Only correctly functioning nodes do that.


Not really, those are just evidence of latency. If a majority of the CPU power is conspiring to attack the system and all non-cospirator blocks are orphaned then no one will mine outside the conspiracy and there will be no such orphans (there may still be forks within the conspiracy if they still have latency).

The system will have failed, but it will have failed because it exceeded stated limits.

 

"Correctly functioning components of a Byzantine fault tolerant system will be able to provide the system's service, assuming there are not too many faulty components."

In Bitcoin "too many faulty components" = majority of the CPU power.

This only works because Chinese miners have a majority of the CPU power. Otherwise you call them up all you want, but would accomplish nothing. You might as well call someone with an old USB miner stick.

There are no censored transactions unless a majority of the CPU power* is conspiring to attack the system.

Bitcoin has a threshold of hostile CPU power that it can tolerate. Below that threshold, it works, above that threshold, it fails.

* selfish mining, etc.

CKG ETF first dividend

The CKG ETF paid out its first pass-through dividend, which ended up being 19 M per share (1900 M per CKG-equivalent). This left a small surplus <1 M per share, held and added to the next dividend.

As a reminder we offer deposits of any gold item in exchange for shares with no fee and redeems of shares for any gold item in inventory for a fee of 1% (max 10 CKG).

Current inventory here: https://cryptokingdom.me/player/playerItems/251

We will be announcing two additional investment products shortly. Stay tuned.

Okay, but so what?

Bitcoin also didn't solve P ?= NP or any number of other problems.

And unless I'm mistaken, Satoshi did not say that it did solve the Byzantine Generals problem, especially in the specific manner that problem is formulated (with discrete General-actors, something that doesn't even exist in Bitcoin at all). At best there is a rough similarity. Correction: Satoshi did say it was a solution in this email. But again, he formulated in a very careful manner, stating that each general has a laptop, which ends up making "majority of CPU power" equivalent to a majority of discrete General-actors.

He said exactly what it does solve. If a majority of the CPU power is not conspiring to attack the network, then it reaches consensus that is final and secure (though slowly in the case close to 50%).

It is up you as a prospective user or investor to decide whether "a majority of the CPU power" is an acceptable requirement. It seems at this point there isn't anything better, and some number of people think it is useful (most of the world does not).

The only difference I know about in the case of pool mining is the automatic splitting in Monero and AEON, but you can always do that yourself by sending a series of smaller transactions (exactly the same as what splitting does). If you are solo mining Boolberry will behave slightly better because it doesn't have the lowest-value dust output in mining transactions.

And I've never seen any crashing issues with the Boolberry wallet, though I only use simplewallet, not the GUI.

There is no Sybil attack possible on the problem as stated. "A majority of CPU power" is a physical quantity which can't be Sybil attacked. Period.

This does not mean that Bitcoin will be a great success and moon to $10 million/BTC, or even that it will survive at all more than another year or two, or anything in between. It is possible to conclude that the consensus algorithm does exactly what Satoshi said it does (putting aside possible selfish mining attacks), and still conclude that such a security margin is too weak to be useful, because of all of the ways the precondition itself can fail (pooling, of course, can contribute to some of them).

The stated problem bounds do not include being able to tell whether someone controls >50% of the hash rate. That isn't in the paper at all. The wording of the paper is "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network". It doesn't matter whether they cooperate via pools or otherwise, either way it is outside the bounds.

People compare cars, cell phones (and network operators), cloud computing services, economic theories, laundry detergents, hospitals, stocks, etc.

It would very surprising if people didn't compare cryptocurrency projects.

Normally 24 hours. If the transaction was mined but then removed by a reorg, it will stay for 30 days. As far as recovering, there is a rescan_spent command recently added, or the alternative is to recover the wallet from seed/keys, which will also do a rescan. It is not currently automatic.


I have seen evidence of that in the past but I really don't know for sure what they do now.

I don't know what that sentence means but whatever it is you think Bitcoin did before it sold out to Blockstream, LTC and DOGE still do.

The recommendation is to ensure that any keys you use to claim are emptied first (and don't reuse them later)

Just look back at that network effect graph I posted a month or so ago. All these things work together.

There was an issue with version 0.9.0, which is now fixed in 0.9.1, where it was creating transactions that are too large for the current block size. (The cause of the problem is the minimum median block size will increase from 20 to 60 KB after the upcoming fork in late March, but this change incorrectly activated too early in the transaction-construction code of the wallet.)

The transactions expire from each node's memory pool but they may get re-added if another node retransmits them. This incorrect re-adding is fixed in an upcoming release.

Finally, I think the block explorers continue to display transitions that don't get mined even if they are dropped from the node's pool. The explorers have their own database.

One honest party and that the equipment, methods, and process used are not in some way exploited. Interestingly there is an added risk if the computers are destroyed as some have suggested, because then there can't even be any investigation after the fact if evidence of a threat or impropriety is uncovered.


Say what you will, I'm reasonably certain that Zcash will not ever become the global standard zero knowledge cryptocurrency because:

1. I'm not as convinced as you are that the immense value of successfully exploiting it will not be recognized and rational decisions made by even insiders with quite a bit to lose, or by outside actors with no such impediment.

2. Even if #1 does not happen, it can't be ever be known with certainty that it didn't, so there will be a significant trust deficit.

3. Better techniques that do not require this degree of vulnerability and trust will very likely be available in the future. This will both undermine Zcash before the fact due to its impending obsolescence and certainly eclipse it once they do become available.

Still, as I said earlier it could still be quite successful relative to other tiny cryptocurrencies.

As institutions they certainly would not. Individuals involved, one can be less certain. Even if no one colluded, they could still get pwned.

I also don't think you understand the magnitude of what is at stake. A successful exploit is a real option on Zcash being very successful with a payoff of almost limitless free invisible money (you need only not print enough to crash it) at some point in the future with no expiration. Even if it is considered very unlikely that Zcash is successful, that option still objectively has an immense fair value. Scarily-competent and well-resourced adversaries rationally become interested.

For this reason I don't really consider the trusted setup method viable at all, for a cryptocurrency trying to be extremely successful on a global scale. People are jumping the gun here, instead of waiting for the science to catch up with the needs of the problem space (though in some ways that could be said of cryptocurrency altogether).

With smaller success goals in mind, it might be okay. It certainly might be a good trading opportunity.

The main difference is XMR has higher fees, and more value (which matters to the mining penalty) so spam is more expensive.

It isn't clear what happened with BBR earlier. Some nodes were reported to have crashed but that may have just been pools. I started a node after hearing of the problems to try to help diagnose it but I see no unusual behavior of any kind.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=air+gap+compromise+methods

(800 000 hits)

There is also an investment vulnerability here, which is that zero knowledge techniques without a trusted setup exist, they are just not yet efficient enough to use. If such a thing is ever developed it would instantly replace Zcash.

OK, I'll revise.

WTF?!!!