Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 03:32:58 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 ... 169 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development  (Read 351088 times)
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
January 05, 2014, 08:29:34 PM
 #1661

PoW blocks target spacing must be higher or at least equal to PoS blocks target spacing, because this system is originally designed for "slow" PoW blocks and "fast" PoS blocks.

This sounds like one basic modification to do, changing PoW and PoS targets so there's rarely more than one PoW block PoS can orphan, and shouldn't interfere much with further future improvements.

Chain has worked without that much drama until now, if an interim targets fix can make do for a while, it may buy time while more complex improvements are evaluated. No need to risk introducing bigger loopholes trying to fix a smaller bug.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
1513006378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513006378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513006378
Reply with quote  #2

1513006378
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513006378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513006378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513006378
Reply with quote  #2

1513006378
Report to moderator
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile
January 05, 2014, 08:43:28 PM
 #1662

If I understand correctly function of PoW mining is coin distribution and PoS was ment to later with enough honest nodes takes over coin production and other functions (but not distribution at least not directly).

Now the two (PoS&PoW) obviously do not go along too well in this form.

Would it be possible to implement alterations of blockchain sequences according to timestamp like this: only POW blocks would be accepted by clients every day except on saturday when one hour would be allowed for only PoS blocks sequence.
That one hour would be extended by another hour or similar every week, so gradually PoS would replace PoW along with coin being distributed to increasing number of people.

If people would like to collect PoS revenue they would have to open their wallets all at once and "flood" the net.
As yacoin gets distributed to more people this flooding time would get extended until it happens all the time and takes it's proper function.

I said 1 hour on saturday - but it could be any day and duration determined upfront, for example 15 minutes every day or every third day or when N increments...

I think Nfactor change should get used for any incremental phasing out of functionality not needed anymore - be it dynamic active weight calculation or something else temporarily needed.


YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
Joe_Bauers
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 785


GCVMMWH


View Profile
January 05, 2014, 08:49:49 PM
 #1663

Would it be possible to implement alterations of blockchain sequences according to timestamp like this: only POW blocks would be accepted by clients every day except on saturday when one hour would be allowed for only PoS blocks sequence.
That one hour would be extended by another hour or similar every week, so gradually PoS would replace PoW along with coin being distributed to increasing number of people.

If people would like to collect PoS revenue they would have to open their wallets all at once and "flood" the net.
As yacoin gets distributed to more people this flooding time would get extended until it happens all the time and takes it's proper function.

I said 1 hour on saturday - but it could be any day and duration determined upfront, for example 15 minutes every day or every third day or when N increments...

I think Nfactor change should get used for any incremental phasing out of functionality not needed anymore - be it dynamic active weight calculation or something else temporarily needed.



Ha - I was actually thinking about this a few days ago, and still haven't been able to find an obvious exploit. 
Thirtybird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 693



View Profile
January 05, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
 #1664

This, however, results in the attacker's fake longer chain to have a timestamp from the future - possibly more than the allowed clock-drift (depends on the length of the faked chain. If the timestamp is higher than "now + allowed drift", then such block is rejected by the client - thus fixing this issue.
Nope, this maxClockDrift condition is just a sanity checking threshold against the node with invalid time settings. It's not necessary to publish a chain immediately, real attacker will be able to publish his chain in any moment of the future. And clockdrift condition won't be able to prevent this.

I can generate chain and publish it a month or even year later... And it will overwrite the main chain if there are no checkpoints added. Just because there is no way to make a difference between valid or invalid timestamps if these timestamps are in the past.

Would there be ramifications to changing the code to reject a newly published chain if the lowest height block is 24 hours older than the highest published block?  I honestly don't understand chain trusts, etc, and have not found the explanation that clicks for me yet, so this may just invalidate a bunch of things - I don't know any better, but want to.  I brought up cementing earlier, and everyone was vehemently against the concept, but it strikes me as just another form of checkpoints, which is what NVC and PPC are using.

second question - regarding bitcoin knowing the difference between a diff1 and diff2 block but YAC does not - could you elaborate on this Balthazar?  What is YAC missing?

YACMiner: https://github.com/Thirtybird/YACMiner  N-Factor information : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aj3vcsuY-JFNdC1ITWJrSG9VeWp6QXppbVgxcm0tbGc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
BTC: 183eSsaxG9y6m2ZhrDhHueoKnZWmbm6jfC  YAC: Y4FKiwKKYGQzcqn3M3u6mJoded6ri1UWHa
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2014, 02:14:57 AM
 #1665

NVC's solution gives huge inflation and I think this would hurt YAC significantly more that it hurts NVC so be shouldn't go there.
It looks like somebody prefers to ignore a basic math for ideological purposes rather than do some research. I seen this many times during the years of USSR.

OK, let's do some research...

1) The maximum proof-of-stake reward is 1 coin per coin*year, so even if reward and difficulty will be constant values, proof-of-stake is unable to introduce more than 100% increase of supply.
2) There are more than 650000 NVC generated, this means ~325% increase of supply for 8 months or ~487% for a year.
3) WHAAAT THE HELL IS THAT???!  Shocked How is it possible? Shocked

An answer is quite simple, proof-of-work generation is much more powerful inflation source even with NVC block rewards. And it's significantly more powerful in YAC, just compare proof-of-work rewards and do some extrapolation before trying to deny that.

And remember that difficulty is growing while the reward is dropping...

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
ilostcoins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274



View Profile
January 06, 2014, 02:34:47 AM
 #1666

This discussion has been a good lesson for me and I'm still trying to digest more of it. Too bad I don't have anything useful to offer. Thank you Balthazar for offering your expertise on the matter.

If I understand correctly function of PoW mining is coin distribution and PoS was ment to later with enough honest nodes takes over coin production and other functions (but not distribution at least not directly).

Now the two (PoS&PoW) obviously do not go along too well in this form.

Would it be possible to implement alterations of blockchain sequences according to timestamp like this: only POW blocks would be accepted by clients every day except on saturday when one hour would be allowed for only PoS blocks sequence.
That one hour would be extended by another hour or similar every week, so gradually PoS would replace PoW along with coin being distributed to increasing number of people.

If people would like to collect PoS revenue they would have to open their wallets all at once and "flood" the net.
As yacoin gets distributed to more people this flooding time would get extended until it happens all the time and takes it's proper function.

I said 1 hour on saturday - but it could be any day and duration determined upfront, for example 15 minutes every day or every third day or when N increments...

I think Nfactor change should get used for any incremental phasing out of functionality not needed anymore - be it dynamic active weight calculation or something else temporarily needed.



Scheduling a time period for POS and POW sound strange at first, but from the perspective of coin distribution with less waste in energy, shortening the time mining machines need to run is a good thing and a similar amount of coins can be handed out by adjusting the block reward. N changes are indeed obvious signposts that can help orchestrate any major shifts. I don't know about the security aspect though.

...
second question - regarding bitcoin knowing the difference between a diff1 and diff2 block but YAC does not - could you elaborate on this Balthazar?  What is YAC missing?

I think he means the recent proposed changes of YACoin but I could easily be wrong.

LTC: LSyqwk4YbhBRtkrUy8NRdKXFoUcgVpu8Qb   NVC: 4HtynfYVyRYo6yM8BTAqyNYwqiucfoPqFW   TAG id: 4313
CMC: CAHrzqveVm9UxGm7PZtT4uj6su4suxKzZv   YAC: Y9m5S7M24sdkjdwxnA9GZpPez6k6EqUjUt
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2014, 02:41:56 AM
 #1667

Would there be ramifications to changing the code to reject a newly published chain if the lowest height block is 24 hours older than the highest published block?  
Nope. This modification changes actually nothing, because attacker won't publish his chain during the generation time. It would affect you only if you are honest user with the wrong clock settings. That's much worse than checkpoints, because it provides a false sense of security.

but it strikes me as just another form of checkpoints, which is what NVC and PPC are using.
Again... Don't listen to checkpointism adepts ever.  Smiley The main purpose of checkpoints is not a chain control, a block chain must be able to control itself. The main checkpoints purpose is to protect users against the compromised ISPs and enable some low-level signature checking optimizations. Checkpoints could be disabled or removed entirely and chain has to be able to continue working as usual.

second question - regarding bitcoin knowing the difference between a diff1 and diff2 block but YAC does not - could you elaborate on this Balthazar?  What is YAC missing?
YAC is missing the block trust calculation.

BTC calculates chain work as a function of difficulty and chain length;
PPC calculates chain trust as a function of PoS difficulty and chain length;
NVC calculates chain trust as a function of PoW and PoS difficulties and chain length;
YAC doesn't perform any calculations, all blocks has the same trust and chain trust depends only on chain length.

But actual reason of the problem and all those "fixes" is that YAC tries to use PoS:PoW ratio which wasn't foreseen in the original design.


novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile
January 06, 2014, 09:42:35 AM
 #1668

If I understand correctly function of PoW mining is coin distribution and PoS was ment to later with enough honest nodes takes over coin production and other functions (but not distribution at least not directly).

Now the two (PoS&PoW) obviously do not go along too well in this form.

Would it be possible to implement alterations of blockchain sequences according to timestamp like this: only POW blocks would be accepted by clients every day except on saturday when one hour would be allowed for only PoS blocks sequence.
That one hour would be extended by another hour or similar every week, so gradually PoS would replace PoW along with coin being distributed to increasing number of people.

If people would like to collect PoS revenue they would have to open their wallets all at once and "flood" the net.
As yacoin gets distributed to more people this flooding time would get extended until it happens all the time and takes it's proper function.

I said 1 hour on saturday - but it could be any day and duration determined upfront, for example 15 minutes every day or every third day or when N increments...

I think Nfactor change should get used for any incremental phasing out of functionality not needed anymore - be it dynamic active weight calculation or something else temporarily needed.

Scheduling a time period for POS and POW sound strange at first, but from the perspective of coin distribution with less waste in energy, shortening the time mining machines need to run is a good thing and a similar amount of coins can be handed out by adjusting the block reward. N changes are indeed obvious signposts that can help orchestrate any major shifts. I don't know about the security aspect though.

I will expand a concept a little bit so there are no fixed times:
Clients would utilize some function that would dynamically open PoS block acceptance windows, for example  "when (mod(last1000blocks.getTransactionCount(), 15) = 0)". This makes PoS acceptance time hard to predict but easy to calculate on the fly. Client software would offer an option so the user would enter password on demand and wallet would get unlocked during that period it there are any coins eligible for PoS minting. Or notification would be raised and users could unlock the wallet manually (notification in system tray icon during PoS windows?).
Software could also adjust PoS window duration according to currency amount generated during previous window (or average of last n PoS window periods). Or something else that would automatically adjust PoS block generation / PoS mechanism takeover.

Yet I do not know if any of this can be done at all. Feedback from other developers would be much appreciated.

YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
ilostcoins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274



View Profile
January 06, 2014, 09:58:49 AM
 #1669


I will expand a concept a little bit so there are no fixed times:
Clients would utilize some function that would dynamically open PoS block acceptance windows, for example  "when (mod(last1000blocks.getTransactionCount(), 15) = 0)". This makes PoS acceptance time hard to predict but easy to calculate on the fly. Client software would offer an option so the user would enter password on demand and wallet would get unlocked during that period it there are any coins eligible for PoS minting. Or notification would be raised and users could unlock the wallet manually (notification in system tray icon during PoS windows?).
Software could also adjust PoS window duration according to currency amount generated during previous window (or average of last n PoS window periods). Or something else that would automatically adjust PoS block generation / PoS mechanism takeover.

Yet I do not know if any of this can be done at all. Feedback from other developers would be much appreciated.


What would be the benefit of making this POS window hard to predict? Wouldn't it be easier to have more people participate in POS if people know when they can collect their interest?

LTC: LSyqwk4YbhBRtkrUy8NRdKXFoUcgVpu8Qb   NVC: 4HtynfYVyRYo6yM8BTAqyNYwqiucfoPqFW   TAG id: 4313
CMC: CAHrzqveVm9UxGm7PZtT4uj6su4suxKzZv   YAC: Y9m5S7M24sdkjdwxnA9GZpPez6k6EqUjUt
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile
January 06, 2014, 10:26:27 AM
 #1670


I will expand a concept a little bit so there are no fixed times:
Clients would utilize some function that would dynamically open PoS block acceptance windows, for example  "when (mod(last1000blocks.getTransactionCount(), 15) = 0)". This makes PoS acceptance time hard to predict but easy to calculate on the fly. Client software would offer an option so the user would enter password on demand and wallet would get unlocked during that period it there are any coins eligible for PoS minting. Or notification would be raised and users could unlock the wallet manually (notification in system tray icon during PoS windows?).
Software could also adjust PoS window duration according to currency amount generated during previous window (or average of last n PoS window periods). Or something else that would automatically adjust PoS block generation / PoS mechanism takeover.

Yet I do not know if any of this can be done at all. Feedback from other developers would be much appreciated.


What would be the benefit of making this POS window hard to predict? Wouldn't it be easier to have more people participate in POS if people know when they can collect their interest?

I thought it might complicate things for anyone planning scheduled attack with his own premined chain.
Also fixed times would affect people differently depending on where on Earth they dwell. If it would be time (exact hour) based that would have to drift anyway so that folks on some continents would not have to wake at 4am to collect interest.
Plus it might be preferred to have greater number of small PoS windows than ever expanding one.

YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
Joe_Bauers
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 785


GCVMMWH


View Profile
January 06, 2014, 06:06:47 PM
 #1671


I will expand a concept a little bit so there are no fixed times:
Clients would utilize some function that would dynamically open PoS block acceptance windows, for example  "when (mod(last1000blocks.getTransactionCount(), 15) = 0)". This makes PoS acceptance time hard to predict but easy to calculate on the fly. Client software would offer an option so the user would enter password on demand and wallet would get unlocked during that period it there are any coins eligible for PoS minting. Or notification would be raised and users could unlock the wallet manually (notification in system tray icon during PoS windows?).
Software could also adjust PoS window duration according to currency amount generated during previous window (or average of last n PoS window periods). Or something else that would automatically adjust PoS block generation / PoS mechanism takeover.

Yet I do not know if any of this can be done at all. Feedback from other developers would be much appreciated.


What would be the benefit of making this POS window hard to predict? Wouldn't it be easier to have more people participate in POS if people know when they can collect their interest?

I thought it might complicate things for anyone planning scheduled attack with his own premined chain.
Also fixed times would affect people differently depending on where on Earth they dwell. If it would be time (exact hour) based that would have to drift anyway so that folks on some continents would not have to wake at 4am to collect interest.
Plus it might be preferred to have greater number of small PoS windows than ever expanding one.

It might make sense to have a window set for every day - basically like a company's batch file sent to a bank. For those in inconvenient time zones, they could just set their client up for POS mining before they go to bed.

Balthazar, obviously this would be a big change from what is already happening for NVC/PPC/YAC. Do you think something like this is even viable?
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2014, 01:49:45 AM
 #1672

Maybe it has a sense in terms of coins distribution, but not in the terms of security. Because attacker can fake timestamps and there is no way to make a difference between incorrect/correct timestamps if the both timestamps are from the past or present. You can't check it without the help from trusted parties (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping).

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
Beave162
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 706



View Profile
January 07, 2014, 03:19:16 AM
 #1673

Creation of coins to depend on timestamps as well?  I think nonconsecutive PoS blocks looks even better now. It now seems relatively very simple and innovative--and simple. I think NXT is going to show how ineffective PoS is compared to PoW in terms of long-term stability. Just secure PoS role as providing security while also stabilizing prices through inflation--my vote as if it matters.

YaCoin: YL5kf54wPPXKsXd5T18xCaNkyUsS1DgY7z 
BitCoin: 14PFbLyUdTyxZg3V8hnvj5VXkx3dhthmDj
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2014, 03:28:35 AM
 #1674

It now seems relatively very simple and innovative--and simple.
And buggy as well.

I think nonconsecutive PoS blocks looks even better now.
There is no difference between control through checkpoints or trusted timestamps... This "solution" requires checkpointing control to work properly, so by choosing such design you are choosing a centralization. Maybe it's time to stop kidding yourself and switch to paypal?  Roll Eyes That's really much simpler than establishment of another centralized system instead of fixing a real source of the problem.

There is no problem with proof-of-stake system in terms of stability or efficiency, all we see here are just an issues of particular project. This issues are caused by incorrect chain settings and it's easy to fix it in the right way. But it seems that majority could prefer to use ugly workarounds due to ideological purposes.

2 all

It's not too late, a fate of the project is still in your hands. Just read my messages here carefully and make the your own decision. Anybody including myself can make the mistakes, that's natural. So don't accept flawed solutions so silently from anybody, despite of his authority. Check everything twice before saying "yep, that's acceptable"  Roll Eyes

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile
January 07, 2014, 03:48:12 AM
 #1675

Can someone please explain what can the attacker do if Sairon's fix (no two consecutive PoS blocks) would be merged with criteria for dynamic PoS block window opening a couple of times a week (and later per day or hour)?

EDIT: I've read the previous page again and my understanding is that somewhere in the future attacker generates a chain that replaces original chain with clients that are not on latest chain.
Is that correct?
And that is all because of one (to keep it simple) PoS block inserted?

YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
 #1676

I've read the previous page again and my understanding is that somewhere in the future attacker generates a chain that replaces original chain with clients that are not on latest chain.
Attacker can generate chain now and publish it a week/month/year later. His chain will be able to overwrite the main chain if it has a suitable length. Of course, if there is no checkpoints... Roll Eyes

A proposed solution (cutting the window of allowed timestamps) can't help here. This checking isn't purposed to use for protection against double-spend attacks, it's just a sanity checking and nothing more.

And that is all because of one (to keep it simple) PoS block inserted?
No, it's all because of absence of the correct chaintrust calculation.

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
senj
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 118


View Profile
January 07, 2014, 07:08:34 AM
 #1677

Thanks a lot for explanation and your valuable insight, Balthazar.

This is really complex stuff and I have read it again and though I do not get it all (and probably not right either), I do have some thoughts.

... I've also been thinking abount the issue Balthazar found (generating lower-difficulty fork from last checkpoint). The only way it can be achieved (the lower diff) is by faking the timestamps in the blocks (to keep diff low) and generating a longer chain than the current main chain. By faking the timestamps to be more distant from each other the difficulty is kept low. ..

EDIT-new paragraph:
If this quote from Sairon is correct, PoS window periods mentioned on previous page could be used as checkpoints. Software should calculate the difference between timestamps of PoW blocks between PoS blocks and the result could serve as a chaintrust value.

Blockchain fork with lowest time difference should be considered most valid one.


EDIT-old paragraph ( I don't understand anything written )
If this quote from Sairon is correct, before mentioned PoS window and the next one could be used as checkpoints. If software would be set to calculate distance to next PoS block to be 59 PoW blocks ahead, the difference between timestamps of PoW blocks on both edges between PoS blocks could serve as a chaintrust value - or is it active weight?

Blockchain fork with lowest time difference should be considered most valid one.
And actual equation would probably be more complicated (considering many segments).

Perhaps we could also use PoS timestamp in calculation...


YAC: YGZRDNuey8MnN6GHVR1x7D3UY5TjDz2HCL
bitfish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 174

A Coin A Day Keeps The Cold Away.


View Profile
January 07, 2014, 09:13:52 AM
 #1678


No, it's all because of absence of the correct chaintrust calculation.


So YAC needs correct chaintrust calculation.


Proposed timestamps are without merit if a malicious miner is mining a longer low difficulty private chain with fake time stamps.  
alenevaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 288



View Profile WWW
January 07, 2014, 09:22:08 AM
 #1679

Guys, have you seen that address YPGNWtN4gHFDQUvU9eC8Xzss5JCyT1ozmv with huge bunch of YACs?

It has more than 25% of ALL YAC!

Can it be the Scam or is it normal?

██████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
|
WINGS           
Where DAO Unicorns are born
|
.
1st Bitcoin & Ethereum DAO for DAOs
1st Decentralized Chatbot to Smart Contracts Interaction System

|
.
Wings Bounties Earn Eggs
X-Blockchain DAO

aso118
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


View Profile
January 07, 2014, 12:30:22 PM
 #1680

Guys, have you seen that address YPGNWtN4gHFDQUvU9eC8Xzss5JCyT1ozmv with huge bunch of YACs?

It has more than 25% of ALL YAC!

Can it be the Scam or is it normal?

It does seem a bit odd...

Balance: 3,734,100 YAC
Transactions in: 6,781
Received: 3,763,601 YAC
Transactions out: 23
Sent: 29,501 YAC

First Transaction: 2014-01-03 02:22:02

Any of our big hoarders decide to move all of their coins to a single address?  Most of the transactions are for the same amount; 3,000  5,000  or 10,000 YAC.  That makes me (hope) that someone is just moving all of their coins to a single address for future minting.  It looks like the wallet address was only created ~96 hours ago.

Pages: « 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 ... 169 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!