|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum strives to allow free discussion of any ideas. All policies are built around this principle. This doesn't mean you can post garbage, though: posts should actually contain ideas, and these ideas should be argued reasonably.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
TheHiveMind
Member
 Offline
Activity: 125
Merit: 10
|
 |
October 24, 2016, 09:47:37 AM |
|
Sorry for the long delay. I had an unexpected piece of real world work to deliver. One needs to pay the bills.
...
In short, Stonehedge thinks "close but no cigar".
We see with lucidity now and again thank you for being so steadfast in regards to corresponding with the community. Strength comes with confidence. Until we are consumed with curiosity, ~ The Hive ~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
stonehedge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1002
Decentralize Everything
|
|
October 24, 2016, 04:03:19 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2016, 04:25:15 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 24, 2016, 08:43:33 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2016, 08:50:22 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 24, 2016, 09:10:56 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
October 25, 2016, 04:56:49 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 25, 2016, 12:53:52 PM |
|
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 AttackIn 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 AttackOnly 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1002
Decentralize Everything
|
|
October 25, 2016, 01:48:52 PM |
|
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 AttackIn 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 AttackOnly 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
|
|
October 25, 2016, 07:31:15 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 25, 2016, 07:46:28 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 26, 2016, 12:24:14 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2016, 05:30:19 PM by crowncoin_knight |
|
Our coder is working on our web change to crown.tech
Our web will be offline for few hours.
|
|
|
|
|
crowncoin_knight
|
|
October 26, 2016, 12:59:55 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2016, 07:11:00 PM by 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 (OP)
|
|
October 26, 2016, 01:26:21 PM |
|
New OP graphics are now online!OP
|
|
|
|
defunctec
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 27, 2016, 10:42:35 AM |
|
Very exciting!  |
|
|
|
|
stonehedge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1002
Decentralize Everything
|
|
October 27, 2016, 03:31:37 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stonehedge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1002
Decentralize Everything
|
|
October 28, 2016, 05:38:24 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
