If I were to create a sockpuppet, I'd probably choose something like yourmama1234 instead of Litecoin. :p
I've asked the user Litecoin to change his username so it's not as confusing, but he seems to be very fond of that name.
Fair answer on the Litecoin user name, I believe you. Can you now comment on why you participated in the 51% attack hoax for four days, even going so far as to arrange a private IRC channel to mount a defense? Mike, I already responded: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186.msg1060442#msg1060442That's not a response to the direct question of why did you fake a protection meeting in private IRC? Please explain how this doesn't undermine your credibility by colluding with BCEX? Seems you're extremely anxious to pass this off solely on BCEX without standing up and admitting your part. Did you or did you not actively participate in deceiving the LTC community at large?Mike I did not actively deceive the community. I already said I was not sure if it was a hoax or not. We had a private meeting on IRC to discuss various ways to protect from the possible 51% attack. In the end I decided to just do the checkpoint in the middle of the BCX attack to derail her attack, if there was indeed one. I'm not going to respond to any more of your FUD, RealSolid. |
|
|
|
From what I gather you're nothing more than nuisance here on this forum, that seems to be the consensus.
It's Michael Westin with an "i"...
I guess I'm being called out on my avatar by someone that uses an avatar representative of themselves?
Mike
CoinHunter (aka RealSolid) uses a Brad Pitt avatar on the forums. It's hard to not think you are a sockie when you are a newbie with a username like MicroCashMike and a Brad Pitt avatar. |
|
|
|
If I were to create a sockpuppet, I'd probably choose something like yourmama1234 instead of Litecoin. :p
I've asked the user Litecoin to change his username so it's not as confusing, but he seems to be very fond of that name.
Fair answer on the Litecoin user name, I believe you. Can you now comment on why you participated in the 51% attack hoax for four days, even going so far as to arrange a private IRC channel to mount a defense? Mike, I already responded: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186.msg1060442#msg1060442 |
|
|
|
It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.
Mike
Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter. I'm not Coinhunter, Charles. My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it. Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that? Mike I've already posted my take and I assume you've read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186.msg1060442#msg1060442So should I have told everyone that it was a bluff? Would you then call me irresponsible if BCX did indeed pull off a 51% attack because we were not ready? What would you have done MicroCashMike? I assume you hangout in #microcash, right? What's your username? |
|
|
|
Your info is not correct. 1.7 million USD is not millions.
This is simply splittin' hairs And "Get your coins off BTC-e NOW" doesn't sound good at all.
Any sane person would. Great example to other exchanges!
You must be referring to the recent partnership between BTC-e, Coblee and BCEX, right? They all knew ahead of time the 51% attack was a hoax. Mike Splitting hairs or not. Don't make things bigger than they are. It has got nothing to with insanity. To many people, including me, BTC-e is one of the best sites with great volumes and alt-currencies. Its been very profitable. And I am willing to take the risk with many others. I'm referring to sites like Bitcoinica. They all knew? So what? I know things too, that does't mean I'm going to sing like a bird. Did your mother not tell you that speech is silver, silence is gold? Coblee was not sure what to think of that. Created a checkpoint. And Dear Forum Members,
I have nothing to do with Litecoin.
It's confusing to some users when I post something and it might look like I am the official Litecoin spokesperson.
Thats not true, I'm just another investor.Good luck proving that you are not coblee's sockpuppet. I believe you, but clearly many members of this forum won't. If I were to create a sockpuppet, I'd probably choose something like yourmama1234 instead of Litecoin. :p I've asked the user Litecoin to change his username so it's not as confusing, but he seems to be very fond of that name. |
|
|
|
It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.
Mike
Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter. |
|
|
|
|
This is silly. We don't even know the economics of Microcash. How can we know which will be valued more in 6 months?
What if RealSolid decided that the total number of MC will be capped at 3 million? Since Litecoins will have 84 million coins, Microcash could have a market cap 1/10 the size of Litecoin and still be priced higher than Litecoin. Or what if RealSolid decided to premine a billion MC? Then chances are MC will be less than half the price of LTC. Without this kind of information, it would be stupid to take a bet on either side.
|
|
|
|
Summary:Interest Rate: 3.30% Weekly. Insurance : If there is a Pirate default anyone under this plan will receive 50% of their funds back. If Pirate changes his rates, then the rates of this program will change. Deposits can be made anytime at http://www.hkbtclending.com and interest will be paid 7 days after your deposit is made. For Example, if you deposit on Tuesday your payment will go out on Wednesday. Deposits must be held for one week minimum and there will be no proration of days on interest. Withdrawals may take up to 24 hours to be returned. Deposits can be returned at anytime. This is the only deposit backed by an insurance where you will be able to see the insurance funds sitting in an address in case of default. As deposits exceed the current insurance allocated I will add more to the insurance address. I will currently start the fund with 4,000 BTC which will allow for 8,000 BTC worth of Deposits. Link to Insurance fund. http://www.blockchain.info/address/12ducqed4pLJjCQL9CkwpfVLMEWAa1UQDnAddress of insurance fund. 12ducqed4pLJjCQL9CkwpfVLMEWAa1UQDn If there is any questions on how to setup this deposit up on the website or about the program feel to contact me. Email: Hashking1@gmail.comPM: hashking New Insured PPT offered follow link for details. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97041.msg1068849#msg1068849. Insurance like these don't make much sense for you or the depositors. In this case, why would I put 100 btc in this program instead of just putting 50 btc in your 6.75% non-insured PPT and keep 50 btc in my own wallet? |
|
|
|
|
I want to emphasize that even if I left the LTCPPT interest in btc-e and lost it due to the btc-e hack, I would absorb all the loss myself. I would make sure depositors of LTCPPT get their interest payments. Only in the event of a Pirate default, would there be a loss of principle. So the 0.5% fee I charge covers the work to exchange the interest payments into litecoins AND the insurance against any mishandling of the principle or interest payments by me or any exchanges I use.
|
|
|
|
I am going to point out some the clear differences and advantages I see in using a days destroyed weighted block chain over proof of stake. I am going to go by some of the things I see written in the wiki as reference to PoS.
Proof of stake problems:
* Monopoly is still possible under proof-of-stake. ... [A] proof-of-stake monopolist is more likely to behave benevolently exactly because of his stake in Bitcoin.
The idea can already be written off as a joke.
* stakeholders (people who have bitcoins) are expected to sign it by using a private key associated with their address which contains coins to sign the block hash.
So everybody who owns a bitcoin is supposed to sign? Are there any minimums on this? This is just left wide open. How many thousands of extra transactions and signature verifications will this take? This may be an extreme imposition on the entire network.
* The signatures are broadcast on the network and included in a future block.
Or not. A miner has no incentive to put signatures in a block. Verifying them is work, they add lots of data to the miner's payload, and if the signatures are signing a block-chain different from the one he's working on, he will simply drop them. This is a problem because nodes may never see these signatures.
* Cementing is a node's reluctance to do a blockchain reorganization. A node will reject any new block found if it contradicts a 6-block deep branch it is already aware of and currently considers valid. That is, once a node receives 6 confirmations for a block, it will not accept a competing block even if it is part of a longer branch.
This does not require any form of proof of stake and can be implemented on its own. It is inherent in the design of a proper algorithm for a days destroyed weighted block-chain.
* In a pure PoW system this is problematic to do because a node could be stuck on "the wrong version" - if an attacker isolates the node and feeds him bogus data, it will not embrace the true, longer chain when he learns of it. However, using PoS to have the final say in such situations makes this possible.
PoS only has the final say when? When 51% of all coins in existence have signed one chain or another? This is insanity.
* If an address signs two conflicting blocks, its weight is reset to 0. This is to limit the power of malicious stakeholders.
Where exactly is all of this information going to be stored? How much immense amounts of data will this add to the block-chain? Denials of service attacks will be everywhere.
Days destroyed weighted block-chain advantages:
* Clients have a say in the matter. Every client. Miners are forced to include every transaction possible because if someone else comes along and does them one better, their block may be invalidated. Even if only a single miner is doing the right thing, the clients will be using his chain over a malicious one. So as long as one miner is honest, the honest network wins.
* Clients have the power to choose which block-chain is the correct one, not basing it off of hashing power. This is the ultimate blow to any 51% attack. Want to create a monopoly? Oh well someone else came along and is offering cheaper tx fees, goodbye.
* Absolutely no additional data is added to the block-chain. Nothing to keep track of except mini-forks which may be slightly more likely depending on how the final algorithm works.
* Money is given no more power than it already has. There is a veritable check and balance system between clients, miners, and the wealthy.
* Difficulty CAN GO DOWN without opening the network to attack. This means transaction fees can go down. And stakeholders don't have to be paid to cancel out this effect.
Proof of stake is a waste of time in a bitcoin-like block-chain. Completely.
I agree that proof of stake will likely add a lot of bloat to the blockchain and possibly add a lot of strain to the network to propage all those signatures. Etlase2, I am also thinking about your days destroyed solution. It seems like a good solution, but can you think of how it can help solve the problem of an attacker forking the chain for 10 blocks so that he can do a double spend on the exchange? |
|
|
|
OK - I obviously have something quite wrong with my wallet.
I have deleted all the block index files, db files etc from my Litecoin wallet area, and redownloaded the block index.
Abe.liteco.in is showing that the coins are in my wallet - as if I had never transferred them out, In fact it has 0 transfers out, and a total of 12 transactions. However the last entry in my wallet is showing the transfer out of 2825+ LTC to my BTC-E address, and still has 0 zero confirmations. My wallet is reporting 13 transactions so all is tallying up apart from the transfer to BTC-E. I have had mining income post the unconfirmed transaction.
Any ideas how I can "fix" my wallet?
Cheers
For some reason your transaction wasn't broadcast onto the net. This can happen with Bitcoin too, the only "fix" I know of is to leave the client running until it rebroadcasts the transaction. The coins are not shown in your local wallet because it has the transaction stored locally. Restoring a backup of course deletes the transaction. This could happen if you send the coins and then immediately close your client. When you then reopen your client, it can take a long time for the transaction to be rebroadcasted. That happened to me a couple of times. |
|
|
|
I got pirate's payment. And interest payments have been sent.
Luckily, I exchanged for the litecoins throughout the week and withdraw them Yesterday. I'm not sure what's going on with BTC-e. I may have to use a different exchange next week.
Yeah, I'm interested in your pass-through, but with the hack on BTC-e, do you have another exchange for LTC? I might use Vircurex, but that seems to be down. I will post when I have more information. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
I got pirate's payment. And interest payments have been sent.
Luckily, I exchanged for the litecoins throughout the week and withdraw them Yesterday. I'm not sure what's going on with BTC-e. I may have to use a different exchange next week.
|
|
|
|
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. You are really throwing out too many what ifs. If the exchanges are malicious, then they can steal your coins outright without anymore having to perform a 51% attack. So the point is moot.
i am "throwing out" too many what ifs just as you "throw out" too many assumptions to support yourself as to why this is a good thing for litecoins. also are we REALLY going to make ANOTHER trade off in order to make this work?even MORE time to confirm transactions? really?... bitcoin = 1 block every ten minutes so for bitcoins this would take almost (1000 minutes) 17 HOURS for every transaction to be "safe" against this. so if litecoin takes half as much time to generate the same amount of blocks, we would need (500 minutes) 8.5 HOURS for transactions to be "safe". is this really practical ? you tell me. Litecoin blocks are 2.5 mins. So 100 blocks is about 4 hours. But you don't have to wait for a signature block for every transaction. You can choose to wait for large transactions similar to how most people don't wait for 6 confirmations. In the end, this is just an idea that we are discussing. Nothing is set in stone. Even the 100 blocks was just something thrown out there. We could do signature blocks every 6 blocks, but we have to find a tradeoff between bloating the blockchain and the security provided by the signature blocks. |
|
|
|
Either I've failed to understand you, or you've failed to understand me.
To "list litecoins for sale in an exchange", you have to deposit them by doing a litecoin transfer on the blockchain, so if the exchange waited for the signed checkpoint block then we agree that the deposit isn't reversible. Now you trade on the exchange and the ownership of those litecoin changes hands to someone else, who wishes to withdraw these litecoins so he tells the exchange to initiate a litecoin transfer on the blockchain to his personal litecoin address (assume again that the exchange waits until the next signed checkpoint to verify that the withdrawal transaction really took place, otherwise if the exchange sees that the withdrawal transaction was reversed so that the litecoins are back under the control of the exchange then it considers it a failed withdrawal attempt and restores the litecoins to the person's account on the exchange). If the attacker prepared a forked branch while this is going on, and didn't include this withdrawal transaction in his forked branch, then he denied the withdrawal attempt, but nobody is left with "imaginary litecoins", it's again simply an attack that denies transactions.
You should note that an attacker who just denies transaction does it at a financial loss to himself while he competes with the distributed hashpower, so such attacks cannot be sustained for long. There's no financial incentive to do such an attack, it's purely malicious, so these kinds of attacks are less likely.
you assume exchanges are trustworthy. your assumption does not work with malicious exchanges. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. You are really throwing out too many what ifs. If the exchanges are malicious, then they can steal your coins outright without anymore having to perform a 51% attack. So the point is moot. |
|
|
|
Btw, Bitcoinmax has applied interest so Pirate may be in the process of paying now.
no, those are only database entries... haven't received BST payout yet. What time does he normally pay by? I would normally expect payments about 5 hours ago. So he's late today. But please don't panic yet.  |
|
|
|
Yes, you just described a 51% attack with a double spend. Trust in Litecoin then quickly disappears and price of Litecoin goes to 0. All the stake holders just lost a lot of money. Tell me why any one of the big stake holders would want to do that, let alone most of them doing it together at the same time.
this is just one example i could come up with in less than 5 minutes as to why the biggest stake holders could be incentivized to collaborate with the attacker or even BE the attacker. the reason is clear: financial benefit from selling imaginary litecoins that will no longer exist when they sign the next checkpoint. also, trust in litecoins wouldnt be ruined because of it (the attack) unless they did it to a really big number of people (or with a really big number of litecoins), just as a single bank being robbed doesnt create a bank run. Did you not see that a single threat of a 51% attack caused massive panic and for the price to be almost halved. If a real attack happened, it's not going to be pretty. If you had 1,000,000 litecoins, would you attack the network to steal 10,000 coins and risk it? Also, your criticism applies to the current proof of work. Currently if you have 51% of the network, you can perform this double spend attack. With proof of stake, you need both 51% of hashrate and 51% of stake. So how is it worse than Today? |
|
|
|
Are you basing this statement on this poll alone or have you talked to a lot of Litecoin users about this? I think a lot of people are against this because they actually don't understand the proof of stake proposal. People think that with proof of stake, it means we give the control back to the wealthy and it's no different than what we currently have with fiat currencies. This is not true. (At least with Meni's implentation) Please read the wiki page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_StakeWith the proof of stake proposal, blocks are found the same way as they are currently with hashrate. And every 100 block, there will be a signature block. People who have a lot at stake (a lot of coins) sign signature blocks. They want to do that so that they protect their investment. If there are more than one block for that signature block, then block with the most signatures weighted by coins wins. Think of it in terms of checkpointing. Right now, one person (me) decides which blocks are checkpointed. With proof of stake, people how have a lot at stake gets to checkpoint signature blocks. So they can't control which transactions are included when. Miners still control that. All that the stake holders can do is that if there are more than one fork (if there's an attacker trying to 51% the chain), they can sign the signature blocks to help make sure that the fork with no malicious attack is the "true" chain. That helps me understand this concept a lot more. I personally like the idea, it would be no different then you releasing your own checkpoint and having the network agree to that, except this way is much more decentralized because the largest parts of the network still has to agree to it. I think? Yes, it's decentralized. Basically the concept is that every 100 blocks, there will be a signature block, which is like the checkpoint blocks. And the stake holders (people who own litecoins) decide to sign the block or not. If there is a competing signature block, then the block signed by the most coins wins out and is accepted as part of the real chain. And if so happens that more stake holders sign an attacker's signature block, then that chain will win out. But if you think about it... if the majority stake holders agree that the attacking chain is the "right" chain, so it makes sense for it to be accepted as the "right" chain. So it's equivalent to if BCX came out last week and released a new version of the Litecoin binaries with his/her chain checkpointed AND the majority of Litecoin users decided to run his binary instead of the binary I released. Then BCX's chain is the "right" chain and I'm the "attacker". But with proof of stake, instead of one client getting one vote, it's just one coin gets one vote. |
|
|
|
Cool idea I would deposit if you lowered the minimum to 10 BTC. Sorry, only doing multiples of 50 btc for now. It's really too much work do anything smaller as I don't have something automated set up. By the way, Pirate has not paid out interest today. I will send payments as soon as he does. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
