Timekoin

[jancsika]

Oh good, so the original adopters/developers can simply keep the add-node queue full so it will be forever before any newcomers get to the top of the list. Brilliant.

...I guess that is where the randomisation comes in. No top of list, just flood it so you have highest chance of being randomly selected?

-MarkM-

That'd be an attack on future adoption, but as I understand it the nodes that were already connected before the flood would still generate coins.

[smoothie]

Oh good, so the original adopters/developers can simply keep the add-node queue full so it will be forever before any newcomers get to the top of the list. Brilliant.

...I guess that is where the randomisation comes in. No top of list, just flood it so you have highest chance of being randomly selected?

-MarkM-

That'd be an attack on future adoption, but as I understand it the nodes that were already connected before the flood would still generate coins.

As long as those nodes are not disconnected from the network for more than two hours. Yes they will continue to generate. Redundancy is huge. You can run two nodes with the same private key and ensure that you generate coins if one node gets disconnected. There are different strategies i'm sure.

I like timekoin. It's still early. But given that the code is its own rewrite by KnightMB (i think thats his username) I see potential in it.

He knows the code in and out and its not a copy of bitcoin. It only adds to the concepts bitcoin put into place and setup a restriction to do with time which no one can control. So its not about how much money you have to buy equipment. Its the time commitment that matters to how much you generate etc.

[Sunny King]

Assuming throttling membership controls inflation (which I also doubt), it still doesn't solve the Sybil attack. Any more explanation?

This is an attempt to mint based on time without central identification service as I mentioned in another thread. Haven't got time to read the paper but if there is simpler explanations it would be appreciated.

[jancsika]

Assuming throttling membership controls inflation (which I also doubt), it still doesn't solve the Sybil attack. Any more explanation?

I asked such a question on the Timekoin forum but framed it in terms of a botnet attack which gave the responder a chance to evade the question by pointing out that Bitcoin is also vulnerable to botnets.

Maybe a better way to frame the issue is that a botnet chugging away at solving Bitcoin blocks can indeed threaten the health of the network, especially by not including any transactions in blocks it solves.  However, such behavior still requires intensive use of botnet resources and even continues to help the network by providing more confirmations for the transactions that are included in the block chain.  But with Timekoin, if all the zombies of a botnet queued up it would be an effective DDOS on including new non-botnet nodes in the network, without any benefit to the network at all.  Worse, AFAICT it costs next to nothing for those bot-nodes to queue up.

ASIC mining might make it too costly for a bot-net Bitcoin miners (and maybe introduce new risks of consolidation of hashing power), but what would stop the botnet from continuing its DDOS in Timekoin on new adopters?

[molecular]

Go have a read. It's good stuff.

I read it when this thread was started. I'm not going to be a timekoin early adopter, as said some months ago:

You guys can be early adopters, have fun .

Thanks mate! 

[smoothie]

Go have a read. It's good stuff.

I read it when this thread was started. I'm not going to be a timekoin early adopter, as said some months ago:

You guys can be early adopters, have fun .

Thanks mate! 

Yeah that was before the technical paper was 20 pages. It has been revised. No need to if you dont want to. =)

[Sunny King]

Assuming throttling membership controls inflation (which I also doubt), it still doesn't solve the Sybil attack. Any more explanation?

I asked such a question on the Timekoin forum but framed it in terms of a botnet attack which gave the responder a chance to evade the question by pointing out that Bitcoin is also vulnerable to botnets.

Maybe a better way to frame the issue is that a botnet chugging away at solving Bitcoin blocks can indeed threaten the health of the network, especially by not including any transactions in blocks it solves.  However, such behavior still requires intensive use of botnet resources and even continues to help the network by providing more confirmations for the transactions that are included in the block chain.  But with Timekoin, if all the zombies of a botnet queued up it would be an effective DDOS on including new non-botnet nodes in the network, without any benefit to the network at all.  Worse, AFAICT it costs next to nothing for those bot-nodes to queue up.

ASIC mining might make it too costly for a bot-net Bitcoin miners (and maybe introduce new risks of consolidation of hashing power), but what would stop the botnet from continuing its DDOS in Timekoin on new adopters?

Yeah before I get a clearer answer regarding this I would assume this is a failed attempt of minting based on time without centralized identification service. The designer probably grossly underestimated the impact of sybil attack, in this case it's an attack on the minting design (aka counterfeiting). It's part of the core foundation of a currency design. Any currency that cannot effectively deal with counterfeiting is doomed to failure.

[jancsika]

Yeah before I get a clearer answer regarding this I would assume this is a failed attempt of minting based on time without centralized identification service. The designer probably grossly underestimated the impact of sybil attack, in this case it's an attack on the minting design (aka counterfeiting). It's part of the core foundation of a currency design. Any currency that cannot effectively deal with counterfeiting is doomed to failure.

They're not counterfeit-- they're real Timekoins and the bot-net could do whatever it wants with them.  The problem is that the bot-net can take over the network and outnumber other users so they will be unlikely to generate coins.  If there really is a 33,000 joins-per-year limit then it only slows down that process-- how do you tell the difference between a "normal" user trying to join and one of 100,000 bot-net zombies staggered throughout the year trying to join?

Of course this is similar to normal cpu users in Bitcoin no longer being able to mine coins themselves.  But in Bitcoin the benefit is that network security increases as the difficulty level rises (and consequently the mining farms' coins can be understood as a reward for that work they are doing).  In Timekoin it only means you have a bot-net with a huge stash of coins that isn't adding security to the network, nor did it expend much in resources to get them in the first place.

I don't see anything in the technical document that addresses this.  But again-- this isn't the same bot-net problem that Bitcoin has faced because Timekoin doesn't require the proof-of-work which provides a barrier to entry for the Bitcoin bot-net (and which makes it unlikely that the successful Bitcoin bot-net operator of one would just destroy the coins for lulz).

Still, I could be missing some feature that mitigates this threat.

[cunicula]

I'm curious myself how sybil attacks are prevented. Apparently there is nothing stopping me posing as millions of different identities/miners. From the looks of it, this does not appear to be implementation of the POS scheme either. If this is something novel, would the OP mind describing how it is supposed to work?

Confirmed. Based on my read, sybil attacks are simply allowed. One connection to the network, one vote. Not one coin one vote. Nor one hash one vote.

Interestingly, the list of people who are allowed to generate currency is controlled by 51% voting. And there is some kind of queue to get on the list. Thus the botnet can slowly build up spots in the queue until it controls 51% of the spots on the list and then control 100% of currency generation forever after.

Of course, botnets are free to double spend too. Though my guess is that simply printing new money would be easier.

[molecular]

I'm curious myself how sybil attacks are prevented. Apparently there is nothing stopping me posing as millions of different identities/miners. From the looks of it, this does not appear to be implementation of the POS scheme either. If this is something novel, would the OP mind describing how it is supposed to work?

Confirmed. Based on my read, sybil attacks are simply allowed. One connection to the network, one vote. Not one coin one vote. Nor one hash one vote.

Interestingly, the list of people who are allowed to generate currency is controlled by 51% voting. And there is some kind of queue to get on the list. Thus the botnet can slowly build up spots in the queue until it controls 51% of the spots on the list and then control 100% of currency generation forever after.

Of course, botnets are free to double spend too. Though my guess is that simply printing new money would be easier.

Thanks for you analysis, cunicula.

I think I can see the intention behind this, but as you describe, it's easily attackable because IP-Adresses are cheap. Unless this is somehow taken care of, I don't see how it can work.

[FuzzyBear]

yeah i like this project to... good alternative approach to the blockchain and mining...  I have some timecoins if anyone want to trade them to make me an offer!! 

[Sunny King]

yeah i like this project to... good alternative approach to the blockchain and mining...  I have some timecoins if anyone want to trade them to make me an offer!! 

I think we should have a competition as who has the most complete collection of different coins. I am sure you are one of the contenders 

[molecular]

some weird shit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123591.0. is knightmb (371,000 ring a bell) the  maker of timekoin and what does he have to do with the romney extortion?

[funnow]

This crypto-currency is still alive and kicking!
You have some news on the site, video,... So check out!

[funnow]

In few weeks online exchange.

[evok3d]

Can someone please see if they can help KnightMB or take over the project?

This has great potentials!

[meadefreling]

Timekoin is dead long time ago, are you trying to bring back the dead, better put are you trying to resurrect the dead?

[freigeist]

Timekoin is dead long time ago, are you trying to bring back the dead, better put are you trying to resurrect the dead?

What you mean is dead?!
I see it's alive here: http://timekoin.org/

[guiltmanager]

Personally, I love the interface of timekoin, i.e. it being a webpage interface based wallet, as this works very well with my assistive screen reading technology.

I'm totally blind, and as such use screen reading technology on my computer, and most wallets for cryptocoins are a spin off from bitcoin, don't work with my screen reader, and thereby exclude me from participating in most crypto currencies. Given that timekoin uses a web interface, I'm not excluded from using it, which is great, I wish more wallets would follow in their footsteps.
I admit there are problems with the wallet, i.e. sometimes it hangs when i try to log in, and nothing but a full restart will resolve it, but apart from that its great.

[freigeist]

Hello guiltmanager.

As you say most of altcoins are btc or ltc spinoffs but there are some other coins
developed from scratch like NEM, NXT, FIMK , HZ, BURST and  Cripty.
They all have a web wallet that works in browser.
You could try some of those that I have mentioned here.

Anyway is pity that timekoin is not actively developed any more.