[ANN][C2.1] Coin2 | Pow/PoS | ChainOfConflict[FPS] The Future of Gaming is Now

[brightlight]

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?

Leave them in your wallet and earn PoS rewards till next announcement.

[1713888957]

1713888957

[1713888957]

1713888957

[declensions]

UPDATE:

A FEW WORDS FROM ME (THE HEAD DEV):

I sincerely apologize that the coin has been subject to an attack twice.  This is emerging technology and I am relatively busy in the real world.  However, I assure you, this coin is my passion and my real joy.  

The problem was that the exchanges had a majority of the coin in their wallets and exchanges do not stake aka "mine".  So someone did not need 51% of the 60 mil total coins.  They only needed 51% of "staking coins".  Being that most coins were on the exchanges, the attacker was able to figure out a double spend method without 51% of total coins.  

Mintpal does not have the double spend coins.  I dont know what the attacker did with them.  SO HERE IS THE PLAN.

1. We are going to make a new coin with 60 million total supply and a lower interest rate (5%)
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.
3. Any wallets created after 5/16/14<--THE DAY OF ATTACK, are invalid and WILL NOT RECEIVE NEW COINS.  This will eliminate the attackers stash of coins    and we will be left with a surplus.  Mintpal lost 22 mil coins from the double spend.  We will reimburse Mintpal, so that they can give users back their coins.  
4. The board members have decided to keep all of our coins in 2 or 3 wallets and have them staking 24/7.  This will make sure that there is always a sufficient amount of coins "minting" and will nearly eliminate 51% attack potential.
5. This will take time and we ask you to bear with us.  Again, I apologize for this.  Thank you all.  

Please do not send emails to Mintpal, Polo,or Bter they are aware of what is going on and your coins are safe.

I like this plan of action. This way the attacker will not have benefited from the double spend and everything will go back to the way it was, maybe even better.

Quick question, I withdrew a small amount of coins just after mintpal froze everything, what will happen to them? will they show up in my wallet?

Also, are you able to see how many / which wallets were created after 5/16 ?  If so we could use this information to ensure that the attackers stash of coins are absolutely eliminated, and anyone else we eliminate by mistake we could simply reimburse by them providing proof.

[gts476]

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?

Leave them in your wallet and earn PoS rewards till next announcement.

Nowhere will ever be more secure than your wallet.

Except maybe mine.  

[gts476]

@dec

Don't worry bro, if they havn't turned up then they are accounted for on the mintpal system and I recon they will be auto distributed to you when we switch over.

1 way of looking at this whole situation is like this.

The attacker sold us all his coins on the cheap. He keeps the BTC, we keep the C2.

In the long run, this guy just fucked himself in the ass!

I'd rather have a few million c2 when we hit 50k sat than a few btc now.

G.

[declensions]

yea, this is only if we are able to successfully destroy their coins

Which is why I asked, can the dev see exactly how many / which wallets were created after 5/16 ?  If so we could use this information to ensure that the attackers stash of coins are absolutely eliminated, and anyone else we eliminate by mistake we could simply reimburse by them providing proof here. Obviously if you have 100 people showing up claiming they lost 200,000 coins each or one user showing up claiming they lost 20m for example that'll be fishy

[jaayruu]

Stay away from Cinni coin. The dev deletes posts. If you arent talking about the price rising he will delete your posts. You can scream price rise! price rise! with no substantial evidence, proof, information, ANYTHING and no one cares. And if you call out people that scream fake price rise, you get banned from the thread. Good luck with Cinni, lol.

PS. do your research somewhere other than the Cinni thread. Like i said, most everything important gets deleted. You will see many posts screaming price rise, so be careful.

[KennyR]

Vote for LiteBit.eu and LitePaid.com



***** Over 3600 EU customers and rising *****
***** Pay with: iDeal, Mister Cash, SOFORT, GiroPay and SEPA *****
***** Best customer support! *****

Donate for your coin! Every donation counts for 1 vote.

https://www.litebit.eu/addcoin/en/

[nrigo]

yea, this is only if we are able to successfully destroy their coins

Which is why I asked, can the dev see exactly how many / which wallets were created after 5/16 ?  If so we could use this information to ensure that the attackers stash of coins are absolutely eliminated, and anyone else we eliminate by mistake we could simply reimburse by them providing proof here. Obviously if you have 100 people showing up claiming they lost 200,000 coins each or one user showing up claiming they lost 20m for example that'll be fishy

We (the Dev Team) are going to take all the precautions and to make the required controls before exchanging coins.

[nrigo]

@gts476

You seem very experimented to me.

What is your proposals to solve the problem or to make this coin safer ?

[gts476]

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.

little bit added at the end,

again, as I showed, the attack will never realisticly be able to build a chain this long, for the attacked to also deposit in the first place is to further diminish his total coin age.

Everyone calls it a 51% but it is not about 51% at all!

If out attacker only had 20% of total coin age under his control, assuming the initial conditions under which the probability of creating a block is discrete and coin age under control does not diminish our attacker, to rob everyone on mintpal......

block length = 4 thus n = 4

probability of creating block aprox 20% thus P(block) = 0.2

probability of creating a blockchain of length n, n = 4, is...

P(attack chain 4) = 0.2^4 = 1.6 x 10^(-3) or 1/625

which is another way of saying, with only 20% of coin age the attacker would realisticly be able to create a chain able to double spend mintpal once in every 625 times a chain of 4 is created.

HOW THE FUCK IS THIS ACCEPTABLE MINTPAL?

I'm not going to do the math for BTER, extrapolate given my last post.

[gts476]

@gts476

You seem very experimented to me.

What is your proposals to solve the problem or to make this coin safer ?

I will be by the end of summer I hope.

Simple,

What we as holders can do:

as a rule of thumb, keep your c2 in your wallets not on exchanges and keep it staking. this is how we secure our blockchain. (and dilute any wannabe attackers coin age)

What we can change @ exchange level:

Confirmations must be increased ALOT on all PoS coins, not just c2.

If an exchange wants to make money on us trading c2, they must stake coins deposited (to secure blockchain)

What we can do @ dev level:

Maybe a max coin age, but even thus won't fundamentally change the mechanic that allow this to occur. This happened because Mintpals confirmations were too low and exchanges are not staking our coins.

There is actually nothing the dev team could of done to stop this happening. blame goes straight to mintpal. (funny how the dev team have to clear up after mintpal by forking the join though, wtf fairness? taking a holiday?)

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

I believe your math is incorrect there is no probability of failure (the attack chain isn't published until it is longer and the next block solved by the attacker will always extend his chain).  It is only a question (based on variance) of how many blocks it will take before the attacker is ahead.  

Still that is the minor point so I will accept your assumption.  I don't think you realize how trivial it would be to make 10 billion attempts.  6 digit vanity addresses take an average of 38 billion attempts each and they exist.  10 billion sounds like a large number until you consider the rate at which modern hardware can compute hashes.

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

That is a fundamental error in thinking.  An increased number of confirmations improves security under the scenario where the attacker has less than a majority of the hashrate/stake.  If the attacker has a majority of the hashrate/stake then it is a certainty he can produce a longer chain.  No amount of confirmations can provide you with a level of assurance.   I don't really care if you disagree but I would hate for some noob to believe you and then wonder how an attacker did the "impossible" and performed a 100 block or even 1,000 block reorg because he had a majority of the stake.

[Glen Hoddle]

This is a really interesting discussion and it's fascinating reading two knowledgeable people discussing the minutiae of this event.

What do you both suggest as the best way to invalidate the attackers coins?

This is more of a question for DeathandTaxes really as gts476 has already answered that I think.

[gts476]

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.

I believe your math is incorrect there is no probability of failure (the attack chain isn't published until it is longer and the next block solved by the attacker will always extend his chain).  It is only a question (based on variance) of how many blocks it will take before the attacker is ahead.  

Still that is the minor point so I will accept your assumption.  I don't think you realize how trivial it would be to make 10 billion attempts.  It would be like saying vanity addresses that have 6 digits are impossible because it would take 38 billion attempts on average to compute one.  10 billion sounds like a large number until you consider the rate at which modern hardware can compute hashes.

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

That is a fundamental error in thinking.  An increased number of confirmations improves security under the scenario where the attacker has less than a majority of the hashrate/stake.  If the attacker has a majority of the hashrate/stake then it is a certainty he can produce a longer chain.  No amount of confirmations can provide you with a level of assurance.   I don't really care if you disagree but I would hate for some noob to believe you and then wonder how an attacker did the "impossible" and performed a 100 block or even 1,000 block reorg because he had a majority of the stake.

May have to concede your point, my assumption is predicated on a proof of stake system ala nxt, using a deterministic algorithm to sudo randomly select the user to create the next block based on acculmulated coin age. If this is true, I'm right.
If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

G.

[gts476]

This is a really interesting discussion and it's fascinating reading two knowledgeable people discussing the minutiae of this event.

What do you both suggest as the best way to invalidate the attackers coins?

This is more of a question for DeathandTaxes really as gts476 has already answered that I think.

Quick and dirty way is to create a monoply controled by the devs which is always minting but never used, this fixes the problem.

Long way would be (if we are staking like mintcoin), to change to a PoS system like NXT and impose an upper limit on coinAge (which is to say an upper limit on the probability of finding a block / maybe, got to look at the math).

G.

[R4v37]

This is a really interesting discussion and it's fascinating reading two knowledgeable people discussing the minutiae of this event.

What do you both suggest as the best way to invalidate the attackers coins?

This is more of a question for DeathandTaxes really as gts476 has already answered that I think.

Quick and dirty way is to create a monoply controled by the devs which is always minting but never used, this fixes the problem.

Long way would be (if we are staking like mintcoin), to change to a PoS system like NXT and impose an upper limit on coinAge (which is to say an upper limit on the probability of finding a block / maybe, got to look at the math).

G.

agree with the 1st solution 

[DeathAndTaxes]

If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

[nrigo]

If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

It is.

[gts476]

If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

Outstanding, then all we need to do if hardfork into the NXT PoS block allocation system, problem solved.

I can't code c++ yet but would be interested to know if and upper limit on coin age could be coded relative to instantaneous network coin age.

on a side note i'm a fan of a quick and dirty fork with a dev controlled majority to be unwound as c2 becomes more decentralised.

G.

[jibble]

If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

Outstanding, then all we need to do if hardfork into the NXT PoS block allocation system, problem solved.

I can't code c++ yet but would be interested to know if and upper limit on coin age could be coded relative to instantaneous network coin age.

on a side note i'm a fan of a quick and dirty fork with a dev controlled majority to be unwound as c2 becomes more decentralised.

G.

Most coins with huge amounts being held by dev's usually have the problem of having stunted growth. Icoin had the same problem constant declining price and then they sold off the huge pre-mine in an IPO .

If we formed a small group with large bag holders who have the intention of holding for a long time relaying with each other and reminding each other to keep staking that should be enough, some people hold millions, its easily possible to have at least 15-20 million staking at all times this way.

then there wouldn't be the large amount being held problem, which for anyone who has been into C2 for a large amount of time knows this isn't actually a problem, but for newcomers and interested people looking in without anything knowledge or rapport seeing huge wallet. most people in crypto are hugely paranoid anyway lol