[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development

[senj]

I can not imagine YAC having any distinct advantage over other prominent coins without POW far in the future (at least a couple of years).
And if Yac is to succeed N factor will be the key driving force for superior POW block distribution.
Remove that and you are left with just a bunch of coins in a few hands and have initiated euthanization of a plain clone.

I am ok with Feb 1st or even sooner since I believe Yac has a lot of attention right now due to exchange problems.

[sairon]

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?

AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.

[St.Bit]

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.

Matching PoS and POW trust has enourmous consequences so we have to be very carefull here.

The biggest problem is that it'd be possible for PoW-miners to turn YAC into PoW-only!
Once we are there we couldn't get back without a hardfork and it's unlikely we could possibly agree on such by then. PoW is far more important than just distributing initial coins.
and unable to secure the network later on since f.e. it can be centralized.
(I've written someting about that on yacointalk, that's also why YAC is special)

I belive the current problem of one PoS-block overwriting more than 6blocks is far less than the problems we would get when we have no more or just a bit PoS. PoS as whole has to be much stronger than PoW so that all miners couldn't agree on "just ophraning all PoS" to make more profit. A PoW-block will always have more new coins than the average PoS block so most PoS would disapear and the rest 'd be centralized.

PoS mining is truly decentralized so we should try to keep it as important as possible.
I can't think of a technical way to prevent doublespends AND miners from fighting PoS.
What we could do is increase PoW-rewards for miners that mine on top of a PoS block.

It must be either chaintrust PoS>>>PoW or new coins generated in ...-PoW-PoW-PoS-PoW >...-PoW-PoW-PoW-PoW. We all know that PoS>PoW is problematic so we should go with the 2nd.

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?

AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.

A centralized checkpoint for the next few months would be far better than loosing or having less PoS in the future than we have now.

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?

I think that's reasonable.

EDIT: Sorry smtg wrong
EDIT2: Added stuff in RED.

[sairon]

I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.

Matching PoS and POW trust has enourmous consequences so we have to be very carefull here.

The biggest problem is that it'd be possible for PoW-miners to turn YAC into PoW-only!
Once we are there we couldn't get back without a hardfork and it's unlikely we could possibly agree on such by then. PoW is far more important than just distributing initial coins.(I've written someting about that on yacointalk, that's also why YAC is special)

I belive the current problem of one PoS-block overwriting more than 6blocks is far less than the problems we would get when we have no more or just a bit PoS. PoS as whole has to be much stronger than PoW so that all miners couldn't agree on "just ophraning all PoS" to make more profit. A PoW-block will always have more new coins than the average PoS block so most PoS would disapear and the rest 'd be centralized.

PoS mining is truly decentralized so we should try to keep it as important as possible.
I can't think of a technical way to prevent doublespends AND miners from fighting PoS.
What we could do is increase PoW-rewards for miners that mine on top of a PoS block.

It must be either chaintrust PoS>>>PoW or new coins generated in ...-PoW-PoW-PoS-PoW >...-PoW-PoW-PoW-PoW. We all know that PoS>PoW is problematic so we should go with the 2nd.

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?

AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.

A centralized checkpoint for the next few months would be far better than loosing or having less PoS in the future than we have now.

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?

I think that's reasonable.

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate). OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

[bitdwarf]

Can't we just slow down PoW block target rate, so only a couple are mined between PoS blocks.

[WindMaster]

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.

OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Well, you do have to hold YAC, and hold it long enough, so I'm not sure it's correct to say minting PoS blocks is free.

Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.

[sairon]

Can't we just slow down PoW block target rate, so only a couple are mined between PoS blocks.

That wouldn't stop anyone from orphaning all the PoW blocks at the tip of the chain.

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.

Nope, the rogue PoW miner has to decide in advance to invest his work in what will most probably be an invalid chain. So when he fails to execute his attack, he effectively lost his potential profit from playing nice.
OTOH, with PoS you can safely and with absolutely no additional cost mine on all the forks.

OTOH you can generate PoS blocks essentially for free.

Well, you do have to hold YAC, and hold it long enough, so I'm not sure it's correct to say minting PoS blocks is free.

And what's gonna stop me from purchasing the minimum amount of YAC needed for some type of attack, assign them into multiple "packets" of coins that have different PoS maturity time so I get 1 PoS block every X hours/days/whatever?
(and trust me, the amount of YAC is small enough for anyone to buy)

Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.

The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.

I fail to see any possible motivation to do so whatsoever.

[WindMaster]

Yeah, but orphaning a single PoS block with 2 PoW blocks actually costs you something (you have to be lucky or have majority of the network's hashrate).

It seems that there's currently a pool in a position to make it happen on a frequent ongoing basis.  Orphaning a PoS block with 2 PoW blocks doesn't really cost you anything extra if you're already PoW mining anyway and happen to hit 2 consecutive PoW blocks.

Nope, the rogue PoW miner has to decide in advance to invest his work in what will most probably be an invalid chain. So when he fails to execute his attack, he effectively lost his potential profit from playing nice.
OTOH, with PoS you can safely and with absolutely no additional cost mine on all the forks.

In the current scenario where one pool actually does have majority hashpower, this isn't quite true.  Of course, the bigger problem isn't that issue, it's that there's one pool with majority hashpower at all..  Perhaps this should be a larger item of concern for the YACoin community at the moment.

The gain in the miner's held YAC from orphaning PoS blocks is zero, but there may be other motivations other than an immediate gain in YAC to orphan PoS blocks.

I fail to see any possible motivation to do so whatsoever.

The cryptocurrency community contains a certain number of people who like to be a dick, and will do things solely for the purpose of being as much of a dick as possible.  I think Luke-Jr possibly sets a good example of how best to be a dick to many altcoins.

[bitdwarf]

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?

[sairon]

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?

That's already done at the protocol level.

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?

The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

[sairon]

In the current scenario where one pool actually does have majority hashpower, this isn't quite true.  Of course, the bigger problem isn't that issue, it's that there's one pool with majority hashpower at all..  Perhaps this should be a larger item of concern for the YACoin community at the moment.

The same goes for Bitcoin - just look at btcguild's recent luck.

The cryptocurrency community contains a certain number of people who like to be a dick, and will do things solely for the purpose of being as much of a dick as possible.  I think Luke-Jr possibly sets a good example of how best to be a dick to many altcoins.

LOL, what has Luke-Jr done? Haven't heard anything.

[bitdwarf]

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?

That's already done at the protocol level.

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?

The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

We could then make the wallet hold longer on confirming transactions with new coins, unless the wallet owner likes to live dangerously and disables the safety delay.

[sairon]

Is it possible to identify new PoW minted coins so exchanges/businesses/wallets reject them until they have definitely cooled down?

That's already done at the protocol level.

I understand if they don't move after minting until it's confirmed PoS won't orphan them, getting orphaned would be just an issue of PoW mining efficiency. Is that correct?

The problem is not block orphaning, but reversing of transactions (double-spending).

We could then make the wallet hold longer on confirming transactions with new coins, unless the wallet owner likes to live dangerously and disables the safety delay.

That's solution for the consequence, not the cause.
Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

[Beave162]

How come Peercoin doesn't have these problems? Or do they?
I have lost tons of YACoin from BTER-- they are scamming a lot of people. So I won't be in a position to offer bounties for a while. What would be the best type of bounty?  More pools with different features? A javascript mining program/pool like bitminter?  I cringe at the idea of centralized checkpointing or reduced POS awards.

[bitdwarf]

Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

Long enough to detect the situation maybe. New coins could take a month or a quarter to mature and it would still not be too outrageous for a mint and sell business -- resource miners everywhere have to deal with futures for such timespans.

[sairon]

Also, how long is long enough? It wouldn't be bulletproof...

Long enough to detect the situation maybe. New coins could take a month or a quarter to mature and it would still not be too outrageous for a mint and sell business -- resource miners everywhere have to deal with futures for such timespans.

New coins need 520 confirmations already - which is almost 9 hours.
But this is NOT the problem. The problem is that transactions from an orphaned block get REVERSED (eg. you deposit YAC to exchange, wait until the exchange credits you the deposited balance, block gets "magically" orphaned - and you now have both your YACs AND credit at an exchange - that's why Cryptsy has been disabling YAC trading lately).

[sairon]

How come Peercoin doesn't have these problems? Or do they?
I have lost tons of YACoin from BTER-- they are scamming a lot of people. So I won't be in a position to offer bounties for a while. What would be the best type of bounty?  More pools with different features? A javascript mining program/pool like bitminter?  I cringe at the idea of centralized checkpointing or reduced POS awards.

Peercoin is using the centralized checkpointing approach as far as I can tell.

[Joe_Bauers]

Peercoin is using the centralized checkpointing approach as far as I can tell.

It is, as well as NVC. If we can find a way to both avert this issue, AND not implement centralized checkpointing (which I also don't agree with), it would be a great way
to distinguish YAC even more.  Of course Sunny King is pretty fucking brilliant and probably pondered this forever, so that may still be the only way 

I'm trying to stay out of this debate (another way to avoid centralized "checkpointing"  ) but we really need to do something soon.  I think a Feb 1st hard fork date, as mentioned before would be sufficient though.   

[bitdwarf]

(eg. you deposit YAC to exchange, wait until the exchange credits you the deposited balance, block gets "magically" orphaned - and you now have both your YACs AND credit at an exchange - that's why Cryptsy has been disabling YAC trading lately).

Why would an exchange give you credit for freshly minted coins, unless they deliberatedly wanted the risk.

[Beave162]

Peercoin is using the centralized checkpointing approach as far as I can tell.

It is, as well as NVC. If we can find a way to both avert this issue, AND not implement centralized checkpointing (which I also don't agree with), it would be a great way
to distinguish YAC even more.  Of course Sunny King is pretty fucking brilliant and probably pondered this forever, so that may still be the only way  

I'm trying to stay out of this debate (another way to avoid centralized "checkpointing"   ) but we really need to do something soon.  I think a Feb 1st hard fork date, as mentioned before would be sufficient though.    

Has this idea been done?  Built-in POW-POS-POW-POS staggered blocks?  What implications does it have other than fix the POW orphan problem (ie unintended consequences)?