People are worried that this might set precedent for other coins to respond the same. An example would be if Bitcoin did this when Mt.Gox happened.Bitcoin has forked two times, significantly. One was in 2010 when someone was able to mint billions of Bitcoins. They had to go back 100 transactions and reset the chain. Thankfully, the network was really small then, and all the developers had to do was get to the big pools and tell them to update their codes. Bitcoin was really small, and no one cared about it, so it didn’t get much attention. The second event was where Bitcoin was updating from, I believe, 0.7 to 0.8. People didn’t like the 0.8 change, so some people didn’t move over. Basically, they were competing on two parallel chains for a long time. Eventually, the developers decided to revert back to 0.7.When people say we’re abusing our power, that’s fine; they can say what they want to. I don’t think of it that way, because we were going out of our way to prevent the coin from dying off. Most of the people who are critical of this are people that don’t own it and are people that want another coin to succeed. They attack every coin and right now it’s a good opportunity to attack VeriCoin. ------ There is more, read the full article @ http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/vericoin-developer-speaks-ccn-mintpal-hardfork/2014/07/15 That is the mos important part. The dev decided to make a change but the people didn't. And in the end it was the users that decided the which chain was the right one. Here there was decision taken by a few to protect a business , nothing more. Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't! So bravo VeriCoin devs! You did a good thing, and although people are upset you violated some sort of imaginary moral law, the problem that has always been there is now front and centre. If you don't like it, show me the code to fix the problem. Well you see Bitcoin had to fork there, as that hack exploited a flaw in the protocol. VeriCoin on the other hand had no need to fork as there was no flaw in the underlying protocol, this hack on MintPal was simply a theft. |
|
|
|
I just noticed this particular sentence from a Coindesk article about the hack. According to MintPal, only the vericoin wallet was affected during the attack. This includes the database containing sensitive customer information and passwords. Has Mintpal made an official comment about this yet? Has MintPal-Jay commented on this yet? Has our password and email been compromised? I urge everyone to be safe and immediately change their Mintpal password. (I have withdrawn everything out of Mintpal a while ago.) Philosophical issues and principals about decentralization should take a back seat first. IMO, the most crucial thing right now is for Mintpal to provide a full disclosure of the incident, including method, vector, scope and resulting remedial actions. Could be CoinDesk exaggeration again, if not then....  |
|
|
|
The market was gamed for a very short period of time the system flagged the activity. No funds were moved and the market was rolled back. Points are not run the same as coins different systems in place and infrastructure since its not a coin it is a reward point system. Anyone who profited profited from the gamed system and anyone who lost was likewise affected by the decision and yes this is unfortunate but IS the course of action taken. Of course we cannot replace lost opportunity cost.
I will see if we can work something out as a special to compensate folks a bit no promises.
Were the drawings competitions also gamed, with one guy winning on 3 occasions? Oddly this was some time ago and is likely only coming up now from folks running cover for something that happened recently elsewhere that is a tad more dramatic....
Hehe, expect an influx of users heading back to Cryptsy after those recent events. Anyway it's good to see some transparency here, good job. |
|
|
|
Oh and we are so pumped that finally have a team go with a lighter elliptic curve algorithm!! To my knowledge you guys are the first to build ground up and change the elliptic curve since the original Bitcoin code. Some one far more researched then me could prove me wrong, and we are not talking changing the hash algo here (x11, x15 or NIST5 are all just hash algo) we are talking the elliptic curve algo... Just brilliant cant wait to dive into the code once it's posted!!!
Really? Could you explain more about the elliptic curve algorithm used in Bitcoin, bit of a noob at this kind of stuff  |
|
|
|
Read this in the VRC thread and had to post it here : Here's another thought: What if the devs didn't agree to a rollback? Do you really think Mintpal could pay back 2 million dollars? What if they just closed up shop and took off with everyone's coins? What would you all be saying then?
Now that really is an interesting point. What if the VRC devs didn't agree to fork VeriCoin and save investors money, how would MintPal be able to pay back $2M worth of damages, would it be Gox 2.0 - Revenge of the Altcoins? Anyway MintPal have handled this situation so badly to the extent that Cryptsy seems safe again. But in all seriousness, there is no really trusted exchange anymore, that accolade went to MintPal whom have lost it with this fiasco. Furthermore all the "major" alt-coin exchanges barring Crypty (which is even worse) have been hacked. Poloniex was hacked a while ago, Bittrex the same and now MintPal. they have prob made 2 million dollars in Votes so far.. their reputation for draining us dry for paid votes is legendary BEFORE the alleged VRC hack.. i also think its unlikely they were hacked and are lying about it or even worse just idiots running an un-secure exchange. nap time is over babies.. we don't need rinky dink clowns in crypto trying to half ass it.. it's 2014 and we need professional services. Screw em and screw VRC i won't touch either one ever ! And i never used GOX either because the writing was on the wall looooooong before they shut down. problem is we have delusional moron fanboys cheerleading crap coins and services.. blind to reality. Ya wanna be dumb and kiss ass go for it.. lemme know how that works out for ya. And i would be saying Mintpal is within their right to close shop and walk away the coins if they wanted to.. After all this is an unregulated market so tough fucking titty cry babies. Wanna be able to call the cops ? Then i suggest you all start voting for regulations.. I say congrats to Mark from GOX he made off with all your money and your all morons if you didn't see it a year or two in advance. You all wanna keep screeching Free Market and defending the sleaziest of shitty clone coins posted daily ? well suck it and quit being little bitches about it. and realize Mark taught you guys a life lesson.. don't be a moron. Just cross your fingers you can convince the next dev to fork the coin lol Because the hacker got away and he WILL try again lol Hope you got the big box of bandaids from Costco (rather than fixing the core problem) I don't see myself using MintPal again after this fiasco. The trading volume is dropping like a rock. Secondly I think this entire story is complete b/s. There have been many exchanges hacked before and they've given adequate information as to how the hacks have taken place either to rebuild trust or to prevent other exchanges from falling prey to similar attack vectors. MintPal in their "official statement" basically said "Oh well, we got hacked, we're not sure how it happened, but we don't think it'll happen again" There's another plausible theory I dug up on Reddit : If a hacker could have injected any withdrawal why didn't they take the bitcoins, darkcoins or litecoins? The official story is complete bullshit.
This was a problem with the new vericoin wallet, that is why the rollback included a rollback on the wallet version. Basically some people suspect there was a problem with the VeriCoin wallet, which is true seeing as the wallet versions were also supposedly rolled back (I'm guessing that this means released features in the wallet are now non-existent) |
|
|
|
Another thread about the dangers of POS, what is this? about the 5th or 6th thread? All i see so far is talk, if POS is so bad then why doesn't someone attack NXT? Time to nut up or shut up.
PoS is not the problem here, ignorance and incompetence is. This is all a result of MintPal leaving 30% of all VRC in existence in one of their hot wallets when they are supposedly making use of cold storage methods. It's also ignorance by the part of the VRC community for leaving that number of coins in one exchange, but it's not their fault this happened. The key point is that PoS is not at fault here. The direct equivalent of this happening in PoW would be 30% of the network hash rate leaving their pools and mining at GHash.io, thus pushing the hash-rate over 51%. Let's not forget that GHash.io was on the brink of having 50% of the network hash-rate around 2 weeks ago so no one can say PoW is full-proof from attacks either. |
|
|
|
also interesting: mintpal didn't even go into maintenance mode after the "attack". They were able to write a statement and continue business as usual without even one minute of downtime. Nothing was shut down (besides vrc), not a second. Is that what you'd expect to happen after their wallets for btc, ltc were attacked and 8mln vrc stolen? I also have serious doubts about this whole story.
Exactly, there was not a single minute of downtime. You'd think that they'd at least halt all trades and temporarily shut down the exchange to inspect the hack and stop it from happening again or at least secure all their hot wallets to minimize attack vectors, but no everything just remained as it was. Their official statement was basically this : "Well we got hacked, we don't know how, but there's no reason to believe it will happen again. Just go about your business as usual" |
|
|
|
Read this in the VRC thread and had to post it here : Here's another thought: What if the devs didn't agree to a rollback? Do you really think Mintpal could pay back 2 million dollars? What if they just closed up shop and took off with everyone's coins? What would you all be saying then?
Now that really is an interesting point. What if the VRC devs didn't agree to fork VeriCoin and save investors money, how would MintPal be able to pay back $2M worth of damages, would it be Gox 2.0 - Revenge of the Altcoins? Anyway MintPal have handled this situation so badly to the extent that Cryptsy seems safe again. But in all seriousness, there is no really trusted exchange anymore, that accolade went to MintPal whom have lost it with this fiasco. Furthermore all the "major" alt-coin exchanges barring Crypty (which is even worse) have been hacked. Poloniex was hacked a while ago, Bittrex the same and now MintPal. |
|
|
|
Here's another thought: What if the devs didn't agree to a rollback? Do you really think Mintpal could pay back 2 million dollars? What if they just closed up shop and took off with everyone's coins? What would you all be saying then?
Now that really is an interesting point. What if the VRC devs didn't agree to fork VeriCoin and save investors money, how would MintPal be able to pay back $2M worth of damages, it would be Gox 2.0 - Revenge of the Altcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Quick question, when will the ledger be back up? I heard BTER is supposed to provide the API today.
|
|
|
|
This, why would the hackers just take VRC, when they could've taken BTC or looted the whole exchange. Also MintPal in their statement says "there no reason to believe there's anything wrong with our security", well that right there is a major security hole, the hacker could inject another withdrawal request again on any coin they like as MintPal have done nothing really to secure their site. |
|
|
|
As for VeriCoin hard forking as a result of this, that is pure centralization. Hard forks are not supposed to occur because of events like this despite how badly people may lose out on it, becuase if this goes through, what it essentially means is that the VeriCoin developers can fork VeriCoin for whatever reason they like.
Can a hardfork even be enforced without >51% consensus of those staking? I really don't know .. anyone care to fill me in please? I'm asking if this can be stopped if simply not enough people download and run the new fork, and instead continue using the old one. Edit: Actually I'd like to point out a serious flaw here. With a large theft, the consensus mechanism will now be flawed in that there will be a majorly disproportionate number of people staking the old fork (Due to the theft itself) compared to those trying to stake the old fork (as anyone in favor of the new fork will now have zero coins). This seems to be a massive security flaw in using centralized exchanges. That is, if 51% of stake is required to enforce the fork in the first place. Well I'm sure if the hacker managed to withdraw the coins they hacked, and the amount of the coins hacked is greater than 51% of the current network stake, the hacker could just stake all the hacked coins and cause another fork as in this case the hacked coins would account for > 51% of the network stake. In any case I'll be removing my coins from MintPal until they release a statement about how the coins were actually stolen/hacked in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
I think I speak for everyone here, when I say that MintPal should release a statement as to how exactly the attack took place.
As for VeriCoin hard forking as a result of this, that is pure centralization. Hard forks are not supposed to occur because of events like this despite how badly people may lose out on it, becuase if this goes through, what it essentially means is that the VeriCoin developers can fork VeriCoin for whatever reason they like.
Say for example if one of the developers (who holds a large amount of VRC) get's hacked they could just hard fork VRC again just to retrieve their coins. It may sound good to those who lost their coins, heck I'd be happy if I owned VRC and got my coins back, but what they've just done is centralize VRC
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason for the major decline in volume is due to Bitcoin's declining price. When BTC does badly all alts follow suit, the next time we will see volume like "the good 'ol days" is when Bitcoin prices start increasing by larger amounts again and more investors are lured into the alt-coin market expecting bigger ROI's.
Cryptsy used to handle most of the volume, currently MintPal generally handles the most volume. You can't blame exchanges for adding coins that are performing well, regardless how shit the coin is. At the end of the day the exchange has to be profitable, that's all that matters to them.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be here if you weren't spamming your Vaporware outside your thread. Also if you really do have a product, that's up to 1000 Free XCP on the table, so feel free to step up. P.S. I'm not a troll, I'm the http:/xcpfeeds.info developer, and one of the persons involved in the development of Cryptsi Pump and Dump project was advertising it in Counterparty Chat. I responded by asking him to advertise his Vaporware somewhere else, and he insisted it is not Vaporware - Hence I'm offering Public Terms for someone to prove me wrong. BTW Counterparty was an original protocol with the code Open Source on Day #1. Well then why don't you take it up with the person who as you claim, "was advertising vaporware"? If you scan through the thread you'll see some snippets of code being executed from the BETA client was analysed by an external developer (another coin's developer). The code that was posted was indeed Node.js and not Java |
|
|
|
I'm offering a bet of any amount up to 1000 XCP to any participants that Crypti does not have a working reference client and is Vaporware. Stas Oskin: "The source code of the complete project and following updates will be provided in quarterly releases. This will protect buyers against early clones."
Method of Proof: A hash of the current Working Private Code is embedded into the Blockchain with Multisig or OP Return. A Counterparty Binary Bet is made on a Broadcast of a trusted-third-party with a deadline three Months from now when their code goes public the trusted-third-party broadcasts the outcome. Bitcoiner from Xbet.io has agreed to facilitate this Broadcast (though I am open to other trusted-third-parties) - with the following match conditions: bitcoiner (xbet.io): if what we need to do to decide the bet is check that hash, this is something that is possible. we cannot however check the insides of the code and assess their difference from nxt
bitcoiner (xbet.io): i think we can do something like this - we will download the code, run it, if we are able to perform a send from one client to another, and the source is in node.js like stas said, we will decide that stas wins. if we cant run it or we cant send from one client to the other or if the code is the same language as nxt (what is that btw?) you win There's a BETA client available.... |
|
|
|
Do you mean by this that there will be an integrated exchanger?
I meant that an exchange looking to support Crypti (which mostly depositing and withdrawing from / to Crypti blockchain), could do it faster as they will have a working API. Ah okay  |
|
|
|
will bter be the only exchange for cryti?
We are looking to have additional exchanges to support Crypti trading, after completing the the pre-sale and the Crypti distribution to buyers. Thanks to Crypti coming with API support from day one, the integration from the exchange side should be quite fast.Do you mean by this that there will be an integrated exchanger? |
|
|
|
Quick question, will holding BitShares-PTS have any disadvantage over BitShares-AGS?
No, 1 for 1, PTS is better as it's liquid so you can buy & sell it on exchanges. However even now, for the last 7 days of BitShares-AGS donations, you still seem to get >3 AGS for the price of 1 PTS. So AGS is better value despite being illiquid in my opinion. http://www1.agsexplorer.com/Okay last question, will BitShares-AGS and BitShares-PTS remain separate currencies or will they be merged into one BitShares-X or something similar to that effect? They will remain seperate. Holders of AGS & PTS at the time of a 'snapshot' will each be awarded at least a 10% stake of any future DAC BitShares is involved with. For example the shares in BitShares X which is a DAC, were allocated to people who had AGS or were holding PTS on 28/02/2014. There will be new snapshots announced soon that owning AGS or holding PTS at the time of snapshot will get you a stake in - BitShares Music, BitShares.p2p & BitShares Lotto to name a few... Thanks, will check it out |
|
|
|
Quick question, will holding BitShares-PTS have any disadvantage over BitShares-AGS?
No, 1 for 1, PTS is better as it's liquid so you can buy & sell it on exchanges. However even now, for the last 7 days of BitShares-AGS donations, you still seem to get >3 AGS for the price of 1 PTS. So AGS is better value despite being illiquid in my opinion. http://www1.agsexplorer.com/Okay last question, will BitShares-AGS and BitShares-PTS remain separate currencies or will they be merged into one BitShares-X or something similar to that effect? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
