|
481
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Escrow attack on Proof-of-Stake
|
on: April 19, 2013, 08:10:01 AM
|
Miners don't have a play in double-spending attack, unless they wait and become stake owner. Security comes from proof-of-stake, proof-of-work only provides minting. Please don't confuse ppcoin's design with other proof-of-stake proposals. Our design is the only one that gives full respect to the concept of proof-of-stake and is the only one that actually has an implementation rather than just talks.
So, basically, this entire ppcoin thing is a bit like Solidcoin sans massive egotism and with less retarded pignode implementation? Why not discard the PoW component altogether, if it has no "say" in choosing which chain is "goodchain" ? P.S.: Disclosure - passerby is affectionately fond of hybrid PoW/PoS things, and hybrid things in general  From FAQ: How is it energy-efficient when there is still mining?
The energy efficiency we refer to is long-term energy efficiency, as in long term we do not require the use of energy to sustain the network.
Currently proof-of-work remains the most practical way of providing initial minting of a crypto-currency. So we decided to keep it as part of our hybrid design.
Ripple founders chose to do just that, eliminating proof-of-work and using a centralized model of initial minting and distribution, which I found against the spirit of bitcoin. I am not against people making profit, but in a larger picture, cryptocurrency is way more important than the success of one company or a small group of people. Putting the distribution in a central administration makes the currency highly vulnerable to confiscation as there is no plausible deniability. |
|
|
|
|
485
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Escrow attack on Proof-of-Stake
|
on: April 18, 2013, 08:10:11 PM
|
In a Proof-of-Stake system similar to bitcoin, a large number of coins could lie dormant and accrue 'coin days'. If these coins are in escrow, like on Mt.Gox, their 'coin days' could be used to do an attack on the network.
Thus any large escrow service would be a threat to the network, in addition to large miners.
Thus either escrow services must pay interest, or the need for escrow should be eliminated by a better block chain design and p2p exchanges.
It's true that an exchange or wallet service could use it's wallet to launch attack on proof-of-stake, although unlikely. The current plan is to implement reorg depth limit and relegate checkpoint to be advisory be default, so if this type of attack (considered to be equivalence of 51% attack on proof-of-work) occurrs users can subscribe to checkpoint so that transaction processing can continue on block chain. Miners don't have a play in double-spending attack, unless they wait and become stake owner. Security comes from proof-of-stake, proof-of-work only provides minting. Please don't confuse ppcoin's design with other proof-of-stake proposals. Our design is the only one that gives full respect to the concept of proof-of-stake and is the only one that actually has an implementation rather than just talks. |
|
|
|
|
486
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Escrow attack on Proof-of-Stake
|
on: April 18, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
|
How do exchanges implement confirmation, then? How do exchanges implement confirmation, then?
Merchant operator usually selects fixed confirmations amount and takes a risk of double-spend. This is the fundamental problem, one can't say what the chain is correct, if there are no another chains for trust score comparison. And it doesn't matter how many confirmations do you have, 6 or even 600. More confirmations means more security from double-spend. It's same for proof-of-stake. |
|
|
|
|
487
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Escrow attack on Proof-of-Stake
|
on: April 18, 2013, 07:31:07 PM
|
|
For those of you who can't be bothered to read (only a few hundred lines of) source code and constantly fault me for not teaching the new algorithm in fine detail, I am sorry I cannot take you seriously as a critic as I think to be a good critic you need to seriously spend some effort as well. Besides I have already outlined the algorithm in my weekly updates but some people don't read it either before throwing complaints.
I am very busy and continue to work hard in order to better compete in the cryptocurrency market. So get some coffee and start reading before I can start taking you seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
488
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Escrow attack on Proof-of-Stake
|
on: April 18, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
|
if you find a block and destroy coinage of 10000 coins lying in there for 365 days, wou will be rewarded 100 coins.
No, because there is limit for coinage in PPC and NVC, 90 days. You will receive ~ 25 coins. xorxor is correct, 90 day limit only applies to kernel hash weighting, but when calculating reward full coin age is used. So you do get 100 coins provided you are online long enough to generate stakes. |
|
|
|
|
490
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is premining?
|
on: April 17, 2013, 09:41:54 AM
|
|
Premine has nothing to do with the availability of mining pools.
It refers to the advantage of developers and their close circles over the public. Moreover new coin developers should also choose a reasonable starting difficulty and reasonable advance notice of release so people don't have to camp on the forum 24x7 in order to participate in a new coin launch. If you start difficulty too low people would consider it deliberate and 'effectively' a premine.
|
|
|
|
|
492
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] [PPC] PPCoin Released! - First Long-Term Energy-Efficient Crypto-Currency
|
on: April 15, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
|
Statement Regarding flibbr's Accusation of Large Premine at PPCoin's Launch
In response to: https://twitter.com/flibbr/status/323718244210982912
People should really do some research. There are a lot of misinformation bandied about on the web because some altcoin fans just can't handle competing fairly and squarely. I hope the creator of flibbr would realize that he was fooled by the false rumors.
ppcoin was pre-announced on August 10, 2012 in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99735.0;all
block chain officially started on August 19, 2012 in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101820.0
That's 9 days of notice to the public before release, with precise release schedule, and announced right here on the most populated cryptocurrency forum, rather than some obscure place. Check out all the other altcoins, I bet you would find that we had one of the most fair launch of all altcoins, if not the most fair launch. PPCoin has 0 premine (even genesis block has 0 mint), 0 taxation. Difficulty started at 256, unlike many other altcoins which were started with very low difficulty. Difficulty adjustment is continuous, which means there were a lot less number of low difficulty blocks.
Some people like to point out the high mintage in the first few days of the launch, this is another misunderstanding. In the first few days of any publicly released cryptocurrency the mintage is going to be relatively high because difficulty is low and lots of miners would like to participate, causing blocks to be generated much faster than usual and resulting in high mintage per day. Unlike most other altcoins, we already tried to mitigate this by starting difficulty at higher initial value of 256 and also further reducing the number of low difficulty blocks via continuous difficulty adjustment.
There are other accusations that our minting algorithm is unfair, as we didn't wait 4 years before the first halving occurrs like in bitcoin. First, our algorithm is another innovation to demonstrate that hard cap isn't required to guarantee scarcity. I am a cryptocurrency architect designing for real innovations, not out to copy bitcoin's design. Our design eliminated the sudden halving that artificially impacts the mining market. A gradual reduction in mining output is a necessary guarantee of scarcity, while providing somewhat more incentive for investors. People are often jealous about these 'early adopters', failing to realize that without their participation and enthusiasm the project might not even reach the current state. As a designer I must carefully balance all these aspects. The mint reduction rate is carefully chosen so it matches bitcoin's mint reduction rate in the longer term.
I hope this would clear a lot of misinformation regarding ppcoin. We have always tried to hold us to the highest professional standard in the industry. This is in fact shown in our handling of ppcoin's launch. I sincerely thank our supporters helping to clear our name in the market against the malicious misinformation thrown on the web.
|
|
|
|
|
493
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is the acceptable level of pre-minted coins?
|
on: April 15, 2013, 06:50:05 PM
|
Isn't flibbr supposedly supporting ppcoin last week? I wonder how did he change from accepting ppcoin in his marketplace to spreading FUD on ppcoin. People should really do some research. There are a lot of false accusations thrown around on the web just because they feel their precious coin is threatened somehow by ppcoin. ppcoin was pre-announced on August 10, 2012 in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99735.0;allblock chain officially started on August 19, 2012 in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101820.0That's 9 days of notice to the public before release, and announced right here on the most populated cryptocurrency forum, not in some obscure place. Check out all the other altcoins, I bet you would find that we had the most fair launch of all altcoins, with 0 premine (even genesis block has 0 mint), 0 taxation. Difficulty started at 256, unlike many other altcoins which were started with very low difficulty. Adjustment is continuous, which means there were a lot less number of low difficulty blocks. I don't know if flibbr is just being fooled by propaganda on the web, hope he would realize this by now. |
|
|
|
|
494
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Terracoin is ALLIIIIIVEEEE
|
on: April 15, 2013, 08:04:28 AM
|
Sunny was it not the oscillation but the ability to deal make quick readjustment to deal with the oscillation, thus if the readjustment can be made quickly in spite of even larger oscillation is that not good or am I missing something here?  In the original adjustment oscillation is limited to 4x, so you would have about 4 minute spacing in the slower half. The currently adjustment has similar or worse behavior, reaching over 20-minute on the slow side. Regardless a smart miner can still exploit this to greatly increase his profitability, probably even more so than with the original adjustment. |
|
|
|
|
495
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Terracoin is ALLIIIIIVEEEE
|
on: April 15, 2013, 07:43:09 AM
|
the way they now handle asics is oscillating the difficulty, so the profitibility will also oscillate every few minutes. so its not broken, just truly unlike any other coin now...
After seeing several days of data on it now I feel like this is the best difficulty algo I've seen for the small alts combating wildly fluctuating hash rates... kind of impressed actually.... dude me too. everyone doesn't recognize what's going on with the swinging difficulty, so they say, "aw its still broken!" but if you can grasp how they've implemented asic invulnerability... its ingenius, I'm impressed too. Before everyone gets carried away with the price jump, I would like to remind people that the drama started with an attempt at fixing the oscillating difficulty between 3k ~10k. Now it oscillates between 5k ~ 50k+. It's actually worse off than the original adjustment. If the oscillation wasn't a problem then why fix it and cause all this drama over the week? |
|
|
|
|
496
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: How does Ripple consensus deal with forks?
|
on: April 15, 2013, 06:49:01 AM
|
How does that work with Ripple? Say node A has a UNLa and node B has a UNLb. And suppose the intersection between this two UNLs is small, like, less than 20% of the size of each. Isn't it possible that node A sets on a different Transaction Set than node B? Both nodes will agree with the large majority of their UNL, it just happens that their UNLs don't agree among themselves. Couldn't that "fork" the network, at least temporarily? How does the Ripple protocol avoids and/or fixes such forks? I think both gmaxwell and me had doubts over this issue, but so far I haven't heard any solution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
