10k?
more like 200 usd

can't tell if trolling or just ignorant.....
creators don't get tx comissions
maybe they do in some cappy alt, but surely not in bitcoin

on the contrary, negative trust on the sole basis of "Huge ego" is abusive.
However I certainly share his view that his behavior indicates untrustworthiness. A lot of untrustworthiness. But that's just my opinion and I can't prove that he shouldn't be trusted so I don't give him negative trust.

I think long range is not possible because rolling checkpoints. Also when downloading a new chain there is a trust system so you download from a trusted source. Rolling checkpoints are nice but create the risk of dividing the network. A fork larger than the largest allowed reorganization would not be resolved and the network would split.


maybe he's thinking too deeply: he proposes an overcomplication that generates centralization and doesn't solve the problem it's supposed to solve.

The blockchain of each coin has a history of the difficulty target on each block. That that should -more or less- reflect the hashing power put on each coin. Difficulty is not perfect beacuse it takes some time to adjust to the variations on actual hashrate, but it's the best data there is.

Look at multipools to see how miners switch coins automatically.
You may also want to look at reward halvings to see effects in price and hashrate.

But if you want to understand the markets, you are doomed. It's just gambling. Sometimes manipulated, sometimes random, but always gambling shit.

No, that's not how POS works. Some early POS coins may have had bugs that allowed you to do something similar to that, but nowadays that's not possible. If you try a billion times in parallel with the same stake, you either fail a billion times or succeed a billion times (a billion successes all in the same block, so they are as useful as only one - ie you find the exact same block a billion times).

There are two problems with POS that I'd care about, and I think both have been called "nothing at stake" at least once, but they are different issues:
- One is that in POW finding a block or not depends on the (hash of the) transactions of the new block. But in POS, once you find a block you can create another one (at the same height) with different tx's for free.
- The other one is a history rewrite: in POW, if I own in the present 51% of the hashrate of some point in the past, I can do nothing with that. For example you can buy some ASIC that has more hashrate than all the network combined had in some moment of 2011. But that's useless. However in POS if I have control in the present of the private keys to a stake larger than 51% in some past then I can use that to rewrite the blockchain from that time until the present (overriding the tx's in which that 51% changed hands).

Many coins take measures to mitigate -with different levels of success- the consecuences of these two problems. However it's hard to deny that they are security weaknesses inherent to POS.

Yes and yes.

which I read as "unbreakable is broken by a factor of 3.41"

Anyway, my approach does not rely on heavy computation, and it also has the potential of more than a 200% increase: no asymptotes here.


Regarding the double spend every 30hs, I have given all the technical details (which were never a secret, that's just how POW and POS work), so you'll have to admit it's possible: the only problem is acquiring the forging weight (be it leasing or buying/scamming/stealing/whatever).

edit: well, not the ONLY problem, you have to be able to forge a private chain, calculate the probability of actually double spending and have the ability to make the transaction that you want to reverse, still, it's possible.

No, my approach does not require much extra computation.
Could you please point me to some literature on the well-known trade-off? I've read some things about that, but they seemed unpractical. I'd like to know if we're talking about the same thing.

Is there a clear definition of how will "Economic clustering" be implemented? if you have a new consensus algorithm, there will be new strengths and new flaws. I'd rather not go into deeper discussion of something that is still not defined.

Not (0.2)^10. Look at bitcoin's original paper: if I mine my own private chain the chances are much higher.
20% with 11 confirms gives a probability of 0.1%
So, 1 in 1000.
1000 NXT blocks is about 10hs one double spend every 10 hs
EDIT: 1000 NXT blocks is about 30hs, one double spend every 30 hs

I'm not asking to be paid in advance: we haven't discussed the terms yet (escrow or not? show code to everyone or just devs? etc), I just want to know how much would I get so I can decide if it's worth the effort or not.

There are two different attacks, that might or might not be combined.

1) Double spending with only small % of the supply

This is a private chain attack. This is by design and it applies to all POS implementations.
I've read some people say that NXTs are like simulated POW mining rigs. The analogy works for many situations so think of it like this: coins that are not forging are like mining rigs that are not powered on - useless. So the total network hashrate that I need to beat it not the total supply: it's only the total amount of coins that is actively forging at the specific time of the attack.
Now if NXT coins work like simulated POW miners you can read Satoshi's original Bitcoin paper and see how to calculate the probability of a double spend with only a few % of the network's hashrate. That % of the network's hashrate translates to a % of the actively forging coins (NOT THE TOTAL SUPPLY).
Good news is this can be mitigated by waiting for more confirmations. Bad news is it cannot be really completely fixed. Some say "transparent forging" or "economic clustering" can fix this, but I say they can't because they would open new attack vectors.

I can demonstrate this With 2M testnet (can be leased) or 50M mainnet (can be leased too), but I need to modify the client first.

2) Staking weight inflation

I can exploit how NXT works so I will forge more often than I should. I could make 1M NXT forge as often as 2M should. This might allow a 51% attack with only 25%.
I can demonstrate this against others in testnet: make an account with 206K and have it forge. My 206K account with my secret sauce will forge more blocks in the same time (we should let it run for a few days to make sure there is an edge and it's not just luck). I still need to modify the client first and until I test it in practice I don't know exactly how much will the advantage be. Estimations are that I can double my weight.
This can be fixed, and I would give the code used to attack and the idea on how to fix it.

It's not just slow because of a diff change. The coin shouldn't get slow when diff changes. It's slow because someone had a fest with it and then left.

Here: http://unb.moloch.net:8008/chain/Unbreakablecoin?offset=42369&limit=100
someone amassed a lot of coins, still getting them even with difficulty at 53M and then left and probably dumped
Leaving you with this: http://unb.moloch.net:8008/chain/Unbreakablecoin?limit=50&offset=44079

only 3 blocks in one day, I call that slowed down and broken

Hey people.... can't you see that big hashpower came and got a lot of blocks (many per second) for a while and then left leaving a very high difficulty, and it's been 3 hs between the last 2 blocks?
oh, maybe you can't see it because of your crappy block explorer... if you had a good one you could tell...

unbreakable was broken

bitshares? really? dpos?

Yes, it does affect they communicate, or do you want each node to be connected to other 10M nodes and share tx data with everyone? That doesn't work because it requires too much bandwith. The number of nodes each node connects to must be limited (I think it's 125 in BTC)
Also, any ISP can easily own the network.

BS! most popular version? how is that defined?
if I set up a lot of nodes then I can decide which the most popular version is. Depending on network topology and the location of a node, the most popular version can vary from one node to another.

it's not... full of baloney

I think it's happening right now....


ps: it's not me, I swear

sorry, I wasn't going to comment on this anymore, but your video reminded me of the Ariane 5.....  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_(spacecraft)#Launch_failure


it exploded a few seconds after launch because of a software bug. We can laugh about it: noone died, it only carried a few satellites

transparent forging isn't a magic silver bullet. I think it doesn't solve much.

My understanding is that only the predicting part is implemented, but they don't do anything with that prediction... quoting this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=364218


I read "not revealed" as " not implemented". And even if implemented, I'm attacking with 2% of the stake: I don't need to skip blocks. The analysis on that post doesn't apply to my attack.