It's quite a cool security feature don't you think? Being secure from 51% attacks.
If you're a 51% attacker it isn't. |
|
|
|
This would mean that the "pool or large miner" in your example has over 51% of the network hash power, or did at the time of the split.
Right, but pools with >51% aren't unusual in alt chain world. With the GPU chains anyway. I think people would have started complaining if a big pool was offline for 27 blocks though. |
|
|
|
There really isn't much money to be made right now to attack Litecoin with a double spend. I will talk to the exchanges to see if they have been affected by a double spend.
btc-e.com has 550 BTC available for taking in their litecoin exchange. I think that's plenty for people to be tempted to steal. |
|
|
|
We're still looking for someone willing to port merged mining to the Ixcoin distro (and even upgrade to the bitcoin 0.5 codebase). If you're interested, the current bounty is 30,000 IXC.
I can backport the patches I did for i0coin to ixcoin pretty easily I suspect. This doesn't update to the bitcoin 0.5 codebase, but does the core bugfixes up to then. I didn't apply the upgrades to the client for the Qt UI for example. Most importantly it gives the timetravel fix and merge mining. If I do this and submit a github pull request is that sufficient? |
|
|
|
doublec, is there such a tool available right now?
Not that I know of. Usually I scan the chains using a block explorer but this is inefficient. It's easy for a merchant to know if they check their 'listtransactions'. They'll see that there are now deposits that were once confirmed showing as having 0 confirmations. Looking up the address and/or transaction in the block explorer will show the problem. A 27 block reorg is definitely a scary sign but it can be done by accident. A pool or large miner become disconnected from the network and when the network goes up their blocks get released for example. I'd be more inclined to think attack however if there have been other reorgs. People accepting litecoin payments should check their 'listtransactions'. It's also wise to have their nodes detect a big reorg (ie. past their confirmation limit) and shut down until investigated. This is what I did on the i0coin exchange in the end to catch it. |
|
|
|
The hashrate does fluctuate a lot but I have not seen it drop 50% due to an attack. If I see that, I would of course warn people and exchanges of possible double spend attacks.
Hashrate fluctuating isn't a sign of a double spend attack. Reorgs are. What would be useful for all alt chains is a tool that analyses reorgs and shows transactions that are different from that and the main fork. |
|
|
|
In the meanwhile you can deposit and withdraw I0Coins already.
This is still prone to issues with double spenders: 1. Attacker starts mining a fork 2. Attacker deposits i0coin 3. On fork attacker does not include deposit from (2) but sends the same coins to another address they control. 4. Attacker withdraws i0coin 5. Attacker releases fork when it's stronger than the main chain. 6. Exchange has now lost the deposit and the withdrawal. Given that the timetravel exploit hasn't been enabled (block 150,000) this is easy to pull off. A mitigation would be to ensure any withdrawal from a users account comes from the same coins as they used to deposit. |
|
|
|
With no subsidies then your network will need to be supported totally by fees. So in the early days when transaction volume is say $100 USD equivelent per day if fee was 0.1% then all the miners globally would be working for 10 cents. Yup the entire network would need to have an operating cost of 10 cents. So likely your entire network is 1 CPU. It can be double spent by a single attacker w/ 2 CPUs. Now your miners could generate more revenue by setting very high fees like 30% but why would someone pay a 30% fee when Paypal "only" charges 5% and Bitcoin <0.1%?
Merge mining changes the cost equation somewhat though. Someone can mine bitcoin and this chain at no additional cost. If the chain creator can get a large miner or pool to merge mine it then there's less risk of a double spend attack. Before merge mining there was an opportunity cost in supporting these chain experiments. Not so much now. There's a flip side though. An attacker can mine a fork to double spend for free too since they can earn bitcoins at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
Instead of you getting a percentage how about have all 100k coins mined in the generation block. They're owned by you. An exchange is available immediately in some form whereby you place orders for those coins for whatever value you perceive them to have. They are therefore available by people willing to to buy them (with bitcoins, i0coind, or whatever). Your reward is this initial income, which is likely to start off low since no one is likely to want them until someone starts using them but could get bigger. It depends how much you ask for in the initial sales.
Mining is done as normal for transactions and miners get a transaction fee which they can set to whatever they want. A chance to experiment to see what will happen when bitcoin has all its coins mined.
|
|
|
|
*The idea master of this is me. If someone wishes to build upon this and actually wants to promote this; you may use it if i receive a donation tab, on all clients, exchanges, and a 0.1% fee per transaction towards the idea master. (This is way less then Solidcoin 5% fees){Decrease to 0.01% is agreed upon once all 100K is given out}*
How could the coder control what other exchanges and clients do? They can't force them to put a donation tab on their sites/programs. How do you deal with sites that don't do this? The fee is 0.1% of what? The transaction amount? That's huge. Solidcoin doesn't take a fee from transactions AFAIK. Or do you mean of the 20 coins mined per block only? |
|
|
|
How is the exchange going for i0coin? is it still be developed?
There is some miners on i0coin, so looks like some life.
markm posted about an open transactions based exchange for i0coin which I believe is available now. I don't know how it works though as I haven't tried it. As you say block 150,000 is getting close for the timetravel fix and merge mining at block 160,000. I'm open to suggestions for changes to the client if you have any. |
|
|
|
The idea master of this is me. If someone wishes to build upon this and actually wants to promote this; you may use it if i receive 5K donation from the coder for the currency GC How would the coder get 5K without premining? And if they did premine that'd be 5% of the total money supply. You might want to start a new thread on it if you want to get interest and discussion. |
|
|
|
I created a PoolserverJ tutorial
Why do the conf files for bitcoin/namecoin in the tutorial specify "rpcallowip=*". Doesn't this open the JSON-RPC port of the daemon for anyone to connect to? This gives access to 'sendtoaddress' and other commands for sending coins out of the wallet. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Is there a tutorial or step by step example on how to get a client running and connecting to the server?
|
|
|
|
I just now added I0Coin to the exchange I am doing initial alpha testing of.
How are you protecting against double spend attacks given the low hash rate and the fact that i0coin hasn't yet reached the block where the timetravel fix is enabled yet? |
|
|
|
i0coin can be merge mined with any other coin. It can be namecoin, bitcoin, or anything using the same hash algorithm. Each individual miner (or pool) can merge mine with whatever they want. it's not limited to one specific coin type. I gave namecoin as an example in the post you reference, not as 'this is the only coin you can merge mine with'. I hope that answers your question. |
|
|
|
Here's a fun feature included in the latest version of i0coin (32506) as a result of the patches I cherry-picked from the recent bitcoin releases. It's khal's patch to sign and verify messages using bitcoin addreses. If you're the owner of an address you can sign a message with the private key. Anyone can verify the message is from you by calling 'verifymessage' passing it the address and the result of the sign operation. This is a way of confirming a message comes from someone controlling a particular address. Examples: $ i0coind getnewaddress
jMq8wkYNByEqBtcUo5CaWq2mrxuRgyVHWB
$ i0coind signmessage jMq8wkYNByEqBtcUo5CaWq2mrxuRgyVHWB "Hello World"
HL2fs5IirODMtZCCAF9Vqgz5ZPpcmqNWgy7cnl50OlkoYvOC7gLlIqD4Z3Acmuu+idOQoRRo2DmEl9z/MCnnR8Q=
$ i0coind verifymessage jMq8wkYNByEqBtcUo5CaWq2mrxuRgyVHWB HL...MCnnR8Q= "Hello World"
true
$ i0coind verifymessage jMq8wkYNByEqBtcUo5CaWq2mrxuRgyVHWB HL...MCnnR8Q= "Hello"
false
$ i0coind verifymessage jaQ4X3vVN41TaYpicQx7YemmvJWoXEscwS HL...MCnnR8Q= "Hello World"
false
This has uses in having a signed contract in exchange for funds transfer. Or if someone claims ownership of an address (say to show how much money they have or to prove they committed some transfer) you can ask them to prove it by signing a message with the address. |
|
|
|
So that covers everything but an exchange  Right, I'm sure one will come when block 150,000 or 160,000 ticks over if not before. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
