Feathercoin Advanced Checkpointing released today

[guugll]

pool update done for FTC: http://www.guugll.eu:11327/static/

[1714144472]

1714144472

[1714144472]

1714144472

[1714144472]

1714144472

[1714144472]

1714144472

[atomicchaos]

There are talks of changing the difficulty algorithm once again because it is "unfair" that certain miners get to "abuse" the rules set forth.

To change the rules again shows that the first change was not well thought out and should not have happened at all. Sorry if this is off-topic but it is essentially in the same category as this thread as it is another change being spoken about currently.

I don't think there should be any other difficulty adjustment changes. Disclosure: I am not a miner and have not been for 2 years now.

Sounds somewhat familiar to the implementation of ACP - not well thought out.

I am a miner that takes advantage of the Diff drop to 137, it would be wise to change it and get rid of ACP.

[justabitoftime]

Congratulations to Feathercoin for now adding extreme legal hazard to its already amazing record of technical failure.  By becoming a centralized virtual currency, Feathercoin has now become de facto controlled by a single entity and is thus at risk of government crackdown like what happened to Liberty Reserve.  The owner of the checkpoint key also puts themselves enormous personal risk.

The track record of technical incompetence of Feathercoin development is clear and quite humorous.

* Despite claiming that Feathercoin is about innovation, Feathercoin hasn't fixed ANY OF THE BUGS since copying the old Litecoin 0.6.3 source.  They have had months of opportunity to copy critical bug and security fixes from Litecoin 0.6 or to upgrade to 0.8.

* To add to this further, when Bushstar copied Litecoin, he failed to change the alert private key (which was seriously bad), but the way Bushstar responded made it even worse.  Instead of replacing the alert key with his own, he disabled alerts entirely making it impossible to alert all users that they need to upgrade in the event of a future emergency.

* Also the way that Feathercoin modified its difficulty formula without understanding what he is doing and without modifying the pool software created that breathtakingly awesome time-travelling exploit.
 
Feathercoin has managed to fix no bugs, added more bugs, make themselves a regulatory hazard that is highly likely illegal as a centralized virtual currency, and has failed to upgrade to 0.8 despite months of source code access to litecoin.  Amazing.

The excuse against centralization being bad where individual users can remove or disable checkpoint enforcement is a meaningless lie.  If the major pools enforce checkpoints, then it doesn't matter if the users are enforcing broadcast checkpoints.

Where do you want me to send the holiday cards?

[Whuzz]

After lookin at "centralization" I first thought "well, that's the end of FeatherCoin".

But after studyin' a bit more, the only thing that's centralized is the checkpoints and because they are always inserted by hand,  it is centralized for every coin already.  Or does everybody here compile their client with their own checkpoints?

Difference now is that it's done more often, makin it safer.  So a lot of fuzz bout nothin.

I'll ask Dr. Kimoto to look into this.  Is it open source?

[ghostlander]

There are talks of changing the difficulty algorithm once again because it is "unfair" that certain miners get to "abuse" the rules set forth.

To change the rules again shows that the first change was not well thought out and should not have happened at all. Sorry if this is off-topic but it is essentially in the same category as this thread as it is another change being spoken about currently.

I don't think there should be any other difficulty adjustment changes. Disclosure: I am not a miner and have not been for 2 years now.

The 1st hard fork was necessary as it brought Feathercoin back in business. Many other altcoins have changed their difficulty adjustment settings. 3 months have passed, the situation is different now. It's better to evolve up to new reality than to ignore it.

There is no way to "have fun", even if checkpointing server will be stolen from the DC. If you would try to change checkpoints in the past, such attempts will be rejected by network.

If checkpointing server can be stolen and it would not make any difference, then what is the point (pun not intended) of having a checkpointing server at all?

It contradicts itself - if this checkpointing server is so important for security, then how can the theft of this server not compromise security in any way?

And here in lies the problem of having a centralized master node.

Now it boils down to mainly physical security. Our current banking system already has that problem. Only difference is they have the status quo and resources to protect their systems and Peter doesn't.

QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?

If the checkpointing server(s) security is compromised, a new pair or keys is generated, and the client is updated and distributed to users after an appropriate announcement. If the checkpointing server(s) stop to function for some reason, the network continues to operate as usual and may be 51% attacked also as usual. Only the key owner can add new checkpoints, and even he cannot undo them.

[digitalindustry]

There is no way to "have fun", even if checkpointing server will be stolen from the DC. If you would try to change checkpoints in the past, such attempts will be rejected by network.

If checkpointing server can be stolen and it would not make any difference, then what is the point (pun not intended) of having a checkpointing server at all?

It contradicts itself - if this checkpointing server is so important for security, then how can the theft of this server not compromise security in any way?

And here in lies the problem of having a centralized master node.

Now it boils down to mainly physical security. Our current banking system already has that problem. Only difference is they have the status quo and resources to protect their systems and Peter doesn't.

QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?

Please read Balthazar's teachings in this thread , you guys need to learn , I'm not a particularly intelligent being and i can seem to understand it.

the other point is , that of course um,...well, just this:

A nations currency supply is "issued" and wait for it , its "issued" into debt, and has "interest" added to it, it is issued by a central authority.

now i know Bitcoin is very controlled and centralized , Bitcoin is really actually centralized because of the very few that hold so many, but that aside , not even Bitcoin as flawed as it is is a "central issuing authority"

so:

How do you even start to compare the two?  

{and i assume you are not stupid}

so to be very clear in my question:

How can you compare a National issuance of central currency INTO DEBT, though the creation of a Bond and then a shell game "open market operation" and then Currency issued/monetaized as a "loan" with "interest" added , for then that to be multiplied by the Fractional reserve system, with the only way of a human to get "currency" is the expend labor or energy or borrow it AGAIN , after it was borrowed into existence, with the double whammy , and wait for this ... the new borrowed money adding to the currency supply and essentially inflating the current actual supply thus meaning the existing human loses more standard of living?

to and with

Advanced Centralized Checkpoints?

Follow me carefully, the way I was comparing them is as follows:

Master Node -> Physical Machine -> Physical Security -> How Banks are secured mainly.

They enforce their PAPER by the status quo of having physical security in the form of Guns, Guards, Walls, Etc.

on one point I will diverge they enforce the paper though ignorance,  and the control of information.

a time past.

[atomicchaos]

So it was suggested on the FTC forum that a non-biased party review the code, but it was dismissed.. Very concerning.

Quote from: Smoothie on August 29, 2013, 04:16:48 pm
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.

Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.

Wesphily replied:
Everybody that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don't have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.

Maybe it's my own many concerns with the coin coming up, but now I really think the community should see the code.

[Balthazar]

https://github.com/FeatherCoin/FeatherCoin/blob/master/src/checkpointsync.cpp

[ghostlander]

Maybe it's my own many concerns with the coin coming up, but now I really think the community should see the code.

Sunny King made the ACP pull request on the 20th of August. Everyone interested could access and review the code on GitHub like I did. Verified on the testnet in the following days, no vulnerabilities were found. The patch was merged on the 25th of August and the updated client was released officially in 2 days. Those who were interested to participate, they did.

[Hydroponica]

What happens if someone DDoS's the node?

[Magic8Ball]

What happens if someone DDoS's the node?

If Bush's node does not work, the network will continue to function as it is doing now. The extra protection provided by ACP won't be there.

[Hydroponica]

What happens if someone DDoS's the node?

If Bush's node does not work, the network will continue to function as it is doing now. The extra protection provided by ACP won't be there.

So, basically, if someone wants to attack feathercoin, they just need to take out that node first...

[Balthazar]

That's right. But it could be almost impossible, because he can start another one, even at home PC behind the NAT. It will be interesting to see how they would try to DDoS his ISP.

[Hydroponica]

That's right. But it could be almost impossible, because he can start another one, even at home PC behind the NAT. It will be interesting to see how they would try to DDoS his ISP.

Wouldn't the main node, be hardcoded into the client? How could he just make a new one? He'd have to upgrade every client on the network, would he not?

[Balthazar]

Wouldn't the main node, be hardcoded into the client? How could he just make a new one? He'd have to upgrade every client on the network, would he not?

No, of course. There is no "main", "master" or "trusted" node. Checkpoints are working just like alerts, using a broadcast protocol. Any node can send them, if it has corresponding private key. It's just a low-level notification messages, which interpreted by your client according to local policy and then relayed to another clients which also relays them. If bushstar's VPS becomes offline, he can send checkpoints from any other machine without problem.

[ghostlander]

That's right. But it could be almost impossible, because he can start another one, even at home PC behind the NAT. It will be interesting to see how they would try to DDoS his ISP.

Wouldn't the main node, be hardcoded into the client? How could he just make a new one? He'd have to upgrade every client on the network, would he not?

Could you just read the source code? Sunny explained it well there. There are no domain names or IPs hardcoded, only the master public key. Any node may be configured into a checkpointer through its RPC interface.

Operations

Checkpoint master key can be established by using the 'makekeypair' command. The public key in source code should then be updated and private key kept in a safe place.

Any node can be turned into checkpoint master by setting the 'checkpointkey' configuration parameter with the private key of the checkpoint master key. Operator should exercise caution such that at any moment there is at most one node operating as checkpoint master. When switching master node, the recommended procedure is to shutdown the master node and restart as regular node, note down the current checkpoint by 'getcheckpoint', then compare to the checkpoint at the new node to be upgraded to master node. When the checkpoint on both nodes match then it is safe to switch the new node to checkpoint master.

The configuration parameter 'checkpointdepth' specifies how many blocks should the checkpoints lag behind the latest block in auto checkpoint mode. A depth of 0 is the strongest auto checkpoint policy and offers the greatest protection against 51% attack. A negative depth means that the checkpoints should not be automatically generated by the checkpoint master, but instead be manually entered by operator via the 'sendcheckpoint' command. The manual mode is also the default mode (default value -1 for checkpointdepth).

Command 'enforcecheckpoint' and configuration parameter 'checkpointenforce' are for the users to explicitly consent to enforce the checkpoints issued from checkpoint master. To enforce checkpoint, user needs to either issue command 'enforcecheckpoint true', or set configuration parameter checkpointenforce=1. The current enforcement setting can be queried via command 'getcheckpoint', where 'subscribemode' displays either 'enforce' or 'advisory'. The 'enforce' mode of subscribemode means checkpoints are enforced. The 'advisory' mode of subscribemode means checkpoints are not enforced but a warning message would be displayed if the node is on a different blockchain fork from the checkpoint, and this is the default mode.

[mullick]

NVC isn't more scamcoin than FTC or LTC. And you have nothing against this sentence.

Was NVC premined? Yes. Not just premined, but half of the premined coins were given to an exchange so they would accept NVC into their exchange.

All premined coins have been destroyed. I have looked over the blockchain and noted the graphs here:

http://www.cryptometer.org/novacoin_96_hour_charts.html

From the research I have done it appears it is as Balthazar has stated all along. All premined coins were destroyed.

There seems to be a lot of FUD going around about NVC at the moment.

Balthazar is a great developer. NVC has widened the gap between itself and PPC over time by balthazars continued development. Look at github. Its a endless field of updates all for the better

[Balthazar]

mullick, he already knows everything and has nothing to say. FUD is a normal LTC early-adopters behavior, they are trying to protect own investment, that's natural.

[atomicchaos]

mullick, he already knows everything and has nothing to say. FUD is a normal LTC early-adopters behavior, they are trying to protect own investment, that's natural.

Typical of someone that speaks on behalf of FTC, you seem to have the incorrect perception that LTC and FTC are mutually exclusive. And that when someone says something bad about FTC, it must be because they support LTC and don't want competition. That's the stupidest thing around, and is stated usually out of a lack of a valid response to dismiss the issue brought up. While I understand FTC copied the code from LTC (like 90% of alts), I find it amusing that FTC supporters feel that LTC investors find it a threat.

As a decent sized miner, I hope FTC stays around for a very long time, as it steals hash rate from LTC. I also appreciate the link to the code on github, as I wasn't aware it was out there, but my overall feeling is that this is still a very, very bad move.

Feathercoin, as much as it has a close-knit community of supporters, which do work very well together, has a reputation issue outside of their world, and that is caused by numerous reasons:

• A lot of sloppy mistakes with copying the LTC code (leaving private key in?) - I'm not a coder, nor have the skills to create my own coin without more research (I can ctrl-C/ctrl-v with the best of them though), but I have read statements of those that have those skills, and trust their opinion on this. I think many updates LTC made have not been added to FTC yet either

• The trading community, and also the "marketing group" borders on the level of a used car dealership out of work salesforce. When you have your marketing pumping a coin when it is being attacked, and have orphaning miner blocks, and the coin nearly doubles in value with horrible things occurring, people lose trust in the coin. It was clear from reading the forums, that this wasn't being done by individual investors, but people with affiliation to the FTC team. Sure, we'll all trade it and make money as it's simple to read the pumps (and dumps). Obviously every coin gets pumped, but the manufactured "support" that is being directed by those in "official" positions does not earn trust by most. Telling the minions to go upvote any FTC article, and downvote the bad comments is lame.

• Centralization - The coin has not earned that trust as minor or major as the implementation might be. Like everything FTC does, they want to fast-track success, and take shortcuts. Sure, everyone wants their coin to be the best, but stop forcing it. You're trying to build an empire with cardboard cutouts of buildings. Most miners didn't ask for this solution and as I said, I lost a lot of blocks when FTC had the big attack a few months ago

• I won't even go into any rumor of instamine/premining, as I don't want to hear the defenders. Just let this die, we all know it happened, I'm willing to overlook this at this point in FTC's growth
  

Improve your reputation by getting the shadiness out of the coin. Stop trying to pit LTC vs FTC, as you'd find a lot more supporters willing to listen if you didn't act like the spoiled little brother that competes for attention with big brother. It was decided that you'd use the same "genes" to make the coin, and now supporters are trying to distance themselves from it in their aspirations to overtake LTC. It isn't going to happen. Frankly, I don't even know if LTC will succeed. Any form of officially supported centralization won't get you closer.

I wish the entire FTC team was behind a coin that was more unique in its offering, as with the right technology that brought a lot of new things to the table, people would flock to the coin, assuming the claims are truthful (please try and hold back marketing mode to try and tell me how unique FTC is).

It's good that this conversation is taking place here, because only mostly die hard supporters even venture to the FTC forums, so you're dealing with only people with vested interest, and very few non-biased opinions. This is a bad idea.. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen, and if the coin can't withstand scrutiny on the bitcointalk forums where the majority of people are, then maybe you should question your long term viability. Stop playing the victim as well. I'm easily won over by truth, I dislike any appearance of shadiness. I'm convinced the people behind this coin are brilliant (sadly, many of the pumpers/marketers are not), but I haven't been able to figure out yet if it's a Bernie Madoff brilliant, or a Richard Branson brilliant.

/rant off.

[guugll]

hard time for FTC even after update - i mean its still work - its not happening alone.
So people enough lessons and now back to work back to mining and supporting and no trolling.
This threat was full of interesting info but somehow the flames over run it and now again is very hard to read between the lines of flames.

anyway its a move so now be patiente and wait, I hope you will get some of the important updates aswell.