[WTB]200k PPC

[AndyRossy]

As per op, pm me if you have with a price.

[smoothie]

what will you do with all that Pee Pee? 

[AndyRossy]

Want to get a stake, s.t. holding proofofstake.com seems like a worthy investment for me

[smoothie]

mmmm Steak 

[Vitalicus]

The PPC price is still low, even after successful protocol update. You can bay at bitparking

[ninjaboon]

Wished I had that much PPC to sell off...

[Jutarul]

The PPC price is still low, even after successful protocol update. You can bay at bitparking

As a matter of fact you should wait for the protocol update. And for proper revision. Last time I checked it's not an easy fix.

[AndyRossy]

The PPC price is still low, even after successful protocol update. You can bay at bitparking

As a matter of fact you should wait for the protocol update. And for proper revision. Last time I checked it's not an easy fix.

I've read though it, it looks easy enough? Or did I miss something?

Andy

[Jutarul]

I've read though it, it looks easy enough? Or did I miss something?

Andy

Did I miss a publication or a preliminary release of the source code? Can you post a reference?

There are multiple problems with the stake implementation right now. The two most pressing ones are
1) The ability to augment POS generation by computational power (it's devastating effect is mostly negated by checkpoints)
2) The ability to use the same stake in alternate branches of the blockchain. So there's no penalty/incentive to decide a priori for a specific branch, lowering the attack cost for a double spent to zero.

[Vitalicus]

Last post Sunny KING
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101820.720

SOLVED!!

The solution involves patching PPCoin. I will put in the suggestion in github.

Basically it involves changing the base58.h file.Litecoin has an altered base58.h, and it appears that the file has to be changed whenever using a address version above 00.

In Base58.h

Code:
public:
    void SetSecret(const CSecret& vchSecret, bool fCompressed)
    {
        assert(vchSecret.size() == 32);
        SetData(fTestNet ? 239 : 128, &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
        if (fCompressed)

Change the 239 to 245 (Testnet 128+117) 128 to 183 (Livenet 128+55)
Code:
public:
    void SetSecret(const CSecret& vchSecret, bool fCompressed)
    {
        assert(vchSecret.size() == 32);
        SetData(fTestNet ? 245 : 183, &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
        if (fCompressed)

And again in here

Code:
bool IsValid() const
    {
        bool fExpectTestNet = false;
        switch(nVersion)
        {
            case 128:
                break;

            case 239:
                fExpectTestNet = true;
                break;

to:

Code:
bool IsValid() const
    {
        bool fExpectTestNet = false;
        switch(nVersion)
        {
            case 183:
                break;

            case 245:
                fExpectTestNet = true;
                break;

Thanks for the investigation of the compatibility issue with vanitygen. I have received the pull request and will give it a review by this weekend.

Good job!

[Sunny King]

Did I miss a publication or a preliminary release of the source code? Can you post a reference?

There are multiple problems with the stake implementation right now. The two most pressing ones are
1) The ability to augment POS generation by computational power (it's devastating effect is mostly negated by checkpoints)
2) The ability to use the same stake in alternate branches of the blockchain. So there's no penalty/incentive to decide a priori for a specific branch, lowering the attack cost for a double spent to zero.

v0.3 has not yet been released, but is getting very close to be ready. Andy is probably referring to my short explanation of the new protocol in the weekly updates. No it's not as easy as it sounds as it took me months to design and develop.

Your second point is often argued against proof-of-stake, but I think it is already explained well in the bitcoin wiki article on proof-of-stake. Such attacks on block chain could result in real losses of the currency holding itself, even though in terms of ppcoin unit the holding is the same, but in terms of other currencies the attackers would suffer large loss due to the loss of confidence of the coin. So no, such attack is not 'cost-free'.

[Jutarul]

Your second point is often argued against proof-of-stake, but I think it is already explained well in the bitcoin wiki article on proof-of-stake. Such attacks on block chain could result in real losses of the currency holding itself, even though in terms of ppcoin unit the holding is the same, but in terms of other currencies the attackers would suffer large loss due to the loss of confidence of the coin. So no, such attack is not 'cost-free'.

I agree. Loss of confidence should be considered as an indirect cost. The same logic applies to bitcoin. But in bitcoin the "attempt" has a real cost in terms of hashing power spent to the ATTACKER. A cost due to a lowered confidence level is payed by ALL STAKE HOLDERS. Thus double spend attacks have different economics in POW and POS, with POS being "cheaper", because you do not have to spend anything, and the cost of loss in confidence is carried by the entire community.

Anyway - I only wanted to point out that we should appreciate your effort in improving PPC with respect to network security and shouldn't forget that it is a non-trivial problem to solve.

[TheButterZone]

So...

[Mr. White]

Thats a lot of PPC

[Mr. White]

That equals to 470 BTC according to BTC-E, or 21000 LTC  - $59400.00    thats a lot of PP