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

[gonzoucab]

Looking at the code i realize you dont wanna help or resolving question, you just are in need of attention.

[1714195723]

1714195723

[1714195723]

1714195723

[1714195723]

1714195723

[1714195723]

1714195723

[1714195723]

1714195723

[1714195723]

1714195723

[stormia]

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

As you can see here, the PoW blocks have a different and independent difficulty algorithm than PoS blocks. If you start getting a lot of PoS blocks in a row, the chance of PoW block generation increases in order to achieve the PoW target; so after each PoS block is generated the likely-hood of generating a PoW block as the next block goes up, and after every PoW block, the chance of generating a PoS block goes up. They are both integrated with block targets and difficulties that are independent of one another; so one cannot perpetually overpower the other. This is why PoS/PoW hybrid is more secure vs just PoS only. And, it is also worth noting that over time, the Mintcoin networks actually will get more secure with age, whereas a PoW only coin has the potential to get less secure due to centralized mining processes. Mintcoin is protected from PoW overpowering, as well as PoS overpowering. You cannot know for certain the future of the Mintcion blockchain (at least very far). With Pure PoS, you know the future will always be a PoS block next, and with PoW you know that the future will always be PoW blocks next, but you cannot know the future with hybrid PoW/PoS like Mintcoin.

Makes a lot of sense! Way to boss that explanation coolbeans.

looking at the code, there doesn't seem to be any difference for PoS when it comes to target calculation and difficulty calculation
they are not independent


look at the times in the image you posted, you will see why the difficulty is at 22 on that block and the others are much lower

The time before the last PoS block and the PoW block is 5 seconds..

[stormia]

"this flaw was addressed by the author of PoS, Sunny King, earlier this year:

Official release build is now available http://www.ppcoin.org/ (via sourceforge)

What's in 0.3.0 release:

Stake generation protocol upgrade (protocol switch March 20th)
Qt UI support
Fix compatibility with vanitygen (note: private keys dumped in v0.2 is no longer importable into v0.3.0, must dump again from v0.3.0 client)
Miscellaneous bug fixes and improvements

The protocol upgrade in 0.3.0 includes a new algorithm to derive proof-of-stake hash modifier, the entity that scrambles computation for stake owners, which replaces the current proof-of-stake difficulty used as modifier in 0.2 protocol. The design was started late September last year, when I first began to realize the issues with using difficulty as modifier. Honorary mention also goes to Jutarul, who independently discovered and verified an issue with using difficulty as modifier and published on bitcointalk in December last year, while successfully executed a demo attack on the block chain. Other changes in the protocol include starting hash weight from 0 at the 30-day mininum age, and requirement that coinstake timestamp must equal block timestamp. Overall 0.3 protocol should significantly strengthen the proof-of-stake protection and resolve the current known vulnerabilities.

My sincere appreciation to co-contributors of 0.3.0 release:

Robert VanHazinga of Hartland PC (dreamwatcher) for the vanitygen compatibility fix
Jutarul for demonstrating stake generation vulnerability
EskimoBob for reporting issue fixed in 0.3.0"

[stormia]

Also the attack described would not work.  Coins are not staked only on coinage, it is only one factor.  So even if you made a lot of transactions so all your coins were separated by a small interval, there is no guarantee they will stake at each interval - in fact splitting them into small amounts to make these intervals will make them less likely to stake. You would have to have a very large amount of coins at each interval to even have a chance of producing 2 consecutive blocks.  This attack is completely unrealistic.

[gonzoucab]

"this flaw was addressed by the author of PoS, Sunny King, earlier this year:

Official release build is now available http://www.ppcoin.org/ (via sourceforge)

What's in 0.3.0 release:

Stake generation protocol upgrade (protocol switch March 20th)
Qt UI support
Fix compatibility with vanitygen (note: private keys dumped in v0.2 is no longer importable into v0.3.0, must dump again from v0.3.0 client)
Miscellaneous bug fixes and improvements

The protocol upgrade in 0.3.0 includes a new algorithm to derive proof-of-stake hash modifier, the entity that scrambles computation for stake owners, which replaces the current proof-of-stake difficulty used as modifier in 0.2 protocol. The design was started late September last year, when I first began to realize the issues with using difficulty as modifier. Honorary mention also goes to Jutarul, who independently discovered and verified an issue with using difficulty as modifier and published on bitcointalk in December last year, while successfully executed a demo attack on the block chain. Other changes in the protocol include starting hash weight from 0 at the 30-day mininum age, and requirement that coinstake timestamp must equal block timestamp. Overall 0.3 protocol should significantly strengthen the proof-of-stake protection and resolve the current known vulnerabilities.

My sincere appreciation to co-contributors of 0.3.0 release:

Robert VanHazinga of Hartland PC (dreamwatcher) for the vanitygen compatibility fix
Jutarul for demonstrating stake generation vulnerability
EskimoBob for reporting issue fixed in 0.3.0"

This is the state of the nation in mintcoin. our network is fast and secure. more secure than an pure POS system or a pure POW system

Mint Breed the best of crypto world, im telling you its the facebook of the social economic network.

[thisisit]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that?  

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

pure pos is untested. we will see what future will bring.

i am into mint now as well.

ps. it would cost bitcoins. that is why "there is nothing at stake". an early adopter of bitcoin can do this. also the marketcap.. is at highest buy/lowest sell.

marketcap only takes highest buy price and multiplies that by coins available. it wouldnt take 750k usd. not even close.

so coinmarketcap is not even close to real value. simple math.

[jiangkand1]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that? 

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

pure pos is untested. we will see what future will bring.

i am into mint now as well.

ps. it would cost bitcoins. that is why "there is nothing at stake". an early adopter of bitcoin can do this. also the marketcap.. is at highest buy/lowest sell.

marketcap only takes highest buy price and multiplies that by coins available. it wouldnt take 750k usd. not even close.

so coinmarketcap is not even close to real value. simple math.

it wont be the expected 20%
you are looking at a maximum of 22%
but it wont be that because not all coins are minting with perfect 20 day cycles, some are not staking and some are being spent resetting the age


btw, i only answered out of my own will, im not scrutinizing mintcoin, i happen to be here with the source code open

[stormia]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that?  

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

If they control 51% of the wealth and try to double spend all of it or a significant portion of it they would be spending nearly 100% of the market cap- there is no way anywhere near 100% of the market cap is going to be spent in two transactions. Meaning if they want to double spend they will have to double spend significantly less than their 51% of the wealth, meaning they jeopardize the remaining part of their wealth. no? Unless they can effectively double spend more than 25.5% (thereby "spending" more than 51% of the wealth they actually control) they would be better off just spending their 51% of the wealth since whatever value is left over after the double spend will be destroyed.

[thisisit]

there is no penalization algorithm like slasher in this coin.

even if they try to do it. they wont get penalized and can try over and over ( so no risk ).

but enough of this. please read into nature of pos.

i have to go.

[stormia]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that?  

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

pure pos is untested. we will see what future will bring.

i am into mint now as well.

ps. it would cost bitcoins. that is why "there is nothing at stake". an early adopter of bitcoin can do this. also the marketcap.. is at highest buy/lowest sell.

marketcap only takes highest buy price and multiplies that by coins available. it wouldnt take 750k usd. not even close.

so coinmarketcap is not even close to real value. simple math.

Luckily mint isn't a pure PoS. I'm glad to see you are into mint again, welcome back   based on your posts on this forum you are clearly a very critical thinker and that is great because we need people who are willing and able to scrutinize the coin in a constructive manner.

Likewise, I am thankful for anonymousg64's efforts to pin down any possible security flaws in the PoS system- I'm just not sure I like how he is broadcasting it to the public as though it is fact before there is any certainty to it. I still think any security flaws that do arise should be brought up to the devs of the coins directly and privately so that they can deal with them before they become a problem (telling the general public only informs people how to exploit a security flaw if it does exist, and if it doesn't actually exist then it just spreads fear and uncertainty).

[gonzoucab]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that?  

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

pure pos is untested. we will see what future will bring.

i am into mint now as well.

ps. it would cost bitcoins. that is why "there is nothing at stake". an early adopter of bitcoin can do this. also the marketcap.. is at highest buy/lowest sell.

marketcap only takes highest buy price and multiplies that by coins available. it wouldnt take 750k usd. not even close.

so coinmarketcap is not even close to real value. simple math.

Luckily mint isn't a pure PoS. I'm glad to see you are into mint again, welcome back   based on your posts on this forum you are clearly a very critical thinker and that is great because we need people who are willing and able to scrutinize the coin in a constructive manner.

Likewise, I am thankful for anonymousg64's efforts to pin down any possible security flaws in the PoS system- I'm just not sure I like how he is broadcasting it to the public as though it is fact before there is any certainty to it. I still think any security flaws that do arise should be brought up to the devs of the coins directly and privately so that they can deal with them before they become a problem (telling the general public only informs people how to exploit a security flaw if it does exist, and if it doesn't actually exist then it just spreads fear and uncertainty).

+1 also thanks anonymousg64's efforts but stormia is more than right.

[deadmanwalking]

so pray that a whale, with bad intentions, does not get 51%

That would cost the attacker about $750,000.

Is it really worth it to attack? I mean they are spending 750K to destroy their own money, who would do that?  

double spend? there will be other flaws... but currently double spend is most likely to occur with a stake of 51% or more.

pure pos is untested. we will see what future will bring.

i am into mint now as well.

ps. it would cost bitcoins. that is why "there is nothing at stake". an early adopter of bitcoin can do this. also the marketcap.. is at highest buy/lowest sell.

marketcap only takes highest buy price and multiplies that by coins available. it wouldnt take 750k usd. not even close.

so coinmarketcap is not even close to real value. simple math.

You see to be completly oblivious to SIMPLE math.

1. There aren't enough coins currently on the market to buy a 51% stake.

2. As soon as someone started to buy many coins, the price would increase exponentially.

3. If anyone were to control 51% it would destroy the value of the coin. Thereby destroying the urge for anyone to acquire so many coins.

4. Not having to do with math. Why the hell isn't anyone asking questions about this on blackcoin's thread. Gee, I wonder. Trolls be gone.

[deadmanwalking]

Did the thunderclap happen yet?

[omahapoker]

HOW MUCH MINT DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR WALLET?

and plan on keeping it inthere

I want to keep a list.

I'll start

1 omahapoker  1.1 million




is there a site that tells how many MINT are in wallets?


thanks

[Sylon]

is there a site that tells how many MINT are in wallets?


thanks

blockchain

[stormia]

Did the thunderclap happen yet?

Yup, it posed to my facebook about 4 hours ago

[stormia]

HOW MUCH MINT DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR WALLET?

and plan on keeping it inthere

I want to keep a list.

I'll start

1 omahapoker  1.1 million




is there a site that tells how many MINT are in wallets?


thanks

mintcoinrichlist.com

seems to be down atm though, on my end at least

[leckey]

I feel like there needs to be a concerted effort to move mintcoin discussion onto the mintcointalk forum. Better than everyone just posting in this one thread.

[MarSas]

Is it possible the balances in the blockchain and in the wallet are not the same? The wallet has only one address.

[Dallas5]

Is it possible the balances in the blockchain and in the wallet are not the same? The wallet has only one address.

You can have many addresses in your wallet, the number of mints you see in your wallet is the total of all your addresses.