We are talking with several code auditors known to the community, and will announce once we have chosen one.
A slight correction to Gregxx post, while we striving to have the code reviewed during the pre-sale, due to rapid changes done to the code at the moment, we may start the auditing once the mainnet part finished and has been launched.
What's the rush to launch? I'm sure everybody invested would rather know the codebase is secure and reviewed by multiple people before launch. Get it on testnet, have it reviewed, used, get the bugs out, and then launch. |
|
|
|
without the technical side. your theory is based on the assumption that the hash is accepted as is and checked if it meets the difficulty. instead the values you send are run through the client, a hash is produced using the algo of the coin, and if that production matches up the block is valid. so a sha256 hash matching isn't enough, it'll be invalid. snipped code: class CBlockHeader
{
uint256 GetHash() const
{
return Hash9(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce));
}
};
class CBlock : public CBlockHeader
{
uint256 GetPoWHash() const
{
return GetHash();
}
};
(you were looking at the gethash function from transactions, not blocks in your above snip) How will it be invalid? the target and all underlying block data are the same. when the hash is converted to sha256, how would the hash be accepted but rejected if it is short circuited with sha256? Because sha256d(blockheader) produces a different result to sha256d(other_hashing_algo(blockheader)). If you assert that it can produce the same, that'd be a sha256 collission and every crypto program which uses sha256 is screwed. As I said earlier, the checks you are looking at all assume the hash you send is the one being used, when the hash is reproduced by each client when a block is broadcast. The client will come to a totally different hash that doesn't match the one you specified and just reject the block. |
|
|
|
PoA as an alternative too, it randomise who get's to sign the next block. |
|
|
|
|
r3wt, the nonce is the PoW not the hash. It's the former, nonce, time merkle which is checked, not the hash.
flaw's in what you thought was being checked.
very glad somebody is checking this stuff though, always question and check, thanks!
|
|
|
|
without the technical side. your theory is based on the assumption that the hash is accepted as is and checked if it meets the difficulty. instead the values you send are run through the client, a hash is produced using the algo of the coin, and if that production matches up the block is valid. so a sha256 hash matching isn't enough, it'll be invalid. snipped code: class CBlockHeader
{
uint256 GetHash() const
{
return Hash9(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce));
}
};
class CBlock : public CBlockHeader
{
uint256 GetPoWHash() const
{
return GetHash();
}
};
(you were looking at the gethash function from transactions, not blocks in your above snip) |
|
|
|
So you think Bitcoin will eventually fail?
Satoshi felt that bitcoin would end up with a huge transaction volume, or next to none. It remains to be seen, and could go either way. I guess the bet is if the utility bitcoin adds outweighs the cost of supporting it. |
|
|
|
next step
bitmark dev will change the name of the project and distance themselves from both names above
No, the name will be kept. There is no linkage between "bitmark" and anybody in the community, least of all darkota. Now please get back to the main topic of darkota and stop deflecting via ambiguity on to an innocent bystander. |
|
|
|
|
In Proof of Stake the people that hold the most coins sign the blocks that will be part of the block chain.
The theory is that people that have the most to lose from a 51% attack will do their best to prevent it.
But, if you have the most money, and are signing the blocks, don't you have the most to gain by executing a double spend attack, and nothing to lose if it fails?
|
|
|
|
Yeah.. until Cunicula came up with Proof of Stake..
Do you understand the Byzantine General's Problem? The blockchain is what solves the problem, not the Proof of Work.. he just implemented Proof of Work because he hadn't thought up Proof of Stake and it wasn't until this was released to thousands and thousands of people that someone else realized there was a better way to do it.. Proof of Stake.
The problem the blockchain solves isn’t how a consensus should be obtained, but rather but who should be a part of that consensus. In PoW the consensus is hashing power (hard to obtain). Miners choose which they feel is the most likely chain to succeed with their expensive hashing, and that chain wins. Consensus is formed. In PoS there is nothing at stake, so any holder can "bet on" multiple chains and benefit whichever one succeeds. There is no incentive stopping a miner from assigning there stake to competing chains. Consensus isn't formed. So PoS doesn't solve the consensus problem which PoW was created to solve. |
|
|
|
|
Each block is checked using the client source, you can make one client do anything, even mint 10000000000 of whatever coin, but the block will be rejected by all the other conforming clients because the block is invalid.
|
|
|
|
if you are not the owner of bitmark.com and bitmark.info - faircall and i retract
but
whois bitmark.com and bitmark.info
put that name in google with darkota's real name
then you can see both the owner of bitmark.com and the real name of darkota are co-devlopers on QuoraGraph
Nope I don't own any of the bitmark domains unfortunately. I'm also in the UK. I only chose the bitmark name a couple of days ago. Further, the registrant of the bitmark.com domain is "SEAN MOSS-PULTZ" who if you google, you'll find has no affiliation with this QuoraGraph you keep mentioning. Rather he has a profile on quora... You seem to be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 50000. ps: wtf is darkota's real name and how do you know it? Paul Bohm https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Paul%20Bohm%22%20%22SEAN%20MOSS-PULTZ%22 |
|
|
|
you both live in California and have worked on QuoraGraph
i hope this isn't true Of course not, I live in the UK. You're getting trolled (as was I, as were others). Just scroll back and then check the giggle account's post history and creation time. It was created directly in response to this thread, which I was unfortunate enough to become embroiled in. As I said, getting absurd. |
|
|
|
You guys need to do what I did and report the thread for abusing the self moderated thread option.
Agree, and notice that giggle is clearly one and the same as darkota. Clearly created the account just to post in this thread. I'm going to bow out, it's getting absurd. |
|
|
|
Many miners confuse profit from speculation with profit from mining. "If BTC goes down such that mining is unprofitable, we can hold the mined coins until it goes back up" is heard often. But this is illogical. Shut off the miners at that point and simply buy the coins you would have mined. You will pay less than it costs to run the miners. This will also serve to prop up the market such that the mining profitability point will serve as massive support line.
This is true, however doing this would also cause their machines to depreciate in terms of bitcoin as they will produce lower amounts of bitcoin as the difficulty goes up. In reference to the OP, he is correct that there is some pressure on the price of bitcoin from sales from miners, however that has been outweighed by other demand for bitcoin. Miners in general will not sell all of their proceeds as their revenues exceed their "current" costs (electricity) and their "capital" costs are often paid in bitcoin (the miners). Shutting down miners would cause a decrease in production causing difficulty to drop not rise, decreasing the cost of production until it matched the price of demand. Assuming demand was roughly equivalent to the number of coins produced. Which it isn't. Fair to say that in bitcoin's case downward pressure is not due to miners. As for alternative currencies, well supply outstrips demand on a daily basis, and when it doesn't it's usually because supply is being held back to artificially increase cost so they can be dumped for a higher return. |
|
|
|
you are either darkota or have worked with darkota in the past
why would you have this person on your team for the bitmark development
I think you misunderstand. Nobody is involved in bitmark apart from myself. So I am unsure how you have reached the conclusion you have. I replied in one of darkota's threads and had my reply removed. So I posted here to say that. I have as much awareness of, and affiliation to, darkota as I do to you. |
|
|
|
PoW may be able to solve the captcha problem.
Mining is CPU intensive. If a captcha was a script that mined to get a proof with difficultly X, then the cost of creating an account would outweigh the financial benefit of having said account.
But how would real person declare he is actually real??? Imho text captcha is kind of PoW anyway - or maybe better to call it "Proof of understanding" You can hire a team through mechanical turk to solve proof-of-human captcha. The captcha is solved, but the account is still under automated control or exploited. If you can attach an expense to an action, an expense which is unnoticed to a single individual taking a single action, but economically inviable to an entity seeking to exploit the action on mass for minor financial gain, then you have solved the problem. (Spam problem) |
|
|
|
|
PoW may be able to solve the captcha problem.
Mining is CPU intensive. If a captcha was a script that mined to get a proof with difficultly X, then the cost of creating an account would outweigh the financial benefit of having said account.
|
|
|
|
|
"Who benefits?" is a fair question to ask.
With IPO and premine the answer is quite clear.
But, I think it runs deeper, let us consider some alternatives.
Rig rental companies, or those who lease rigs may benefit. Each coin generates multiple rig rentals, and you may notice that the pricing structure for rig leases are normally significantly higher for short term leases.
Exchanges, new alts have significant trading volume, the fee's can amount to more than it costs to create a coin. Especially if you create and pump it yourself.
We could also consider all of the above.
If you own an exchange, are familiar with coin code bases, have multiple rigs and pools under your control, and can get an IPO, premine, or instamine, then your return on investment can be ridiculously high.
It is fair to consider that a new alt, launched with only a gimmick and block chain configuration must have a motive for doing so, especially when there is no clear scam (no ipo or suchlike).
Sometimes it may not be about getting a profit, but more about ensuring a no loss, or at least some ROI on hardware investment.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
