I think Peercoin has implemented checkpoints to guard against this. BCNext recognised the attack and that's why Nxt doesn't use coin age. 

It is good you have proved him right (if you have, I didn't check  ), I'm not sure that has been done before.

Do you know any Java?

Are you spreading your stake thinly across multiple accounts and waiting for the coin age to build?

10% is good? Ok  

Keep it up, research is good. A paper would be good, eventually.

Nice. But what does it show on a dead coin? There will be a handful of nodes, no one staking... hardly representative. Top 20 coin next time? 

Are you successfully gonna kill a dead coin?  

Comments forwarded to authors  >  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg10167295#msg10167295

So Bitshares chose 101 nodes so the network with two chains would always have a majority, 51 to 50.

When asked "What if we get [three chains of] 34 + 34 + 33?" the answer is...




It seems you are saying there is no mechanism for regaining consensus in Bitshares for when there are more than two competing chains? If you don't have an answer to "what if we get 34 + 34 + 33?", then it would follow that there can't be a mechanism to resolve it in the protocol?


If that is true, how would any consensus ever be regained?





(hadn't planned to expand on my previous 'yikes!', but the mods didn't like just that on its own)

The blockchain data shows ever increasing adoption, I don't think anybody expected Bitcoin levels of transactions after just 1 year. But they are increasing.

https://nxtblocks.info/#section/blockexplorer_charts

I am using May 2014 as that was the launch of the first major feature users could use, Asset Exchange.

Transactions per day has gone up more than ten fold.

May 14: 200 - 500 transactions per day
Jan 15: 5500 - 7000 transactions per day

The growing steepness of the curve in Cumulative transactions per day shows how transactions are increasing at a faster and faster rate.


With the  transactions per day increasing, the Average transactions per block per day is also rising, which is good for forgers.

May 14: 0.3 - 0.6 transactions per block per day
Jan 15: 8 - 11 transactions per block per day


No crypto shows signs of wide adoption (even Bitcoin). Nxt does show positive, concrete signs of growing adoption and at an ever increasing rate. Something must be going right 

This is Nxt's main thread on this forum now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.0

Most exposure can be found there but advertisements could be moderated, unless the product is free. It is best for getting answers to queries.

It depends what you are targeting them for. There will be a lot of devs and UI guys out of work pretty soon 

The naysayers's have been very quiet since Kushti started publishing his team's research...  

Come-from-Beyond described Economic Clustering in May when he committed it. Not sure it is quite the same idea as rolling checkpoints but it is in the same area.
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/economic-clustering/msg26267/#msg26267

Consensus research have also shown that the "Nothing-at-stake problem" (described in Vitalik's post) has been overstated. A lot. On the contrary, multibranch forging (aka mining on every chain you see) actually helps with security as you can't mine on every chain as they grow exponentially with time. You have to choose what you think are the best N chains and the results can't be predicted so the 'attack' is pretty useless.

I believe this also removes the need for Vitaliks security deposit as it makes it unnecessary as it protects against something that can't happen. It could even be damaging as it restricts the number of branches in multibranch forging so it is no longer exponentially growing in size but is finite, for practical purposes. Equal to the number of nodes in the network? Given they can only forge only 1 branch they see without being penalised. Have I understood correctly, Kushti?


All CfB's descriptions and Q&A on Economic Clustering are collated in this thread...

https://nxtforum.org/economic-clustering/cfb's-announcement-of-economic-clustering/ (you need an account to see the whitepaper section of the forum)



Here is the most recent whitepaper, though it may not have been updated with most recent features:

Nxt Whitepaper
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cbuwrorf672c0yy/NxtWhitepaper_v122_rev4.pdf

The network won't accept reorgs deeper than 720 blocks so block 721 back from the current block is the rolling checkpoint. That's how it is done, though there isnt a whitepaper.

There is a general Nxt whitepaper, I can get the link if you haven't seen it.

Summary of discussion on research of the described POS attacks to date. Looks very positive for POS.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632

Anyone wanna change their vote?   

Yes... in the other thread 

Kushti, the link above goes to his post

Summarised by one of the authors of the research..

If your flaw isn't in this list...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632

... could you add it to the bottom of the thread?


No POS attack described so far has shown to be plausible.

POS Consensus Research results summarised: No POS attack devised to date has shown to be plausible.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632