Due to low network hashrate of sikka network. Who is able to check if a 51% attack was already made here? In this way double spending is possible. So a multiple of 1 billion sikka coins could be already in circulation. Right? At least such an attack could be made in the future? That´s ugly. This project is a stillbirth. Definitively.
https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attackYou have no clue what 51% attack is, i would say, you created this account to only shitposting here is 51% attack.
So - you, fonship, are not even able to click on a link, to read the article and to understand, I am posting it for you, my little not knowing newbie:
51% AttackA 51% attack is a potential attack on the bitcoin network whereby an organization is somehow able to control the majority of the network mining power (hashrate). Bitcoin is secured by having all miners (computers processing the networks transactions) agree on a shared ledger called the blockchain. Bitcoin nodes look to each other to verify what they're working on is the valid blockchain. If the majority of miners are controlled by a single entity, they would have the power to (at least attempt to) decide which transactions get approved or not. This would allow them to prevent other transactions, and allow their own coins to be spent multiple times - a process called double spending.
undefined
However, hitting 51% network control is not a guarantee of success, just the point where success is likely. In fact, you could attempt this sort of attack with much less network control, but your odds of success would be very low.
Additionally, a 51% attack doesn't give you full power over the bitcoin network. The farther back in the blockchain transactions are, the more secured they are against this kind of attack. Realistically, an attacker would only be able to modify transactions within the past few blocks. They would also not be able to make new coins out of thin air - except those received as block mining rewards as usual.
It is an interesting concept because it is theoretically possible; the network is free and open, so if someone were to have enough computational power (which would cost a huge amount by itself), there is no bitcoin authority to stop them from doing so. In the event that such an attack successfully takes place, it is likely confidence in the currency would be lost and it’s value as a currency would decline rapidly.
In reality a 51% attack is feasible – especially with the rise of mining pools (groups of people mining together as a single unit). However the potential damage one could cause is small – though enough that it cause a panic that would seriously threaten bitcoin’s use as a currency. At current network mining difficulty levels, not even large-scale governments could easily mount a 51% attack.
You need further information, uninformed being?
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29861/how-does-cryptonote-prevent-a-51-attack-and-double-spendingAnd because I know you cannot click on a link to inform yourself, here is the text:
How does CryptoNote prevent a 51% attack and double-spending? I’m interested to know what is the mechanism that protects CryptoNote coins from 51% and double-spending attacks.The debates still remain whether 51% should be cause for concern.
CryptoNote is protected against it in the same way Bitcoin deals with the issue. One difference is in that CryptoNote-based coins, especially the first ones such as Bytecoin (BCN), use egalitarian PoW (CryptoNight) which makes the coin CPU-minable and ASIC resistant
[
own note: NOT any longer the case here due to Baikal Giant N ASIC and the idea of CPU-mining is torpedoed due to the existence of only 1 pool. thats completely insane and dumb].
CryptoNight allows for fairer hashrate distribution among individual miners and ensures smooth currency emission.
[
own note: NOT the case here, because there is ONLY 1 Pool here and this pool is often offline but it uses the hashpower of its miners nevertheless to mine blocks but these blocks are kept in the pool owners wallet because they were not distributed to the miners]
When it comes to mining pools, in theory, having comprised more than 50% of the coin’s network one might be able to affect the next few blocks
definitive true here with sikka, launching a double-spending
ouch, must be the motive here attack by holding on to enough power to confirm the majority of transactions. However, this would take a huge amount of expense
[
own note: NOT the case with a network hashrate of only 10 KH/s ]
and the data about the double-spending taking place would likely appear on the block chain for all to see.
[
own note: are you able to see it? NO? Then shut up!]
Moreover, such an attack could possibly destroy the integrity of the system as a whole
[
own note: probably done here with sikka],
causing the price to crash.
[
own note: what price? thats why sikka has no price, NOT yet]
This is not something anyone with a vested interest in the affected coin would want.
[
own note: e.g. sikka founder or/and pool owner. who is pool owner? if you cannot answer: stfu!]
As for the double-spending problem, CryptoNote deals with it by employing ring signatures
[
own note: LOL ring signatures with sikka? ha ha sikka does not even have a gui wallet]
and key images. If a rogue user creates more than one ring signature using the same private key, these signatures will be linked together which indicates a double-spending attempt.
In order to provide linkability, CryptoNote introduced a special key image which is created by a user while signing a transaction. It is the value of a cryptographic one-way function of the secret key, or in other words it is actually an image of this key. It is computationally infeasible to find a collision (two different private keys, which have the same image). In case of double-spending attempt the system immediately reject any new ring signature with a duplicate key image. It won’t be able to pinpoint a misbehaving user, but it does prevent any double-spending attempts.
There was never a documented occasion of a double-spending attack in the history of Bytecoin (BCN) or any other CryptoNote -based coin.
Read this for more details
https://cryptonote.org/inside/51% attack was made with Electroneum:
electroneum_is_probably_under_a_51_attack_righthttps://www.reddit.com/r/Electroneum/comments/88wbkv/electroneum_is_probably_under_a_51_attack_right/Further, "First, pool pay every few minutes so no question of pool owner keeping coins."
You, fonship, are not informed again. Did you miss again more than 24 hours while pool was generating blocks but
did not pay out the blocks to miners? Formerly the pool was out of order for more than 4 days.
The outputs of these blocks must be somewhere. So they are in the wallet of the pool owner. That´s so evident. The blockchain was not halted. So, that´s a pure fraud. Very obvious.
You troll !
Cancel
"Why this coin was invented first in 09/2017 when prices of bitcoin was nearly 20.000,00 US Dollar? Thats revealing"Put in "Why this coin was invented first in 09/2017 when prices of bitcoin was nearly
4.000,00 US Dollar? Thats revealing"
Its still revealing. Or does greed have a limit? LOL - Nope ! 4,000 US Dollar for a digital artificial coin. Are you kidding me? But hey. ppl in 1637 also paid the price of a house, would be 500,000.00 US Dollar today, for the precious tulip in those days. So, you can bet, 4K US Dollar for a digital unit that has no use except it is the medium for speculation and some status symbol among investment banker is just insane and you can count it to the rubric "greed".
You look total idiot here,
sept BTC rate was around $4000, so stop making false claims. <= Thats the sentence I wanted to give back to yourself. It fits perfectly to you.
"I am also miner and not happy with Sikka, but i do not talk shit. I do not know what motivates you to create new account and do such misinformation."
Not to be happy is an very euphemistic expression for this situation of a completely
BLACK OUT. Or would you use the same words to describe a situation where you couldnt use the cash machine nor go to the bank to withdraw or transfer money from your account? I guess, no.
If you are a miner then you would know about the pool dysfunction. if you would know a little bit, you would know about the 51% attack.
But I know what motivated
YOU to do such misinformation. You probably are connected to the pool owner. If not the same person as the dev. Or you, the dev and the pool owner are 1 person -
YOU.
Doublespending is FRAUD! or is it also just an unhappy situation?Ok - its not unhappy for the one who is doing this fraud. Ok. Ok. I understand ... FBI is calling ...
If you are not able to explain a 51% attack with your own words or give any other reliable response, stfu you poser. But you can explain that the price was not 20,000 but 4,000 bucks in 09/2017. Now you open your mouth. Yes, you clown, that´s not complicated to explain. Your status as a full member only means that you posted a lot of garbage and bs up to now and nothing else.
