Vertcoin - First Scrypt N | First Stealth Address - Privacy without mixer

[Wh1teKn1ght]

hoping the coin do some change,  such as pos and more application

We will never be adding PoS (never say never they say, but in this case, I feel quite comfortable saying never) - it's highly insecure.

how can you make such a claim? where is your proof?

Where is your ability to Google and stay informed about important matters?

Anyways, go through the past few pages and look for Boris' statement on PoS.

i looked back a number of pages, all i saw him say was "PoS in not secure" with no further details. Need to back that up if going to make such a claim.

[eizh]

Yes, but where will the devs hardfork if asic is capable to change N as well ?

To a different algorithm of course!

VTC is not an algorithm, it's a mindset - we will do whatever is necessary to beat ASICs.

A repeatedly hard-forking coin is not suitable for real-world use or merchant adoption. Right now VTC is yet another low-market-cap trader's coin with a small user base so you can get away with this "mindset". Hopefully your eventual ambitions are grander than that.

[PrimeHour]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

[Kalizar]

hoping the coin do some change,  such as pos and more application

We will never be adding PoS (never say never they say, but in this case, I feel quite comfortable saying never) - it's highly insecure.

how can you make such a claim? where is your proof?

Where is your ability to Google and stay informed about important matters?

Anyways, go through the past few pages and look for Boris' statement on PoS.

i looked back a number of pages, all i saw him say was "PoS in not secure" with no further details. Need to back that up if going to make such a claim.

A PoS coin is also susceptible to an attack, just like PoW. However, the means of performing the attack would be much simpler. The main weakness comes from most coin holders do not (and will probably never) stake their coins in the long run.

If there are 100 coins in circulation(for example) and only 4 coins staked, that would only require 5 staked coins to perform an attack. That is how a PoS attack would be performed, having over 51% of the staked coins.

Meanwhile, PoW requires 51% of the network hash. This makes it much more impractical to destroy a coin. Neither attacks have been successfully performed to destroy a coin, but PoS attacks would be much easier.

[EtBIM]

That's very interesting, but Vertcoin will allow merge mining possibilities the may 2nd instead of parallaxcoin's may 4th, so I think that Vertcoin will take the credit

[Kalizar]

That's very interesting, but Vertcoin will lance merge mining possibilities the may 2nd instead of parallaxcoin's may 4th, so I think that Vertcoin will take the credit

Parallaxcoin was already proven as a scam, I thought. It has a premine. Also the OP was removed and re-posted because of the request and criticism of IPOs, in addition to the premine.

[OPTiK]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

This coin seems pretty scammy. The guy has created like 3-4 new threads when people pointed out that he was paying people to say good things about the coin, IPO in the original thread, and pre-mine in general. His original thread was under the name agent something but now he's using a parallaxcoin account. I'm only putting him down because his behavior is that of a scammer.

[jk_14]

I have been thinking about it, I don't know if my line of thinking is right or not, but I just want to throw it out for your guys to critique and correct me where I'm wrong.

Here we go: These are built for Scrypt mining first right? So in order to maximize efficiency for Scrypt mining, there must be a balance between hashing cores and the amount of memory. Too many cores and not enough memory, you are not utilizing your cores to their potential. Too much memory and too little cores, die space is wasted.

So in the case of Scrypt mining (n=10), one would assume that the amount of memory available to the cores are exactly how much the cores need in order to maximize die space efficiency. You wouldn't want more memory than needed because that takes up precious die space, so we can assume the memory shipped is fixed exactly at how much n=10 mining needs.

Let's assume then that core:memory ratio is 1:1 to maximize die efficiency. When we look at n=11, the amount of memory needed per core is doubled. However, because fixed memory was specifically allocated for cores running at n=10, you now find yourself with "half" the usable memory since each core uses up double the memory. Now at n=11, your core:memory requirement is 1:2, and with a fixed amount of memory it means only half your total number of cores are utilized.

Looking at GPUs we have today, switching to n=11 immediately halves the hashrate and that is considering we have an abundance of memory. That means in the case of these "ASICs", mining at n=11 is probably going to cut the hash rate by 1/4, and another 1/4 for each increase in N Value.

One workaround is of course to provide more memory as overhead, but memory is expensive and die space is limited. As primarily Scrypt ASICs, it wouldn't make sense to increase production costs or by crippling Scrypt hashrates since that's what they are meant to do in the first place.

Of course all this is assuming reprogramming for Scrypt-N ASICs is even possible.

Again, this is what I think. It may or may not be wrong. Criticism is welcomed and I would gladly learn from others who have input on this matter.

Edit: Shitty drawing I made in paint to help visualize.
https://i.imgur.com/EWhWDMI.png[1]  

yes, you are right, and it was confirmed by Mark (aka kramble) :

"It depends very much on the architecture that has been chosen for the ASIC. If they are using a massively-multiple core architecture, with a small RAM attached to each core, then the scope for supporting increased N is limited to increasing the interpolation (LOOKUP_GAP) factor, which very rapidly runs out of steam with perhaps 8192 being the practical limit. I was able to test this in my open-source FPGA code quite easily for N=2048, and it gave roughly one quarter of the hash rate of the original N=1024 scrypt"
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=17548.msg146942#msg146942

I have some early research with two GPU miners developers and there is some hope with not used yet algo - for strong suppressing ASIC
if current scrypt-n solution would fail, we can go back to this

btw: yacoin has N=32768, and it seems is still GPU mineable
http://download.muuttuja.org/yacoin/countdown/

[ivanlabrie]

Faster changing n factors would hurt ASICs real bad...so yeah, YAC style.
We'll see for now, this coin favors high end AMD gpu users (which isn't so cool in my book)
Higher n factors tend to normalize hash rate between higher end and lower end equipment, and make cpu mining sort of viable (GPUs still beat a cpu by a power of 10 though).

[PrimeHour]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

This coin seems pretty scammy. The guy has created like 3-4 new threads when people pointed out that he was paying people to say good things about the coin, IPO in the original thread, and pre-mine in general. His original thread was under the name agent something but now he's using a parallaxcoin account. I'm only putting him down because his behavior is that of a scammer.

fair enough. I don't feel like a scammer would try anything more than a copycat coin though. To be fair I have spoken to the devs and they've said they only changed OP's due to the negative criticisms and wanted a successful coin, so in their defense, they reposted and took away things that the community wasn't liking (like IPO and undisclosed premine). Sounds like they're learning to adapt if anything.

regardless. I hope time will tell! Too many scammers around, but I like to think I have an eye for them    

[Kalizar]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

This coin seems pretty scammy. The guy has created like 3-4 new threads when people pointed out that he was paying people to say good things about the coin, IPO in the original thread, and pre-mine in general. His original thread was under the name agent something but now he's using a parallaxcoin account. I'm only putting him down because his behavior is that of a scammer.

fair enough. I don't feel like a scammer would try anything more than a copycat coin though. To be fair I have spoken to the devs and they've said they only changed OP's due to the negative criticisms and wanted a successful coin, so in their defense, they reposted and took away things that the community wasn't liking (like IPO and undisclosed premine). Sounds like they're learning to adapt if anything.

regardless. I hope time will tell! Too many scammers around, but I like to think I have an eye for them    

Could be waiting until MON's source is released. The he will edit it for 2 days, and release a copy called parallaxcoin.

[PrimeHour]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

This coin seems pretty scammy. The guy has created like 3-4 new threads when people pointed out that he was paying people to say good things about the coin, IPO in the original thread, and pre-mine in general. His original thread was under the name agent something but now he's using a parallaxcoin account. I'm only putting him down because his behavior is that of a scammer.

fair enough. I don't feel like a scammer would try anything more than a copycat coin though. To be fair I have spoken to the devs and they've said they only changed OP's due to the negative criticisms and wanted a successful coin, so in their defense, they reposted and took away things that the community wasn't liking (like IPO and undisclosed premine). Sounds like they're learning to adapt if anything.

regardless. I hope time will tell! Too many scammers around, but I like to think I have an eye for them    

Could be waiting until MON's source is released. The he will edit it for 2 days, and release a copy called parallaxcoin.

Mon said they will launch before summer. When PLX made launch date MON picked earlier date of 2 days. That's why i'm curious about this whole thing

[Kalizar]

how do you guys feel about this?

http://www.coinssource.com/vertcoins-successor-arrives-parallaxcoin/

This coin seems pretty scammy. The guy has created like 3-4 new threads when people pointed out that he was paying people to say good things about the coin, IPO in the original thread, and pre-mine in general. His original thread was under the name agent something but now he's using a parallaxcoin account. I'm only putting him down because his behavior is that of a scammer.

fair enough. I don't feel like a scammer would try anything more than a copycat coin though. To be fair I have spoken to the devs and they've said they only changed OP's due to the negative criticisms and wanted a successful coin, so in their defense, they reposted and took away things that the community wasn't liking (like IPO and undisclosed premine). Sounds like they're learning to adapt if anything.

regardless. I hope time will tell! Too many scammers around, but I like to think I have an eye for them    

Could be waiting until MON's source is released. The he will edit it for 2 days, and release a copy called parallaxcoin.

Mon said they will launch before summer. When PLX made launch date MON picked earlier date of 2 days. That's why i'm curious about this whole thing

I don't know about that.

Mon said they will launch before summer.

May 2nd is before summer....

[BorisTheSpider]

We will never be adding PoS (never say never they say, but in this case, I feel quite comfortable saying never) - it's highly insecure.

how can you make such a claim? where is your proof?

Where is your ability to Google and stay informed about important matters?

Anyways, go through the past few pages and look for Boris' statement on PoS.

i looked back a number of pages, all i saw him say was "PoS in not secure" with no further details. Need to back that up if going to make such a claim.

A PoS coin is also susceptible to an attack, just like PoW. However, the means of performing the attack would be much simpler. The main weakness comes from most coin holders do not (and will probably never) stake their coins in the long run.

If there are 100 coins in circulation(for example) and only 4 coins staked, that would only require 5 staked coins to perform an attack. That is how a PoS attack would be performed, having over 51% of the staked coins.

Meanwhile, PoW requires 51% of the network hash. This makes it much more impractical to destroy a coin. Neither attacks have been successfully performed to destroy a coin, but PoS attacks would be much easier.

Yes this, plus another attack where you stockpile stake blocks and release a re-org at your leisure. This is why PPC uses centralised checkpointing, and also why they use a stake modifier which depends on some subset of the last N PoW blocks, wheras the recent rash of pure PoS coins has simply removed this entirely, hoping no-one would notice.

[Kalizar]

We will never be adding PoS (never say never they say, but in this case, I feel quite comfortable saying never) - it's highly insecure.

how can you make such a claim? where is your proof?

Where is your ability to Google and stay informed about important matters?

Anyways, go through the past few pages and look for Boris' statement on PoS.

i looked back a number of pages, all i saw him say was "PoS in not secure" with no further details. Need to back that up if going to make such a claim.

A PoS coin is also susceptible to an attack, just like PoW. However, the means of performing the attack would be much simpler. The main weakness comes from most coin holders do not (and will probably never) stake their coins in the long run.

If there are 100 coins in circulation(for example) and only 4 coins staked, that would only require 5 staked coins to perform an attack. That is how a PoS attack would be performed, having over 51% of the staked coins.

Meanwhile, PoW requires 51% of the network hash. This makes it much more impractical to destroy a coin. Neither attacks have been successfully performed to destroy a coin, but PoS attacks would be much easier.

Yes this, plus another attack where you stockpile stake blocks and release a re-org at your leisure. This is why PPC uses centralised checkpointing, and also why they use a stake modifier which depends on some subset of the last N PoW blocks, wheras the recent rash of pure PoS coins has simply removed this entirely, hoping no-one would notice.

I noticed Blackcoin enthusiasts bringing up a check-pointing system to keep the network safe. I guess if anyone tries playing "funny games" by trying to 51% stake, this system would remove their funds.

Isn't this the same thing as having the central authority we deal with now?

If you ask me, being labeled a "bad guy" and having your funds seized is one of the reasons people get into crypto coins.

Also, I've seen you mention there is another attack that is easier to perform on PoS. Are you ever going to unveil this security flaw?

[ivanlabrie]

Yacoin devs had to fix some pos related flaws, they worked together with the NVC dev.
I don't think a pure PoS coin can work well though, those are hybrid PoS/PoW...keeping it pos only after an early instamine I mean PoW phase speaks tons about the developers and their inner circle's intentions with the coin.

[BorisTheSpider]

I noticed Blackcoin enthusiasts bringing up a check-pointing system to keep the network safe. I guess if anyone tries playing "funny games" by trying to 51% stake, this system would remove their funds.

Removing funds is neither possible nor desirable, but a centralised checkpointing system does ensure an attacker can only cause a re-org back to the last checkpoint that was widely accepted by the network.

Isn't this the same thing as having the central authority we deal with now?

I agree that no sort of centralised checkpointing is really acceptable, but I understand why PPC did it, and I certainly wouldn't go around using the word "insecure" about their network.

Also, I've seen you mention there is another attack that is easier to perform on PoS. Are you ever going to unveil this security flaw?

I just did! BC removed the stake modifier that the PoS/PoW hybrids like PPC/NVC use - without that, there's no protection whatsoever against an attacker who stockpiles stake blocks.

[Kalizar]

I noticed Blackcoin enthusiasts bringing up a check-pointing system to keep the network safe. I guess if anyone tries playing "funny games" by trying to 51% stake, this system would remove their funds.

Removing funds is neither possible nor desirable, but a centralised checkpointing system does ensure an attacker can only cause a re-org back to the last checkpoint that was widely accepted by the network.

Isn't this the same thing as having the central authority we deal with now?

I agree that no sort of centralised checkpointing is really acceptable, but I understand why PPC did it, and I certainly wouldn't go around using the word "insecure" about their network.

Also, I've seen you mention there is another attack that is easier to perform on PoS. Are you ever going to unveil this security flaw?

I just did! BC removed the stake modifier that the PoS/PoW hybrids like PPC/NVC use - without that, there's no protection whatsoever against an attacker who stockpiles stake blocks.

Thank you for clearing that up! I thought it was a little crazy to have something that removing/seizing coins.

I just did! BC removed the stake modifier that the PoS/PoW hybrids like PPC/NVC use - without that, there's no protection whatsoever against an attacker who stockpiles stake blocks.

Oh wow, I must have missed that statement. XP

If this is removed, why did everyone else not notice on the BlackCoin thread except you? I would say this is crypto newsworthy. It's one thing to come out with news and have it explode! It's a completely other thing to silence the news and alerts. I can't even begin to comprehend how this was accomplished.

I'm all in Vertcoin, been mining it for almost 2 months straight. I have faith in Vertcoin, you, and the rest of the team. Keep up the great work! =)

[rapsac]

Yes, but where will the devs hardfork if asic is capable to change N as well ?

To a different algorithm of course!

VTC is not an algorithm, it's a mindset - we will do whatever is necessary to beat ASICs.

A repeatedly hard-forking coin is not suitable for real-world use or merchant adoption. Right now VTC is yet another low-market-cap trader's coin with a small user base so you can get away with this "mindset". Hopefully your eventual ambitions are grander than that.

WTF man? A hard fork or 2 a year means updating the wallets and whatever systems merchants use two times a year. Do you have any idea how often windows / linux or whatever OS updates? As long as the economics of the coin remain unchanged and the security of the blockchain is maintained i say fork away!

[eizh]

WTF man? A hard fork or 2 a year means updating the wallets and whatever systems merchants use two times a year. Do you have any idea how often windows / linux or whatever OS updates? As long as the economics of the coin remain unchanged and the security of the blockchain is maintained i say fork away!

If a coin becomes more than play-money, it'll do actual financial damage each time a hard fork is forced on it. There's a transient period where versions are inconsistent. The whole point of Scrypt-N is that it changes in time without needing to hard fork.