[ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released

[pingdigi]

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

this simply is not true at all...

in a PoW coin you have to convince the miners to adopt the new fork.
If 51% of the miners do not agree then the fork simply does not happen.

due to its size and also its PoW implementation it would be virtually impossible for the bitcoin devs to do something like this with bitcoin without first gaining the consensus from mining community.

miners play a vital role in securing the network not only from outside attacks but from internal misuse of power. they are separate from stake holders with separate interests so they act as a counterbalance.

in a PoS coin there are no miners so there is no separation of powers.
in theory stake holders should play that vital role of making sure that power is not abused.
in practice however.. stake holders do what they are told or get locked out of the system.

this is not just a problem for PoS coins, it does affect all small growing coins, the PoS part merely amplifies problem because some crucial checks and balances are removed.

so I reiterate that it really isn't true at all so say that ANY coin can be rolled back. Some are many orders of magnitude more difficult to roll back than others.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

[criptix]

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

this simply is not true at all...

in a PoW coin you have to convince the miners to adopt the new fork.
If 51% of the miners do not agree then the fork simply does not happen.

due to its size and also its PoW implementation it would be virtually impossible for the bitcoin devs to do something like this with bitcoin without first gaining the consensus from mining community.

miners play a vital role in securing the network not only from outside attacks but from internal misuse of power. they are separate from stake holders with separate interests so they act as a counterbalance.

in a PoS coin there are no miners so there is no separation of powers.
in theory stake holders should play that vital role of making sure that power is not abused.
in practice however.. stake holders do what they are told or get locked out of the system.

this is not just a problem for PoS coins, it does affect all small growing coins, the PoS part merely amplifies problem because some crucial checks and balances are removed.

so I reiterate that it really isn't true at all so say that ANY coin can be rolled back. Some are many orders of magnitude more difficult to roll back than others.

the best example are all the miners mining at ghash.io with 51+% am i right?
pos/pow have the same problems

[MAD945]

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

this simply is not true at all...

in a PoW coin you have to convince the miners to adopt the new fork.
If 51% of the miners do not agree then the fork simply does not happen.

due to its size and also its PoW implementation it would be virtually impossible for the bitcoin devs to do something like this with bitcoin without first gaining the consensus from mining community.

miners play a vital role in securing the network not only from outside attacks but from internal misuse of power. they are separate from stake holders with separate interests so they act as a counterbalance.

in a PoS coin there are no miners so there is no separation of powers.
in theory stake holders should play that vital role of making sure that power is not abused.
in practice however.. stake holders do what they are told or get locked out of the system.

this is not just a problem for PoS coins, it does affect all small growing coins, the PoS part merely amplifies problem because some crucial checks and balances are removed.

so I reiterate that it really isn't true at all so say that ANY coin can be rolled back. Some are many orders of magnitude more difficult to roll back than others.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

Damn...you beat me to it lol

If a disastrous event happened that effected miners and holders of Bitcoin and the only way to fix the problem was the Devs to hard fork....what do think would happen?

[GridWorker]

You know what's funny, if the fud were invested enough they could have swung the wallet the other way.

[Alphi]

the best example are all the miners mining at ghash.io with 51+% am i right?
pos/pow have the same problems

no you are not right at all..

miners having 51% of the power to produce coins for very limited period of time is not the same thing as stake holders with 51% of the coins and the power to create 51% of all future coins for eternity.
this is why the vericoin devs had to take such drastic action when someone had a mere 30% of the coins.

also a pool having 51% of the hashing power is not the same thing as a single entity having that much power because miners would simply move if the power was being abused.

pos and pow have very different problems.

[FUD_master]

My  answer to LTC dev FUDDER : (http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/2apsj7/litecoin_developers_will_never_fork_litecoin_to/ciycbhd ) , i know he will delete the answer , so i post it here for other stupid fudders) :

snip

The LTC dev's comment is the reason I dumped LTC this morning.  Felt great!  Try it, anyone else that has LTC.

[Alphi]

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

this simply is not true at all...

in a PoW coin you have to convince the miners to adopt the new fork.
If 51% of the miners do not agree then the fork simply does not happen.

due to its size and also its PoW implementation it would be virtually impossible for the bitcoin devs to do something like this with bitcoin without first gaining the consensus from mining community.

miners play a vital role in securing the network not only from outside attacks but from internal misuse of power. they are separate from stake holders with separate interests so they act as a counterbalance.

in a PoS coin there are no miners so there is no separation of powers.
in theory stake holders should play that vital role of making sure that power is not abused.
in practice however.. stake holders do what they are told or get locked out of the system.

this is not just a problem for PoS coins, it does affect all small growing coins, the PoS part merely amplifies problem because some crucial checks and balances are removed.

so I reiterate that it really isn't true at all so say that ANY coin can be rolled back. Some are many orders of magnitude more difficult to roll back than others.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

Damn...you beat me to it lol

If a disastrous event happened that effected miners and holders of Bitcoin and the only way to fix the problem was the Devs to hard fork....what do think would happen?

no doubt that when a coin is faced with a fundamental problem which could break it going forward the only option is to hard fork.
I think you are missing the point though..

because of the centralization of power it was all too easy to force this coin into a position where it was faced with such a dilema.
and it was all too easy for the devs to force change upon the community.

perhaps you are too busy arguing theoretical when you cannot even see the reality of the situation in front of you.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

humans have space flight they *CAN* fly the moon and they *CAN* fly to the next solar system.

your missing the point that one is possible.. and the other is currently practically impossible.

[smoothie]

....
Let's make some math:
- Mintpal's daily volume was around BTC 2.5K, some BTC 5 daily revenues or US$ 2500 (based on 0.2% transaction fee)
- VRC 8M were valued at some US$1.65M
- This means some 660 days of MintPal's revenues
- Let's assume some VRC 12K coins as an average position
- This means some 660 people were holding their coins at MP

Conclusions:
1) MP would never be able to pay and would go bankrupt
2) As an immediate consequence, all 660 VRC holders would loose their money
3) With 30% of VRC coins out there available for further attacks, VRC would crash and all people holding it would loose their money

So, please, let not fool ourselves: It was not about saving MintPal. It was about saving the coin and the investors' money.

Image damage was done on all POS coins from PPC Nova..BC...XC...to VRC will surfer
and with rollback you give all POW coins golden bullet to shot in POS...
Right direction would be improve POS security to 90% resistance like NXT - not magic rollbacks.

And whole black marketing has started like that one:
http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/2apsj7/litecoin_developers_will_never_fork_litecoin_to/ciycbhd

Coblee just shot himself in the foot potentially. Does he think saying he won't fork will seperate him from any of the other crypto that are in the game right now? Not even under circumstances that would benefit his community. I wonder how many people will sell out of LTC and move funds here after hearing that. I certainly don't want my money with a "idealist" instead of someone more practical. Not when crypto needs a team more practical to go mainstream.

You are telling me. If the developer is capable, and the whole community votes for it, he won't allow to stop the fraud??

WOW I WILL NEVER BUY LITECOIN!

Perhaps you should address Coblee's scenario of what could happen as opposed to dancing around the issue:

what's stopping MintPal or another exchange from pulling this move:

1) Create a SQL injection vulnerability on your exchange and leave it there
2) Attack yourself and steal your own VRC
3) Take the VRC and deposit it to other anonymous crypto/crypto exchanges and buy BTC with it and withdraw them
4) Cry foul to the VRC devs and show proof that you were hacked by a SQL injection
5) If the devs roll back, then you just effectively double spent all your VRC (or as much as you could given the liquidity of VRC). And the other exchanges lose
6) If the devs don't roll back, then you tell people that you've been hacked and X% of the coin now belongs to the thief and the thief can attack the network. Watch VRC/BTC drop like a rock. Then buy back the VRC with your BTC and return the VRC to your customers.

[Fippy]

Truth be told, I just wanna see some hacker steal 4+ million Bitcoins, just to see how Bitcoin would react.

Then we could end this silly "right or wrong" debate once and for all.

[criptix]

the best example are all the miners mining at ghash.io with 51+% am i right?
pos/pow have the same problems

no you are not right at all..

miners having 51% of the power to produce coins for very limited period of time is not the same thing as stake holders with 51% of the coins and the power to create 51% of all future coins for eternity.
this is why the vericoin devs had to take such drastic action when someone had a mere 30% of the coins.

also a pool having 51% of the hashing power is not the same thing as a single entity having that much power because miners would simply move if the power was being abused.

pos and pow have very different problems.

i dont understand your argument why miners have only a limited time? do you mean because the network hashrate can increase?
that argument doesn't revoke anything because the entity with over 51% can just buy/produce more hashpower.

even if i give you the point that a pool might not count as a single entity, because miners could leave if the pool acts in a malicious way -
bitcoin is facing the same problem when an entity decides to buy/produce more then 51% hashpower - tbh even 35% is enough, but u should know it if you read the thousands of articles about it.

[buy4crypto]

....
Let's make some math:
- Mintpal's daily volume was around BTC 2.5K, some BTC 5 daily revenues or US$ 2500 (based on 0.2% transaction fee)
- VRC 8M were valued at some US$1.65M
- This means some 660 days of MintPal's revenues
- Let's assume some VRC 12K coins as an average position
- This means some 660 people were holding their coins at MP

Conclusions:
1) MP would never be able to pay and would go bankrupt
2) As an immediate consequence, all 660 VRC holders would loose their money
3) With 30% of VRC coins out there available for further attacks, VRC would crash and all people holding it would loose their money

So, please, let not fool ourselves: It was not about saving MintPal. It was about saving the coin and the investors' money.

Image damage was done on all POS coins from PPC Nova..BC...XC...to VRC will surfer
and with rollback you give all POW coins golden bullet to shot in POS...
Right direction would be improve POS security to 90% resistance like NXT - not magic rollbacks.

And whole black marketing has started like that one:
http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/2apsj7/litecoin_developers_will_never_fork_litecoin_to/ciycbhd

Coblee just shot himself in the foot potentially. Does he think saying he won't fork will seperate him from any of the other crypto that are in the game right now? Not even under circumstances that would benefit his community. I wonder how many people will sell out of LTC and move funds here after hearing that. I certainly don't want my money with a "idealist" instead of someone more practical. Not when crypto needs a team more practical to go mainstream.

You are telling me. If the developer is capable, and the whole community votes for it, he won't allow to stop the fraud??

WOW I WILL NEVER BUY LITECOIN!

Perhaps you should address Coblee's scenario of what could happen as opposed to dancing around the issue:

what's stopping MintPal or another exchange from pulling this move:

1) Create a SQL injection vulnerability on your exchange and leave it there
2) Attack yourself and steal your own VRC
3) Take the VRC and deposit it to other anonymous crypto/crypto exchanges and buy BTC with it and withdraw them
4) Cry foul to the VRC devs and show proof that you were hacked by a SQL injection
5) If the devs roll back, then you just effectively double spent all your VRC (or as much as you could given the liquidity of VRC). And the other exchanges lose
6) If the devs don't roll back, then you tell people that you've been hacked and X% of the coin now belongs to the thief and the thief can attack the network. Watch VRC/BTC drop like a rock. Then buy back the VRC with your BTC and return the VRC to your customers.

What he said was, I value idealism, over practicality, I heard everything I needed to, Will never invest in litecoin again.

My money is not safe when someone refuses to help the community due to a certain "purist" view. Certainly allowing thievery? There is a better way. To say he would never fix the blockchain EVER to rollback transactions shows he has a lack of vision for how to ever fix the problem if it happened. So instead he points the finger.

[pnosker]

Please don't attack Charlie Lee (coblee). He owns VeriCoin and is family. His criticism is justified.

[megadestruct61]

Truth be told, I just wanna see some hacker steal 4+ million Bitcoins, just to see how Bitcoin would react.

Then we could end this silly "right or wrong" debate once and for all.

Since I'm sure there is no one place that 4 million Bitcoins are stored and I hope there never is that will not happen.

[Wulfcastle]

People are worried that this might set precedent for other coins to respond the same. An example would be if Bitcoin did this when Mt.Gox happened.

Bitcoin has forked two times, significantly. One was in 2010 when someone was able to mint billions of Bitcoins. They had to go back 100 transactions and reset the chain. Thankfully, the network was really small then, and all the developers had to do was get to the big pools and tell them to update their codes. Bitcoin was really small, and no one cared about it, so it didn’t get much attention.

The second event was where Bitcoin was updating from, I believe, 0.7 to 0.8. People didn’t like the 0.8 change, so some people didn’t move over. Basically, they were competing on two parallel chains for a long time. Eventually, the developers decided to revert back to 0.7.

When people say we’re abusing our power, that’s fine; they can say what they want to. I don’t think of it that way, because we were going out of our way to prevent the coin from dying off. Most of the people who are critical of this are people that don’t own it and are people that want another coin to succeed. They attack every coin and right now it’s a good opportunity to attack VeriCoin.

------

There is more, read the full article @ http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/vericoin-developer-speaks-ccn-mintpal-hardfork/2014/07/15

That is the mos important part.
The dev decided to make a change but the people didn't.
And in the end it was the users that decided the which chain was the right one.

Here there was decision taken by a few to protect a business , nothing more.

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

So bravo VeriCoin devs! You did a good thing, and although people are upset you violated some sort of imaginary moral law, the problem that has always been there is now front and centre.

If you don't like it, show me the code to fix the problem.

Well you see Bitcoin had to fork there, as that hack exploited a flaw in the protocol. VeriCoin on the other hand had no need to fork as there was no flaw in the underlying protocol, this hack on MintPal was simply a theft.

[buy4crypto]

People are worried that this might set precedent for other coins to respond the same. An example would be if Bitcoin did this when Mt.Gox happened.

Bitcoin has forked two times, significantly. One was in 2010 when someone was able to mint billions of Bitcoins. They had to go back 100 transactions and reset the chain. Thankfully, the network was really small then, and all the developers had to do was get to the big pools and tell them to update their codes. Bitcoin was really small, and no one cared about it, so it didn’t get much attention.

The second event was where Bitcoin was updating from, I believe, 0.7 to 0.8. People didn’t like the 0.8 change, so some people didn’t move over. Basically, they were competing on two parallel chains for a long time. Eventually, the developers decided to revert back to 0.7.

When people say we’re abusing our power, that’s fine; they can say what they want to. I don’t think of it that way, because we were going out of our way to prevent the coin from dying off. Most of the people who are critical of this are people that don’t own it and are people that want another coin to succeed. They attack every coin and right now it’s a good opportunity to attack VeriCoin.

------

There is more, read the full article @ http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/vericoin-developer-speaks-ccn-mintpal-hardfork/2014/07/15

That is the mos important part.
The dev decided to make a change but the people didn't.
And in the end it was the users that decided the which chain was the right one.

Here there was decision taken by a few to protect a business , nothing more.

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

So bravo VeriCoin devs! You did a good thing, and although people are upset you violated some sort of imaginary moral law, the problem that has always been there is now front and centre.

If you don't like it, show me the code to fix the problem.

Well you see Bitcoin had to fork there, as it was a flaw in the protocol. VeriCoin on the other hand had no need to fork as there was no flaw, it was simply a theft.

Theft is what keeps people away from bitcoin's. You saw the headlines about gox right, you saw it go from 1,000+ to > $300. A lot of investors where burned and never came back, outsiders stay away from crypto due to those headlines.

[smoothie]

Interesting discussion. I am glad the VRC developer at least addressed the concern even though I personally disagree with him only having 2 options. The 3rd option is to let the coin die and start a new.

LINK: http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/2apsj7/litecoin_developers_will_never_fork_litecoin_to/

[–]pnosker 5 points 9 hours ago
Well said. If we thought we had any other option, we would never have forked. But to not fork would guarantee the death of VeriCoin. I'm sure you realize how difficult of a decision it was for us.
permalink

[–]cobleeLitecoin Founder 11 points 6 hours ago
Yes, I do realize the position PoS has put you in. But I think in the long term, it would have been best to not fork. Sure, you arguably saved the currency. What would you do if this happens again? And it will happen again. How much of a theft would you deem big enough to require another fork? 50%? 25%? 10%? Where do you draw the line? And why are the devs responsible for making this decision? Who's to decide whether or not this was a theft? How can anyone even be sure? What if MintPal sold those Vericoins to someone else in a private deal and cried foul to the devs? Not that it is likely, but how would you know for sure? Are you going to fork the coin and effectively help them double spend?
You've opened up Pandora's box by doing this. I believe it is not the right decision. There are lines that the devs should not cross, and this is one of them. Devs should not play monetary policy with their coins. You need to play by the rules that you set out at the start. It is a slippery slope when you can change the rules on a whim.
That said, this is just my opinion. There's no rule or law that says you can't do this. But if the US starts to regulate cryptocurrency as real currencies, I'm positive they will view this action as illegal. Right now, developers can claim that they are working on software and not creating money and that the money is creation is decentralized. Once you start making monetary policy decisions with your coin, you can no longer make that claim.

Unfortunately I/the other VeriCoin developers were put into a position that no other coin developer has ever been put into:
We knew the coin was at the risk of an attack and there was something we could do about it.
Bitcoin has never faced this issue. Litecoin has never faced this issue. No other PoS coin has faced this issue.
When someone is faced with a critical question like this with very little decision-making time it is very difficult to make a wise decision. We quickly analyzed the blockchain and determined that if the coin count was above 6 million coins it was able to attack the coin by mechanism of a 51% attack. That left us with only two options: Fork (like we did) or to blacklist the new addresses in a wallet update and hope people upgraded before the thief sent the coins to new addresses.
We decided that the only feasable way to handle this was to reverse the blockchain to a state prior to the attack as upgrading over 51% of the wallets in time would be too difficult/impossible and even if we did, those 8M coins could potentially still override that based on the fact that it could have over 51% of stake due to the quantity of coins.
Yes, there's clearly a downside to PoS which is that it's attackable without necessary investment. To attack Litecoin like this you would have to physically steal many mining farms. PoS coins can be attacked by stealing a wallet file.
But, it must be understood that we had been given information from both MintPal as well as performed our own analyses of the blockchain to determine that in fact these 8M coins were indeed stolen, not subject to some back alley deals, and the transaction volume excluding these 8M coins was magnitudes smaller in amount than the stolen coin volume. In our minds, we had the ability to preserve the coin by preventing an illicit 51% attack in the future. In addition to that, and less significantly, we had the ability to return funds to those whom it was stolen from.
There are critics of our actions who in their minds rightly say we are not following in the footsteps of Bitcoin. But there are significant differences between what happened with VeriCoin and what happened ever, with any other coin. No coin has ever had 30% of it stolen in one transaction. No coin has ever gone from no risk of 51% attack to high risk in a single transaction due to an illicit transfer. We made a very very hard choice, and it's one that has kept VeriCoin alive.
Now we can all say maybe we shouldn't be trusted as developers. That's fine. I will officially announce now that if the community would prefer for me to step down as a developer for VeriCoin I will do so. I don't think it's the right decision, but it's something I will do to preserve the integrity of the coin. Otherwise, I can promise you that this is something that will never happen again with VeriCoin. We did it once. It now serves a very important lesson to all of Crypto: DO NOT STORE YOUR COINS ON AN EXCHANGE AND EXPECT THEM TO BE SAFE.
With that thought hopefully engrained into the minds of all that deal with Crypto, I hope that if nothing else, people learn that lesson.
Thanks for your criticism. You have been a great role model for me and you have been very helpful to me in our private conversations. I really admire you disagreeing with our actions because it sets a good precedent for Litecoin, where a 30% theft is a big deal but not one that will destroy the coin.
permalinkparent

[–]cobleeLitecoin Founder [score hidden] 7 minutes ago
Thanks Patrick. I think making a public statement on what the devs will and will not do in the future is important.
For the 51% stake attack concern, why are you concerned that someone with 30% of the coin will attack the network? Doesn't PoS mean that since people with stake wouldn't want to hurt their own investment, they won't attack the network with their coins. I think the thief would behave the same way. Because they would want to sell the stolen coins for the most amount of money, they will slowly sell the coins instead of attacking.

You have no excuse. You damaged the entire reputation of cryptocurrencies for your own selfishness. Breaking core principles to get out of your own bind is not an excuse. You should have killed the coin. Go down with your ship, have some honor.
Instead you decided to be a parasitic group focused on short sighted gains and your own selfishness. Nice job.
permalinkparent

[–]pnosker -1 points 3 hours ago
Maybe your core principles are different than mine. But for me, knowing I could do something without much disruption that could save a $6M economy is reason enough to do it. If we did nothing, VeriCoin would be dead right now.
permalinkparent

[–]jentfoo 2 points 2 hours ago
Vericoin likely will still die from this. As coblee pointed out, you created a precedent that looses all trust. I would never want to accept a currency that could be reversed by the developers deciding to hard fork due to poor security on an exchange. It's inappropriate, and it has caused a complete loss in trust in the currency. Once you lost trust in the currency, it has no value

[–]until0 0 points 2 hours ago
If we did nothing, VeriCoin would be dead right now.
Correct. Did I make a exploitable algorithm and release it to the world or did you?
But for me, knowing I could do something without much disruption that could save a $6M economy is reason enough to do it.
Oh, I forgot you decided that for a de-centralized currency. Did you use the Offical Disruption Measurement Scale to confirm that, or the un-official one?
Anyway, I'm sure the entire comunity suppported your decision anyway. I mean you had almost 300 total votes and approximately 70%, that's clearly a total sweep. Did anyone outside of MintPal/Vericoin support this decision? Not like it would matter, because you only care about yourself anyway. Good job /u/pnosker.
You are a parasite to cryptography in general. Please leave the community, how many other people outside of VeriCoin need to tell you this.
permalinkparent

[–]Knerd5 1 point 2 hours ago
You gave a dying patient a shot of adrenaline. You now have two options:
Let the patient die
Continue unethical practices

[Reavon]

Can someone tell me when mint pal  opens vrc/but trades again?  It's time to get some more coins  from weak hands to strongholds like me.  I hope for some big sell walls, for me it's kinda hard buy up much vericoin without causing a panic buy with this coin...

[criptix]

People are worried that this might set precedent for other coins to respond the same. An example would be if Bitcoin did this when Mt.Gox happened.

Bitcoin has forked two times, significantly. One was in 2010 when someone was able to mint billions of Bitcoins. They had to go back 100 transactions and reset the chain. Thankfully, the network was really small then, and all the developers had to do was get to the big pools and tell them to update their codes. Bitcoin was really small, and no one cared about it, so it didn’t get much attention.

The second event was where Bitcoin was updating from, I believe, 0.7 to 0.8. People didn’t like the 0.8 change, so some people didn’t move over. Basically, they were competing on two parallel chains for a long time. Eventually, the developers decided to revert back to 0.7.

When people say we’re abusing our power, that’s fine; they can say what they want to. I don’t think of it that way, because we were going out of our way to prevent the coin from dying off. Most of the people who are critical of this are people that don’t own it and are people that want another coin to succeed. They attack every coin and right now it’s a good opportunity to attack VeriCoin.

------

There is more, read the full article @ http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/vericoin-developer-speaks-ccn-mintpal-hardfork/2014/07/15

That is the mos important part.
The dev decided to make a change but the people didn't.
And in the end it was the users that decided the which chain was the right one.

Here there was decision taken by a few to protect a business , nothing more.

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

So bravo VeriCoin devs! You did a good thing, and although people are upset you violated some sort of imaginary moral law, the problem that has always been there is now front and centre.

If you don't like it, show me the code to fix the problem.

Well you see Bitcoin had to fork there, as it was a flaw in the protocol. VeriCoin on the other hand had no need to fork as there was no flaw, it was simply a theft.

well, i would think a better comparison would be if a big pool like ghash.io gets hacked and the attacker iniates an succesful double-spend attack.

if this gets noticed fast the best way to deal with it would be a rollback

[ofp]

Until it's technically impossible to rollback the chain, this "problem" will continue. The argument of "I don't like what the VeriCoin devs did, I'm going to buy <such-n-such> coin instead" doesn't hold because all other cryptocoins can be rolled back as well. Just because the devs say they won't doesn't mean they can't!

this simply is not true at all...

in a PoW coin you have to convince the miners to adopt the new fork.
If 51% of the miners do not agree then the fork simply does not happen.

due to its size and also its PoW implementation it would be virtually impossible for the bitcoin devs to do something like this with bitcoin without first gaining the consensus from mining community.

miners play a vital role in securing the network not only from outside attacks but from internal misuse of power. they are separate from stake holders with separate interests so they act as a counterbalance.

in a PoS coin there are no miners so there is no separation of powers.
in theory stake holders should play that vital role of making sure that power is not abused.
in practice however.. stake holders do what they are told or get locked out of the system.

this is not just a problem for PoS coins, it does affect all small growing coins, the PoS part merely amplifies problem because some crucial checks and balances are removed.

so I reiterate that it really isn't true at all so say that ANY coin can be rolled back. Some are many orders of magnitude more difficult to roll back than others.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

Damn...you beat me to it lol

If a disastrous event happened that effected miners and holders of Bitcoin and the only way to fix the problem was the Devs to hard fork....what do think would happen?

no doubt that when a coin is faced with a fundamental problem which could break it going forward the only option is to hard fork.
I think you are missing the point though..

because of the centralization of power it was all too easy to force this coin into a position where it was faced with such a dilema.
and it was all too easy for the devs to force change upon the community.

perhaps you are too busy arguing theoretical when you cannot even see the reality of the situation in front of you.

But they *CAN* be rolled back. That's the point.

humans have space flight they *CAN* fly the moon and they *CAN* fly to the next solar system.

your missing the point that one is possible.. and the other is currently practically impossible.

I'm afraid we're missing the most important aspect in this discussion: Scale
You're trying to compare POS and POW using VRC example and comparing it to BTC? BTC market cap is 1500x bigger. If VRC was that big, we would have 7B worth in coins staking at any given moment of time, spread across millions of wallets.
No single exchange would hold 30% of the coins in a hot wallet.
POS is much more effective and efficient than POW.
VRC is right now in its infancy. Let's hope it makes it to the maturity where it will become unbreakable, exactly as BTC is nowadays.

[megadestruct61]

Hey can anyone tell me why Vericoin isn't trading on Mitpal again yet? The blockchain has been rolled back to before the attack already correct? I see Bittrex trading and wonder why not on Mintpal since 1/3 of the coins used to be there at least.