[ANN][BAC]BaseCoin, POW+POS Coin with message| New Version 1.1.1

[basecoin]

It seems that nobody has interests on this coin, but I see the network hash speed is about 35MH/s, this means that people are mining BAC.

Need more promotion on this coin.

[GoldBit89]

What makes this coin rare? and  honestly this coin is no different then Bitgems,bottlecaps except for the feature of message transactions.

Also address Balthazars post above. i noticed how conveniently you by passed their reply.


and if none of above truly matters then has this coin fixed what issues and problems that have been plaguing bottlecaps and other pos type coins and maybe even been fixed in some coins already? If not , i am not going to even waste my time with this coin until it can be addressed.


Thanks.

[chris.capossela]

Proof of stake coin is more resilient to 51% attack. Since 51% hashpower is not enough to execute a 51% attack. The attackers must also have at least 51% stake.

I.e. another insecure copy&paste without any background... %)

1) Only active stake matters. I.e. if there are total 1000-2000 coins participating in generation, it doesn't matter how many coins exists here. Only this 1000-2000 coins should be counted.
2) Coins amount doesn't matter, only coin*day weight. If you have 1 coin with 0.5 days age then you have the weight, which equal to 0.5 coins with 1 day age.
3) Attacker don't need any hashpower, he needs only some coins.
4) Unlike PoW hashing rate, stake inputs could be re-used multiple times. Attacker can retry attempts to generate subsequent blocks until he get success. He can create multiple wallet copies, for example.

Attempts to get successful double spend could be calculated as 1/AttackerWeight^Nconf, AttackerWeight = (% of network weight) / 100, Nconf = 4 (the worst case, 4 subsequent PoS blocks).

So, average required attempts will be:

Code:

%      Avg # attempts
1	100000000
2	6250000
3	1234567.901
4	390625
5	160000
6	77160.49383
7	41649.31279
8	24414.0625
9	15241.57903
10	10000
11	6830.134554
12	4822.530864
13	3501.277966
14	2603.082049
15	1975.308642
16	1525.878906
17	1197.303672
18	952.5986892
19	767.3360395
20	625
21	514.1890467
22	426.8834096
23	357.3457785
24	301.408179
25	256
26	218.8298729
27	188.1676423
28	162.6926281
29	141.3865211
30	123.4567901
31	108.281241
32	95.36743164
33	84.32264881
34	74.83147951
35	66.63890046
36	59.53741808
37	53.35720891
38	47.95850247
39	43.22565391
40	39.0625
41	35.38869706
42	32.13681542
43	29.25002069
44	26.6802131
45	24.38652644
46	22.33411116
47	20.49314289
48	18.83801119
49	17.34665256
50	16
51	14.78152682
52	13.67686706
53	12.67349861
54	11.76047764
55	10.92821529
56	10.16828925
57	9.473284438
58	8.836657566
59	8.252622002
60	7.716049383
61	7.222385408
62	6.767577565
63	6.348012923
64	5.960464478
65	5.602044746
66	5.270165551
67	4.962503079
68	4.676967469
69	4.411676278
70	4.164931279
71	3.935198148
72	3.72108863
73	3.521344861
74	3.334825557
75	3.160493827
76	2.997406404
77	2.844704104
78	2.701603369
79	2.567388756
80	2.44140625
81	2.323057313
82	2.211793566
83	2.107112049
84	2.008550964
85	1.915685875
86	1.828126293
87	1.745512606
88	1.667513319
89	1.593822573
90	1.524157903
91	1.458258212
92	1.395881947
93	1.336805445
94	1.280821431
95	1.227737663
96	1.177375699
97	1.129569775
98	1.084165785
99	1.041020356
100	1

First column: Attacker's coin*day weight % of the total network weight.
Second column: Average attempts required to get success in the double-spend attack.

5) PoW don't participate in the network protection. If 1 PoW block was generated on the network in the time of your attack then you need less confirmations.

1/AttackerWeight^3

Code:

%      Avg # attempts
1	1000000
2	125000
3	37037,03704
4	15625
5	8000
6	4629,62963
7	2915,451895
8	1953,125
9	1371,742112
10	1000
11	751,3148009
12	578,7037037
13	455,1661356
14	364,4314869
15	296,2962963
16	244,140625
17	203,5416243
18	171,4677641
19	145,7938475
20	125
21	107,9796998
22	93,91435011
23	82,18952905
24	72,33796296
25	64
26	56,89576695
27	50,80526343
28	45,55393586
29	41,00209111
30	37,03703704
31	33,56718472
32	30,51757813
33	27,82647411
34	25,44270303
35	23,32361516
36	21,43347051
37	19,7421673
38	18,22423094
39	16,85800502
40	15,625
41	14,5093658
42	13,49746248
43	12,5775089
44	11,73929376
45	10,9739369
46	10,27369113
47	9,631777159
48	9,04224537
49	8,499859752
50	8
51	7,538578676
52	7,111970869
53	6,716954264
54	6,350657928
55	6,010518407
56	5,694241983
57	5,39977213
58	5,125261388
59	4,869046981
60	4,62962963
61	4,405655099
62	4,19589809
63	3,999248141
64	3,814697266
65	3,641329085
66	3,478309263
67	3,324877063
68	3,180337879
69	3,044056632
70	2,915451895
71	2,793990685
72	2,679183813
73	2,570581748
74	2,467770912
75	2,37037037
76	2,278028867
77	2,19042216
78	2,107250628
79	2,028237117
80	1,953125
81	1,881676423
82	1,813670724
83	1,748903001
84	1,68718281
85	1,628332994
86	1,572188612
87	1,518595967
88	1,467411721
89	1,41850209
90	1,371742112
91	1,327014973
92	1,284211391
93	1,243229064
94	1,203972145
95	1,16635078
96	1,130280671
97	1,095682682
98	1,062482469
99	1,030610152
100	1

The above formula is simple and beautiful estimation of the security model of the Peercoin-related projects.
I appreciate to see such a easy-to-understand table for the first time.

But I still have a question regarding PoS coins.
The above formula doesn't include an attacker's hashrate in the network.
I have heard of PoS coins have two types of difficulty, which are PoS difficulty and PoW difficulty.
So the PoS difficulty will adjust to a higher number if PoS blocks are generated faster than a predetermined interval (about 10 minutes in Peercoin and Novacoin).

In my understanding, the generating power of PoS blocks depends on coin*day*hashrate weight.
And in case the attacker needs to generate PoW blocks she needs hashpower to accoumplish it.

I think hashing power is also important when racing with the attacker, is that correct?

[wmikrut]

"Basecoin provides annual interest rate of 0.01%, for stakes that are not moved."

Wow... I think one could make more in transaction fees... in one day ....

[btbrae]

All your base are belong to me...

(sorry)

[ilostcoins]

Proof of stake coin is more resilient to 51% attack. Since 51% hashpower is not enough to execute a 51% attack. The attackers must also have at least 51% stake.

I.e. another insecure copy&paste without any background... %)

1) Only active stake matters. I.e. if there are total 1000-2000 coins participating in generation, it doesn't matter how many coins exists here. Only this 1000-2000 coins should be counted.
2) Coins amount doesn't matter, only coin*day weight. If you have 1 coin with 0.5 days age then you have the weight, which equal to 0.5 coins with 1 day age.
3) Attacker don't need any hashpower, he needs only some coins.
4) Unlike PoW hashing rate, stake inputs could be re-used multiple times. Attacker can retry attempts to generate subsequent blocks until he get success. He can create multiple wallet copies, for example.

Attempts to get successful double spend could be calculated as 1/AttackerWeight^Nconf, AttackerWeight = (% of network weight) / 100, Nconf = 4 (the worst case, 4 subsequent PoS blocks).

So, average required attempts will be:
[table 1]

First column: Attacker's coin*day weight % of the total network weight.
Second column: Average attempts required to get success in the double-spend attack.

5) PoW don't participate in the network protection. If 1 PoW block was generated on the network in the time of your attack then you need less confirmations.

1/AttackerWeight^3

[table 2]

This applies to every coin with POS, right?

[Balthazar]

Proof of stake coin is more resilient to 51% attack. Since 51% hashpower is not enough to execute a 51% attack. The attackers must also have at least 51% stake.

I.e. another insecure copy&paste without any background... %)

1) Only active stake matters. I.e. if there are total 1000-2000 coins participating in generation, it doesn't matter how many coins exists here. Only this 1000-2000 coins should be counted.
2) Coins amount doesn't matter, only coin*day weight. If you have 1 coin with 0.5 days age then you have the weight, which equal to 0.5 coins with 1 day age.
3) Attacker don't need any hashpower, he needs only some coins.
4) Unlike PoW hashing rate, stake inputs could be re-used multiple times. Attacker can retry attempts to generate subsequent blocks until he get success. He can create multiple wallet copies, for example.

Attempts to get successful double spend could be calculated as 1/AttackerWeight^Nconf, AttackerWeight = (% of network weight) / 100, Nconf = 4 (the worst case, 4 subsequent PoS blocks).

So, average required attempts will be:
[table 1]

First column: Attacker's coin*day weight % of the total network weight.
Second column: Average attempts required to get success in the double-spend attack.

5) PoW don't participate in the network protection. If 1 PoW block was generated on the network in the time of your attack then you need less confirmations.

1/AttackerWeight^3

[table 2]

This applies to every coin with POS, right?

Yes, if it uses PoS blocks as the only trust score source.

I think hashing power is also important when racing with the attacker, is that correct?

No, it's incorrect. Read #5 again.

[chris.capossela]

I think hashing power is also important when racing with the attacker, is that correct?

No, it's incorrect. Read #5 again.

I did a little research by myself.
So, proof-of-stake miners are forced to test only one hashing per second.
That means variable input in the hash function is a timestamp only (like 1381142256 which is unix time), and all the other inputs are fixed at a given block.

That being said, a question arises that how to synchronize the entire network's time?
Or just permit the time to be approximate and each node checks the timestamp be included in MYTIME + or - 300 seconds or so?

Then cheat miners could test the entire available timestamp numbers (601 numbers in the above case) in less than one second and broadcast it in case they find valid blocks. I think that makes PoS difficulty unreasonably high but because the cheat miners burn their stakes so quickly, the situation will become normal in the end.

This may not be relating to double-spending attacks, and I am not sure whether it may be a problem or not.

PoS block finding relies on the timestamp, so time synchronization or time-range management is important, I think. Could you explain how to keep the timestamp from being evaluated rapidly? Thank you.

[Bfljosh]

Is there a problem with the mining pool not paying out?

I am mining for a few hours now, no payment received.  

Lingling88 please fix this or I go solomine.

My name is Lordbacon in your pool.

[sheinsha]

Minar.cc Basecoin PPLNS Pool

I have setup a PPLNS Pool and its working fine, we have already found 5 blocks at the time of writing, so you are welcome to join and spread the network hashrate.

Please let me know if you find anything out of normal, comments and suggestions also welcome!

I have set pool fees to 1%, 60 block confirms for fast payouts, and only 0.01 BAC payout fee to pay the actual transaction fee.

bac.minar.cc

Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc
PORT:	3339
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc:3339 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass

[Bfljosh]

Is there a problem with the mining pool not paying out?

I am mining for a few hours now, no payment received.  

Lingling88 please fix this or I go solomine.

My name is Lordbacon in your pool.

Ok I'm out.

[sheinsha]

Minar.cc Basecoin PPLNS Pool

I have setup a PPLNS Pool and its working fine, we have already found 5 blocks at the time of writing, so you are welcome to join and spread the network hashrate.

Please let me know if you find anything out of normal, comments and suggestions also welcome!

I have set pool fees to 1%, 60 block confirms for fast payouts, and only 0.01 BAC payout fee to pay the actual transaction fee.

bac.minar.cc

Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc
PORT:	3339
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc:3339 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass

VARDIFF + Stratum PPLNS Mining Pool up
bac.minar.cc

[sheinsha]

Minar.cc Basecoin PPLNS Pool

I have setup a PPLNS Pool and its working fine, we have already found 5 blocks at the time of writing, so you are welcome to join and spread the network hashrate.

Please let me know if you find anything out of normal, comments and suggestions also welcome!

I have set pool fees to 1%, 60 block confirms for fast payouts, and only 0.01 BAC payout fee to pay the actual transaction fee.

bac.minar.cc

Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc
PORT:	3339
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc:3339 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass

VARDIFF + Stratum PPLNS Mining Pool up
bac.minar.cc

Anyone mining this coin?
Network Hashrate: 1.058 MH/s
Whoever that is, you are welcome on the pool

[sheinsha]

Minar.cc Basecoin PPLNS Pool

I have setup a PPLNS Pool and its working fine, we have already found 5 blocks at the time of writing, so you are welcome to join and spread the network hashrate.

Please let me know if you find anything out of normal, comments and suggestions also welcome!

I have set pool fees to 1%, 60 block confirms for fast payouts, and only 0.01 BAC payout fee to pay the actual transaction fee.

bac.minar.cc

Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc
PORT:	3339
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc:3339 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass

VARDIFF + Stratum PPLNS Mining Pool up
bac.minar.cc

Anyone mining this coin?
Network Hashrate: 1.058 MH/s
Whoever that is, you are welcome on the pool

Im about to close my pool for this coin, net has been <1MH for a while now... Anyone interested in continuing mining at bac.minar.cc speak now, or forever hold it...

[basecoin]

Basecoin has successfully survived, has a very precious coin (because 1 block only has 1 coin), we are developing the official website of basecoin, wish more people will like basecoin because it can be the base of something.

Basecoin needs your attention!

[sheinsha]

Basecoin has successfully survived, has a very precious coin (because 1 block only has 1 coin), we are developing the official website of basecoin, wish more people will like basecoin because it can be the base of something.

Basecoin needs your attention!

This is great!

Minar.cc Basecoin PPLNS Pool

I have setup a PPLNS Pool and its working fine, we have already found 5 blocks at the time of writing, so you are welcome to join and spread the network hashrate.

Please let me know if you find anything out of normal, comments and suggestions also welcome!

I have set pool fees to 1%, 60 block confirms for fast payouts, and only 0.01 BAC payout fee to pay the actual transaction fee.

bac.minar.cc

Start your miner using the following parameters:

URL:	stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc
PORT:	3339
USER:	username.worker
PASS:	workerPass

Sample command-line:
   ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://bac.minar.cc:3339 --scrypt -u username.worker -p workerPass

VARDIFF + Stratum PPLNS Mining Pool up
bac.minar.cc

[caihuii]

the wallet can't work, 0 active connection to basecoin network

[meowmix4jo]

I had to add nodes by hand. The one in the OP didn't work so I added the address of some of the pools.

addnode=216.24.205.232
addnode=216.155.151.242
addnode=116.226.16.77

[parsec]

i'm quite new to cryptos and i don't know where to start but i'd like to put up a blockchain explorer so that i can understand better how the blockchain works. since i don't have a deep understanding of all of this where can i start? is there an howto? somebody would like to help?
thanks

[basecoin]

Now we have more add nodes for BaseCoin:

addnode=216.24.205.232
addnode=216.155.151.242
addnode=116.226.16.77

Can anyone help me to design a new logo for basecoin? It would be really very helpful.