★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[TamiLee]

The way I see it, 4-8 years is exactly akin to 40-80 years. Why not being generous with numbers like those?

You are just not serious, sorry.

In that 4 year lot of development.  4 year go very quick. Coin will be at 1 usd in future. Then my children's children will be able to live off the dgb I making now.

So you really are serious? Wow.

Name one coin that is better then this that isn't a scam or pump and dump and has so much dedication and lower marketcap?

[digitalgrow]

Guys be glad that Barrabas is here, when the rabble like his lot turn up its a great buy indicator, ive made plenty of btc from buying coins that he fuds, in fact Barrabas has kindly paid for my summer holiday this year....Cheers Barrabas 

[barabbas]

The way I see it, 4-8 years is exactly akin to 40-80 years. Why not being generous with numbers like those?

You are just not serious, sorry.

In that 4 year lot of development.  4 year go very quick. Coin will be at 1 usd in future. Then my children's children will be able to live off the dgb I making now.

So you really are serious? Wow.

Name one coin that is better then this that isn't a scam or pump and dump and has so much dedication and lower marketcap?

You almost got me there. Almost. But there's one: Mango

[DigiByte]

I need help ASAP, i just sent some DGB from my active wallet to my offline wallet.
It has more than 100 confirmations but when i check it on the blockchain it still hasn't arrived yet?
it says unconfirmed txs balance? But it has already been confirmed right?
What can i do now?

Have you restarted your wallet with -rescan? Also which OS and wallet are you using?

[Sharkzz1]

I need help ASAP, i just sent some DGB from my active wallet to my offline wallet.
It has more than 100 confirmations but when i check it on the blockchain it still hasn't arrived yet?
it says unconfirmed txs balance? But it has already been confirmed right?
What can i do now?

Have you restarted your wallet with -rescan? Also which OS and wallet are you using?

No i haven't, i just deleted everything except wallet.dat and let it sync again.
I'm on mac in version 3.0.3.0
I don't think there was any problem except that digiexplorer was behind (even after 12 hours) and that is why i panicked.
When i checked it on Digistats it was all fine so no problems anymore.
Thanks

[Tyke]

In the book called "DigiByte - History of the First Year" I would like to include personal statements from Jared and those most involved with DGB.  In the statement could you include the following:

• How you discovered and got involved with DigiByte
• Your most favourable and enjoyable event of DGB in the first year.
• How you participated in DGB in the first year
• Where do you see DGB progressing to in future?

Please send me a private message on here.

Chris

[o0o0]

In the book called "DigiByte - History of the First Year" I would like to include personal statements from Jared and those most involved with DGB.  In the statement could you include the following:

• How you discovered and got involved with DigiByte
• Your most favourable and enjoyable event of DGB in the first year.
• How you participated in DGB in the first year
• Where do you see DGB progressing to in future?

Please send me a private message on here.

Chris

is this just devs or community as well you mean i.e. early adopters or large holders of dgb?

[MentalCollatz]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but we already have a fix prepared to make it even stronger than the original claims.

Edit: Bold part.  Read the bold part, and relax.

[HR]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims.

Okay, I'm no advanced expert, and with that disclosure out of the way, my question is: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent?

When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal.

This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain.

That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved.

And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations.

BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that.

(And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value.

Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly.)

[DigiByte]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims.

+1
MentalCollatz would be the proper authority to answer this.  And yes, at the time of our first hard fork to multi algo we did not know this formula was incorrect. We are always working to improve things. We have worked in his changes to the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork that will make things much better.

Also @Mental, we would love to chat some time and run some ideas by you we have for modifying OP_RETURN. Thanks for stopping by and answering this!

[Altcoinfanatic]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims.

+1
MentalCollatz would be the proper authority to answer this.  And yes, at the time of our first hard fork to multi algo we did not know this formula was incorrect. We are always working to improve things. We have worked in his changes to the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork that will make things much better.

Also @Mental, we would love to chat some time and run some ideas by you we have for modifying OP_RETURN. Thanks for stopping by and answering this!

Thank you for being transparant! It seems that you really know what you are talking about!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11838864#msg11838864
So 3 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what we are marketing with and that is that multi-pow is more secure than a single pow coin).
I will stop using this as marketing gimmick for Digibyte until this is resolved. Can we remove this from the OP and if this can not be resolved will we drop multi-pow? There are already several multi-pow coins before Digibyte (see Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin, Unitus and Digitalcoin came after Digibyte i think?). Jared, when did you know this formula was incorrect and why didnt you inform the guys who are doing marketing for you? I think we deserve to know the truth no? I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin till Digispeed is out...

[HR]

Seriously? People are questioning Jared? Man, I don't even know if there are more honest people in crypto than him.
And what 's the point of buying up a coin with the investment? I don't think that's the purpose of an investment....

I think questioning is good in this community and it should be encouraged... devs should respond to such questions as it gives as active appearance and faith for the community and builds a strong base and price.

To not agree with this means that you pretty much blindly follow and you end up with another paycoin / Joshua Garza which crypto doesn't need. Jared should be addressing these concerns in the forum topic as part of his daily schedule. There is only this topic and the digibyte forum. For him to reply and reassure people would only take 30 mins of his day for this topic. I encourage Jared to do this. Digibyte growth is dependant on its customer base which means the devs should take the time to address these investors queries.

Its not about attacking Jared its merely about opening the channel so the public can address and converse with him direct. Its a little lacking at present (sorry but i'm just being honest). Communication channels that happen between specific members of the public and the dev lead to a closed system where people suspect things aren't always right. Be out and open and reply to all queries from all people direct.

Just my 2 digibytes.

Very nicely put o0o0.

I would add that every question is an opportunity for DigiByte to shine. Every question is an opportunity to post something of value, and that, my friends IS real value! Smart PR uses their media outlets wisely and to their advantage. BitCoinTalk is DGB's number one means of exposure, there is nothing else even close. In fact, when giving his "acceptance speech" someday, I hope Jared remembers to first tell everyone just how much he owes to BitCoinTalk (in the place where others thank their parents).        

Every question = the opportunity to respond positively and thereby further promote DGB.

If it's too time consuming for just one person, then it's time to begin delegating more: break things down into categories, assign the different categories to distinct people responsible for them, and every time there's a question then the person responsible for that category gets on the board ASAP with a response.

Wow, that even looks professional and corporate!  


Speaking of the devil:

In the mean time if anyone would like to prepare videos, images, memes or anything else people might find interesting or have ideas for this please let us know.

How about a PDF format Investor's Pack Brochure? You know, something that someone could put alongside brochures for gold, Bitcoin, and the Swiss Franc, for example. Something that all those people who invest in inflation hedges could use to compare DGB with the other alternatives.


@ycagel, great to see you back!

[HR]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims.

+1
MentalCollatz would be the proper authority to answer this.  And yes, at the time of our first hard fork to multi algo we did not know this formula was incorrect. We are always working to improve things. We have worked in his changes to the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork that will make things much better.

Also @Mental, we would love to chat some time and run some ideas by you we have for modifying OP_RETURN. Thanks for stopping by and answering this!

Okay, Digibyte, my question is for you too so we can all understand this: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent?

When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal. Correct, or not?

This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain. Correct, or not?

That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved. Correct, or not?

And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations. Correct, or not?

BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that. Would you really consider a pull request based on half a day's analysis?

(And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Now, inquiring minds want to know just where the "error" is and how it really affects DGB.   

[Altcoinfanatic]

Seriously? People are questioning Jared? Man, I don't even know if there are more honest people in crypto than him.
And what 's the point of buying up a coin with the investment? I don't think that's the purpose of an investment....

I think questioning is good in this community and it should be encouraged... devs should respond to such questions as it gives as active appearance and faith for the community and builds a strong base and price.

To not agree with this means that you pretty much blindly follow and you end up with another paycoin / Joshua Garza which crypto doesn't need. Jared should be addressing these concerns in the forum topic as part of his daily schedule. There is only this topic and the digibyte forum. For him to reply and reassure people would only take 30 mins of his day for this topic. I encourage Jared to do this. Digibyte growth is dependant on its customer base which means the devs should take the time to address these investors queries.

Its not about attacking Jared its merely about opening the channel so the public can address and converse with him direct. Its a little lacking at present (sorry but i'm just being honest). Communication channels that happen between specific members of the public and the dev lead to a closed system where people suspect things aren't always right. Be out and open and reply to all queries from all people direct.

Just my 2 digibytes.

Very nicely put o0o0.

I would add that every question is an opportunity for DigiByte to shine. Every question is an opportunity to post something of value, and that, my friends IS real value! Smart PR uses their media outlets wisely and to their advantage. BitCoinTalk is DGB's number one means of exposure, there is nothing else even close. In fact, when giving his "acceptance speech" someday, I hope Jared remembers to first tell everyone just how much he owes to BitCoinTalk (in the place where others thank their parents).        

Every question = the opportunity to respond positively and thereby further promote DGB.

If it's too time consuming for just one person, then it's time to begin delegating more: break things down into categories, assign the different categories to distinct people responsible for them, and every time there's a question then the person responsible for that category gets on the board ASAP with a response.

Wow, that even looks professional and corporate!  

And THAT^^ is why i nominated o0o0 and HR, they are not afraid to speak up (thats why i would never nominate for example Dennahz, sorry no offence but you blindly follow because you dont know what is going on. You even did a try to explain the 51% attack, but when u saw that Jared said it was true, you quickly removed your post. Sometimes its better to question people no?).

Let me repeat what o0o0 said (and i know for sure halinyo would agree also with me):

I think questioning is good in this community and it should be encouraged... devs should respond to such questions as it gives as active appearance and faith for the community and builds a strong base and price.

To not agree with this means that you pretty much blindly follow and you end up with another paycoin / Joshua Garza which crypto doesn't need. Jared should be addressing these concerns in the forum topic as part of his daily schedule. There is only this topic and the digibyte forum. For him to reply and reassure people would only take 30 mins of his day for this topic. I encourage Jared to do this. Digibyte growth is dependant on its customer base which means the devs should take the time to address these investors queries.

Its not about attacking Jared its merely about opening the channel so the public can address and converse with him direct. Its a little lacking at present (sorry but i'm just being honest). Communication channels that happen between specific members of the public and the dev lead to a closed system where people suspect things aren't always right. Be out and open and reply to all queries from all people direct.

Can we get an answer on this Jared? I think o0o0 is 10000% right.

[Altcoinfanatic]

1. (And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

2. Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Good questions! I will try to answer 2 of them (as how i understand it, or is the community not allowed to answer technical questions? If so, i apologize and will stop answering them)

1.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. All algorithms are not weighted properly in Digibyte and thus only 61% on SHA256D is sufficient to attack Digibyte. If these problems get sorted (all algorithms weighted properly) then you an attacker can still attack Digibyte with only 87% with just 1 algorithm. How is that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint? It is not true that you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo. So not correct.

2. No also not correct. This is one of the flaws MaNI was talking about:
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11804113#msg11804113

[HR]

1. (And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

2. Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Good questions! I will try to answer 2 of them (as how i understand it, or is the community not allowed to answer technical questions? If so, i apologize and will stop answering them)

1.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. All algorithms are not weighted properly in Digibyte and thus only 61% on SHA256D is sufficient to attack Digibyte. If these problems get sorted (all algorithms weighted properly) then you an attacker can still attack Digibyte with only 87% with just 1 algorithm. How is that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint? It is not true that you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo. So not correct.

2. No also not correct. This is one of the flaws MaNI was talking about:
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11804113#msg11804113

You still need an average of 51% over the 5 algos. From an easy to understand point of view, why is it technically incorrect to say that DGB is 5 times safer then?

I'm very interested is seeing how the 5 algos are not weighted correctly. On a smoothed average over time there is a 28.64 ratio to individual network hashrates and their corresponding diff (hashrate / 28.64 = diff). That ratio rises as network hashrate rises, and falls as the hashrate falls, of course, since it is an algorithm too, but averaged over time, it's a pretty good rule of thumb. That means that if one algo's hashrate and corresponding diff rises substantially, so do the diffs for the other 4 algos since they all are linked to the same ratio that will automatically adjust higher as one individual network hashrates rises (even if each of the rest of the algos' hashrates remain stable at the time of the notable rise in the other algo's hashrate). Of course, as stated above, the actual block discovery over time supports this as no one algo ever achieves notable differences in actual block discovery.

As sated in this article from Coin Brief http://coinbrief.net/what_is_myriadcoin/ it's not just a substantial majority of hashrate in one of the algos, but a substantial majority COMBINED with important hashrate control in the other 4 algos:

"As each algorithm controls only 20% of the network, a 51% attacker would need to control an average of 51% of each algorithm to successfully attack the network.  For example, if someone brought in enough ASICs to capture 80% of both SHA256 and Scrypt, which would be very difficult on it’s own, that would still only amount to 32% of the overall network.  The remaining 19% would need to be carved out of the Qubit, Skein, and Groestl algorithms, and there are no ASICs in development for any one of those."


Add: Perhaps there is some confusion about "weighting". The algos are indeed weighted differently so that mining is "fairer" for all. The idea was to create a level playing field for all participants. This however, does not adversely affect the individual diffs: as the diff for one algo rises, so do the rest.

[MentalCollatz]

Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. Is this true? Source: https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36 So in theory a attacker does not need to have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms (used in marketing of digibyte)? 60% of SHA256D is sufficient?

That's my pull request, here is an up-to-date calculation.

Based on current difficulties (averaged over 1000 blocks), this is each algorithms contribution to the work calculation:
sha256d: 1.13e+06 * 1
scrypt: 23.7 * 4096
groestl: 152 * 512
skein: 1070 * 24
qubit: 47.6 * 1024
This adds up to 1.38e6.  Half the total can be made with just 61% of the sha256d contribution.  Asics are to blame.  When the formula was crafted, each algorithm did indeed have a near-equal contribution.  But as the sha256d hashrate climbed the others couldn't keep up.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly.  The new formula does not rely on magic work factors, and does not allow one algorithm to dominate under any circumstances.

I'm not going to throw stones at marketing.  As far as I can tell they didn't know it was wrong.  Now we know, but already have a fix to make it even stronger than the original claims.

Okay, I'm no advanced expert, and with that disclosure out of the way, my question is: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent?

When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal.

This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain.

That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved.

And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations.

BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that.

(And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value.

Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly.)

Your misconception stems from this fact: the "best" chain is determined not by the number of blocks in the chain, but by the amount of work in the chain.  Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms (due to magic work factors set before asics were common).

[HR]

Your misconception stems from this fact: the "best" chain is determined not by the number of blocks in the chain, but by the amount of work in the chain.  Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms (due to magic work factors set before asics were common).

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network

"The best chain (black) consists of the longest series of transaction records from the genesis block (green) to the current block or record. Orphaned records (purple) exist outside of the best chain."

suggests that what you are presenting is a major "revelation" that stands the crypto-world on its head and that therefore needs some very serious documentation supported by hard data.


Add: BTW, a google search for "magic work factors bitcoin" yields these results:

https://www.google.es/search?q=best+chain+bitcoin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=upifVdevF4HzUPT5j8AL#q=magic+work+factors+bitcoin

Is your terminology also new?

[MentalCollatz]

Your misconception stems from this fact: the "best" chain is determined not by the number of blocks in the chain, but by the amount of work in the chain.  Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms (due to magic work factors set before asics were common).

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network

"The best chain (black) consists of the longest series of transaction records from the genesis block (green) to the current block or record. Orphaned records (purple) exist outside of the best chain."

suggests that what you are presenting is a major "revelation" that stands the crypto-world on its head and that therefore needs some very serious documentation supported by hard data.

That page just uses non-technical wording.  Bitcoin also uses the "most work" criterion.

Add: BTW, a google search for "magic work factors bitcoin" yields these results:

https://www.google.es/search?q=best+chain+bitcoin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=upifVdevF4HzUPT5j8AL#q=magic+work+factors+bitcoin

Is your terminology also new?

Work factors only apply to multi-algo coins.

[MemberCount+1]

Take your 250k money in the hands and place ads for DGB in Greece. That would make at least some sense.
"Send your money in DGB without any restriction"