distributed. then along comes a 2 week mining period where solving one block could (should) equal more than .011Btc or more depending on ipo distribution? what if the diff retarget doesnt work and someone pulls 1000 blocks. (extreme example) but maybe you get where im coming from? were paying into the ipo so dev can have cash on hand for development and doesnt need for a premine to accrue value as people mine the coin and it gains traction to cash out. tl;dr why have mining after ipo whats the point? if your a miner and want this coin, save power and buy some? Profit? If you have enough hash, you could always both buy into the IPO and mine to secure a percentage. That'll inherently function as dumping material. So yeah... Let's be honest though, features doesn't necessarily mean a rise in price. Anyhow, it is kinda offsetting to have both an IPO (that also functions as a form of premine) followed by a hastened PoW period. |
|
|
|
|
You have to remember, in general (at least in the U.S. since that’s the example that you used), the majority of people tend to be risk-adverse and are keen on more immediate gratification. And well, Bitcoin, as it stands, is on the polar opposite of those things. Bitcoin, despite all of its development, is still a significant risk and gains have tended to occur in relatively short intervals (i.e. spikes) although the floor has steadily risen.
|
|
|
|
Id just hate for the miners to open up and dump like what happened to LCL. hope this makes some sense. weird to me to have an ipo and a mining period.
That's what would really scare me about this coin. Even if it manages to hold its own pricewise, I'd be afraid of dumps. Even LCL was in the ballpark of ipo prices for a while, until miners really destroyed the coin. miners is what makes a coin wtf kind of kool aid you drinking? =\ Unfortunately, dumps are always going to be a short-term threat. After all, the immediate profit motive is what brings lots to this scene. Compound that with miners needing to recoup costs and that’s what spikes down the price a lot of the time. That said, a lot of the time, mining is just an excuse to justify profit motive; but it is what makes a lot of these coins “work” (even if they don’t have “financial grounding”). Frankly, investing in these kinds of coins only makes sense if you think you have the savvy to outpace all the people trying to make short-term gains or if you think there is longer-term potential. Although, seeing that the creator of this coin set a total valuation over $350,000 is interesting (draw your own conclusions). |
|
|
|
nice to watch a bank write good about bitcoin, the very thing which is going to make banks extinct in future.
Looking at the people around me I find that very difficult to believe in no matter how disruptive the technology is. big things start so small.. practically speaking why the hell would anyone need a bank if they can literally have a billion dollars in their pockets or in a piece of paper. Protection and liquidity assurance. Remember, banks were originally created to keep money safe. Unfortunately, that has become so obfuscated with all the things that exist in the scope of banks now days. But the fact still remains, a bank acts as a assembled place to store value. After all it's easier to protect something if a whole bunch of people are trying to protect it. (Although, by that same token, it's "centralization" makes it easier to attack...) |
|
|
|
im pretty sure that within the current population of bitcoiners, there are atleast a couple that work for the walmart group of stores. so if there are any walmart employee's or in the same plee, any employee's of other grocery/superstores. please raise your hands (reply to acknowledgement) then we can seek you to pester your boss, or get you to request your colleagues within the company to pass messages to your superiors.
you can even tell them that their is no need to swap all bitcoin for FIAT as you would happily receive your paycheck as pure bitcoin.
inform your superiors that you can be in direct contact with bitpay/coinbase and you can help set them up with those API's and services to integrate with the system
Asking for payment in BTC is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t push the issue of having the company accept payment for goods in BTC. The way I see it, the best way to enact that is by enabling their transactional systems to interact with the Bitcoin protocol. If we really want change, they need to have an automated system that allows this type of transactional sequence (and in order to truly push it, it needs some sort of micropayment protection). I feel that a company that develops this type of infrastructure can allow this to happen. And the best way of doing that is by creating a Point of Sale machine that has Bitcoin integrated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
