[ANN][CRW] CROWN (MN-PoS) | Platform | NFT framework | Governance | Masternodes

[stonehedge]

First release of the Throne Monitor app can be downloaded from here

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dw09am9m60jjsc7/CRWThroneMonitor.apk?dl=0

Would appreciate any feedback or suggestions before getting a final release for app store sorted.

Any problems, just post here. I will be keeping an eye on the thread

Looking really good.

I added and removed a number of thrones and seems to be working seamlessly.

Would be nice to use tabs so that you could get a nicer view of the stats...

[calnaughtonjnr]

Looking really good.

I added and removed a number of thrones and seems to be working seamlessly.

Would be nice to use tabs so that you could get a nicer view of the stats...

https://s14.postimg.org/lefpc9w0d/Screenshot_20161024_165801.png

Yeh, it seems to be running pretty sweet, but it's not very easy on the eye  . The next major update version will have a menu with everything in it's own section and just a very brief overview on the home page.

[defunctec]

Looking really good.

I added and removed a number of thrones and seems to be working seamlessly.

Would be nice to use tabs so that you could get a nicer view of the stats...

Yeh, it seems to be running pretty sweet, but it's not very easy on the eye  . The next major update version will have a menu with everything in it's own section and just a very brief overview on the home page.

I maybe asking too much here but I have to ask...
When a throne is swept of its balance can you make the app recognise the balance has been cleared?

Edit: Maybe have the option of both?

[calnaughtonjnr]

I maybe asking too much here but I have to ask...
When a throne is swept of its balance can you make the app recognise the balance has been cleared?

Edit: Maybe have the option of both?

Is that when you clear a throne's balance back down to the original 10k? Would you want it to just highlight the throne in the mini table or push a notification?

[defunctec]

I maybe asking too much here but I have to ask...
When a throne is swept of its balance can you make the app recognise the balance has been cleared?

Edit: Maybe have the option of both?

Is that when you clear a throne's balance back down to the original 10k? Would you want it to just highlight the throne in the mini table or push a notification?

No notification needed, just a correction to current balance.

If i have 10100crw and I send 50crw, I'd like the app to correct to the proper balance of 10050crw 

If i regularly sweep my thrones, the app shows total of all coin earned instead of what i made since i last swept my thrones.

Im being a pain 

[calnaughtonjnr]

I maybe asking too much here but I have to ask...
When a throne is swept of its balance can you make the app recognise the balance has been cleared?

Edit: Maybe have the option of both?

Is that when you clear a throne's balance back down to the original 10k? Would you want it to just highlight the throne in the mini table or push a notification?

No notification needed, just a correction to current balance.

If i have 10100crw and I send 50crw, I'd like the app to correct to the proper balance of 10050crw 

If i regularly sweep my thrones, the app shows total of all coin earned instead of what i made since i last swept my thrones.

Im being a pain 

Ahh, I see. The balance isn't being updated. Yep, well spotted. I'll fix that 

[thelonecrouton]

The Hive notices that you, Mr. Stone, do not seem to think that the POW protocol is a sustainable one and thus needs an update. There seem to be plausible arguments against POW. However, we have yet to see you state any detailed arguments against POS. We know one of them -- susceptibility to 51% attacks. What are some other issues that you see with POS?

Separately, won't coins that are POW just be able to switch their consensus protocol if it becomes a problem?

~ The Hive ~

I'm not ignoring your question.  I'm just taking a while to think about it.

Thanks for keeping us informed. We figured you might be developing a response to it.

~ The Hive ~

Sorry for the long delay.  I had an unexpected piece of real world work to deliver.  One needs to pay the bills.

Proof of stake in its various flavours has the following problems.

Nothing at Stake Problem (fixed with delegated PoS)

If a PoS chain forks, there is nothing stopping a user staking his/her coins on both chains.

Initial Distribution Problem (solved with hybrid PoW/PoS)

Early purchasers of a coin will always be at an advantage over later investors as their coin balance directly contributes to the growth of their wealth. This advantage is confered to the early investor for as long as they own their stake.  Initial coin distribution by PoW somewhat nullifies this.

Long Range Attack (theoretical)

In theory, somebody with enough computational power could build an alternative blockchain starting from the very first block. Some implementations of PoS solve this by defining the maximum allowed depth of a branching point to a certain number of blocks in the past.  NXT sets the value at 720 blocks/12 hours for example.

Bribe Attack

In this attack, an attacker attempts to double-spend his funds in the following way:

1. Buy some goods or services
2. Wait until the payment transaction is considered confirmed by the merchant
3. Announce a reward for building on top of a truncated blockchain that does not include the payment transaction. For example, if merchant waited for six confirmations, the attacker will start with the blockchain without the six latest blocks. The attacker may offer a larger reward for users that mint only on top of the attacker’s blockchain (without this, the attacker’s blockchain would never catch up to the correct one).
4. The attacker may continue paying bribes even when the lengths of their blockchain and the correct blockchain become equal in order to gain support of most stakeholders.

(Proof of Stake vs Proof of Work Whitepaper - Bitfury - http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf)

Coin Age Accumulation Attack

Only relevant to some PoS implementations.  Peercoin famously suffered from this issue but now solved.

In some PoS implementations, coin age is used as the staking metric rather than wallet wealth. If there is no maximum coin age defined in the protocol then it is possible for enought time to lapse for the earliest investors to have enough accumulated coin age to overtake the rest of the network and receive 100% of staking reward.

Some of the above may not be feasible due to required investment size but early investors could be at a significant advantage if intentions are nefarious.

Delegated proof of stake has efectively solved shorter range attacks and the nothing at stake problem but there is no consistency in how PoS coins address these problems. 

There are several active projects that use the earliest implementation of PoS that doesn't address any issues and several PoS projects that have implemented a variety of different fixes to problems with no consistency.  This means that some of these solutions have not been tested on a significant scale to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny.

Due the large variety of issues that need to be solved (admittedly some are theoretical) I don't consider PoS to be cryptographically sound until a uniform approach to solving these issues has been implemented.

In short, Stonehedge thinks "close but no cigar".

Good summary of PoS, but I think it's important to distinguish between the distribution mechanism and the security mechanism.

PoS and PoWaste attempt to be both, and both fail spectacularly at security.

Pick whatever distribution method suits your goals, but let the overlay network handle the security. I've done the math publicly many times, it boils down to deterministic subsetting of nodes being many orders of magnitude more secure... and the code's already there and working, just currently gimped.

[stonehedge]

The Hive notices that you, Mr. Stone, do not seem to think that the POW protocol is a sustainable one and thus needs an update. There seem to be plausible arguments against POW. However, we have yet to see you state any detailed arguments against POS. We know one of them -- susceptibility to 51% attacks. What are some other issues that you see with POS?

Separately, won't coins that are POW just be able to switch their consensus protocol if it becomes a problem?

~ The Hive ~

I'm not ignoring your question.  I'm just taking a while to think about it.

Thanks for keeping us informed. We figured you might be developing a response to it.

~ The Hive ~

Sorry for the long delay.  I had an unexpected piece of real world work to deliver.  One needs to pay the bills.

Proof of stake in its various flavours has the following problems.

Nothing at Stake Problem (fixed with delegated PoS)

If a PoS chain forks, there is nothing stopping a user staking his/her coins on both chains.

Initial Distribution Problem (solved with hybrid PoW/PoS)

Early purchasers of a coin will always be at an advantage over later investors as their coin balance directly contributes to the growth of their wealth. This advantage is confered to the early investor for as long as they own their stake.  Initial coin distribution by PoW somewhat nullifies this.

Long Range Attack (theoretical)

In theory, somebody with enough computational power could build an alternative blockchain starting from the very first block. Some implementations of PoS solve this by defining the maximum allowed depth of a branching point to a certain number of blocks in the past.  NXT sets the value at 720 blocks/12 hours for example.

Bribe Attack

In this attack, an attacker attempts to double-spend his funds in the following way:

1. Buy some goods or services
2. Wait until the payment transaction is considered confirmed by the merchant
3. Announce a reward for building on top of a truncated blockchain that does not include the payment transaction. For example, if merchant waited for six confirmations, the attacker will start with the blockchain without the six latest blocks. The attacker may offer a larger reward for users that mint only on top of the attacker’s blockchain (without this, the attacker’s blockchain would never catch up to the correct one).
4. The attacker may continue paying bribes even when the lengths of their blockchain and the correct blockchain become equal in order to gain support of most stakeholders.

(Proof of Stake vs Proof of Work Whitepaper - Bitfury - http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/pos-vs-pow-1.0.2.pdf)

Coin Age Accumulation Attack

Only relevant to some PoS implementations.  Peercoin famously suffered from this issue but now solved.

In some PoS implementations, coin age is used as the staking metric rather than wallet wealth. If there is no maximum coin age defined in the protocol then it is possible for enought time to lapse for the earliest investors to have enough accumulated coin age to overtake the rest of the network and receive 100% of staking reward.

Some of the above may not be feasible due to required investment size but early investors could be at a significant advantage if intentions are nefarious.

Delegated proof of stake has efectively solved shorter range attacks and the nothing at stake problem but there is no consistency in how PoS coins address these problems. 

There are several active projects that use the earliest implementation of PoS that doesn't address any issues and several PoS projects that have implemented a variety of different fixes to problems with no consistency.  This means that some of these solutions have not been tested on a significant scale to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny.

Due the large variety of issues that need to be solved (admittedly some are theoretical) I don't consider PoS to be cryptographically sound until a uniform approach to solving these issues has been implemented.

In short, Stonehedge thinks "close but no cigar".

Good summary of PoS, but I think it's important to distinguish between the distribution mechanism and the security mechanism.

PoS and PoWaste attempt to be both, and both fail spectacularly at security.

Pick whatever distribution method suits your goals, but let the overlay network handle the security. I've done the math publicly many times, it boils down to deterministic subsetting of nodes being many orders of magnitude more secure... and the code's already there and working, just currently gimped.

I think your public mathematics was partly our inspiration. We're planning on taking it a bit further than that though.  I'm hoping to have the whitepaper finished in early January...this will be one whitepaper I enjoy writing.

[crowncoin_knight]

Crowncoin has officially started its rebranding to CROWN!

We have started with our twitter, new web is following in course of next two days, QT wallet, android Throne monitoring app, new OP look, etc.

Truly a milestone for this project!

[thelonecrouton]

I'm hoping to have the whitepaper finished in early January...this will be one whitepaper I enjoy writing.

Pretty sure I'll enjoy reading it... 

[crowncoin_knight]

Our coder is working on our web change to crown.tech

Our web will be offline for few hours.

[crowncoin_knight]

New web is online at: crown.tech

Our coder is working on our web change to crown.tech

Our web will be offline for few hours.

all web traffic from crowncoin.org is currently being forwarded to crown.tech

Forward will be active in next few hours

[jeliman]

New OP graphics are now online!

OP

[defunctec]

Very exciting!

[stonehedge]

Quick update on our wallet efforts.

Redesign is coming along very nicely.  I've seen some screenshots.  It looks great.

Core/masternode updates:

Completed

add merged mining DONE
add names/blockchain
add timestamping
change masternode ports -> 9340 DONE
1k Collateral->10k Collateral DONE
get syncing working past block 453273 (aux block) DONE
get syncing working DONE
change dash->crown
change Dash->Crown DONE
change DASH->CRW DONE
change Darkcoin -> Crown DONE
change Masternode->Throne DONE
change masternode->throne DONE
change MasterNode->ThroNe DONE
change MASTERNODE->THRONE DONE
change XwnLY9Tf7Zsef8gMGL2fhWA9ZmMjt4KPwg -> 18WTcWvwrNnfqeQAn6th9QQ2EpnXMq5Th8 DONE
ADD 11 CHECKPOINTS DONE
Add throne manager DONE

To be done:

Adjust block reward -10% for budgets
Adjust sporks - superblocks
Adjust sporks - throne enforcement
Test thrones
Test auxpow mining + specify auxpow address
Don't accept blocks with too low of a reward

We're still on track to be on the platform we want to be on and fully tested in December.

[acad14n]

Is there any chance we can get yobit wallet sync'ed again? It's been in maintenance status for a month or so. https://yobit.net/en/maintenance_request/

[stonehedge]

Is there any chance we can get yobit wallet sync'ed again? It's been in maintenance status for a month or so. https://yobit.net/en/maintenance_request/

We've been trying for over a month but they won't respond to us.

Can you please raise a support ticket with them and ask them to fix it?  It is completely out of our hands...they need to fix it themselves.

[acad14n]

Is there any chance we can get yobit wallet sync'ed again? It's been in maintenance status for a month or so. https://yobit.net/en/maintenance_request/

We've been trying for over a month but they won't respond to us.

Can you please raise a support ticket with them and ask them to fix it?  It is completely out of our hands...they need to fix it themselves.

This was the response:
2016-10-28 09:29:36 dominikherzog
Hi
Please fill this form >https://yobit.net/en/maintenance_request/
option free

I just sent a maintenance request (Free 8-14 business days) for SourceCode Update with the info from c-cex. I asked them to comment here if the info is not correct.

[sitonmythrone]

Crw whales dump

J'ai peur in future for crown

 throne no money for me....

[crowncoin_knight]

Crw whales dump

J'ai peur in future for crown

 throne no money for me....

Regular market activity, coin goes up and then down and then up again. The team is moving ahead in line with our road map as it was stated here many times. Nothing has changed.