[ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]

[stormia]

looking at the source to double check

Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how.

less damage asking on smaller coin forum

there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right?

Less damage? If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins. You would not be spreading uncertainty on a new coin which is most vulnerable to such fud.

I'm just trying to figure out what the reasoning is for posing here.. it makes no sense if you are trying to prevent damage...

also, based on what is discussed here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=401.0

"There are a lot more PoS blocks than Pow. Once you mint a block with your coins they are locked in stake for 520 blocks, and the PoS mints with a transactions size ie if you get 1000PPC and the transaction is old enough it will mint and your PPCs will be locked in stake. There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..."

Pure PoS coins sound way more vulnerable, so why not inform them first or at all?

 if i were right, PoW would be useless in the event of an attack, because the high rate of PoS blocks would cause difficulty to jump into unminable levels

Okay,
Still haven't responded the first point of my posts:
"If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins."

Also,
How does this not apply to what you are saying: "There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..."

How can you generate PoS blocks at a reliably and sufficiently high rate if there will be PoW blocks interrupting you and other people's PoS blocks interrupting you? Woudn't those PoW blocks and PoS blocks reject your blocks, and you would lose your stake?

[1714210670]

1714210670

[1714210670]

1714210670

[1714210670]

1714210670

[1714210670]

1714210670

[1714210670]

1714210670

[deadmanwalking]

The formula is coin age + number of coins. We've seen orphans from people who's coins weren't sufficiently aged, or they didn't have enough of them. These have to be re-staked.

Just based off of that alone, his proposal is impossible. The micro transactions would just be orphaned. Anyway, we've allowed him to take over the thread with a half baked theory, which has now been debunked. Moving on.

[Anonymousg64]

looking at the source to double check

Why not inform the other PoS communities. You know, the ones that are worth more and have much more to lose- if you really believe this and you are really doing this in good faith. Also, if this really was a way to attack PoS and you wanted to help WHY WOULD YOU POST HOW TO ATTACK ON A PUBLIC FORUM!? You could simply pm the devs and let them know "how to fix it" as you claim to know how.

less damage asking on smaller coin forum

there should be a few among this community who are well versed with how their coin works right?

Less damage? If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins. You would not be spreading uncertainty on a new coin which is most vulnerable to such fud.

I'm just trying to figure out what the reasoning is for posing here.. it makes no sense if you are trying to prevent damage...

also, based on what is discussed here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=401.0

"There are a lot more PoS blocks than Pow. Once you mint a block with your coins they are locked in stake for 520 blocks, and the PoS mints with a transactions size ie if you get 1000PPC and the transaction is old enough it will mint and your PPCs will be locked in stake. There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..."

Pure PoS coins sound way more vulnerable, so why not inform them first or at all?

 if i were right, PoW would be useless in the event of an attack, because the high rate of PoS blocks would cause difficulty to jump into unminable levels

Okay,
Still haven't responded the first point of my posts:
"If you were trying to prevent the most damage than you would PM the devs of the most valuable PoS coins... You would not go shouting out how to attack PoS coins."

Also,
How does this not apply to what you are saying: "There is no guarantee that the next block will be PoS so you have to own 51% PoW, and if you have a bunch of old coins there is no guarantee that you find all the PoS blocks in a row either ... So NO finding six blocks and double spending might risk the network rejecting your blocks and losing your stake..."

How can you generate PoS blocks at a reliably and sufficiently high rate if there will be PoW blocks interrupting you and other people's PoS blocks interrupting you? Woudn't those PoW blocks and PoS blocks reject your blocks, and you would lose your stake?

i was hoping someone better versed could tell me otherwise, i did not really plan where i was posting, mint was closest to mind for PoS coin

you dont lose your stake if a block is rejected,
difficulty is calculated using PoS blocks also, so the difficulty can quite easily be pushed up (depending what the re-target time span is but for mint it is every block)
im trying to find how it is that you cannot generate PoS blocks in a row, if that limitation is built into the wallet, then it can be curcumvented

[stormia]

Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?

[Anonymousg64]

The formula is coin age + number of coins. We've seen orphans from people who's coins weren't sufficiently aged, or they didn't have enough of them. These have to be re-staked.

Just based off of that alone, his proposal is impossible. The micro transactions would just be orphaned. Anyway, we've allowed him to take over the thread with a half baked theory, which has now been debunked. Moving on.

from my observations, its exactly 20 days, no matter how much coins you have
orphans are immediately re-staked, usually caused by another block being accepted before yours propagated

spending coins will affect previous coins, which usually explains those who get delays

[Anonymousg64]

Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?

im not interested in mint value so coincidence

[stormia]

this is what you said on the Zeit forum, over an hour ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=487814.msg5962705#msg5962705

"It seemed to make sense from my limited understanding and lack of awareness in the specific algorithms for proof of stake


currently looking at the source code, its likely i was wrong

if only it wasn't such a disorganized mess i could of avoided this embarrassment"

[stormia]

Poof. Buy walls are gone. Success, Anonymousg64? Or just coincidence?

im not interested in mint value so coincidence

Well to be fair I wasn't suspecting you are interested in Mint value. I was suspecting that you are interested in the value of another, possibly "competing" coin. Or perhaps you are just interested at getting mint at a lower value because you know how awesome it is    ?

[Gates123]

Mintcoin is really good Coin. I told it to my neighbor friends and family ,everyone bought 1 btc

[deadmanwalking]

this is what you said on the Zeit forum, over an hour ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=487814.msg5962705#msg5962705

"It seemed to make sense from my limited understanding and lack of awareness in the specific algorithms for proof of stake


currently looking at the source code, its likely i was wrong

if only it wasn't such a disorganized mess i could of avoided this embarrassment"

UGH. Go get your Mints people. They won't be cheap forever.

[Anonymousg64]

im still on the fence


can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets

Code:

ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
    return false;

im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply

[stormia]

im still on the fence


can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets

Code:

ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
    return false;

im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply

IMO this is another reason why you should be directly asking devs- people who are likely versed in the code and how exactly what these variables represent- instead of possibly crying wolf on a public thread.

[deadmanwalking]

im still on the fence


can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets

Code:

ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
    return false;

im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply

Go ask blackcoin. Seriously. They like to answer tech questions. None of the tech guys are even online in this thread right now.

Edit: No worries, I posted it for you.

[draco71]

Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?

I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.

Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...

[deadmanwalking]

Thunder coming  https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/9388-free-mintcoin-giveaway

[stormia]

Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?

I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.

Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...

The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed. right? If anything else, the overall inflation would be less because it would transition to the lower inflation rate sooner?

[draco71]

I believe that in long term you are most probably right. However, in order for a coin to develop long term it should survive short term.

Well, I suppose that it will be a bumpier ride than initially expected, noting more, nothing less.

[Anonymousg64]

Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?

I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.

Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...

The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed. right? If anything else, the overall inflation would be less because it would transition to the lower inflation rate sooner?

according to

Code:

int64 nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365;

the 20% does not account for compounded rewards

[stormia]

Since we are discussing tech stuff, do we have any news about coins getting matured earlier than expected?

I mean, I really do not mind having some more MINTs earlier than expected but on the other hand I am a bit worried about the inflation.
It is a different thing to have 20% more coins in 1 year than having them in, let's say, 8 months.

Did the devs commented on that? Maybe I missed it ...

The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed. right? If anything else, the overall inflation would be less because it would transition to the lower inflation rate sooner?

according to

Code:

int64 nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365;

the 20% does not account for compounded rewards

Okay so how does that change: "The overall inflation would be the same, it would only be accelerated since the final total number of coins is not changed."

And please, why are you still only scrutinizing and posting on mintcoin when every PoS coin is affected by everything you are saying here (assuming any of it is true).

[TequilaV]

What's the latest news about Mint? It is my baby, my heart belongs to Mint but it hasn't has some breaking news for along time. It looks lifeless.