Bitcoin Forum
June 07, 2024, 09:06:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 [295] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 557 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][C2.1] Coin2 | Pow/PoS | ChainOfConflict[FPS] The Future of Gaming is Now  (Read 499699 times)
venmo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:11:07 PM
 #5881


This advice

This time around we all need to keep our coins staking in our wallets and not leaving them on the exchanges waiting to sell them or on sell orders.

That was the main problem here.

Let's keep them staking in our wallet until the game is released and the general public start buying the coins.

conflicts with this advice

UPDATE:

A FEW WORDS FROM ME (THE HEAD DEV):

........

2. We are setting up a db to allow people to send in their old coins.  IF YOU HAVE COINS ON AN EXCHANGE, LEAVE THEM THERE.


I used "this time around" to mean this time around with the new coin.
belmonty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 295
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:15:49 PM
 #5882


I used "this time around" to mean this time around with the new coin.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your advice. The swap from c2 to c3 is unexpected and confusing to say the least.

Are other PoS coins vulnerable to this attack?
dotcoin.info
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 252


www.cd3d.app


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:16:10 PM
 #5883

we need a rich list  "this time around" ?

JDS1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 414
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:16:17 PM
 #5884

I like the plan.  What if we rename it to Phoenix Coin - Once again rising from the ashes!

gts476
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:20:28 PM
 #5885


I used "this time around" to mean this time around with the new coin.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your advice. The swap from c2 to c3 is unexpected and confusing to say the least.

Are other PoS coins vulnerable to this attack?

Fundamentally yes. PoS requires users to stake their coins in order to secure the blockchain. Not enough people staked their coins, they left them in exchanges. This caused the blockchain to become insecure and allowed an attack to happen.

Moral of the story is stake your coins, never leave on exchanges.

Also,

exchanges must impliment the staking of coins deposited in order to secure the blockchain for all PoS coins. Any exchange that does not do this should not be permitted to act as a platform for the trading of PoS crypto as they will fundimentally undermine the security of the blockchain.

As always, the decentralisation of the network and the security of the blockchain must be maintained!

edit* a lower coin maturity will also help.

edit** an upper limit on coinage allowance for wallets would also help.

belmonty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 295
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:28:33 PM
 #5886

Is the only defense to have enough people staking their coins?

If it is then could the dev counter this attack by creating a massive amount of the new c3 coins to keep continually staking in his own wallet?

I know we would then have to trust the dev not to dump, but it might be a possible defense.
venmo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:37:04 PM
 #5887

Is the only defense to have enough people staking their coins?

If it is then could the dev counter this attack by creating a massive amount of the new c3 coins to keep continually staking in his own wallet?

I know we would then have to trust the dev not to dump, but it might be a possible defense.

I actually preferred this option myself as the team could have signed a legally binding document stating the coins could not be sold. Ever.

They could have been kept in a public wallet which would stake 24/7.

Wouldn't be dilution as they would never have hit the market.

problem is most disagreed.

I think 60m would have done myself.

It is not happening now due to opposition.
stormia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:41:10 PM
 #5888

Could somebody fill me in on what happened here? How did the attacker pull it off? Is the vulnerability they took advantaged of ubiquitous to pure PoS coins or were there special circumstances?

Bump. Anybody?

Double spend on Mintpal by an attacker using a 51% attack.

How did they pull a 51% attack off?? How was the network weight that low/how did they manage to get 51% of the network weight?

Is there a max coin age for this coin?
dotcoin.info
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 252


www.cd3d.app


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:43:04 PM
 #5889

so now when can we start coin swapping and when can we get back on mintpal?

maybe some guidance in pipeline Smiley

42coin fever
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
 #5890

I was once told, over spending 51% hack in PoS coins only hurt the perpetuator but not affected others.
Could someone please explain this to me why Coin2 isn't the case
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:46:08 PM
 #5891

I was once told, over spending 51% hack in PoS coins only hurt the perpetuator but not affected others.
Could someone please explain this to me why Coin2 isn't the case

Who told you that?  A double spend always hurts the receiver.  The coins they thought they "had" are reversed.  In this case mintpal lost 22M coins.  Anyone telling you different is lying or lacks the basic knowledge of crypto currencies to be giving advice.
gts476
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 06:58:20 PM
 #5892

I was once told, over spending 51% hack in PoS coins only hurt the perpetuator but not affected others.
Could someone please explain this to me why Coin2 isn't the case

It would not hurt others because others wallets are encrypted (can't touch your c2 because of your personal key). A 51% double spend only works when the scam artist 'spends' the coins, which then 'pop' back into his wallet.

In this case, a double spend was sent to mintpal, so mintpal accounted for coins which they did not have, at this point in time, the attacker had a few million coins in his wallet and mintpal also beleived that they had those coins.

The scam artist then spends those coin credits (given to him by mintys internal accounting system) by trading them for BTC before anyone @ mintpal picks up that they (mintpal) don't really have these coins.

In our case, this actually happened several times allowing the scam artists to make mintpal beleive that he deposited 22 million coins on their exchange.

If we assume before the scam, mintpal had 10 million coins, then after the scam, mintpal beleived they had 32 million!

What would of happened then is that people would of withdrew over time all 10 million real coins from mintpal, then, someone would try to withdraw some more but there would be non to withdraw!

Mintpal would have 0 real coins but their accounting systems would show a value of +22 million.

Alarm bells ring etc etc etc.

Double spend can not affect your coins in your wallet, ever.

Double spend is exactly that, a merchant thinks he has recived payment in c2 for something and gives you what he thinks you paid for and BOOM! blockchain syncs up, double spend obliterated and the c2 isn't there.

Think of it like a credit card charge back or someone paying you then picking your pocket.

This didn't happen on BTER because they wait for 100 confirmations before any deposit.

Mintpal waits for 3.

so....... it can only happen if we don't secure the block chain by leaving coins on exchanges

and it can only WORK if exchanges have fucking stupid low confirmation times like mintpal when compaired to BTER.

brightlight
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:03:19 PM
 #5893

I was once told, over spending 51% hack in PoS coins only hurt the perpetuator but not affected others.
Could someone please explain this to me why Coin2 isn't the case

It would not hurt others because others wallets are encrypted (can't touch your c2 because of your personal key). A 51% double spend only works when the scam artist 'spends' the coins, which then 'pop' back into his wallet.

In this case, a double spend was sent to mintpal, so mintpal accounted for coins which they did not have, at this point in time, the attacker had a few million coins in his wallet and mintpal also beleived that they had those coins.

The scam artist then spends those coin credits (given to him by mintys internal accounting system) by trading them for BTC before anyone @ mintpal picks up that they (mintpal) don't really have these coins.

In our case, this actually happened several times allowing the scam artists to make mintpal beleive that he deposited 22 million coins on their exchange.

If we assume before the scam, mintpal had 10 million coins, then after the scam, mintpal beleived they had 32 million!

What would of happened then is that people would of withdrew over time all 10 million real coins from mintpal, then, someone would try to withdraw some more but there would be non to withdraw!

Mintpal would have 0 real coins but their accounting systems would show a value of +22 million.

Alarm bells ring etc etc etc.

Double spend can not affect your coins in your wallet, ever.

Double spend is exactly that, a merchant thinks he has recived payment in c2 for something and gives you what he thinks you paid for and BOOM! blockchain syncs up, double spend obliterated and the c2 isn't there.

Think of it like a credit card charge back.

This didn't happen on BTER because they wait for 100 confirmations before any deposit.

Mintpal waits for 3.

so....... it can only happen if we don't secure the block chain by leaving coins on exchanges

and it can only WORK if exchanges have fucking stupid low confirmation times like mintpal when compaired to BTER.



Thanks for pretty good description!

Actually you calmed down me regarding Bter. I am still waiting their reply.
gts476
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:05:26 PM
 #5894

No worries, bter is safe as houses.

Mintpal with 3 confirmations? Cowboys.

edit* it's 3 confirmations for BTC, not sure how many for c2. BC atm is 10 confirmations and CINNI 15. Clearly, not enough, but minty wants trading fees!

edit** well, FairCoin is 3 confirmations, if you look now @ c2 it has been changed to 100 confirmations, but it was probably @ 3 previously.

edit*** well, if I was scam artist, I would hit faircoin on minty next!

edit**** CINNI from 38k to 9k back to 15k. wtflol.

brightlight
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:27:20 PM
 #5895

No worries, bter is safe as houses.

Mintpal with 3 confirmations? Cowboys.

edit* it's 3 confirmations for BTC, not sure how many for c2. BC atm is 10 confirmations and CINNI 15. Clearly, not enough, but minty wants trading fees!

edit** well, FairCoin is 3 confirmations, if you look now @ c2 it has been changed to 100 confirmations, but it was probably @ 3 previously.

edit*** well, if I was scam artist, I would hit faircoin on minty next!

edit**** CINNI from 38k to 9k back to 15k. wtflol.




Double spend, but not detected yet  Grin Grin Grin Grin
gts476
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:43:13 PM
 #5896

No worries, bter is safe as houses.

Mintpal with 3 confirmations? Cowboys.

edit* it's 3 confirmations for BTC, not sure how many for c2. BC atm is 10 confirmations and CINNI 15. Clearly, not enough, but minty wants trading fees!

edit** well, FairCoin is 3 confirmations, if you look now @ c2 it has been changed to 100 confirmations, but it was probably @ 3 previously.

edit*** well, if I was scam artist, I would hit faircoin on minty next!

edit**** CINNI from 38k to 9k back to 15k. wtflol.




Double spend, but not detected yet  Grin Grin Grin Grin

Could be, i mean, minty clearly has low confirmations and if it has algorithms automated to audit its account that does not occur regularly enough.

+ CINNI is just a pump and dump BC clone at heart, low interest and HUGE volatility, why mint (read, why secure the blockchain)?
biggus dickus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 310
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:52:35 PM
 #5897



This didn't happen on BTER because they wait for 100 confirmations before any deposit.




I had some extremely long waits for my coins to deposit on bter. Now I understand why and it's a good thing. At the time people were complaining about bter and saying how much faster mintpal deposits were.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 07:57:03 PM
Last edit: May 17, 2014, 08:20:40 PM by DeathAndTaxes
 #5898

This didn't happen on BTER because they wait for 100 confirmations before any deposit.

This is not true when the attacker has 51% of the resource (either computing power for PoW or stake for PoS).  With >50% of the critical resource it is a mathematical certainty the attacker will eventually build the longest chain.  10 confirms, 100 confirms, 20,000 confirms isn't sufficient to guarantee the attack can't double spend.  This is the basic security assumption which forms the foundation for all decentralized crypto currencies.

The attacker picked the weaker of the two exchanges however if both mintpal and bter used 100 confirmations the attacker could have double spend both by building an parallel chain containing the double spends that resulting in a 101+ block reorg.  At block X the attacker has >50% of the network stake.  At block X+1 the transactions depositing funds to both exchanges are confirmed.  At block X+101 the funds are available for trading.  Attacker sells for another crypto currency, and withdraws.   Meanwhile the attacker has been building an alternate chain which double spends the deposits in block X+1.  At some point after block X+101 and once the traded coins have cleared and the attacker has the longer chain he publishes this alternate chain and the network reorgs to to the new longer chain and the deposit transactions to both exchanges become orphaned and invalid.
baare
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 08:14:55 PM
 #5899

On BTER or Mintpal.  Bter has raised confirm times to over 100 confirms.  It will show up but I have asked them to freeze the market.  Dont worry.  They are there.

I have 80000 C2.0 in my local my local wallet. Should I send them to Bter?
gts476
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 17, 2014, 08:24:01 PM
Last edit: May 17, 2014, 08:54:15 PM by gts476
 #5900

This didn't happen on BTER because they wait for 100 confirmations before any deposit.

This is not true when the attacker has 51% of the resource (either computing power for PoW or stake for PoS).  With >50% of the critical resource it is a mathematical certainty the attacker will eventually build the longest chain.  10 confirms, 100 confirms, 20,000 confirms isn't sufficient to guarantee the attack can't double spend.

The attacker simply picked the weaker of the two exchanges however if both mintpal and bter used 100 confirmations the attacker could have double spend both by building an parallel chain containing the double spends that resulting in a 101+ block reorg.

Whilst it is a mathematical certanity that an attacker would build the longest chain, it is not a mathematical certanity that the attacker would be able to build a chain of required length.

Probabilisticly, if you consider a case where our would be attack holds 80% of coin age at any give point in time and if we assume that this holding of coin age does not dimminish after he finds a block, then the probability of the attacker creating a blockchain in which he can take the piss is;

proability of finding next block aprox 80% = 0.8

proability of creating block chain of length n = 0.8^n

ie. the probability of attacker creating a block chain of length 3 to deposit on mintpal is

P(attack chain length 3) = 0.8^3 = 0.512 or 51%

so if we observe 100 individual 3 block creations where our attacker holds 80% of coin age 100 times we would expect the attacker to be able to create a 3 chain block 51 times out of 100.

ergo, mintpal is fucking amateur hour.

lets compair the case with bter.

chain length require is now 100, so n = 100

P(attack chain length 100) = 0.8^100 = 2.0 x 10^(-10) = 0.00000000002

so we would expect our attacker to be able to create a blockchain capable of double spending bter aproximetly 1 in every 10 billion instences of a 100 block long chain being created.

Of course if the attacker has more than 80% total coin age this again increases, however, I must point out than once coinage has been used to secure 1 block, it is nulled, and so it is not accurate to assume that the probability is discrete.

More likley the same calculation would look something like this for whatever blocks....

P(attack chain of length whatever) = 0.8x0.79x0.78 etc etc etc.

Clearly,there will be no significant difference for a attack chain of length 3, but there will for an attack chain of length 100 (but it is already very, very small).

tl;dr, yes, but mostly hell no, more confirms make a HUGE difference, mintpal fucked up.

-----------------------------------------------------------

edit* also, this would be nulled if the fucking exchange staked.

Pages: « 1 ... 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 [295] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 557 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!