then i guess all coins should implement PoS? or is it too late?
Not necessarily. There are two issues here: Issue 1. 51% computational attack. This can be defended by either: very strong network with many miners leading to a high network hashrate OR some proof of stake support which makes such an attack useless OR a hash algorithm which is expensive to compute (litecoins Scrypt). Issue 2. ASICs jumping on board to mine, rasing the difficulty to an absurdly high level and then leaving the network. This can be defended by either: very strong network with many miners leading to a high network hashrate OR a difficulty adjustment algorithm that is smart enough to cope with a sharp increase and decrease in network hashpower without leading to wild difficulty swings (e.g. PPCoin's exponential smoothing) |
|
|
|
PPCoin is immune to a computational 51% attack. This is because it uses proof of stake.
Nonsense, executing 51% on ppcoin is a lot easier, you just need to wait 30 days and combine the stake that you collected with your hashpower for the attack. There is no security proof for ppcoin like there is for bitcoin, the ppcoin article contains just gibberish if you actually try to read it. The people who mined 300,000 ppcoins in the first couple of days will dump everything when they see that there are no more fools who believe the fantasies that they tell you. Lol no you don't understand. Re-read my quote. A computational 51% attack isn't possible on PPCoin. That means if someone gains >51% of the hash rate power they can't do malicious things like double spending. A proof of work computational attack alone won't do anything. This is because a hybrid of proof of work and proof of stake is used. Therefore an ASIC can't launch a 51% computational attack. Instead a person needs to attack PPCoin's proof of stake by accruing an enormous number of coins ie a 51% proof of stake attack. Whereby someone needs 51% of the coins to have a decent chance of attacking to double spend. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
LOL at this topic even being created.
He's like the trollbox celebrity now.
|
|
|
|
TRC has shown that there is an additional computational vector for attack: A difficulty based attack. You can make the chain diff level so high that it slows the rate of production of blocks to the point where the network is at a standstill. Could happen for Bitcoin although you'd need a crazy powerful system to do it. What would happen with ppc ? 1. i point my popular btc pool to ppc for a while, 2. difficulty starts skyrocketting 3. miners leave 4. repeat 1+2 when needed how long would it takes to POS to bring difficulty down to a reasonable level back ? Isn't POS efficiency related to the number of running nodes and their coin age ? This is simply PPCoin's difficulty adjustment algorithm, it's independent of POS afaik... there is nothing stopping TRC from implementing it. PPCoin has shown so far that it's difficulty adjustment algorithm copes very well with ASICs or big increases in mining power. You'll notice a lot of people were telling the TRC devs to incorporate PPC's difficulty adjustment but it fell on deaf ears. Proof of stake (POS) is what protects against a computational 51% attack. |
|
|
|
It's price has not, though.
It's price has gone from 2 cents a coin to 14.5 cents a coin in the space of 3 weeks. It's also moved up to number 3 for market capitalisation, ranked only behind Bitcoin and Litecoin. Haters gonna hate. TRC has shown that there is an additional computational vector for attack: A difficulty based attack. You can make the chain diff level so high that it slows the rate of production of blocks to the point where the network is at a standstill. Could happen for Bitcoin although you'd need a crazy powerful system to do it. This is a good point. I had never read of this 'attack' before until I saw it happen with TRC. |
|
|
|
|
PPCoin is immune to a computational 51% attack. This is because it uses proof of stake.
And PPCoin's intelligent difficulty adjustment has coped just fine with ASICs hopping on board.
|
|
|
|
You know, in my opinion, it's likely this guy who is taking advantage of Terracoin's diff is Luke-jr, he's done it before on other alt-coins, no reason he can't spare 100gh/s to do it again.
Doesn't matter who's doing it, this time it's Luke-jr or Luke-sr and next time it's someone we don't know. Fact is: it is possible to do and with more ASIC's coming attacks like these won't go away. To gain trust in the coin (by people, pools and exchanges) TerraCoin must be safe against any attack. If not? Nobody will remember it in 2014... Part of the damage is already done. Remember, the end goal for a cryptocurrency is to be actually used for services and goods from vendors. Recent events do not inspire confidence in the currency. |
|
|
|
|
I've never seen someone get banned for bashing TRC before and I've seen it a lot lol.
Either:
- That guy kept spamming the same copy/paste comment or link over and over
- Or he wrote the comment in all caps
- Or he just got unlucky
I got banned for a day for posting a link. Only after I posted it did I realise everyone was posting it over and over and the the mod was fed up with people spamming it.
|
|
|
|
|
I posted a comment about PPCoin on the Bloomberg article.
I also think this is a great except from said article:
[With Bitcoin] The trade-off here is that as virtual value is created, real-world value is used up. About 982 megawatt hours a day, to be exact. That’s enough to power roughly 31,000 U.S. homes, or about half a Large Hadron Collider. If the dreams of Bitcoin proponents are realized, and the currency is adopted for widespread commerce, the power demands of bitcoin mines would rise dramatically.
I will quote that in future when spreading the word about PPCoin. Cold hard figures like that really backs up why PPCoin is a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Note that difficulty can't drop under 5255.042 since it is hardcoded value in new wallets.
What are the potential implications of this? |
|
|
|
I looked into the dictonary for "pee-pee". In the sense suggested there (dict.leo.org) even CockCoin would be better. Good to know the meaning of pee-pee, I associated it with the german word "pipi", which is the word children and childish people use for urine.
The Nintendo Wii (pronounced wee, as in urine) has been a spectacular success selling 10's of millions of units despite it's name. |
|
|
|
Good questions Jubalix. Though to fair, for this one: [6] What about all the people who sold on the basis of DEV's 'overaction' I mean when Dev emails they pulling the plug, price drops, when BTCe posts with devs overreaction BIG SELL off. So whats the plan DEV are you going to make good for causing this sell off or what. Ie you now admit it was The price on btc-e.com has barely budged the last 24 hours: http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/period-charts.php?period=today&resolution=hour&pair=trc-btc&market=btc-eThe big sell off occurred prior to the email |
|
|
|
I really don't understand why someone with 500 Giga to 1 Tera hash/second hashrate would attack the TRC network instead of making a load of money mining BTC. Note that this attack has gone on for many days now, while BTC has gone all the way to USD$250 and beyond. So instead of making up to $5,000 mining BTC everyday, this person is screwing around with the TRC chain and got maybe 50K~60K TRC coins, worth only $10,000 at the current exchange rate. So the person basically spent $30,000~40,000 in lost opportunity cost to attack the TRC chain. That frankly is not rational.
Something that makes sense is if the individual has a mega ton of Bitcoins from the oldschool days (millions of dollars worth). That person can afford the opportunity cost of not using the ASIC to mine for bitcoins. And that person has an extremely strong incentive to stop competing coins eating into the market share of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
There we go then... Developer over-reacted!
|
|
|
|
Just the opposite. Someone is accumulating a ton of TRC with a small investment in hashing power. Read through this thread and you will see it's more than someone just trying to accumulate lots of TRC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167493.20He didn't adopt Sunny's PPCoin because then TRC would have nothing unique about it. TRC's difficulty adjustment was the only thing that separated it from Bitcoin, Litecoin and PPCoin.
PPC is way more different that just a re-targeting system Where do I imply there is no difference between PPC and TRC than just a re-targeting system? If that's what you read it as, that wasn't my intention! I was trying to say the difficulty adjustment is the only 'original' aspect of TRC. Faster transactions are already in Litecoin which is more established. If TRC adopted PPCoin's difficulty adjustment it would have nothing original or 'worthwhile' to it's concept. A bunch of people wouldn't care about this but I suspect the developer did care. Keep thinking the dev got hacked if you want. I really doubt that is the case, it will be 24 hours soon since his last email. maybe I am wrong time will tell.. |
|
|
|
Who wastes and asic like that and why...riddle me that?
Someone obviously didn't like TRC very much. Why they didn't like TRC, that could be any number of reasons. |
|
|
|
Sunnyking confirmed the address looked legit and that he had talked to DEV
But why then did dev release a patch and move all the repo's around delete comments
Also dev could clearly have adopted SunnyKings solution....no hassel.....but did not
no this looks like a tame chain set up as a siphon
I suspect if it did work properly then it would be delisted.....
He didn't adopt Sunny's PPCoin because then TRC would have nothing unique about it. TRC's difficulty adjustment was the only thing that separated it from Bitcoin, Litecoin and PPCoin. Why hasn't the dev stepped forward and taken back his statement then? The email was sent yesterday. Do you think crazy_rabbit closed his wallet to create FUD too? I'm not writing you off completely but I think we should be realistic here. |
|
|
|
The evidence would seem to suggest
DEV IS EITHER
HACKED,
INTERNAL FIGHT AND HACKED,
FUD TO BUY CHEAP
OR ATTACKING HIS OWN CHAIN with Asics
but something here is unexplainable, he is not doing it by him / them selves, I mean the BTCe anouncment here....and no follow up from BTCe....it BTCe hacked or someone in on it too?
Or you could go with the simplest explanation and simply believe the email that dev sent out saying it's over. That email was sent 15 hours ago? Wouldn't the dev have registered on here to clear things up if he was 'hacked' by now? How do you explain Sunny the PPC dev saying the TRC dev spoke to him about this before the email was sent out? I suspect btc-e.com is waiting for a second announcement. What we have now is a grace period for anyone who is reading to sell off their holdings before this news spreads. In fact maybe the TRC dev is offloading his hoarded TRC as we speak before he makes the second announcement or offers more news? I think it's a 5% chance you are right. |
|
|
|
Presumably this is a fate that all smaller currencies that use SHA256 can suffer.
I have a theory that some are trying to undermine all the Alt-Currencies in a variety of ways not just by misusing their ASICs however with some weilding massive power with asics those using SHA256 are especially vulnerable.
Not good.
I disagree PPCoin is SHA256 and as far as I am aware it's impossible to 51% attack computationally because PPCoin relies upon proof of stake not just proof of work. So if an ASIC gets >51% of the hash rate they can't screw anything up. So that is the major threat averted. Additionally if an ASIC jumps on and ramps up the difficulty and then goes off, PPCoin has it's intelligent difficulty adjustment scheme which has been coping admirably with such events. |
|
|
|
It does seem like scrypt is seeming like the better and better choice for new altcoins not wishing to be used and abused by powerful asic's, though PPC apparently has come through this unscathed due to Sunny Kings innovations on the difficulty adjustments.
Not only that, even if an ASIC has >51% of the hash power on the PPCoin chain it still can't perform a computational attack because PPCoin relies upon proof of stake. Even if the ASIC has 99% of the hash power it shouldn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
