Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 11:02:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin?
Yes, ASAP - 29 (27.6%)
No, Never - 31 (29.5%)
Maybe someday - 16 (15.2%)
Just implement PoS as a separate blockchain - 11 (10.5%)
PoS is not a good idea - 18 (17.1%)
Total Voters: 85

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin?  (Read 4512 times)
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 07:49:44 AM
 #61

* Cementing is a node's reluctance to do a blockchain reorganization. A node will reject any new block found if it contradicts a 6-block deep branch it is already aware of and currently considers valid. That is, once a node receives 6 confirmations for a block, it will not accept a competing block even if it is part of a longer branch.
This does not require any form of proof of stake and can be implemented on its own. It is inherent in the design of a proper algorithm for a days destroyed weighted block-chain.

How do you cement a checkpoint block without proof-of-stake?

It's written right there in the wiki quote for proof of stake. The stake is not required to cement a block, it is up to the client. A "dumb" way to do it is to just to cement 6 blocks in the past, but this leaves everyone open to the sustained 51% attack still, though it does prevent private in parallel mining to rewrite history. A smarter way to do it is base it around LDD so that an attacker can't sustain a 51% denial of service attack.

There is the potential with proof of stake that there exist two forks and both have less than 50% stake signing it. The only penalty for abstaining from a stake signing is that you lose reputation. That is not a sufficient penalty. In this scenario, the forks can stay completely unresolved. Regardless, a competitor may offer lower tx fees but the stakeholders refuse to sign and so on. It takes power away from the people.

Using the LDD model and user intervention, the people get to decide which fork they want to use. Monopolies can be prevented. Selective transaction approval can be prevented. Sustained 51% attack can be prevented. Proof of stake does not prevent monopolies, it does not prevent selective transaction approval, and its 51% attack prevention is only as good as whatever automated code selects the correct chain for the stake signers. And if stake signers manually choose, then you may as well give that ability to everyone so that everyone can determine what is in their best interest, not a select few. Aren't we all about overthrowing the establishment and such around here? Why is anyone looking to hard-code that in?

1513638146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513638146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513638146
Reply with quote  #2

1513638146
Report to moderator
1513638146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513638146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513638146
Reply with quote  #2

1513638146
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513638146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513638146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513638146
Reply with quote  #2

1513638146
Report to moderator
1513638146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513638146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513638146
Reply with quote  #2

1513638146
Report to moderator
iddo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 08:21:03 AM
 #62

I don't understand, are you suggesting that each node will simply cement after seeing 6 consecutive blocks? That would cause the blockchain to fork into many branches that will never reunite.
I'm asking about the basic concept, please avoid the added complexities of cementing 6 consecutive blocks and consider the proof-of-stake cementing of the 100th signatures block. With proof-of-stake, we can cement the (say) 100th block with signatures that cannot be faked by an attacker with 51% hashpower, so everyone can protect themselves from a double-spending attack by waiting past the checkpoint signatures block in order to be sure that the relevant transactions couldn't be reversed. Do you claim that it's possible to cement a checkpoint block (with this desirable property of protecting from an attacker with 51% hashpower) without proof-of-stake? How?
What is LDD? Litecoin Days Destroyed? How is it relevant?
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:07:59 AM
 #63

are you suggesting that each node will simply cement after seeing 6 consecutive blocks?

No, but the proof of stake wiki is. But then it turns around and says it's all up for grabs depending on what the stake holders do.

Quote
That would cause the blockchain to fork into many branches that will never reunite.

No it wouldn't. Has bitcoin ever even had an orphan chain go 2 blocks deep? If, as I alluded to in another post, there is a problem with the internet to the point that entire sections of the network are cut off from each other, there are bigger problems than which chain is the right one. The situation is going to cause chaos no matter what. Proof of stake proposes to let a select few determine who wins. This is not at all ideal because it has very, very bad implications in any situation other than a network split. And, as I mentioned, proof of stake can get locked just the same with multiple chains.

Quote
I'm asking about the basic concept, please avoid the added complexities of cementing 6 consecutive blocks and consider the proof-of-stake cementing of the 100th signatures block. With proof-of-stake, we can cement the (say) 100th block with signatures that cannot be faked by an attacker with 51% hashpower, so everyone can protect themselves from a double-spending attack by waiting past the checkpoint signatures block in order to be sure that the relevant transactions couldn't be reversed.

"rah rah rah my idea is better and I won't read what you've written throughout the thread or attempt to understand because clashes in the face of what I think is right so I will therefore treat you like an idiot"

Quote
Do you claim that it's possible to cement a checkpoint block (with this desirable property of protecting from an attacker with 51% hashpower) without proof-of-stake? How?
What is LDD? Litecoin Days Destroyed? How is it relevant?

it was the next post after the one you responded to...

I agree that proof of stake will likely add a lot of bloat to the blockchain and possibly add a lot of strain to the network to propage all those signatures. Etlase2, I am also thinking about your days destroyed solution. It seems like a good solution, but can you think of how it can help solve the problem of an attacker forking the chain for 10 blocks so that he can do a double spend on the exchange?

This would have to be part of the design algorithm. Something that first needs to be designed, tested, and fine-tuned.

I think a good place to start is for each client to follow the block-chain back a couple thousand blocks or so and see what the typical Litecoin Days Destroyed is for each block, and use that as a base line. If 6 blocks in a row meet or beat the average LDD, the 6th block (in bitcoin terms, perhaps this would be 20 or so in litecoin, but 6 may still be fine, needs testing) in the past could be cemented in stone and can only be replaced if the user agrees to it. If the LDD is say, between 20-40% below normal, it will take perhaps 4x the 6 or 20 blocks before this block will be cemented unless 6 or 20 blocks come after that meet or beat LDD avg. If it's 40-60% below normal, then 8x, and so on.

Something along those lines. An exchange could wait a few extra blocks to be fairly sure that everyone has the block it is interested in cemented.

The *only* theoretical problem that PoS solves that LDD WBC doesn't is a huge network split. And PoS does not completely solve it because signing is optional. With the LDD WBC individual clients will have to choose which chain they want to use. This will probably be apparent in the closest potential real-world scenario such as an individual country cutting off its people from the internet at large. It will be obvious for those users when and if they reconnect that they must use the chain that the world is using and not their split. In the case of a split like this, because mining would also be heavily reduced, blocks will come in much slower and the LDD will be much lower so they will not even likely cement any blocks unless the split is for a very significant period of time.

iddo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:48:00 AM
 #64

Quote
I'm asking about the basic concept, please avoid the added complexities of cementing 6 consecutive blocks and consider the proof-of-stake cementing of the 100th signatures block. With proof-of-stake, we can cement the (say) 100th block with signatures that cannot be faked by an attacker with 51% hashpower, so everyone can protect themselves from a double-spending attack by waiting past the checkpoint signatures block in order to be sure that the relevant transactions couldn't be reversed.

"rah rah rah my idea is better and I won't read what you've written throughout the thread or attempt to understand because clashes in the face of what I think is right so I will therefore treat you like an idiot"

I use the word "cement" or "solidify" to represent the idea that the distributed network arrives to an agreement on a special checkpoint block that won't be reversed, which determines the true blockchain even if a 51% attacker prepared the branch that ends in a special checkpoint block. If the word "cement" also has other meanings, please choose a different word for what I described to be sure that we discuss the same thing. It's true that I haven't read yet your other ideas, because I'm trying to understand first whether your ideas solve the same problem or different problems. If you'd be so kind, please answer the basic question: do you have a suggestion regarding how to cement a checkpoint block (that cannot be reversed by 51% attack) in a way that doesn't require proof-of-stake? I don't claim that there isn't such a way, I've tried to think of another way to do it for several minutes, but didn't come up with anything.

If your ideas are orthogonal and try to solve/improve other properties of the Bitcoin protocol, what are the (supposed) deficiencies of Bitcoin that you're trying to improve? Is it waste of energy of PoW, or other deficiencies?
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 12:08:59 PM
 #65

If you'd be so kind, please answer the basic question: do you have a suggestion regarding how to cement a checkpoint block (that cannot be reversed by 51% attack) in a way that doesn't require proof-of-stake?

With LDD WBC, there is no need for a specific checkpoint block, every block becomes a checkpoint after it is buried deep enough.

Say we use the last 5,000 blocks as our LDD metric. The average LDD in each block is say, 1,000.
You, an exchange, are interested in a transaction in block 2,001.
Block 2,002 comes along with 1,050 LDD.
Block 2,003 comes along with 800 LDD.
Block 2,004 comes along with 1,500 LDD.
Block 2,005 comes along with 1,110 LDD.
Block 2,006 comes along with 900 LDD.
Block 2,007 comes along with 1,200 LDD.
Block 2,008 comes along with 1,500 LDD.
Block 2,009 comes along with 1,300 LDD.
Block 2,001 becomes cemented because there are 6 blocks that follow that meet or beat the average LDD. This is a client-side operation and the software must notify the user if a competing chain attempts to reverse block 2,001, but it will NOT automatically replace it. In reality, litecoin would probably use 20-30 blocks before cementing since its block time is 2.5 minutes instead of 10. An hour should be more than enough time for that block to have propagated the network. If you're extra paranoid, you could wait until block 2,009 is cemented.

If you do not have faith that blocks will be properly passed around to achieve this, then you can't possibly have faith that the proof of stake signatures will be immune to the same problem. If you're worried about some miraculous chain of events that might cause a significant, temporary fork, then use more blocks to be safe. You have suggested 100 blocks to be a checkpoint for PoS, the same number could be used for the LDD WBC. But I think it's overkill considering, AFAIK, bitcoin has never gotten past 1 orphan block. I do not know about LTC, but it would be interesting to see since it's 4 times faster. Is 1 block still the biggest orphan?

Quote
If your ideas are orthogonal and try to solve/improve other properties of the Bitcoin protocol, what are the (supposed) deficiencies of Bitcoin that you're trying to improve? Is it waste of energy of PoW, or other deficiencies?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91183.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0

Days destroyed weighted block-chain advantages:

* Clients have a say in the matter. Every client. Miners are forced to include every transaction possible because if someone else comes along and does them one better, their block may be invalidated. Even if only a single miner is doing the right thing, the clients will be using his chain over a malicious one. So as long as one miner is honest, the honest network wins.
* Clients have the power to choose which block-chain is the correct one, not basing it off of hashing power. This is the ultimate blow to any 51% attack. Want to create a monopoly? Oh well someone else came along and is offering cheaper tx fees, goodbye.
* Absolutely no additional data is added to the block-chain. Nothing to keep track of except mini-forks which may be slightly more likely depending on how the final algorithm works.
* Money is given no more power than it already has. There is a veritable check and balance system between clients, miners, and the wealthy.
* Difficulty CAN GO DOWN without opening the network to attack. This means transaction fees can go down. And stakeholders don't have to be paid to cancel out this effect.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 01:35:25 PM
 #66

What if you needed 51% of all he coins in existence before you could fork the chain ?

The likelihood of any 1 attacker having that many coins is what ?

iddo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
 #67

OK, apologies, when I read this part of your first post,

* Cementing is a node's reluctance to do a blockchain reorganization. A node will reject any new block found if it contradicts a 6-block deep branch it is already aware of and currently considers valid. That is, once a node receives 6 confirmations for a block, it will not accept a competing block even if it is part of a longer branch.
This does not require any form of proof of stake and can be implemented on its own. It is inherent in the design of a proper algorithm for a days destroyed weighted block-chain.

I wrongly assumed that the discussion is still generally related to the Bitcoin protocol framework, and took your comment to mean that as a standalone claim you're saying that cementing a checkpoint could be done without proof-of-stake. I didn't realize that you claim that these ideas hold for a substantially different protocol that doesn't use hashpower for proof-of-work etc., sorry for my confusion.
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
 #68

Whatever dude, be intentionally dense.

MicroCashMike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Microcash, it's just better!


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 03:50:18 PM
 #69

It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid  as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.


Mike
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Creator of Litecoin. Director of Eng at Coinbase.


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 08:19:27 PM
 #70

It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid  as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.


Mike

Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter.

MicroCashMike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Microcash, it's just better!


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:06:49 PM
 #71

It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid  as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.


Mike

Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter.


I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike



coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Creator of Litecoin. Director of Eng at Coinbase.


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:25:09 PM
 #72

It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid  as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.


Mike

Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter.


I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I've already posted my take and I assume you've read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186.msg1060442#msg1060442
So should I have told everyone that it was a bluff? Would you then call me irresponsible if BCX did indeed pull off a 51% attack because we were not ready?
What would you have done MicroCashMike?

I assume you hangout in #microcash, right? What's your username?

Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
 #73

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.
MicroCashMike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Microcash, it's just better!


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:47:13 PM
 #74

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.

By his own admission Coblee knew at 8:00am Tuesday July 24th less than 8 hours after the initial BCEX post, later that evening Coblee arranges for a private IRC to mount a defense. Coblee allowed many members of the LTC community to incur a loss during a huge panic sell. He knowingly allowed miners to solo mine to protect the coin in vain, again incurring losses. I want an explanation on how or what justified him deceiving the whole LTC community.

Mike
Gladamas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


Bitcoin today is what the internet was in 1998.


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
 #75

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.

By his own admission Coblee knew at 8:00am Tuesday July 24th less than 8 hours after the initial BCEX post, later that evening Coblee arranges for a private IRC to mount a defense. Coblee allowed many members of the LTC community to incur a loss during a huge panic sell. He knowingly allowed miners to solo mine to protect the coin in vain, again incurring losses. I want an explanation on how or what justified him deceiving the whole LTC community.

Mike

Really? Insulting and flaming other users? Please take this elsewhere, CoinHunter. We all know you are against LTC.

1GLADMZ5tL4HkS6BAWPfJLeZJCDHAd9Fr3 - LQ6Zx8v7fHVBiDX5Lmhbp6oEDB7dUFjANu
GPG 0xF219D5BB3C467E12 - Litecoin Forum
MicroCashMike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Microcash, it's just better!


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:06:12 PM
 #76

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.

By his own admission Coblee knew at 8:00am Tuesday July 24th less than 8 hours after the initial BCEX post, later that evening Coblee arranges for a private IRC to mount a defense. Coblee allowed many members of the LTC community to incur a loss during a huge panic sell. He knowingly allowed miners to solo mine to protect the coin in vain, again incurring losses. I want an explanation on how or what justified him deceiving the whole LTC community.

Mike

Really? Insulting and flaming other users? Please take this elsewhere, CoinHunter. We all know you are against LTC.

I've given my name, location and where I work....any intellegnt person can figure who I am. I have nothing to hide.

My questions are legit, I just want an honest answer on why Coblee participated in deceiving the entire LTC community, that's reasonable.

Mike
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
 #77

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.

By his own admission Coblee knew at 8:00am Tuesday July 24th less than 8 hours after the initial BCEX post, later that evening Coblee arranges for a private IRC to mount a defense. Coblee allowed many members of the LTC community to incur a loss during a huge panic sell. He knowingly allowed miners to solo mine to protect the coin in vain, again incurring losses. I want an explanation on how or what justified him deceiving the whole LTC community.

Mike

Really? Insulting and flaming other users? Please take this elsewhere, CoinHunter. We all know you are against LTC.

I've given my name, location and where I work....any intellegnt person can figure who I am. I have nothing to hide.

My questions are legit, I just want an honest answer on why Coblee participated in deceiving the entire LTC community, that's reasonable.

Mike


Coblee has already answered you. Obviously because you aren't getting the answer you WANT you keep asking for an answer.

Just STFU.

MicroCash has its own forum to wipe your ass on.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
MicroCashMike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Microcash, it's just better!


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:13:24 PM
 #78



Coblee has already answered you. Obviously because you aren't getting the answer you WANT you keep asking for an answer.

Just STFU.

MicroCash has its own forum to wipe your ass on.

This is the alt currency forum, Microcash is a part of it. Coblee has not answered the question of why he didn't tell people that BCEX had PM'd that it was all a hoax very early on. What his reason behind that?

It's a fair question.

Mike
tgsrge
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:31:58 PM
 #79

people, just ignore him. obvious troll is obvious.
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Creator of Litecoin. Director of Eng at Coinbase.


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 11:37:02 PM
 #80



Coblee has already answered you. Obviously because you aren't getting the answer you WANT you keep asking for an answer.

Just STFU.

MicroCash has its own forum to wipe your ass on.

This is the alt currency forum, Microcash is a part of it. Coblee has not answered the question of why he didn't tell people that BCEX had PM'd that it was all a hoax very early on. What his reason behind that?

It's a fair question.

Mike

I thought I already answered this question. Here, let me try again.

I normally don't expose someone's private messages without getting permission from them first. And she did not come out and say that it was a hoax and that she wasn't going to do anything. What she said was: "Geez, don't sweat it, I'm not going to hit it hard enough to hurt it." I still don't understand what that means. Was she going to do a 51% attack but not do a double spend so that "it's not hard enough to hurt it." I sent her a few PMs to ask for clarification, but she did not respond to them. So I had to assume the threat was real, and the PM was just BCX trying to manipulate me. Or maybe she was smart enough to give herself a way out if the attack fails. Who knows. And at that point in time, some of the Litecoin pools were getting DDoS'd. So if it wasn't BCX, someone else might be launching a 51% attack.

So I had to act assuming the threat was real. And that's why I started a channel on IRC to discuss possible ways to defend this attack. And also why I checkpointed the block in the middle of the attack. I spent a lot of time trying to defend against this attack. I definitely did not collude with BCX. I've asked BCX to meet in person so that I can know once and for all who he/she is, but so far she has not responded to that PM. I have a feeling she won't.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!