[ANN] [NAUT] Nautiluscoin - First Coin w/Stabilization Fund - Digishield

[FlyingMongoose]

PoS Update


We are in the process of making sure the code is stable, we do not want to release anything that is unstable or not secure.  I apologize for the long delay, but implementing PoS into an existing PoW chain is quite complicated.

I will give a loose date of Thursday for the code to be complete and beta testing to begin. I will also send the code to Julian to have it audited.

Thanks for sticking with NAUT and I hope to surprise everyone on time!!!

-BK

Thanks for the update BK


Don't forget to donate to the Facebook advertisement campaign (by hardcoreprime a.k.a. hcp)
NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

Don't forget to vote
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade.html
https://bter.com/voting
https://hitbtc.com/vote
https://www.swaphole.com/#!voting
http://www.betbycoin.com/coinvotes/

[E88]

Be smart. Be safe.  Get all NAUT off MintPal now. And everything else. Not worth the risk. 

[scrypto]

Be smart. Be safe.  Get all NAUT off MintPal now. And everything else. Not worth the risk. 

I'm moved some off.. but I think it's an overreaction to take everything off. There's many fear pedlars in the forums and twitter who have a blatant anti-mintpal agenda.  The twitter crypto crew who attempt to behave like helpful traders are really a bunch of loosely coordinated scammers.

[E88]

Be smart. Be safe.  Get all NAUT off MintPal now. And everything else. Not worth the risk. 

I'm moved some off.. but I think it's an overreaction to take everything off. There's many fear pedlars in the forums and twitter who have a blatant anti-mintpal agenda.  The twitter crypto crew who attempt to behave like helpful traders are really a bunch of loosely coordinated scammers.

All you need to do is read MintPals own release:

https://support.mintpal.com/index.php?module=announce&sec=view&id=18

"How did the attack happen?
The malicious user was able to inject a withdrawal request directly into our database bypassing the risk control measures that we have in place. We have found no evidence that our server infrastructure was directly accessed in the attack."

"What about COLD storage?
This is perhaps the most important question we have been asked. We did have COLD storage setup for VRC, however in this instance, due to an error for which only we can be accountable, we had transferred far fewer coins than was required, resulting in a large proportion of coins being left in the HOT wallet."

Per their statement this was a Mintpal issue. Further they failed to properly use cold storage. Basic common sense: You should not be trusting them right now for any coin. If you have been around crypto for any length of time you should know that about exchanges by now.

Be safe, remove all coins. It's not worth the risk. They have not earned trust. No exchange has.

[kehtolo]

Be smart. Be safe.  Get all NAUT off MintPal now. And everything else. Not worth the risk. 

I'm moved some off.. but I think it's an overreaction to take everything off. There's many fear pedlars in the forums and twitter who have a blatant anti-mintpal agenda.  The twitter crypto crew who attempt to behave like helpful traders are really a bunch of loosely coordinated scammers.

+1 aint that the truth... the last week has been one helluva eyeopener!!

[Doging]

We should be going POS by Thursday so we might need to think about:

Wallet app
Multipool
Moolah
Website update
Front page update
Staking video guide

I probably missed something . We might need to sort some bounties out.

[asnghost]

We should be going POS by Thursday so we might need to think about:

Wallet app
Multipool
Moolah
Website update
Front page update
Staking video guide

I probably missed something . We might need to sort some bounties out.

Wasn't Thursday the beta testing starts.
That would probably take a couple of days and if success then the live implementations starts?

[Doging]

We should be going POS by Thursday so we might need to think about:

Wallet app
Multipool
Moolah
Website update
Front page update
Staking video guide

I probably missed something . We might need to sort some bounties out.

Wasn't Thursday the beta testing starts.
That would probably take a couple of days and if success then the live implementations starts?

My mistake, could be ready this weekend though. I'd like to see the multipool ready to go at least.

Is this going to be the official multipool? http://www.nautpool.com/

[mdtspain]

The bigger problem in all this is the "rollback", or the ability to do so.  Crypto has a real world trust issue and this makes it 100 times worse.  If I am a merchant there is no way in hell now that I would accept digital currency as now I have no idea if I get to keep my money. If the ledger can be rolled back on a whim then decentralized currencies are dead.

M/C and Visa have this issue to an extent but they cannot roll back an entire public ledger for as far back as they want to go.  Also, they are already entrenched where crypto is just getting a foothold. 

Fungibility is extremely important.  Trust is extremely important.  Confidence is extremely important.  This is not a Vericoin problem.  This is a digital currency problem.  This affects the entire cryptosphere. This is now our problem. 

I am converting all my holdings to BTC and hoping that it will weather the storm.  If it begins to take a hit back to fiat I go.  It sucks but the bed has been made now.  Not being chicken little here, just being objective and safe with my investments.

Exactly !!!!++++++

Nothing more to add

[BK_PHI]

The bigger problem in all this is the "rollback", or the ability to do so.  Crypto has a real world trust issue and this makes it 100 times worse.  If I am a merchant there is no way in hell now that I would accept digital currency as now I have no idea if I get to keep my money. If the ledger can be rolled back on a whim then decentralized currencies are dead.

M/C and Visa have this issue to an extent but they cannot roll back an entire public ledger for as far back as they want to go.  Also, they are already entrenched where crypto is just getting a foothold. 

Fungibility is extremely important.  Trust is extremely important.  Confidence is extremely important.  This is not a Vericoin problem.  This is a digital currency problem.  This affects the entire cryptosphere. This is now our problem. 

I am converting all my holdings to BTC and hoping that it will weather the storm.  If it begins to take a hit back to fiat I go.  It sucks but the bed has been made now.  Not being chicken little here, just being objective and safe with my investments.

Exactly !!!!++++++

Nothing more to add

I could not agree more with this!  This is a 51% attack and completely invalidates the decentralized nature of digital currencies. The blockchain is sacred, without its integrity digital currencies are nothing more than a couple thousand lines of code.


I will make this pledge right now: I will never change the blockchain.  If digital currencies are to succeed the blockchain must be sacred.

[Doging]

The bigger problem in all this is the "rollback", or the ability to do so.  Crypto has a real world trust issue and this makes it 100 times worse.  If I am a merchant there is no way in hell now that I would accept digital currency as now I have no idea if I get to keep my money. If the ledger can be rolled back on a whim then decentralized currencies are dead.

M/C and Visa have this issue to an extent but they cannot roll back an entire public ledger for as far back as they want to go.  Also, they are already entrenched where crypto is just getting a foothold. 

Fungibility is extremely important.  Trust is extremely important.  Confidence is extremely important.  This is not a Vericoin problem.  This is a digital currency problem.  This affects the entire cryptosphere. This is now our problem. 

I am converting all my holdings to BTC and hoping that it will weather the storm.  If it begins to take a hit back to fiat I go.  It sucks but the bed has been made now.  Not being chicken little here, just being objective and safe with my investments.

Exactly !!!!++++++

Nothing more to add

I could not agree more with this!  This is a 51% attack and completely invalidates the decentralized nature of digital currencies. The blockchain is sacred, without its integrity digital currencies are nothing more than a couple thousand lines of code.


I will make this pledge right now: I will never change the blockchain.  If digital currencies are to succeed the blockchain must be sacred.

Scrypto asked if it would be possible to modify the core code to prevent rollbacks. Is this possible?

[mdtspain]

The bigger problem in all this is the "rollback", or the ability to do so.  Crypto has a real world trust issue and this makes it 100 times worse.  If I am a merchant there is no way in hell now that I would accept digital currency as now I have no idea if I get to keep my money. If the ledger can be rolled back on a whim then decentralized currencies are dead.

M/C and Visa have this issue to an extent but they cannot roll back an entire public ledger for as far back as they want to go.  Also, they are already entrenched where crypto is just getting a foothold.  

Fungibility is extremely important.  Trust is extremely important.  Confidence is extremely important.  This is not a Vericoin problem.  This is a digital currency problem.  This affects the entire cryptosphere. This is now our problem.  

I am converting all my holdings to BTC and hoping that it will weather the storm.  If it begins to take a hit back to fiat I go.  It sucks but the bed has been made now.  Not being chicken little here, just being objective and safe with my investments.

Exactly !!!!++++++

Nothing more to add

I could not agree more with this!  This is a 51% attack and completely invalidates the decentralized nature of digital currencies. The blockchain is sacred, without its integrity digital currencies are nothing more than a couple thousand lines of code.


I will make this pledge right now: I will never change the blockchain.  If digital currencies are to succeed the blockchain must be sacred.

Scrypto asked if it would be possible to modify the core code to prevent rollbacks. Is this possible?

Makes you think....that the next hype in crypto will be a No-Rollback-Code (NRC)

[BK_PHI]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

[mdtspain]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

[BK_PHI]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment. 

[BTCrawl]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment. 

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

[mdtspain]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.  

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

[hardcoreprime]

Daily Facebook Advertisement Update.  We have had 214 Website clicks and 66,000 impressions on campaign #1!



We have received 400 Naut! or 0.138987*400 = $55.60 USD in Donations which will extend the ad for 11 more Days!  (July 25th)

http://nautinsight.buddylabsapps.com/address/NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

--------
The Donation period is now over.  Thanks for all of your help!

HCP


---------------------
On another note I will be leaving to go on holidays on Thursday July 16,  I will let the campaign run in the meantime, however i wont be able to give full daily updates.
I will give full updates as soon as i get back on July 26.

[SwedishGirl]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.  

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

[mdtspain]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.  

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

Any idea how to avoid the possibility of a 51% attack?