NA

[Bluestreet]

intrest story

LTC wallet uncovers possible LTC pyramid scam in China!There are rumours circulating that there is a LTC scam going on in China,people need to buy and send a minimum of 500LTC to a group of investors and in return they would get a mining reward.There is a wallet found that seems to back this story up: https://coinplorer.com/LTC/Addresses/34Ae29qWAhGGTw3cSNkPygiwsgKbbCatou .

Can expect a big dump after the halving .

[MentalCollatz]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

[Altcoinfanatic]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they 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 (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

[MentalCollatz]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they 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 (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The pull request resolves it.

[Altcoinfanatic]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they 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 (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The pull request resolves it.

Can you explain the difference with your pull request and the workaround used on Saffroncoin and Myriadcoin?
I have seen your pull request but it is not sure if Digibyte will merge it or will they? Do you recommend that Guldencoin goes to multi-pow or do we need much improvements first?
I would hate to go multi-pow with Guldencoin if there are some big flaws in multi-pow? Are you willing to assist Guldencoin if we would go multi-pow?

[MaNI]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thanks, I have viewed your pull request before... It does address some of the issues, but I don't feel it addresses all of them and there are still potential problems that I'm not happy with, so I'm still not comfortable with multi algo as a general solution... Even if all these concerns are addressed I still wouldn't be 100% confident that there aren't other problems that are being missed. So while we are still discussing everything internally still I don't think we want to head towards multi really at this point...
That said it is important that things get addressed for those who are on multi algo and do feel it is the way to go, I mean it is not like they can just stop trying at this point, so do keep up the good work

[Rw13enlib88]

Suggestion to NLG Community!!

Europe/Worldwide Media is talking about #Grexit rigth now and maybe if we give journalists some motivation, they found some time to talk about Bitcoin and other alternative currencies like NLG!! 

Let's make some noise!! 

Idea:

Contact dutch journalists/famous people and propose them to download the NLG wallet and give them some coins for free in exchange

Ej Twitter:

@tiesto sounds #Bitcoin familiar to you? If you download #Guldencoin wallet, I'll give you some for free

I encourage everybody to use the same message. IMO the message it's gonna be more powerfull if everybody uses the same message (so IMO let's talk about the message first). In any case, everybody is free to choose what to say and to give.

List of dutch journalists:

Joop Bouma
Marcel Metze
Margo Smit
Jeroen Trommelen
http://www.icij.org/journalists/by-country/Netherlands

 1 Robin van Persie (@Persie_Official)
 2 Tiësto (@tiesto)
 3 Wesley Sneijder (@sneijder101010)
 4 Hardwell (@HARDWELL)
 5 MARTIN GARRIX (@MartinGarrix)
 6 Afrojack (@djafrojack)
 8 bonno van der putten (@bonnovanderputt)
 9 Nicky Romero (@nickyromero)
 10 Dirk Kuyt (@Kuyt)

http://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/twitter/profiles/netherlands/

[HR]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

[TamiLee]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

[MaNI]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Yeah, you are now focusing on a specific word (arbitrary) and ignoring the sentences that come afterwards to explain what I mean by arbitrary, I was not saying that the difficulty targeting is arbitrary, I make it quite clear that the difficulty is fine when used within each individual algorithm, so you have misunderstood.
This is anyway a 'dumbed down' explanation intended for people who don't have the full level of system/code understanding to fully evaluate what is going on, I did make that quite clear because really if I start going into the nitty details here it is just going to confuse people.

I could rebut the above and then we can argue ad infinitum about it, but honestly why, I have a whole list of constructive things I need to do with my very precious limited time. I only posted what I did to state the Guldencoin dev stance on multi and I stand by that stance. We feel the way we do for a reason, it isn't like we are suddenly going to change our minds, we are not 100% confident in multi algo and the instant that happens it would be simply poor form for us to continue to work on it. No forum argument is going to change that, the only way it might change is if someone comes with a formal proof for it, and that's not about to happen, so really why spend energy on it that we can better spend looking for better solutions.

I'm trying to be diplomatic about this, I went out of my way to *not* attack other coins in my explanation, I went to great lengths to point out why even though I feel there may be security issues they aren't necessarily at immediate risk etc. but still people keep trying to drag me into some argument about Digibyte and/or Myriad or something.. So truly I hope you don't think my comment was some attack on Digibyte or something...

Petty little 'fights' between coins is not something that interests me, I'm a builder, I'm here to build things, so really I'm not going to get dragged into this any more especially not here where very few people will understand the details anyway, Digibyte/Myriad are not my concern, I don't have any coins of either or any stake in their future and have very little personal interest in either.
Perhaps I misunderstand your intentions and you really are just concerned about your coin, and therefore want more details, if that is the case then I apologise for some of the above, it's just I feel I am not getting dragged into something that I should not be involved in.

This is the Guldencoin thread so please lets keep the discussion here about Guldencoin, this is the last I have to say on the matter in this thread. - If you want to discuss detailed technical stuff catch me on IRC when I have spare time.

[HR]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Yeah, you are now focusing on a specific word (arbitrary) and ignoring the sentences that come afterwards to explain what I mean by arbitrary, I was not saying that the difficulty targeting is arbitrary, I make it quite clear that the difficulty is fine when used within each individual algorithm, so you have misunderstood.
This is anyway a 'dumbed down' explanation intended for people who don't have the full level of system/code understanding to fully evaluate what is going on, I did make that quite clear because really if I start going into the nitty details here it is just going to confuse people.

I could rebut the above and then we can argue ad infinitum about it, but honestly why, I have a whole list of constructive things I need to do with my very precious limited time. I only posted what I did to state the Guldencoin dev stance on multi and I stand by that stance. We feel the way we do for a reason, it isn't like we are suddenly going to change our minds, we are not 100% confident in multi algo and the instant that happens it would be simply poor form for us to continue to work on it. No forum argument is going to change that, the only way it might change is if someone comes with a formal proof for it, and that's not about to happen, so really why spend energy on it that we can better spend looking for better solutions.

I'm trying to be diplomatic about this, I went out of my way to *not* attack other coins in my explanation, I went to great lengths to point out why even though I feel there may be security issues they aren't necessarily at immediate risk etc. but still people keep trying to drag me into some argument about Digibyte and/or Myriad or something.. So truly I hope you don't think my comment was some attack on Digibyte or something...

Petty little 'fights' between coins is not something that interests me, I'm a builder, I'm here to build things, so really I'm not going to get dragged into this any more especially not here where very few people will understand the details anyway, Digibyte/Myriad are not my concern, I don't have any coins of either or any stake in their future and have very little personal interest in either.

This is the Guldencoin thread lets keep the discussion about Guldencoin, this is the last I have to say on the matter in this thread. - If you want to discuss detailed technical stuff catch me on IRC when I have spare time.

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.

It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.

To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.

By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.

You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.

Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).

Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.

Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)

Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

[MaNI]

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

[HR]

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

Thank you for retracting. We have some people running around these forums saying that the sky is falling and quoting you as one of their main sources. These people can now be corrected.

For the record and to summarize your various statements from above: there is nothing with which to substantiate your claim, and even though you said that you "have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective", you were only expressing a personal opinion that you cannot support with facts and rational argument.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I did see all those qualifying phrases in you complete post, but since others chose not to pay any attention at all to them, and in interest of getting to the point without distractions, I put the issue to you in the direct, no mistaken, manner in which I did. Nothing personal, I hope you understand, and I'm sure you would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

Thanks again for the clarification, and, if you don't mind, it would be just as appreciated if you help others on the mistaken trail to recover from their error.

Cheers.

[Bluestreet]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

Aren't those algorithms ASIC resistant?

[HR]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

Aren't those algorithms ASIC resistant?

Groestl, Skein and Qubit are.

[Bluestreet]

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.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

Aren't those algorithms ASIC resistant?

Groestl, Skein and Qubit are.

He is saying he is using ASICs to mine those 3 algorithms, if this is true this isn't very good as it means he is mining dgb for practically no electrical costs.

[EPLDCC]

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

Hi MaNI.  First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful replies and engagement with recent posts related to your comments about multi-algo.  This is my first post in a forum outside of the DGB forum.  It will likely be my last post outside of that forum.

Earlier in the week, I wrote a post welcoming some new members to our DGB discussion.  Several of those new members are strong supporters of Guldencoin.  In that post I stated that I believe that Guldencoin is a great coin, with strong development, a fantastic identity, and that I believe that our two communities can easily work side by side.  I believe all of that ... without a doubt.

The issue that HR pointed out is a bit complex, and I hope I can shed light on his level of frustration.

Recently, some members of your community asked you to discuss multi-algo.  You replied.  Your reply was thoughtful and informed.  However, your response related to the role of multi-algo from the perspective of applying it to Guldencoin.  The problem is that you were slightly misled by the question that you answered.  The people who asked it were not particularly interested in application of multi-algo to Guldencoin, they were interested in criticizing multi-algo for DGB.  For the past 4 days, they have been using your comments as a foundation to undermine and condemn the DGB development team.

In all fairness, last year when DGB adopted multi-algo the level of security that it provided from a 51% attack was different in practice than it had been projected in theory (resulting from unequal distributions of the different algorithms).  Because SHA mining dominated so much of the hash power, the theoretical additional protections of multiple algorithms were reduced.  DGB is not less secure - in fact it is just as secure, if not slightly more secure - with the multi-algo process.  But in theory it would be possible to use a 51% attack.  The DGB development team began work on a new implementation (Digishield) and it is being tested and further developed - it will more than adequately address the security concerns related to the distribution of algorithms.  There is not a certain date for the release (probably late this year or early next year) but it is under active development.  I mention this simply to be entirely fair to the supporters of Guldencoin, and to you.  The concerns about multi-algo security are legitimate; they are part of DGB development and future plans.  That being said, I do not think that using your response to a question about Guldencoin is an appropriate way to attack or undermine the integrity of other coins or developers for personal gain or profit.

I want, in the end, to reinforce that I appreciate all the valuable contributions that Guldencoin supporters make to DigiByte.  And, I believe you guys have a great coin with good opportunities.  I hope that people who support Guldencoin succeed.  I hope that Guldencoin continues to succeed.   I know you have a great community here.  And, I'm proud to say that we also have a great community with DGB.  Cheers to all of you here at Guldencoin.

Eric

[TamiLee]

Recently, some members of your community asked you to discuss multi-algo.  You replied.  Your reply was thoughtful and informed.  However, your response related to the role of multi-algo from the perspective of applying it to Guldencoin.  The problem is that you were slightly misled by the question that you answered.  The people who asked it were not particularly interested in application of multi-algo to Guldencoin, they were interested in criticizing multi-algo for DGB.  For the past 4 days, they have been using your comments as a foundation to undermine and condemn the DGB development team.


Eric

AltcoinFanatic is newly created account and not part of guldencoin community.

[jwinterm]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they 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 (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

[Wildwest]

Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
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. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.

A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they 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 (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

All I see on your post history is a lot of bitching and complaining in almost every reply. Perhaps someone will dump out to your buy orders after reading this, gl it might work.