Sunny King
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
|
 |
June 19, 2013, 04:33:18 PM |
|
It's not an issue when PoS becomes common as there should be more PoS blocks than PoW blocks, so you wouldn't see long consecutive PoW blocks to be orphaned by a malicious PoS minter.
Checkpoint should be enabled for any ppcoin forks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 19, 2013, 04:34:40 PM |
|
Mmh, would it be possible to know at any moment how many coins are maturing for PoS and say, if a big wallet is maturing in the next hour, require more confirmations than normal?
Edit: Ok, the wallet could be split. Still, could the possibility of a PoS double spend be anticipated by looking at how many coins are maturing in the network?
There is no way to detect active stake holder before his chain will be published. Besides, confirmations amount doesn't matter, malicious stakeholder could overwrite more than more than billion of pow blocks by publishing one stake. The only solution is enable broadcasted checkpointing immediately to workaround this problem. It will give some time to think about better solution. How could he overwrite the blocks already confirmed? This is insane! How is the PoS block appended into the blockchain? If it's appended to the chain, how could he overwrite? |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 19, 2013, 04:36:36 PM |
|
TBH, I don't like the checkpointing thing, it makes things complex & centralized.
|
|
|
|
|
Balthazar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
|
|
June 19, 2013, 04:51:01 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2013, 06:23:05 PM by Balthazar |
|
It's not an issue when PoS becomes common as there should be more PoS blocks than PoW blocks, so you wouldn't see long consecutive PoW blocks to be orphaned by a malicious PoS minter.
Checkpoint should be enabled for any ppcoin forks.
Actually, it's an issue, because it takes some time to make PoS common for the chain. This makes network vulnerable until there is not enough stake weight in opposition to attacker. And checkpointing is not more than workaround for this. Also there is another problem... Unlike PoW hashing rate, stake weight could be used multiple times without any overhead. It allows attacker to repeat his attempts to generate consecutive stakes until he will get lucky enough. And there is high probability to success without holding large stake, 20-25% of total weight (not coins) will be more than enough. You can retry your attempt to generate consecutive stakes 1000, 50000 or 1 million times without any problem, using the same outputs. You should always hold it in the mind.  So, with the current weighting scheme you should always have checkpointing enabled, even if there is enough total stake weight. You can't remove checkpointing without altering block weighting implementation, because it's dangerous. And you can't alter it without making system less energy efficient...  But I think that energy-efficiency could be partially sacrificed in favor of security. // EDIT |
|
|
|
|
Balthazar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
|
|
June 19, 2013, 04:54:48 PM |
|
TBH, I don't like the checkpointing thing, it makes things complex & centralized.
It's your choice. But there is no way to resolve this weighting scheme flaw without checkpointing. Even if you will implement new trust score calculation method, it will introduce chain fork, so you still need grace period with checkpointing. |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 19, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2013, 05:13:23 PM by hanzac |
|
TBH, I don't like the checkpointing thing, it makes things complex & centralized.
It's your choice. But there is no way to resolve this weighting scheme flaw without checkpointing. If you will implement new trust score calculation method, it will introduce chain fork, so you still need grace period with checkpointing. I see. When I see the checkpointing validation code "... pfrom->Misbehaving(100);". This is interesting and make me laugh and make me remind some scenarios in my childhood playing house-holding games.  And then I review code "bool CBlock::CheckBlock(bool fCheckPOW, bool fCheckMerkleRoot) const", OMHOLYGOD, this code makes me crazy. |
|
|
|
|
Balthazar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
|
|
June 19, 2013, 06:12:35 PM |
|
Posted on: Today at 08:51:01 PM Updated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Joe_Bauers
|
|
June 19, 2013, 07:42:19 PM |
|
OMHOLYGOD, this code makes me crazy.
+=1  |
|
|
|
|
|
forsetifox
|
|
June 19, 2013, 08:20:13 PM |
|
Thanks for all the developers working on this. I've never seen so many working together. Aside from bitcoin that is. |
|
|
|
|
sunce86
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
June 20, 2013, 08:50:22 AM |
|
Is it possible that ppl are selling their hard earned yacoins for 0.00016... What a bunch od stupid idiots  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sahtor
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:30:45 PM |
|
Favicon for Yacoin sites. Yacoin Blue as inspiration. Thanks dcl595 |
|
|
|
|
|
mikaelh
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:36:49 PM |
|
Is it possible that ppl are selling their hard earned yacoins for 0.00016... What a bunch od stupid idiots I have 50 BTC ready to be invested in YAC but I ain't gonna be buying unless price drops to 0.000085 or so. Not only that paying more makes no sense from trader perspective, but investing 50 BTC in altcoin which is still not super strong (lacks huge support by miners) is very risky move. The price will probably go up a bit in 5 days time because the Nfactor is going to change. Hashing rate will drop to about 50% and difficulty will take a while to adjust. I have a fun little countdown page for the Nfactor: http://muuttuja.org/yacoin/countdown/ |
|
|
|
|
|
dcl595
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:50:12 PM |
|
Favicon for Yacoin sites. Yacoin Blue as inspiration. Thanks dcl595Hey, thanks for that, I actually did a test colour sheet, I can make any of the combinations on request, or there is a psd knocking around in one of these threads if anyone wants to mod it themselves https://i.imgur.com/nVzTRPy.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:50:52 PM |
|
Favicon for Yacoin sites. Yacoin Blue as inspiration. Thanks dcl595Although it's quite clean image. But I'm not fond of it because it's too simple. I prefer complex images and unique and art or beauty. |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:52:24 PM |
|
Favicon for Yacoin sites. Yacoin Blue as inspiration. Thanks dcl595Hey, thanks for that, I actually did a test colour sheet, I can make any of the combinations on request, or there is a psd knocking around in one of these threads if anyone wants to mod it themselves https://i.imgur.com/nVzTRPy.jpgWhy not using a circle, and the Y in it is pale too simple! |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:53:51 PM |
|
Is it possible that ppl are selling their hard earned yacoins for 0.00016... What a bunch od stupid idiots I have 50 BTC ready to be invested in YAC but I ain't gonna be buying unless price drops to 0.000085 or so. Not only that paying more makes no sense from trader perspective, but investing 50 BTC in altcoin which is still not super strong (lacks huge support by miners) is very risky move. The price will probably go up a bit in 5 days time because the Nfactor is going to change. Hashing rate will drop to about 50% and difficulty will take a while to adjust. It makes no difference how low hashrate will become, what matters is how many YAC one gets in some period of time using some hardware. Since difficulty is about to drop, reward per block will go up so one will be getting more YAC with same hardware than now. In other words, what matters is your % of total hashrate. You're right, currently YAC still has a need to improve the server/client. So the PoS blocks can not threat the whole network. |
|
|
|
|
|
dcl595
|
|
June 20, 2013, 01:59:42 PM |
|
Why not using a circle, and the Y in it is pale too simple! Circle is becoming boring, but I'd try to use 3D cube and 3 sides of it for Y and then draw horizontal line on top surface but I'm too lazy now. Considered that myself, might give it a go |
|
|
|
|
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
The cryptocoin watcher
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:10:15 PM |
|
Circle is becoming boring, but I'd try to use 3D cube and 3 sides of it for Y and then draw horizontal line on top surface but I'm too lazy now. Considered that myself, might give it a go That actually sounds very cool. |
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
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:19:07 PM |
|
Why not using a circle, and the Y in it is pale too simple! Circle is becoming boring, but I'd try to use 3D cube and 3 edges of it for Y and then draw horizontal line on top surface but I'm too lazy now. Bahh, here it is, the ultimate provocation!  Hah, this is interesting. BFL makes a lot of people heart breaking... |
|
|
|
|
|
hanzac
|
|
June 20, 2013, 02:22:21 PM |
|
Why not using a circle, and the Y in it is pale too simple! Circle is becoming boring, but I'd try to use 3D cube and 3 sides of it for Y and then draw horizontal line on top surface but I'm too lazy now. Considered that myself, might give it a go Can you use a leave & Y as its stem! Cool, is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
