[ANN][XRB]Cryptocurrency's killer app: RaiBlocks micropayments

[bloodyvio]

If XRB is going to win the vote, when is Binance going to list them?

as soon as possible
since raiblocks is using new tech i think it will take a time to available there

[SparkyU]

XRB is on Binance Voting Competition


https://www.binance.com/vote.html

Voting is from 31st Dec 2017 to 4th Jan 2018!

Please vote for XRB and lets get this on the biggest exchange out there and lets start the new year with a BANG.

To vote, you need 0.1 BNB coin (around $1).
Please spend this small amount and in return the price will speak for itself
In case you dont have BNB on Binance but have XRB, send some XRB to BitGrail, withdraw ETH to Binance, trade ETH to BNB and make a vote!


Everybody please vote!!

XRB is in the lead by a good margin.  Everyone keep voting and this coin can FINALLY be added to a large exchange like it deserves.

[djpitagora]

The current price is @0.00089888 BTC in this time, I have bought it in 0.00110000 yesterday, what happen in this coin? 

nothing happen
it's just correction after bullish for almost 1 month

it will surely rise after the more than healthy correction. thought about a deeper drop though

Seriously mate, what's your deal? I know for a fact that you're not a fan of this project and you're no way here to be a part of the community, so why are you here mate? Why are you still here posting all this nonsense?, how can you tell it's fake news though? How do you know that this is not a healthy correction? Seeing the bullish trend that happened the past couple of weeks, the current price drop is normal, it's not even a really low drop, it's just went down around 20,000 sat which is a really good correction and in a analyst point of view this is healthy for the market, this just means that this project is maturing and we're going to reach a new all time high soon, I just checked your previous posts and it seems like when the price was just around 90k sat you said "enjoy the collapse" but the collapse never happened mate just hours after you post that the price went as high as 120k satoshi, it seems like you were wrong about that, next time you say something about the market price, backed it up mate, because with what you're doing it looks like you're just here to spread FUD.

How come there is nobody moderating this thread?
Yes, fracas (among others) is not here to be part of the community, he's just posting nonsense.
Will he stop? NO. He's been doing this since a few days now.

Your attitude is very wrong mate. There are a couple of things you seem to be missing here:

1. The community is this forum. If he is in the forum then he is part of the community. This is not a cult, nor private XRB forum. We discuss things openly here.
2. There are no influencers in this forum. Nothing said here will change the fate of any coin. If it's meant to succeed it will despite anything said here, if it's meant to fail it will.
3. We as investors and potential investors have only to gain if problems are discussed. See #2. Nothing changes for the coin, but it does for us. Even if there is a 1% chance he is right, I want to hear about it and I alone will decide if he is right or not. Depending on that I might be in or out, or change my mind at any time. I'm following a large number of coins, I might or might not be invested in it. One thing that I definitely want to hear about everywhere are the potential problems. Lets not turn this forum in an echo chamber.

[duesoldi]

The current price is @0.00089888 BTC in this time, I have bought it in 0.00110000 yesterday, what happen in this coin? 

nothing happen
it's just correction after bullish for almost 1 month

it will surely rise after the more than healthy correction. thought about a deeper drop though

Seriously mate, what's your deal? I know for a fact that you're not a fan of this project and you're no way here to be a part of the community, so why are you here mate? Why are you still here posting all this nonsense?, how can you tell it's fake news though? How do you know that this is not a healthy correction? Seeing the bullish trend that happened the past couple of weeks, the current price drop is normal, it's not even a really low drop, it's just went down around 20,000 sat which is a really good correction and in a analyst point of view this is healthy for the market, this just means that this project is maturing and we're going to reach a new all time high soon, I just checked your previous posts and it seems like when the price was just around 90k sat you said "enjoy the collapse" but the collapse never happened mate just hours after you post that the price went as high as 120k satoshi, it seems like you were wrong about that, next time you say something about the market price, backed it up mate, because with what you're doing it looks like you're just here to spread FUD.

How come there is nobody moderating this thread?
Yes, fracas (among others) is not here to be part of the community, he's just posting nonsense.
Will he stop? NO. He's been doing this since a few days now.

Your attitude is very wrong mate. There are a couple of things you seem to be missing here:

1. The community is this forum. If he is in the forum then he is part of the community. This is not a cult, nor private XRB forum. We discuss things openly here.
2. There are no influencers in this forum. Nothing said here will change the fate of any coin. If it's meant to succeed it will despite anything said here, if it's meant to fail it will.
3. We as investors and potential investors have only to gain if problems are discussed. See #2. Nothing changes for the coin, but it does for us. Even if there is a 1% chance he is right, I want to hear about it and I alone will decide if he is right or not. Depending on that I might be in or out, or change my mind at any time. I'm following a large number of coins, I might or might not be invested in it. One thing that I definitely want to hear about everywhere are the potential problems. Lets not turn this forum in an echo chamber.

+1
and I say this as a strong xrb supporter, but despite this I strongly wish to hear everyone's opinion

[fajarkus12]

XRB is on Binance Voting Competition


https://www.binance.com/vote.html

Voting is from 31st Dec 2017 to 4th Jan 2018!

Please vote for XRB and lets get this on the biggest exchange out there and lets start the new year with a BANG.

To vote, you need 0.1 BNB coin (around $1).
Please spend this small amount and in return the price will speak for itself
In case you dont have BNB on Binance but have XRB, send some XRB to BitGrail, withdraw ETH to Binance, trade ETH to BNB and make a vote!


Everybody please vote!!

XRB is in the lead by a good margin.  Everyone keep voting and this coin can FINALLY be added to a large exchange like it deserves.

Before i was anxiousing because xrb behind of XP, but finally XRB can go ahead and surpassed XP. There are 4 days remaining before this vote ends, so i hope XRB still on the first place and we can win

[cr1pton00b]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them.  

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings. 
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.

https://s18.postimg.org/7pnm6yweh/doublespend.png

6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation. 
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

[Moht]

Hi everyone... I haven’t looked at XRB in awhile.

For all of you holding.... congratulations !

I thought I was holding XRB on yapriwallet.space.

Did they dissolve?

Kind regards,
Kings

[xibeijan]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them.  

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings. 
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.



6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation. 
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

It is about time someone posted this.  Watch now as it tumbles.

[Ckg]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them.  

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings. 
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.

https://s18.postimg.org/7pnm6yweh/doublespend.png

6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation. 
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

It's good to question this new tech. From my read of the whitepaper I think Colin addressed these potential attack vectors, but there were a few unknowns. I'd be interested to know how the RaiBlock dev team responds to the weaknesses presented above. Good discussion.

[vitamilk]

I am very much looking forward to it, thank you.

[Piston Honda]

DEAR LORD THANK YOU FOR XRB PAMPZ and HNY TO ALLLLL!!! 

just deciding on orange or lime green lambo paint 

[Juandelacruzq]

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php

If anything, that seems positive to me. Why would you want to make a coin of which you have so many units worthless by attacking it?

[sboz]

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.

https://s18.postimg.org/7pnm6yweh/doublespend.png

Couldn't the same MitM attack be used in a bitcoin transaction? Connect to all the peers of a merchant and mine 6 blocks containing the double spend while filtering out all longer blocks so the merchant accepts the transaction as valid.

[altcoinraver]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them. 

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings.
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.

https://s18.postimg.org/7pnm6yweh/doublespend.png

6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation.
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

It is about time someone posted this.  Watch now as it tumbles.

What is this? It's not just bitcoin. There are no miners. There are no double spend attacks.

POS will ALWAYS be more costlier to attack.

The devs have already addressed this:

https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/wiki/Attacks

RaiBlocks has a number of mechanisms built in to protect from a range of possible attacks on the system. Here we go over all attacks there could be on the system and what safeguards are in place.

Block gap synchronization - Low risk, network amplify, denial of service

Description: Each block has a link to its previous block. If a new block arrives where we can't find the previous block, this leaves the node deciding whether it's out of sync or if someone is sending junk data. If a node is out of sync, synchronizing involves a TCP connection to a node that offers bootstrapping which is much more traffic than sending a single UDP packet containing a block; this is a network amplification attack.
Defense: For blocks with no previous link, nodes will wait until a certain threshold of votes have been observed before initiating a connection to a bootstrap node to synchronize. If a block doesn't receive enough votes it can be assumed to be junk data.

Transaction flooding - Moderate risk, high I/O

Description: Transaction flooding is simply sending as many valid transactions as possible in order to saturate the network. Usually an attacker will send transactions to other accounts they control so it can be continued indefinitely.
Defense: Each block has a small amount of work associated with it, around 5 seconds to generate and 1 microsecond to validate. This work difference causes an attacker to dedicate a large amount to sustain an attack while wasting a small amount of resources by everyone else. Nodes that are not full historical nodes are able to prune old transactions from their chain, this clamps the storage usage from this type of attack for almost all users.

Sybil attack to change ledger entries - No risk, completely destructive

Description: A Sybil attack is a person creating a lot of nodes on the network, possibly thousands on a single machine, in order to get a disproportionate vote on networks where each node gets an equal vote.
Defense: The RaiBlocks voting system is weighted based on account balance. Adding extra nodes in to the network will not gain an attacker extra votes.

Penny-spend attack - Moderate risk, large ledger

Description: A penny-spend attack is where an attacker spends infinitesimal quantities to a large number of accounts in order to waste the storage resources of nodes.
Defense: Blocks publishing is rate-limited by work so this limits accounts to a certain extent. Nodes that are not full historical nodes can prune accounts below a statistical metric where the account is probably not a valid account. Finally, RaiBlocks is tuned to use minimal permanent storage space so space required to store one additional account is proportional to the size of an open block + indexing ~ 96b + 32b ~ 128b. This equates to 1GB being able to store 8 million penny-spend account. If nodes want to be aggressive, they can calculate a distribution based on access frequency and delegate infrequently used accounts to slower storage.

>50% attack - Low risk, completely destructive

Description: The metric of consensus for RaiBlocks is a balance weighted voting system. If an attacker is able to gain over 50% of the voting strength, they can cause the network to oscillate their decisions rendering the system useless. An attacker must have at least some value tied up in the network as a balance which they're willing to forfeit as an expense to performing this type of attack since this attack ruins the integrity of the system. An attacker is able to lower the amount of balance they must forfeit by preventing good nodes from voting through a network DDOS.
Defense:

The primary defense against this type of attack is voting weight being tied to investment in the system; attempting to flip the ledger would be destructive to the system as a whole which would destroy their investment.
The second defense against this attack is the cost of this attack is proportional to the market cap of all of RaiBlocks. In proof of work systems, technology can be invented that gives disproportionate control compared to monetary investment and if the attack is successful, this technology could be repurposed after the attack is complete. With RaiBlocks the cost of attacking the system scales with the system and if an attack were to be successful the cost of the attack can't be recovered.
In order to maintain the maximum quorum of voters, the next line of defense is representative voting. Account holders who are unable to reliably participate in voting for connectivity reasons can name a representative who can vote with the weight of their balance.
Forks in RaiBlocks are never accidental so nodes can make policy decisions on how to interact with forked blocks. The only time non-attacker accounts are vulnerable to block forks is if they receive a balance from an attacking account. Accounts wanting to be secure from block forks can wait a little or a lot longer before receiving from an account who generated forks or opt to never receive at all. Receivers could also generate separate accounts for receiving from dubious accounts in order to protect the rest of their balance.
A final line of defense that has not yet been implemented is block cementing. RaiBlocks goes to great efforts to get block forks to settle quickly via voting. Nodes could be configured to cement blocks after a certain period of time, possibly a few minutes, which would prevent them from being rolled back. More research has to be done to figure out of this policy would be beneficial and what type of parameters would be the best. More than likely the network is sufficiently secured through focusing on fast settling time.
The most sophisticated version of a >50% attack is detailed in the diagram below. "Offline" is the percentage of representatives who have been named but are not online to vote. "Stake" is the amount of investment the attacker is voting with and will be lost if they successfully attack the system. "Active" are representatives that are online and voting according to the protocol. An attacker can offset the amount of stake they must forfeit by knocking other voters offline via a network denial of service attack. If this attack can be sustained, the representatives being attacked will become unsynchronized and this is demonstrated by "Unsynced". Finally, an attacker can gain a short burst in relative voting strength by switching their denial of service attack to a new set of representatives while the old set is resynchronizing their ledger, this is demonstrated by "Attacked".

Voting attack

If an attacker is able to cause Stake > Active by a combination of these circumstances, they would be able to successfully flip votes on the ledger at the expense of their stake. We can estimate how much this type of attack could cost by examining the market cap of other systems. If we estimate 33% of representatives are offline or attacked via denial of service, an attacker would need to purchase 33% of the market cap in order to attack the system via voting.

Voting attack cost:

Euro - M1 in 2014 ~6 trillion, attack amount 2 trillion
USD - M0 in 2014 ~4 trillion, attack amount 1.2 trillion
UK pound sterling - M0 in 2007 ~1.5 trillion, attack amount 500 billion
Bitcoin - Market cap 2014 ~3 billion, attack amount 1 billion
Bootstrap poisoning - Low risk, new-user denial of service

Description: The longer an attacker is able to hold an old private key with a balance, the higher the probability of balances that existed at that time no longer having representatives that are participating in voting because their balances or representatives have transferred to new people. This means if a node is bootstrapped to an old representation of the network where the attacker has a quorum of voting stake compare to representatives at that point in time, they would be able to oscillate voting decisions to that node. If this new user wanted to interact with anyone besides the attacking node all of their transactions would be denied since they have different head blocks. The net result is nodes can waste the time of new nodes in the network by feeding them bad information.
Defense: Nodes can be paired with an initial database of accounts and known-good block heads; this is a replacement for downloading the database all the way back to the genesis block. The closer the download is to be current, the higher the probability of accurately defending against this attack. In the end this attack is probably no worse than feeding junk data to nodes while bootstrapping since they wouldn't be able to transact with anyone who has a contemporary database.


***

The voting process is balance-weighted. Each new account selects representative in 1st block (then it can change it with "change" block) & delegate its balance to representative. When an account selects their representative, the vote weight of that account is increased by the balance of the source account. Votes are weighted by account balances. Those who have more funds in the system are inherently incentivized to keep the system honest; a dishonest system would make their investment worthless. You can observe votes to check if representative is honest.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RaiBlocks/comments/7klfoe/raiblocks_double_spend_question/?st=jbvpt9zi&sh=a9f797b4

[CyraxMax]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them.  

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings. 
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.



6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation. 
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

Brand new account made to just bash xrb.
Clearly a sock puppet account.
Why didn't you had the balls to post this garbage from your main account?

[raoulsergia]

Why RaiBlocks is not secure.

In this article I will try to explain why RaiBlocks is not secure and why its technology is any better neither comparable than the Bitcoin technology.

1. Decentralized payments
Decentralized payment networks are, in opposite of centralized payment network like banks, a way to secure your money without having the risk that a central authority could steal your money or manipulate the money in the market. Decentralized payment networks use asymmetric cryptography to ensure that you are the only one who can spend your money.
When you create a cryptocurrency wallet you are given a public key and a private key. The public key allows other people to send you money, while the private key allows you to spend them.  

But how other users know how many money do you have?
To accomplish this, every user of a decentralized payment network must download the entire transaction database which is replicated on the entire network. When you send a payment over the network, it is received by all the users connected on the network allowing them to know your updated wallet balance and allowing them to discard that payment if you don’t own enough funds.

2. Double Spending
The main problem that afflicts decentralized payment networks is double spending: the ability of an user to spend his money multiple times. In the real world, when you pay someone you give him the real cash. In a centralized payment network, like VISA, the central database is updated every time you make a payment, and they will not allow you to spend more money than your balance.
In a decentralized payment network what happens if you send the same amount of money on two users of the network in the same time? Since their database takes time to update for a small amount of time they both will receive the payment and accept it. In a later moment, when the network tells them that you double spent your money, they will cancel the payment, this is possible because every payment is broadcasted to the entire network, not only the receiver.
Without any other security layer, if a malicious user double spends his money and succeeds to block a payment receiver to know that he sent the same money to someone else (or even better, to another wallet of his own), the payment receiver will accept the payment and ship the good. This is so bad, since even a network connection problem could temporarily lead a payment receiver to undetect double spendings.

3. The Bitcoin Solution
To solve this problem, Bitcoin relays on the fact that after you receive a payment you need to wait a confirmation block, the confirmation block tells you that the payment you have received has been accepted by the entire network and you are allowed to spend it. To create a confirmation block, the miners create a list of all the pending unconfirmed transactions and solve a very difficult mathematical puzzle. The miner who solves the puzzle first, sends the block he found with all the list of confirmed transaction and the solved puzzle to the network, the users of the network will check if the puzzle solution is valid and then reward him with some free coins plus the sum of all the payment fees of each transaction in the block. The miners must create a valid list of payments to be accepted by the network, so double spend attempts are just discarded.

In Bitcoin an attacker,  to make a succesful double spending, should not just stop you from receiving a double spend attempt message, but he should also solve the puzzle to create a confirmation block in a reasonable time frame. Currently solving that puzzle with a single computer would take years; at writing time to solve that puzzle a network of thousands dedicated hardware is used, an attacker would require a billionaire investment to replicate that network. Moreover, it would not only need to create one confirmation block but six of them (6 confirmation blocks are required in the Bitcoin network to trust a payment).

Critics of Bitcoin say that all the computation power used to make the Bitcoin network secure is just a waste of energy because there are other reliable and better technologies. Is that true?

4. What is RaiBlocks?
RaiBlocks is a crypto currency that advertises itself as a fast, fee-less and secure currency, unlikely Bitcoin which is currently slow and high-fee (usually requires 1 hour to a full payment confirmation).
But the key point is that Bitcoin has been made that way to guarantee his users a certain amount of security to prevent double spendings. 
 
RaiBlocks completely ignores the Bitcoin technology and relies on a special version of the Proof Of Stake concept.
When you receive a payment in the RaiBlocks network you have to wait a certain amount of time to be sure that a double spending has not been attempted (and remember the first problem, if an attacker stops you from receiving the double spend you would never know!)
When a double spent is detected, the RaiBlocks network starts a vote. Every peer connected to the network vote to accept the payment A or payment B; every user vote is weighted with the amount of his balance. Usually each peer votes for the first transaction he receives. The transaction which the sum of votes reaches the 51% of online amount of currency wins. The winning transaction is accepted by the network and the other one is discarded. (Reference https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation)

The payment receiver, if his network has not been compromised, will then know if he can trust the payment or not, and will ship the good accordingly. This system leads to an unsolvable problem.

5. The Man in the Middle attack.

If an attacker succeeds to put himself between a merchant and the RaiBlocks network he can just filter the double spending payment packets, and the merchant will never know that he is receiving a double spending. The Raiblocks network will discard that payment while the merchant will accept it.



6. Solutions proposed by the RaiBlocks team

a) The merchant should ask a vote for each payment he receives and wait for the confirmation. 
The problem is that the attacker could manipulate the vote by telling the merchant that only his peers are connected to the network thus he will win the vote by filtering only his votes. Plus, asking a vote for each payment would cause a huge increment of bandwidth usage that many peers could not handle.

b) The merchant should have a remote node verifying the payment.
The attacker could just attack that network too.

c) The merchant should ask the RaiBlocks.net website if the payment has been accepted.
The attacker can hack the RaiBlocks.net website. Also if you have to rely on a website you can no longer consider RaiBlocks a decentralized network.

Other solutions

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum.
It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

2) A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives.
This will stop the network on being decentralized. Also, if those representatives are offline the payments are not processed.

7. Why Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this type of attack
Simply because an attacker, to be trusted by a merchant, would require to solve a very difficult puzzle for six times. An attacker cannot alter the difficulty of that puzzle.

8. Other observations

a) RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm. The creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, describes the double spending problem in the original Bitcoin paper: https://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf. The developer of RaiBlocks just thinks to solve the problem by ignoring the problem.

b) The official representatives of the RaiBlocks network own more than 52% of total voting weight, allowing the developer to manipulate every vote on his will.
Source: https://dev.RaiBlocks.net/page/representatives.php


9. References
https://RaiBlocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pdf
https://github.com/clemahieu/RaiBlocks/wiki/Double-spending-and-confirmation

It is about time someone posted this.  Watch now as it tumbles.

It is always great to see such incoherent and unreasonable attack vectors get described and then appreciated, shows that there are people starting to get worried about where XRB is heading, and looking over their shoulders to see if XRB is coming to overtake them 


This attack wants to
1. First control the merchant's computer or internet connection (in simple terms that the merchant is hacked),
2. Next also control all the nodes/peers in the raiblocks network so that the merchant is not able to verify the transaction

But this is not enough...

3. The attacker wants to control raiclocks.net (again does he mean one node here? because anyone can run a different node, like https://raiblocks.club  .. or does he mean attack the representative nodes? )

Is the attacker a super power controlling the entire Internet? Thats what this sounds like.
Its like saying the USD is also quite vulnerable to the entire online banking system being hacked and someone adding zeros onto all account balances


Also there are several wrong ideas about Raiblocks that this "article " suggests:

1) A payment to be accepted should require a vote with a minimum weight quorum. It's difficult to establish a correct quorum, and if that quorum is offline no payments will be processed.

This is false. A vote takes place only if there is a fork (ie. malicious transaction.). This can happen only when the send transaction is tampered with before creation. In every instance of such a transaction. The entire network looks at it with extreme scrutiny because they generally do not exist in the system. This is clearly explained in the whitepaper

A payment need to be accepted by some trusted representatives

Again false

RaiBlocks is just Bitcoins without the Bitcoin securing algorithm

No need to explain such stuff, XRB is not even related to bitcoin in any way, except if you look at it from an account perspective where each account can be looked as a blockchain
Clearly shows you have no idea about what RaiBLocks is when you say "Raiblocks is just Bitcoin"



The only thing of any substance in this article is the 52% weight of representative nodes, but that is again split in 6 different representatives and with new exchanges and merchants coming to the ecosystem, this will only reduce the weight, thus making the representatives more decentralised 



Overall this is a terrible article which does not even understand the whitepaper and compares it with a bitcoin to see where the differences are.
If someone is making such topics on security vulnerabilities least they can do is come up with better points to debate 

[bitblaster]

Alway be aware of Brand New accounts. Someone with technical knowledge has definitely a main account to post from.

-bitblaster

[themathiasmiller]

The current price is @0.00089888 BTC in this time, I have bought it in 0.00110000 yesterday, what happen in this coin? 

nothing happen
it's just correction after bullish for almost 1 month

it will surely rise after the more than healthy correction. thought about a deeper drop though

Seriously mate, what's your deal? I know for a fact that you're not a fan of this project and you're no way here to be a part of the community, so why are you here mate? Why are you still here posting all this nonsense?, how can you tell it's fake news though? How do you know that this is not a healthy correction? Seeing the bullish trend that happened the past couple of weeks, the current price drop is normal, it's not even a really low drop, it's just went down around 20,000 sat which is a really good correction and in a analyst point of view this is healthy for the market, this just means that this project is maturing and we're going to reach a new all time high soon, I just checked your previous posts and it seems like when the price was just around 90k sat you said "enjoy the collapse" but the collapse never happened mate just hours after you post that the price went as high as 120k satoshi, it seems like you were wrong about that, next time you say something about the market price, backed it up mate, because with what you're doing it looks like you're just here to spread FUD.

How come there is nobody moderating this thread?
Yes, fracas (among others) is not here to be part of the community, he's just posting nonsense.
Will he stop? NO. He's been doing this since a few days now.

Your attitude is very wrong mate. There are a couple of things you seem to be missing here:

1. The community is this forum. If he is in the forum then he is part of the community. This is not a cult, nor private XRB forum. We discuss things openly here.
2. There are no influencers in this forum. Nothing said here will change the fate of any coin. If it's meant to succeed it will despite anything said here, if it's meant to fail it will.
3. We as investors and potential investors have only to gain if problems are discussed. See #2. Nothing changes for the coin, but it does for us. Even if there is a 1% chance he is right, I want to hear about it and I alone will decide if he is right or not. Depending on that I might be in or out, or change my mind at any time. I'm following a large number of coins, I might or might not be invested in it. One thing that I definitely want to hear about everywhere are the potential problems. Lets not turn this forum in an echo chamber.

Great points you stated here mate, and as a supporter of raiblocks since the beginning I agree with what you're saying here, but I just like to correct you in a few statements that you said here:

1. When I said he's no way here to be a part of the community, when I said community I don't mean this forum, I meant the people supporting raiblocks, by definition community means a group of people having a particular characteristic in common, so we on here are a community, we're a group of people who's particular characteristic is supporting raiblock and fracas doesn't seem to have that characteristic, I think his posts history will prove that statement of mine.

2. Exactly I couldn't agree more, there are no influencers here but you should know the fact that a huge factor of a coin's success is its community, so if a coin has a lot of supporters it's most likely to succeed, just like what happens to this project, even though it's just being accepted by small exchanges because of it's strong community, we were able to move it forward and we didn't let things happen, we made things happen.

3. I also completely agree problems must be discussed so that the devs will be aware of it and it will just make this coin better and strong in the long run, but fracas isn't always pointing out the problems mate if you've seen his post history then you'll realize that he mostly fuds than points out problems, his posts seems to taunt raiblocks supporters saying "enjoy the collapse",posting a "fake news gif" to people who points out that it's just a correction in the market, I think if he really wants to help this project then he should do it in a mature manner, not like this, maybe in a way @cr1pton00b stated, that's a very mature and professional way of discussing the problems of raiblocks.

I honestly don't have a problem of people pointing out the weak points of raiblocks, because in reality all cryptocurrency have weak points, nothing is prefect, even in the cryptoworld, there will always be a coin much better than this, but I do have a problem with people posting FUD and just postings things that are not even helpful to the raiblocks community, this project is still young there's still more to come this year and there will more development that will make this project so much stronger so to the people spreading FUD don't even bother, it's 2018, time to change now mate.

[Driendy]

My concern is the testing of this crypto. Does anyone knows if Rai was tested already to have at least 1000x transactions per second as it claims to have. I am just trying to understand where is the evidence that what;s written in the papers is actual working in practice ? For me and many non technical folks we need to have a testing phase to see if it works like some coins did for atomic swaps and lightning network. As long as there is no evidence to demonstrate what's claimed by this project all remains just piece of paper and because they are new , they are not that trustful as BTS or DGB are (talking about the same family of coins).

[Driendy]

DEAR LORD THANK YOU FOR XRB PAMPZ and HNY TO ALLLLL!!!  

just deciding on orange or lime green lambo paint  

Congrats mate , glad to see success stories and enjoy the new Year with your new Lambo