Curious what the point of creating a checkout system when the POS algorithm hasn't been proven publicly that it can hold its own without checkpoints.
Just seems backwards...like the chicken and egg problem. But only difference is having a shopping cart or Point of sale system needs security first before it makes sense to use.
So when was the release of the new PPC POS algorithm?
You are quite correct although you miss the point that's exactly why I am organizing bounty project and not working on it myself. Instead I will concentrate on the security issues and client features. Release is very close. Likely in a week or so. |
|
|
|
Use the space here to offer your bounty proposals/discussions for PPC. Active BountiesSuspended Bounties[Market Acceptance - SUSPENDED] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=142295.msg1937308#msg1937308Sunny: pledge 100 PPC to bounty hunter for each retailer adopted up to first 20, through May 2013. [OpenCart Support - see below for description] [OpenCart bounty proposal - SUSPENDED] After seeing the opencart btc/ltc payment demo, I like the project very much. So I am going to offer my first bounty project: Completing an opencart ppc module based on https://github.com/btcgear/OpenCart_Bitcoinhttps://github.com/live627/OpenCart_Litecoinhooked to bitparking exchange rate. If there needs to be bitcoin 0.7 features I could provide patch support before ppcoin's refresh to bitcoin's 0.7. Requirement: 1) demo a successful opencart transaction paid by PPC. 2) PPC payment amount calculated based on bitparking exchange rate. 3) fork published on github. |
|
|
|
Nice project  I would offer a bounty project for ppc opencart module soon. |
|
|
|
|
Yes I agree with Chris. It's a well known chicken and egg problem. But there should be a path. We shall see.
|
|
|
|
Did I miss a publication or a preliminary release of the source code? Can you post a reference?
There are multiple problems with the stake implementation right now. The two most pressing ones are
1) The ability to augment POS generation by computational power (it's devastating effect is mostly negated by checkpoints)
2) The ability to use the same stake in alternate branches of the blockchain. So there's no penalty/incentive to decide a priori for a specific branch, lowering the attack cost for a double spent to zero.
v0.3 has not yet been released, but is getting very close to be ready. Andy is probably referring to my short explanation of the new protocol in the weekly updates. No it's not as easy as it sounds as it took me months to design and develop. Your second point is often argued against proof-of-stake, but I think it is already explained well in the bitcoin wiki article on proof-of-stake. Such attacks on block chain could result in real losses of the currency holding itself, even though in terms of ppcoin unit the holding is the same, but in terms of other currencies the attackers would suffer large loss due to the loss of confidence of the coin. So no, such attack is not 'cost-free'. |
|
|
|
SOLVED!! The solution involves patching PPCoin. I will put in the suggestion in github. Basically it involves changing the base58.h file.Litecoin has an altered base58.h, and it appears that the file has to be changed whenever using a address version above 00. In Base58.h public:
void SetSecret(const CSecret& vchSecret, bool fCompressed)
{
assert(vchSecret.size() == 32);
SetData(fTestNet ? 239 : 128, &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
if (fCompressed)
Change the 239 to 245 (Testnet 128+117) 128 to 183 (Livenet 128+55) public:
void SetSecret(const CSecret& vchSecret, bool fCompressed)
{
assert(vchSecret.size() == 32);
SetData(fTestNet ? 245 : 183, &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
if (fCompressed)
And again in here bool IsValid() const
{
bool fExpectTestNet = false;
switch(nVersion)
{
case 128:
break;
case 239:
fExpectTestNet = true;
break;
to: bool IsValid() const
{
bool fExpectTestNet = false;
switch(nVersion)
{
case 183:
break;
case 245:
fExpectTestNet = true;
break;
Thanks for the investigation of the compatibility issue with vanitygen. I have received the pull request and will give it a review by this weekend. Good job! |
|
|
|
It has been discussed in every subforums now. In altcoin subforum see here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141432.0No I don't think it 'competes' with bitcoin. It's a credit pegged to US dollar and backed by Amazon. Most likely there would be hurdles for transferring amazon coins between users or selling them for dollars, just like any other prepaid credit, airline miles etc but Amazon is savvy enough to call it 'coin' to steal some mojo from bitcoin  |
|
|
|
What version of Firefox are you using? I'm not getting this error and the certificate I'm served is the ppcexchange one.
It works for me now. The firefox version is 10.0.11 (tor browser) |
|
|
|
Q: If a customer uses Amazon Coins to purchase my app, does that change how I am paid?
No. Developers receive the same royalty payments regardless of what payment method is used. One Amazon Coin is worth one cent, so if an app costs $2.99 it will cost 299 Amazon Coins. Once a user purchases the app using Amazon Coins, we will pay the developer his/her share of the $2.99 in dollars.
Looks like just another prepaid credit tied to dollar and backed by Amazon. But it would be interesting to see if Amazon would be bold enough to allow free transfer/redemption to substantiate the 'virtual currency' part. |
|
|
|
Vanitygen is located at: https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen.gitAfter installing vanitygen you can import the private keys it generates to use your own custom addresses. One little talked about option with vanitygen is the ability to use different address versions in order to generate addresses for other chains. For example: PPC address version is 55 (Decimal). Using the -X switch I can generate PPC addresses. vanitygen -X 55 PP123
Difficulty: 4553521
Pattern: PP123
...
Ah thanks a lot for the neat vanitygen tutorial! I will add this info to ppcoin's FAQ. |
|
|
|
|
Certificate error in firefox:
> Technical Details
ppcexchange.bitparking.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate has expired.
The certificate is only valid for ltcexchange.bitparking.com
(Error code: sec_error_expired_issuer_certificate)
|
|
|
|
|
'Immune' is a strong word. 'More tricky' is likely.
I cannot say for sure as no details are released of the design.
But just from a reasonable design point of view, ppcoin also runs with 2 separate difficulties. So I could just provide my opinion on a design with two separate hashes and difficulties. If designed properly, you can make 51% attack difficult if attackers only compute one of the two hashes. But if attackers have the resource to compute both hashes in good scale then all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
Weekly Update #24 - The seed nodes have been successfully migrated this week. The new servers have been running smoothly the last couple days. Also thanks for Andy and xchrix for volunteering their nodes. Hopefully the seed nodes would now have better availability for block chain download.
- Testnet has been successfully switched to the new v0.3 protocol. The new code looks to have stabilized and I will continue testing on test network this week. I will also test building qt client in our official build for possible inclusion in the 0.3 release.
- The official build of ppcoin adopts bitcoin's verifiable build system (gitian-builder). This system allows developers to verify the integrity of the final release binaries. In theory users can verify the build too by following the same build procedures but currently the process is quite involved. This is part of the reasons why we haven't supported qt in release build yet. We believe that delivering trustable executable files is very important to our users.
- The first ASIC miner has been delivered on the market. Another milestone in the young history of bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Congratulations!
Have a fun week! |
|
|
|
Actually most altcoin has its dominating exchanges
...
NMC - btc-e
...
Bitparking disputes your selection of dominant exchange there... Oh really sorry I retracted it  |
|
|
|
What I'm suspecting is that you are looking for a dynamic price method, just like how "{mtgoxlast} * 1.02" will dynamically calculate the price based on "market" price. To provide that, the Gribble bot would need to be modified to become aware of the alt-coin exchanges. I'm not even sure how you would determine "market price", since unlike bitcoin there isn't one dominant marketplace for each alt coin, as far as I know. You could make an appeal to get at least some exchange quotes for some alts added to gribble. Or you could make your own bot (using the open source gribble code) and have a separate OTC channel.
Actually most altcoin has its dominating exchanges LTC - btc-e NMC - btc-e (?) PPC - bitparking DVC - vircurex |
|
|
|
Just to test some waters here, do we think there is a market for peer-to-peer trading like bitcoin-otc ( http://bitcoin-otc.com/)? I checked their website but there is no altcoins in the 'otherthing' column, which presumably supports quite a number of currency units. Is this simply because of lack of interest in trading? Or maybe there is a more popular place to trade goods/services in bitcoin (ala ebay craigslist) that I am not aware of? |
|
|
|
I have no idea how you get this graph but I think you need to review some basics as I have already mentioned in ppcoin thread: hash rate = difficulty * (2**32) / spacing target ppcoin proof-of-work spacing target: between 10 minutes and 2 hours (1x-12x of bitcoin's) bitcoin spacing target: 10 minutes So ppcoin's proof-of-work difficulty is at most 12x of bitcoin's difficulty at the same hash rate, and most likely much less than that. |
|
|
|
|
exchange down? 502 bad gateway
ltc, trc still up nmc seems down as well
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree Sunny.
PPC still uses bitcoin SHA256. So PPC has a good chance of getting mined the fuck out of it.
Litecoin does still stand currently as the ONLY active alt chain that isnt using SHA-256.
It's just my observation from bitcoin's halving last November. The profitability dropped by half within days for both LTC and PPC. So my guess is that even for ltc's asic resistance it couldn't provide much of a safe harbor for gpu miners due to simple economics. But no hard feelings, ltc still has by far the largest trading market among all altcoins. ASIC resistance may still prove useful to widen adoption, but I believe gpu miners's fate has been sealed. I could be wrong though |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
