If you are looking for a "different" coin take a look at Datacoin. It's a primecoin fork with just one modification, it adds a 128k data field to every transaction so you can store (small amounts of ) data into the blockchain, so far it's an interesting experiment since the coin itself have's a purpose, you pay fee's to store data into the blockchain. The possibilities/usages of this coin are endless and the killer app could be around the corner. Moreover it's one of the few coins that can peacefully coexist with BTC.
The coin is very new, but as I said, a very interesting experiment.
So after 8 million transactions it takes up a terrabyte? There must be something I'm missing because a DDoS attack or just a harddrive filling attack seems very feasible. The maximum capacity of the network is approximately 520 Gb per (coin) year, that's deterministic, you can't do a "hard drive filling" attack as you called it. The maximum capacity of a block is 1 Mb, if this attack worked then transaction spamming (which worked at some point for Bitcoin) would also work, but measures where taken to avoid this kind of attacks a while ago for Bitcoin. DDoS attack against a P2P currency ? Good luck. And that also applies to any crypto, not to mention it doesn't make much sense for the attacker. And BTW, I am not saying this cryptocurrency is invulnerable, just saying that it's a very interesting experiment, and that's what the OP was asking for AFAIK. >DDoS attack against a P2P currency? Good luck. Seems pretty feasible. If I have ten nodes make 1mb of transactions per second I doubt the network could handle it. |
|
|
|
From Gavins Github: According to measurements from Christin Decker and Roger Wattenhofer: "each kilobyte in size costs an additional 80ms delay until a majority knows about the block."
80ms seems high. I'm not sure about the Bitcoin network topology, but if it is as efficient a possible, then it should take log_6(X/2) sends to get the block to 50% of the nodes where X is the number of nodes connected. If I'm interpreting http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/ correctly, there are 15k nodes connected right now. log_6(15000/2) = 5 sends. Does it really take 80 seconds to send 1mb from person A to person B to person C to person D to person E? |
|
|
|
|
Worst attempt at a scamcoin I've EVER seen.
|
|
|
|
Solid dev isn't a feature.
..Anything actually changing the currency? Or is it something that can be applied to any currency.
..Good feature, but creating a new currency isn't required for this...
LOL, sure some of these things could be implemented in BTC or LTC, but the haven't because their devs have not created it, whether by being complacent or unable to. That's why a solid dev is a KEY feature. They come up with the ideas and implement them into their coins. BTC or LTC could then steal the idea but do you think they will be able to implement and maintain a feature as well as these guys that create it, I think not. Hilarious. Did you just call the bitcoin development team incompetent? Your head is so far up kimoto's ass, how have you not died of suffocation yet? LOL, don't put words in my mouth Stableboy. Go back to you premined/centralized mixer scam.  See ad hominem. |
|
|
|
If you are looking for a "different" coin take a look at Datacoin. It's a primecoin fork with just one modification, it adds a 128k data field to every transaction so you can store (small amounts of ) data into the blockchain, so far it's an interesting experiment since the coin itself have's a purpose, you pay fee's to store data into the blockchain. The possibilities/usages of this coin are endless and the killer app could be around the corner. Moreover it's one of the few coins that can peacefully coexist with BTC.
The coin is very new, but as I said, a very interesting experiment.
So after 8 million transactions it takes up a terrabyte? There must be something I'm missing because a DDoS attack or just a harddrive filling attack seems very feasible. |
|
|
|
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Firstly: @Yurizhai Nice post! Very entertaining. Secondly: @t3a In earlier stage it would indeed have been rather the PoW that has been vulnerable to "> 50% attacks" than the PoS (because the PoW of Peercoin utilizes SHA-256 like Bitcoin and there are legions of SHA-256 devices in the wild...). The Peercoin network is already quite far on its way to transition to PoS. If you have a look at this block explorer you see that only 7 of the last 50 blocks have been PoW blocks. So a "> 50% attack" with PoW is not really possible. With PoS a "> 50% attack" is still possible but much more difficult and costly than attacking a "PoW only" coin! Absolute security is not possible but the relative security of PoS is higher than the security of PoW. If you want to attack using the PoS process, you need more money (in relation to a PoW attack). It is an illusion that there is an "easy attack" for PoS  I have made a calculation some weeks ago. Feel free to point out errors in it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=326216.msg3526904#msg3526904And as previously stated: the checkpoints will phase out. You need money to perform the attack in the first place, but finding alternative histories where you're awarded the PoS block is computationally inexpensive. |
|
|
|
Something is fishy. I had serious déjà vu while I read the OP. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3253022#msg3253022You even plagiarised from it: P.S. I’m a veteran member of this forum. I have to use this brand new account to remain anonymous but later I may reveal my identity.
The exact same line. And I mean exact, down to the double space between two sentences. Great find. Sloppy job OP. |
|
|
|
So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization?
Oh yes. That's a known fact. The disagreement was whether or not that made PoS a 'failure' or non-innovative. That would be like saying someone who invented a cell phone that never needed to be charged wasn't innovative just because they had to put a temporary cap of 10 calls per day on it. Pretty bad analogy. The problem with PoS isn't that it limits anything. It's that it creates a central point of failure and isn't decentralized. The whole purpose for PoS was to make the coin 51% resilient, but now with checkpoints it is not even 0.1% proof. (The 0.1% being the checkpoint signer). |
|
|
|
The reason for the checkpoints was the ease of a 51% attack using the PoS. If the innovation doesn't work I wouldn't consider it innovative.
But the innovation does work it just turned out it needed to be approached differently than a regular coin. New ideas lead to new problems. It's not like PoS was turned off completely, it's benefits are being reaped as of today. Do not argue with the cryptogenic council. They do not make mistakes sir. >it needed to be approached differently than a regular coin. So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization? |
|
|
|
Thank you for your feedback everyone! Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Nothing in PPC has 'failed'. The checkpoints are just a safety measure until it is reasonable to remove them. As this coin is designed with the long term in mind I have no problem with it. Bitcoin had the luxury of being the first coin that did not have as many people interested in cryptos at the time. Feathercoin has been successfully attacked twice this year I believe. Other coins as well. The checkpoints will be removed starting in client version 0.5(0.4 is due out in a week or two). I do not see his caution in regards to his long term oriented cryptocurrency as a stain on the innovation of the coin overall. The award stands. The reason for the checkpoints was the ease of a 51% attack using the PoS. If the innovation doesn't work I wouldn't consider it innovative. the problem with PoS is, ironically, that there is nothing at stake. When you PoW mine you expend costly resources and the expense only has a return if your blocks have a chance of making it into the longest chain... you're wasting energy going off to mine a losing fork.
in PoS you expend no resource, your PoS mine in one chain doesn't preclude you from PoS mining infinite forking chains.
PPC was exploited via this basically as soon as PoS mining became possible: someone started mining many alternative histories, finding ones where his coins got selected in block after block.
PC was revised so that the identity of the PoS stake was depended on past PoW blocks, ... making it forever dependant on PoW for security too... the weird incentives still remain, though you can no longer use it to mine all the blocks without also having hashpower.
initially the developer signatures were just supposted to bootstrap it until PoS was mining most blocks, ... but its remained due to pos turning out to be less awesome than expected.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
|
|
|
|
Quark - Clone of Bitcoin with 6 different hashing algorithms. Leads fools into believing it is ASIC proof, but really it is just temporarily a botnet-miners friend. ANC, MEC, BTB, GRC are some good ones.
ANC - Bitcoin already can connect through Tor. Coin Control is a good idea, but it isn't a protocol modification and doesn't require a new currency. MEC - Probably made by an art student. All that it looks like was changed was the block rewards (doubled) and a flashy website was made for it. BTB - PPC except "super rare" (in other words the creator has no idea how economics works) GRC - LTC except centralized. You're better off donating your processing power to BOINC and mining LTC at the same time than supporting this centralized scamcoin.Really? It's centralized? The only thing "centralized" about it is that it has to get its research projects from a third-party source. Unless you can find someone who makes a coin that generates its own scientific research algorithms, good luck at finding a distributed computing research coin that isn't "centralized". No one is controlling the coin, all BOINC does is measure the reward you receive based on your contribution to BOINC. Correct me if I am wrong, but is not Primecoin decentralized? Another cryptocoin to watch in this space is Curecoin, but I do not know much about it. Primecoin is decentralized because you can do a proof of work without another entity vouching for you. There may be scientific applications for large primes, but I've never heard of any. |
|
|
|
I would imagine there will be people out there who will be prepared to pay 0.0000000000001 BTC/LTC/altcoin for some new cryptocurrency well into the foreseeable future.
Partially true except for one thing: Bitcoin can only be divided into 0.000000001 units (a satoshi). Whether we like it or not, the ROI on some of these altcoins puts bitcoin to shame. You'd have to hold bitcoin for months to make the kind of ROI many of these altcoins have made since mid-November. It's a lot easier for a coin worth one hundredth of a cent to increase tenfold then for bitcoin to go from a 12B to a 120B market cap.
Many are pump and dumps. If one is going to invest in altcoins, why not spread the risk around? Sure, you won't end up with the same kind of ROI you could have ended up with had you gone all-in in the right altcoin but the chances of timing that one perfectly are pretty slim.
Look in the sticky at all of the failed altcoins. Investing carelessly in dozens of altcoins will leave you with a majority (the pump and dumps) that fail, and a few that are still being pumped, and one or two that have actual improvements over Bitcoin and survive. |
|
|
|
Nxt - Do you like 100% premine? Is one person owning the entirety of a currency something that appeals to you? Also did they fix PoS or is it forced to be centralized along with being 100% premine? Nxt is the USD of cryptocurrencies.
Nxt is not "mined" so it cannot be "premined". It's a different concept of crypto currency, and the launch was pretty transparent. Time will tell if it succeeds or not, but it doesn't look like a scam. I have some "play Nxt" but am not really invested in it. What I don't like about Nxt that they haven't released the source code until now, we'll see if they do that on January 3. It is 100% premined. That's why it isn't mined, because there aren't any more to be mined, only transaction fees to earn. |
|
|
|
ANC - Bitcoin already can connect through Tor. Coin Control is a good idea, but it isn't a protocol modification and doesn't require a new currency.
MEC - Probably made by an art student. All that it looks like was changed was the block rewards (doubled) and a flashy website was made for it.
BTB - PPC except "super rare" (in other words the creator has no idea how economics works)
GRC - LTC except centralized. You're better off donating your processing power to BOINC and mining LTC at the same time than supporting this centralized scamcoin.
TL;DR: Buy coins that have actual features and aren't premined or centralized (BTC, NMC).
MEC- Solid dev. One of the only scrypt coins not based on litecoin. Kimoto converted one of the newest beta versions of bitcoin himself. Also sports a very innovative difficulty algorithm and coinjoin is going to be added. (coinjoin > zerocoin) Sick looking wallet too. Amazing community support. Lots of thing going on behind the scenes if you care to do some research. ANC - Solid devs, strong I2P support, working on adding coinjoin. BTB - agree. GRC- see my above posts. It also has pop3 email and a p2p pool built into the client. Solid dev isn't a feature. One of the only scrypt coins not based on Litecoin isn't a feature, scrypt is, but that is already in another coin. "Also sports a very innovative difficulty algorithm" - Will look into this "coinjoin is going to be added" coinjoin can be added to any cryptocurrency. It won't be unique to this currency. "Lots of thing going on behind the scenes if you care to do some research. " - Anything actually changing the currency? Or is it something that can be applied to any currency. "strong I2P support" - Good feature, but creating a new currency isn't required for this. It could just as easily be a Bitcoin client, but the devs didn't get in on Bitcoin early so they are making their own currency and hoping it is pumped. "pop3 email and a p2p pool built into the client" - These don't require creating a new currency, you could just as easily make a new client, see my previous comment. |
|
|
|
Good point. What I really should have said is that it *needs to be centralized to actually work, and today it doesn't work. GRC checks your computer to see whether or not you are contributing to BOINC. This can and has been easily spoofed.
*I am not advocating centralization, simply pointing out that the only way GRC can keep miners from lying about contributing to BOINC is through centralization.
Wrong. In fact the developer has an open bounty if you can hack it which no ones claimed yet. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358931.0Bounty is 5 days old and for 5000 gridcoins, which isn't much. Coin generation is based on a local check of whether or not BOINC is working. All it takes is a modification of BOINC which isn't even worth 5000 GRC right now. If GRC actually gained value then miners would make a BOINC modification that always gave them the max reward. |
|
|
|
Sure, if it makes you feel more secure and safe to think of it in those terms, then so be it.
Yes, I do feel more safe and secure believing facts. Your statement is not without profound irony: the clone becomes cloned. Hmm...
There is nothing ironic about me pointing out that the cryptocurrency is a copy. This might help you http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ironyIt's ironic because first you say CGB is a copy then you say what's to stop other coins from...copying...it. Apparently you should spend more time reading the dictionary yourself. Yeah, it's still not ironic. It's neither "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" nor "the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny" Back to the point: CGB is a copy of another currency and copying that currency serves no purpose and is useless, but if your program on top is useful, then one would want to copy it so it could be used on a useful currency. Copying the program from one currency to another solves the problem of compatibility. Copying the code of a currency to make another currency solves no problems. What, you weren't trying to be funny??? But you had me laughing the whole time... You have me laughing still as you argue semantics of copying. I'm building an application protocol on top of the CGB block chain. This is its uniqueness whether you like it or not. And that it doesn't solve problems you deem relevant is irrelevant to me. What, you weren't trying to be funny??? But you had me laughing the whole time...
You have me laughing still as you argue semantics of copying.
Clearly all you read in the definition was "funny", not "use of words that mean the opposite". I'm building an application protocol on top of the CGB block chain. This is its uniqueness whether you like it or not.
Your program is unique, but it doesn't make CGB unique because your program can be run most coins. And that it doesn't solve problems you deem relevant is irrelevant to me.
CGB doesn't solve any problems AT ALL unless you count not being an early investor as a problem. DogeCoin looks very good because they use scrypt, have a lot of coins, fair dev, nice community, no premine.
(SEE WHAT I DID THERE?)
Seriously tho if there are any alts that have a significant own functionality or improvement I would be interested. So far I have not been convinced. I like the idea of Namecoin (not as the next or altenative btc but just as what Namecoin is) - but if not really adapted it seems rather useless. Will follow some more alt. topics to see if someone can convince me.
Look at the sticky for all the altcoins. There is a brief description for each. Unfortunately, 95% of them are changing the block generation speed of another coin and premining.
LOL clearly any alts that weren't around when you got into cryptos are not legitimate. We've seen your kind many times come through here, move along joker.
Why don't you show me why I'm wrong in ANY of coins I discussed? By the way, NMC wasn't around when I first got into Bitcoin, but I think it is legitimate. Quark - Clone of Bitcoin with 6 different hashing algorithms. Leads fools into believing it is ASIC proof, but really it is just temporarily a botnet-miners friend. ANC, MEC, BTB, GRC are some good ones.
ANC - Bitcoin already can connect through Tor. Coin Control is a good idea, but it isn't a protocol modification and doesn't require a new currency. MEC - Probably made by an art student. All that it looks like was changed was the block rewards (doubled) and a flashy website was made for it. BTB - PPC except "super rare" (in other words the creator has no idea how economics works) GRC - LTC except centralized. You're better off donating your processing power to BOINC and mining LTC at the same time than supporting this centralized scamcoin.Really? It's centralized? The only thing "centralized" about it is that it has to get its research projects from a third-party source. Unless you can find someone who makes a coin that generates its own scientific research algorithms, good luck at finding a distributed computing research coin that isn't "centralized". No one is controlling the coin, all BOINC does is measure the reward you receive based on your contribution to BOINC. Good point. What I really should have said is that it *needs to be centralized to actually work, and today it doesn't work. GRC checks your computer to see whether or not you are contributing to BOINC. This can and has been easily spoofed. *I am not advocating centralization, simply pointing out that the only way GRC can keep miners from lying about contributing to BOINC is through centralization. |
|
|
|
Sure, if it makes you feel more secure and safe to think of it in those terms, then so be it.
Yes, I do feel more safe and secure believing facts. Your statement is not without profound irony: the clone becomes cloned. Hmm...
There is nothing ironic about me pointing out that the cryptocurrency is a copy. This might help you http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ironyIt's ironic because first you say CGB is a copy then you say what's to stop other coins from...copying...it. Apparently you should spend more time reading the dictionary yourself. Yeah, it's still not ironic. It's neither "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" nor "the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny" Back to the point: CGB is a copy of another currency and copying that currency serves no purpose and is useless, but if your program on top is useful, then one would want to copy it so it could be used on a useful currency. Copying the program from one currency to another solves the problem of compatibility. Copying the code of a currency to make another currency solves no problems. |
|
|
|
Sure, if it makes you feel more secure and safe to think of it in those terms, then so be it.
Yes, I do feel more safe and secure believing facts. Your statement is not without profound irony: the clone becomes cloned. Hmm...
There is nothing ironic about me pointing out that the cryptocurrency is a copy. This might help you http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony |
|
|
|
Or maybe that was a rhetorical question and you're just trying to pump your own toy coins with nothing to offer other than 'volume' for exchanges and 'auctions' and 'ad platforms'...?
Learn to read, I clearly endorsed Bitcoin at the bottom of the post. If you think pointing out flaws in these cryptocurrencies will raise the price of Bitcoin you are delusional. As for your project: good for you, but assuming it is successful and open source, could you explain why it won't be forked to be compatible with Bitcoin right away? There is nothing unique about the currency itself. It is simple a copy of another currency that users are trying to get in on early. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
