Verge Suffers 51% Attack, Hard Forks in Response Bitcoin ...

What effective advantage does Peercoin offer over Bitcoin regarding 51% attacks?

Currently, 25 BTC are being produced every minute, or 36000 BTC a day. That's $25.2 million every day. So if someone managed to get 51% hashpower, they'd be mining $12.9 million every day, so it probably would be economically advantageous for them to keep mining than try to carry out a double spend attack. Since Peercoin's difference is that it requires 51% stake to carry out a 51% attack, it seems its only resistance against 51% attacks is economic in nature - i.e. the potential profits are not worth the effort - which Bitcoin has as well.
Now why would someone want to 51% attack Bitcoin? I can only think of one culprit - the government. For them $5 billion a year is chump change, and if they really wanted to compromise the integrity of Bitcoin they could do so. So what would prevent them from buying up 51% of the Peercoin in existence?
Edit: Oops. So it's actually $1.29 million per day. Still not economical to forgo this massive profit.
submitted by tony_1337 to peercoin [link] [comments]

Proof Of Stake

Proof Of Stake
https://preview.redd.it/7nfccptuway41.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=0103130266549ba8ae21e63d837b67528e39f59c
In my previous article, I have covered one of the most famous consensus mechanism i.e Proof of Work. But like any technology, that protocol also has a certain drawback, and to overcome these issues another protocol has been developed i.e Proof Of Stake.
Proof Of Stake, as the name implies depends upon the stake of a validator. Like Miners in PoW, PoS consists of a group of validators. These validators use a pseudo-random algorithm to select a node that will act as a validator for the next block. The validator was decided based on a combination of different factors which includes the staking age and the node’s wealth. This means that the more coin one has, the more mining power he or she will have. Thus unlike PoW which is quite a power extensive because it depends upon solving a complex computational puzzle to decide the next block, the validation and generation of next block in PoS solely depend on the owner's stake. In Proof of Stake systems, the blocks that were mined are termed as ‘forged’.
This algorithm was introduced in 2011 with the idea to solve the problems with Proof of Work. Though both these algorithm is used to achieve consensus in the blockchain network, the underlying process to reach the final goal is different.
Some of the crypto coins like Nxt (NXT), Blackcoin, ShadowCoin, and Peercoin (PPC) uses the PoS method. Ethereum (ETH) is also planning to switch to a PoS system.
How do PoS works?
The blockchain network consists of a series of a node which acts as a miner (Forge in this case). Any network user who wants to participate in the forging activity needs to stake a certain amount of coin into the network. One can do this by sending a special transaction that will lock up their base cryptocurrency(in Ethereum's case, ether). The stake size determines the chances of a node to be selected as the next validator who will forge the next block. The bigger the stake, the higher the chances.
The newly created node which got selected to forge the next block checks the validity of the transactions in the block. If the transactions are valid, it then signs the block and adds it to the blockchain network. The node receives the transaction fees that are associated with the transactions in the block as a reward.
In the case when the node doesn’t want to serve as a forger, it can withdraw its stake along with the rewards earned. The network verifies and releases the node once it successfully checks that the node has not been involved in any malicious activity.
Advantages of using PoS:-
o Enhanced security.
o Energy-efficient.
o Reduced risk of centralization.
Forge selection method:-
Two unique methods are being used in case there is a requirement of not selecting the node with the maximum stake. These are:-
o Randomized Block Selection
In this method, a node gets selected as the validators which are having a combination of the lowest hash value and the highest stake. The account which will receive the right to forge a block can be easily predicted by each node because the stakes are public
o Coin Age Selection method
In this method, a node gets selected as the validators who have kept their stake for a longer period. The Coin age is calculated by multiplying the number of days the coins have been reserved as stake by the number of coins that are available as stake.
Coin age=no.of days coined staked *total no of coins staked
The coin age of a node has been reset to zero once it forged a block. To forge another block, the node has to wait for a certain period. Hence this method prevents the large stake nodes from dominating the blockchain network.
Different types of PoS
Proof Of Stake can be categorized into two parts:-
o Chain-based proof of stake
This algorithm randomly selects a validator during the time slot (e.g. every period of 10 seconds might be a time slot) available to create a block, and then assign it an authority to create a block with the constraint that the block must point to some previous block. Generally, it points to the last block of the longest chain. Hence over time, the blocks converge into one growing chain.
Blockchain projects that implemented this model are Nxt, Peercoin, Ardor.
o BFT-style proof of stake
This model offers ‘consistency’. Here the randomly chosen validators decide whether a particular block can be included in the chain or not at the end of each round. This type could be favored for a more “permission” approach. In this case, the consensus on a block does not depend on the length or size of the chain.
Blockchain projects that implemented this model are Neo, Tendermint, Polkadot, Hyperledge Fabric.
How it reduces the risk of a Network attack?
Since this model works on the concept of the stake owned by the validator, thus to effectively control the network and approve fraudulent transactions, a node has to own a majority stake in the network (also known as the 51% attack) which is quite impractical because if a hacker tries to purchase 51% of the total number of coins, the market reacts by the fast price appreciation.
Also, wherever the network detects any fraudulent transaction, not only the forger node loses a part of its stake but is also restricted from participating in future activities. Till the time the cost of staking is higher than the reward, the validator is at a loss in case of attempting fraud.
With the “Casper” upgrade underway for Ethereum, Proof-of-Stake (POS) model is gaining more popularity among other Blockchain consensus designs. With this upgrade, the protocols will set certain criteria that will identify a bad validator. The bad validator would lose their deposit if proven, thus making this model more secure.
Read more: Understanding different Consensus Mechanisms, Proof Of Work Explained
#bitcoin #ethereum #consensus #pos #blockchain
submitted by RumaDas to u/RumaDas [link] [comments]

Understanding different Consensus Mechanisms

Understanding different Consensus Mechanisms

https://preview.redd.it/a8khq1zpfdx41.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=a572570acbf0ab6a07dcf8af86009b6917295935
The BlockChain network consists of a series of nodes that form a distributed architecture. These nodes need to be aligned and run synchronously to maintain security in the network. Thus the concept of Consensus is devised to maintain harmony in the blockchain network.
A Consensus mechanism can be defined as a process where all the nodes abide by the same rules or protocols. These consensus mechanisms are very important for a blockchain network to function properly. The network is shared by numerous users who do transactions. These transactions are further validated to add it to the block and then to the chain. Thus the transactions, as well as the network, need to be regularly checked to maintain the safety and security of the network. Thus a good consensus mechanism or protocol is mandatory to protect the network from various attacks.
These protocols should be efficient, secure, reliable, and real-time so that they can check the authenticity of transactions and to which the network participants commonly agreed to the outcome.
Different Consensus Mechanism
There are different kinds of consensus mechanism which are based on different principles.
https://preview.redd.it/92dw63bifdx41.jpg?width=595&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d461c4099a4e3aaa3c4cae69eb7c535dd21c6193
1. Proof of Work (PoW)
Proof of Work was the first-ever consensus mechanism and was adopted by Bitcoin. It became very famous after that and was later implemented on Ethereum, Litecoin, etc. The algorithm is based on solving a complex mathematical puzzle which is very hard to crack. The node which solves it then broadcasts the outcome for verification. Once verified, the blocks are added to the network. This algorithm also rewards the miner who solves the puzzle.
Though PoW has provided the desired security which is very much needed to make the network bulletproof against hackers it was criticized over the years due to its high energy and resource requirements which are needed to solve the complex mathematical puzzles. But this is also the reason why the Bitcoin network is so valuable.
2. Proof of Stake (PoS)
This algorithm is based upon the stake of validators. The validators are decided based on a combination of different factors which includes the staking age and the node’s wealth. Any network user who wants to participate in the forging activity stake a certain amount of coin into the network. This is done by sending a special transaction that will lock up their base cryptocurrency (in Ethereum's case, ether). The stake size determines the chances of a node to be selected as the next validator who will forge the next block. The bigger the stake, the higher the chances.
This algorithm was introduced in 2011 with the idea to solve the problems with Proof of Work.
Some of the crypto coins like Nxt (NXT), Blackcoin, ShadowCoin, and Peercoin (PPC) use the PoS method. Ethereum (ETH) is also switching to a PoS system.
Advantages:
· Enhanced Security
· More decentralization
· Less energy
· Higher transparency
3. Proof of Authority (PoA)
In the PoA consensus model, the identity is chosen as the form of stake rather than staking tokens. It is an enhanced version of Proof of Stake. A group of validators is already chosen as the authority. Their task is to check and validate all the newly added identities, validate transactions, and blocks to add to the network. To ensure efficiency and security in the network the validator group is usually kept small (~25 or less).
PoA was proposed by a group of developers in March 2017 (coined by Gavin Wood) as a blockchain-based on the Ethereum protocol. It was developed with the idea to solve the problem of spam attacks on Ethereum’s Ropsten test network. The new network was named Kovan. It is the main test network for all Ethereum users today.
Projects using PoA: Kovan, Rinkeby, TomoChain, Swarm City, Go Chain, etc.
Characteristics of a PoA Network:-
· Less energy consumption as compared to PoW.
· No communication is required to reach the consensus between the nodes.
· Network operation is independent of the number of available genuine nodes.
· The chance of a node to become a forge depends upon both its stake and overall holding.
4. DPOS (Delegated Proof of Stake)
In 2014, Dan Larimer developed the Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) consensus algorithm. This algorithm is considered more efficient than the preceding PoS mechanism.
A DPoS algorithm is based on a voting system where stakeholders cast their votes to a third-party to outsource the work. These delegates are referred to as witnesses and are responsible for the generation and validation of new blocks. The voting power is proportional to the number of coins each user holds. Also, it varies from project to project. Each delegate presents an individual proposal when asking for votes. The rewards received by the delegates are proportionally shared with their respective electors.
Since a DPoS system is based on a voting system and is maintained by the voters, hence it is directly dependent on the delegates’ reputation. Due to this, the delegates are motivated to be honest and efficient, or else they will get voted out.
Cryptocurrency projects that make use of DPoS consensus algorithm- Bitshares, Steem, Ark, and Lisk.
The main advantage of DPOS is that it is more scalable i.e it can process more transactions per second (TPS) as compared to POW and PoS.
5. Hybrid PoW/PoS
The idea behind developing a hybrid Proof of Work and Proof of Stake systems is to maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantage of both approaches (PoW/PoS).
This method allows mining and staking to create a balance between those outside the community (the miners) and those inside the community (the stakeholders).In this model, the PoW miners create new blocks that contain transactions to be added to the blockchain. As these blocks have been created, the PoS miners vote on whether or not to confirm them. PoS miners stake a portion of their tokens; the larger the stake, greater will be the voting power. However, rather than counting the total vote count to check the validity of the newly created block, the hybrid consensus mechanism randomly chooses 5 'votes' to determine the validity; if 3 out of the 5 chosen votes are positive, the block is confirmed and added to the blockchain. As a reward, PoW miners receive 60% of the block reward, PoS miners receive 30%, and the remaining 10% is dedicated to developmental efforts.
By using PoS voting, these systems protect the network from a 51% attack because it provides an additional layer of verification.
6. Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (dBFT)
This consensus algorithm was invented by the developers of NEO, one of the world's largest platforms for building and deploying decentralized applications (dApps). The method is very similar to PoS,i.e vote to choose delegates and speakers.
All NEO token holders (ordinary nodes) have the right to vote for delegates irrespective of the number of tokens that they hold.
Any token holder can become a delegate if he fulfills the following criteria:-
· Reliable internet connection.
· Specific equipment.
· 1,000 GAS.
A speaker is chosen randomly out of these delegates. These speakers are expected to keep track of all the transactions and record them on the network. A new block is formed from the transactions that need to be validated. Once formed, the speaker sends the proposal of verifications to the elected delegates. If more than two-thirds of the delegates reach a consensus and validate it, the block is added to the blockchain.
Let me know in the comments what you feel about this article. Do read my other articles where I dig deeper into various technical aspects of Blockchain.
submitted by RumaDas to u/RumaDas [link] [comments]

Issues around the hypothetical 51% attack

Is the risk of a 51% attack not something that devs/programmers should be taking more seriously?
I've read the info at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power about this issue.
I've read Gavin Andresen's thoughts here: http://gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html
I've also heard Andreas Antonopoulos basically rubbish the idea of a 51% attack, saying the attacker would have to spend a fortune to launch the attack, and all they could do is double spend for 10 minutes until they get found out and booted off the network.
There also seems to be an assumption that because it is more economically rational for the 51% attacker to mine Bitcoin blocks in the normal way rather than try to destroy Bitcoin that we don't need to worry about the possibility.
It sounds dangerous to me to assume that attackers are motivated by being economically rational. There are people in this world whose objective is to destroy, and they don't care about whether it's economically rational or not.
And if (when!) Bitcoin is poised to go mainstream in a big way, would it be so irrational for a major bank or government to invest the huge sum needed in buying the gear to launch a 51% attack? If Bitcoin was poised to take away most of their billion dollar revenue stream then doing something to try to kill Bitcoin off doesn't seem so economically irrational after all.
I watched the James D'Angelo videos on YT about this subject, and it seems to me he makes some good points about the dangers of a 51% attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2thGzzNSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjtgp5h-jEY
Don't think I've seen any serious responses to his videos from any Bitcoin devs.
So, is James D'Angelo right about this, and the risk needs to be taken more seriously? Or is he missing something?
submitted by asdfoijasdfoi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Peercoin is not marketing to its real strengths

I love peercoin, but it's like it wants to be the nerdy asian kid at the back of the class who no one pays attention to. When peercoin advocates talk about peercoin they tend to fixate on it has a low energy requirement, and as great as that is, it's not what people care about in a cryptocurrency right now. (or at least, not what they think they care about. People even love to invite the sunk cost fallacy and say it's the wasted energy that gives the currency value.) The most valuable consequence of peercoin's sustainability, both in terms of energy and blockchain storage is that it eliminates centralization of miners, which is a conflict of interest to the network - and it prevents the centralization of nodes, which will eventually be a critical security weakness to other networks. It's not just that peercoin is proof of stake, it's also that it's over 5 years old, and those 5 years have gone smoothly, and distributed the currency well enough that, at this point, it is the only cryptocurrency with a real commitment and plan going forward to remain fully decentralized. This is really something that the cryptocurrency community is interested in - peercoin is the definitive answer to all of this miner drama bullshit. But no one is talking about it. Instead we're framing it like, "peercoin is sustainable, it doesn't kill trees... " I think we should be more vocal about the failures of PoW and how Peercoin addressed them, which are becoming more and more evident every day, and is a particularly hot topic right now.
submitted by Ewkilledew to peercoin [link] [comments]

Is Peercoin the most undervalued altcoin at present?

I think it is and here are my reasons why:
Did i leave anything out? I'm open to any criticism and I'm not trying to say that in an arrogant or sarcastic way. I would like to hear some cons.
submitted by CryptoChief to peercoin [link] [comments]

This Peercoin video should get more exposure.

This Peercoin video should get more exposure. submitted by DrCain to peercoin [link] [comments]

If there was an altcoin that was objectively better than bitcoin would it matter at this point?

Hypothetically, if someone were to create a new coin that improved upon bitcoin in every way, do you think it would have any affect at this point?
What if a private company with a billion dollars to spend on marketing decided to create a new coin(decentralized as well) that was objectively better, safer, and easier to use, do you think something like this would have a good chance of dethroning bitcoin? Or is the first mover advantage of bitcoin simply too strong at this point?
submitted by notreddingit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Staking — The New Way to Earn Crypto for Free

Staking — The New Way to Earn Crypto for Free

https://preview.redd.it/jpadsinyz3c41.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0dc410484430b863b0488727f92135f218edff2
Airdrops are so 2017, free money was fun while it lasted but now when someone says free money in crypto, the first thoughts are scams and ponzi schemes. But in 2020, there is a way to earn free money, in a legitimate, common practice, and logical manner — staking.
Staking is the core concept behind the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus protocol that is quickly becoming an industry standard throughout blockchain projects. PoS allows blockchains to scale effectively without compromising on security and resource efficiency. Projects that incorporate staking include aelf, Dash, EOS, Cosmos, Cardano, Dfinity and many others.

https://preview.redd.it/luczupo004c41.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a2aba11c35c9962e42d1ea56b9e4f33532750ef

PoW — Why change

First, let’s look at some of the issues facing Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus that led to the development of PoS.
  1. Excessive energy consumption — In 2017, many concerns were raised over the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network (Largest PoW blockchain). Since then the energy consumption has increased by over 400%, to the point where 1 single transaction on this network has the same carbon footprint of 736,722 Visa transactions or consumes the same amount of electricity as over 20 U.S. households.
  2. Varying Electricity Costs — The profit of any miner on the network is tied to two costs, the initial startup cost to obtain the hardware and infrastructure, and more critically, the running cost of said equipment in relation to electricity usage. Electricity costs can vary from fractions of a cent per kWh to over 50 cents (USD) and in some cases it is free. When a user may only be earning $0.40 USD per hour then this will clearly rule out certain demographics based purely on electricity costs, reducing the potential for complete decentralization.
  3. Reduced decentralization — Due to the high cost of the mining equipment, those with large financial bases setup mining farms, either for others to rent out individual miners or entirely for personal gains. This results in large demographic hotspots on the network reducing the decentralized aspect to a point where it no longer accomplishes this aspect.
  4. Conflicted interests — The requirements of running miners on the network are purely based on having possession of the hardware, electricity and internet connection. There are no limits to the amount a miner can earn, nor do they need to hold any stake in the network, and thus there is very little incentive for them to vote on upgrades that may benefit the network but reduce their rewards.
I want to take this moment to mention a potential benefit to PoW that I have not seen anyone mention previously. It is a very loose argument so don’t take this to heart too strongly.
Consistent Fiat Injection — The majority of miners will be paying for their electricity in fiat currency. At a conservative rate of $0.1 USD per kWh, the network currently uses 73.12 TWh per year. This equates to an average daily cost of over $20 million USD. This means every day around $20 million of fiat currency is effectively being injected into the bitcoin network. Although this concept is somewhat flawed in the sense that the same amount of bitcoin will be released each day regardless of how much is spent on electricity, I’m looking at this from the eyes of the miners, they are reducing their fiat bags and increasing their bitcoin bags. This change of bags is the essence of this point which will inevitably encourage crypto spending. If the bitcoin bags were increased but fiat bags did not decrease, then there would be less incentive to spend the bitcoin, as would see in a staking ecosystem.

https://preview.redd.it/8dtqt6e204c41.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=065aedde87b55f0768968307e59e62a35eac949d

PoS Variations

Different approaches have been taken to tackle different issues the PoS protocol faces. Will Little has an excellent article explaining this and more in PoS, but let me take an excerpt from his piece to go through them:
  • Coin-age selection — Blockchains like Peercoin (the first PoS chain), start out with PoW to distribute the coins, use coin age to help prevent monopolization and 51% attacks (by setting a time range when the probability of being selected as a node is greatest), and implement checkpoints initially to prevent NoS problems.
  • Randomized block selection — Chains like NXT and Blackcoin also use checkpoints, but believe that coin-age discourages staking. After an initial distribution period (either via PoW or otherwise), these chains use algorithms to randomly select nodes that can create blocks.
  • Ethereum’s Casper protocol(s) — Being already widely distributed, Ethereum doesn’t have to worry about the initial distribution problem when/if it switches to PoS. Casper takes a more Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) approach and will punish nodes by taking away (“slashing”) their stake if they do devious things. In addition, consensus is formed by a multi-round process where every randomly assigned node votes for a specific block during a round.
  • Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) — Invented by Dan Larimer and first used in Bitshares (and then in [aelf,] Steem, EOS, and many others), DPoS tackles potential PoS problems by having the community “elect” delegates that will run nodes to create and validate blocks. Bad behavior is then punished by the community simply out-voting the delegated nodes.
  • Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (DBFT) — Similar to DPoS, the NEO community votes for (delegates) nodes, but instead of each node producing blocks and agreeing on consensus, only 2 out of 3 nodes need to agree on what goes in every block (acting more like bookkeepers than validators).
  • Tendermint — As a more sophisticated form of DBFT and a precursor to Casper, Jae Kwon introduced tendermint in 2014, which leverages dynamic validator sets, rotating leader elections, and voting power (i.e. weight) that is proportional to the self-funding and community allocation of tokens to a node (i.e. a “validator”).
  • Masternodes — First introduced by DASH, a masternode PoS system requires nodes to stake a minimum threshold of coins in order to qualify as a node. Often this comes with requirements to provide “service” to a network in the form of governance, special payment protocols, etc…
  • Proof of Importance (POI)NEM takes a slightly different approach by granting an “importance calculation” to masternodes staking at least 10,000 XEM. This POI system then rewards active nodes that act in a positive way over time to impact the community.
  • “Proof-of-X” — And finally, there is no lack of activity in the PoS world to come up with clever approaches and variants of staking (some are more elaborate than others). In addition to BFT protocols such as Honeybadger, Ouroboros, and Tezos, for further reading, also check out “Proof-of-”: Stake Anonymous, Storage, Stake Time, Stake Velocity, Activity, Burn, and Capacity.
https://preview.redd.it/n28a8n5404c41.png?width=604&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ea8827fd0458e768d4eb3a0a1fa88c984ba0a82

Earning Your Stake

In order to understand how one can earn money from these networks, I’ll break them down into 3 categories: Simple staking, Running nodes, and Voting.
Simple Staking - This is the simplest of the 3 methods and requires almost no action by the user. Certain networks will reward users by simply holding tokens in a specified wallet. These rewards are generally minimal but are the easiest way to earn.
Running a node - This method provides the greatest rewards but also requires the greatest action by the user and most likely will require ongoing maintenance. Generally speaking, networks will require nodes to stake a certain amount of tokens often amounting to thousands of dollars. In DPoS systems, these nodes must be voted in by other users on the network and must continue to provide confidence to their supporters. Some companies will setup nodes and allow users to participate by contributing to the minimum staking amount, with a similar concept to PoW mining pools.
Voting - This mechanism works hand in hand with running nodes in relation to DPoS networks. Users are encouraged to vote for their preferred nodes by staking tokens as votes. Each vote will unlock a small amount of rewards for each voter, the nodes are normally the ones to provide these rewards as a portion of their own reward for running a node.

Aelf’s DPoS system

The aelf consensus protocol utilizes a form of DPoS. There are two versions of nodes on the network, active nodes & backup nodes (official names yet to be announced). Active nodes run the network and produce the blocks, while the backup nodes complete minor tasks and are on standby should any active nodes go offline or act maliciously. These nodes are selected based upon their number of votes received. Initially the top 17 nodes will be selected as active nodes, while the next 100 will stand as the backup ones, each voting period each node may change position should they receive more or less votes than the previous period. In order to be considered as a node, one must stake a minimum amount of ELF tokens (yet to be announced).

https://preview.redd.it/47d3wqe604c41.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=062a6aa6186b826d400a0015d4c91fd1a4ed0b65
In order to participate as a voter, there is no minimum amount of tokens to be staked. When one stakes, their tokens will be locked for a designated amount of time, selected by the voter from the preset periods. If users pull their tokens out before this locked period has expired no rewards are received, but if they leave them locked for the entire time frame they will receive the set reward, and the tokens will be automatically rolled over into the next locked period. As a result, should a voter decide, once their votes are cast, they can continue to receive rewards without any further action needed.
Many projects have tackled with node rewards in order to make them fair, well incentivized but sustainable for everyone involved. Aelf has come up with a reward structure based on multiple variables with a basic income guaranteed for every node. Variables may include the number of re-elections, number of votes received, or other elements.
As the system matures, the number of active nodes will be increased, resulting in a more diverse and secure network.
Staking as a solution is a win-win-win for network creators, users and investors. It is a much more resource efficient and scalable protocol to secure blockchain networks while reducing the entry point for users to earn from the system.
submitted by Floris-Jan to aelfofficial [link] [comments]

Jordan Lee, March 27, 2014: "Bitcoin and Peercoin are too volatile for use in ordinary business transactions. They are not currencies. They are cryptocommodities"

Jordan Lee, March 27, 2014:
"I doubt that is what David is implying. This tax ruling (which shouldn't have surprised anyone), brings focus to the unpleasant fact that Bitcoin and Peercoin are too volatile for use in ordinary business transactions. They are not currencies. They are cryptocommodities. We need a cryptocurrency: something stable in value that has no capital gains or losses and no attendant accounting complexities.
There was a time when I believed Bitcoin would provide a permanent and stable foundation for a decentralized financial ecosystem. Sunny King had the courage to see that this was unfortunately not the case, but he didn't admit defeat. He engineered Peercoin as a solution to the shortcomings of Bitcoin. We must be honest and brave in admitting the flaws of Peercoin to begin to able to engineer a solution to those shortcomings. If you can articulate a problem well, a solution tends to emerge.
Bitcoin is made obsolete by Peercoin. I don't think Peercoin has to rendered obsolete to engineer a solution to its volatility problem, but I do think it is time to stop imagining Peercoin can make a good currency in its present form. That is emotionally challenging for a lot of people on this forum."
submitted by crypto_coiner to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Hacker Makes Off With 51 Million NXT Worth $1.8 Million From Bter

Hacker Makes Off With 51 Million NXT Worth $1.8 Million From Bter submitted by _CapR_ to peercoin [link] [comments]

Since I'm not supposed to hoard dogecoin...

Whats a good coin i can mine and hoard?
submitted by lazyjeff to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How much money does it take to 51% PPC today?

Has it ever been done in the past?
submitted by PPimP to peercoin [link] [comments]

Major difference between Peercoin and Primecoin

Can anyone breakdown the Pros on Cons of each coin, both developed by Sunny King. Peercoin is a very popular coin but I don't find it as fascinating as Primecoin.
submitted by glassuserr to xpm [link] [comments]

The TAU Coin Concept Which is Based on Proof of Transaction as a New Consensus Algorithm

Recently, perhaps crypto currency watchers often hear about the ideas of Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, as well as the definition of mining, or the process of how new digital currencies are released through networks.
Proof of Work
As considered the first consensus algorithm, Proof of Work (PoW) is defined as a protocol that has the main purpose of preventing cyber attacks such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, which aim to use up computer system resources by sending fake requests.
The concept of Proof of work already existed even before bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto applied this technique to - we still don't know who Nakamoto really is - his digital currency that revolutionized traditional transaction methods.
In fact, the idea of ​​the PoW was originally published by Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor in 1993, but the term "Proof-of-Work" was created by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels in a document published in 1999.
However, taking into account the date it was made, POW is probably the biggest idea behind Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper - published in 2008 - because it allows consensus without trust and distribution.
Proof-of-Work which is performed through mining and used by Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin among others. The miner is incentivized because it receives a reward for solving the puzzle that verifies the transaction. The quantity and quality of the computer determine the mining power and consequently the profit you can make. PoW reaches consensus because the miner has to (literally) prove the verification through computational labor, and at least 51% of the miner-network has to agree with the verification.
Proof of Stake
Proof of Stake (PoS) as the second consensus algorithm, is another way to validate transactions based on distributed consensus, and to achieve distributed consensus. This is still an algorithm, and the goal is the same as proof-of-work, but the process for achieving goals is very different.
The idea of ​​proof-of-work was first proposed at the BitCointalk forum in 2011, but the first digital currency to use this method was Peercoin in 2012, along with ShadowCash, Nxt, BlackCoin, NuShares / NuBits, Qora, and Nav Coin.
Unlike proof-of-work, where the algorithm rewards miners who solve mathematical equations with the aim of validating transactions and creating new blocks, with proof-of-stake, the creator of the new block is chosen in a deterministic way, depending on wealth, or defined as well as a bet. There are no block rewards.
This PoS selects a validator (comparable to a miner) based on the number of coins it deposits. Since one validator verifies the transaction, the miner doesn’t need to waste as much energy and hardware as Proof-of-Work – where each miner tries to solve the same transaction.
In addition, all digital currencies were made beforehand and the numbers never changed. This means, in the PoS system, there are no block rewards. So, the miners take transaction fees.
However, the rich get richer as they have higher chances at the selection procedure, meaning higher chances to receive the reward. This is why, in fact, in this PoS system, miners are referred to as counterfeiters. PoS is implemented by Peercoin, Decred, and Ethereum. This verification scheme reaches consensus because the validator-network checks the reviews as well. The validator won’t verify fraudulent transactions because it will lose more money (the deposit) than it can earn (the reward).
TAU Coin Concept on Proof of Transaction
Cited from http://networkcultures.org/longform/2018/08/25/proof-of-transaction-the-materiality-of-cryptocurrency/ ,
Proof-of-Transaction is defined as "a physical object that absorbs the process of transferring value from one space or entity to another. It captures the orders of magnitude of the exchange (from technology to phenomena) and narrates these realities through interobjective relations". Further, it is explained that transaction contains a meaning of ‘an agreement’ which involves an exchange or interaction between two entities. While other word that is ‘proof’ shall be referred to ‘evidence’, the witness of an event.
The proposal of TAU is an original consensus mechanism POT. It uses on-chain historical accumulated transactions to determine who can propose a new block. Block generation in TAU is still called mining like Bitcoin, but block reward only comes in the form of transaction fee. TAU is a single utility chain that funds wiring is the only thing supported; therefore, transaction fee is the only income for miners. TAU block structure is designed to support mobile phone mining for decentralization. Total 10 billions coins are generated in the genesis block, while the goal is for each individual to have a full TAU. For every address, the probability of generating a new block is exactly in linear proportion to its historical transaction. This sum is called mining power, an analogue to hash power in Bitcoin.
Further information can be found at www.taucoin.io.
submitted by denio17 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The TAU Coin Concept Which is Based on Proof of Transaction as a New Consensus Algorithm

Recently, perhaps crypto currency watchers often hear about the ideas of Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, as well as the definition of mining, or the process of how new digital currencies are released through networks.
Proof of Work
As considered the first consensus algorithm, Proof of Work (PoW) is defined as a protocol that has the main purpose of preventing cyber attacks such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, which aim to use up computer system resources by sending fake requests.
The concept of Proof of work already existed even before bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto applied this technique to - we still don't know who Nakamoto really is - his digital currency that revolutionized traditional transaction methods.
In fact, the idea of ​​the PoW was originally published by Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor in 1993, but the term "Proof-of-Work" was created by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels in a document published in 1999.
However, taking into account the date it was made, POW is probably the biggest idea behind Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper - published in 2008 - because it allows consensus without trust and distribution.
Proof-of-Work which is performed through mining and used by Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin among others. The miner is incentivized because it receives a reward for solving the puzzle that verifies the transaction. The quantity and quality of the computer determine the mining power and consequently the profit you can make. PoW reaches consensus because the miner has to (literally) prove the verification through computational labor, and at least 51% of the miner-network has to agree with the verification.
Proof of Stake
Proof of Stake (PoS) as the second consensus algorithm, is another way to validate transactions based on distributed consensus, and to achieve distributed consensus. This is still an algorithm, and the goal is the same as proof-of-work, but the process for achieving goals is very different.
The idea of ​​proof-of-work was first proposed at the BitCointalk forum in 2011, but the first digital currency to use this method was Peercoin in 2012, along with ShadowCash, Nxt, BlackCoin, NuShares / NuBits, Qora, and Nav Coin.
Unlike proof-of-work, where the algorithm rewards miners who solve mathematical equations with the aim of validating transactions and creating new blocks, with proof-of-stake, the creator of the new block is chosen in a deterministic way, depending on wealth, or defined as well as a bet. There are no block rewards.
This PoS selects a validator (comparable to a miner) based on the number of coins it deposits. Since one validator verifies the transaction, the miner doesn’t need to waste as much energy and hardware as Proof-of-Work – where each miner tries to solve the same transaction.
In addition, all digital currencies were made beforehand and the numbers never changed. This means, in the PoS system, there are no block rewards. So, the miners take transaction fees.
However, the rich get richer as they have higher chances at the selection procedure, meaning higher chances to receive the reward. This is why, in fact, in this PoS system, miners are referred to as counterfeiters. PoS is implemented by Peercoin, Decred, and Ethereum. This verification scheme reaches consensus because the validator-network checks the reviews as well. The validator won’t verify fraudulent transactions because it will lose more money (the deposit) than it can earn (the reward).
TAU Coin Concept on Proof of Transaction
Cited from http://networkcultures.org/longform/2018/08/25/proof-of-transaction-the-materiality-of-cryptocurrency/ ,
Proof-of-Transaction is defined as "a physical object that absorbs the process of transferring value from one space or entity to another. It captures the orders of magnitude of the exchange (from technology to phenomena) and narrates these realities through interobjective relations". Further, it is explained that transaction contains a meaning of ‘an agreement’ which involves an exchange or interaction between two entities. While other word that is ‘proof’ shall be referred to ‘evidence’, the witness of an event.
The proposal of TAU is an original consensus mechanism POT. It uses on-chain historical accumulated transactions to determine who can propose a new block. Block generation in TAU is still called mining like Bitcoin, but block reward only comes in the form of transaction fee. TAU is a single utility chain that funds wiring is the only thing supported; therefore, transaction fee is the only income for miners. TAU block structure is designed to support mobile phone mining for decentralization. Total 10 billions coins are generated in the genesis block, while the goal is for each individual to have a full TAU. For every address, the probability of generating a new block is exactly in linear proportion to its historical transaction. This sum is called mining power, an analogue to hash power in Bitcoin.
Further information can be found at www.taucoin.io.
submitted by denio17 to Tau_coin [link] [comments]

[Very long, very serious] Development summary week ending 18th April 2014

When I got my first full time job, I used to try implementing requests from everyone as they came in, and for a while people really loved that I listened to their requests. Over time, however, things started to go wrong. I’d apply a change someone asked for, and in doing so would break something elsewhere in the code, in some subtle way that was missed in short-term testing. I’d fix that second bug and reveal a third. I’d fix that just in time for a new request to come in, and the process repeat. This led to the term “Bug whack-a-mole”, wherein I was spending time mostly fixing bugs introduced to live systems through rushing through earlier bug fixes.
So this week, we’ve had a lot of people asking about changes to proof-of-work, especially X11, or even moving to proof of stake, primarily in an attempt to address risk of a 51% attack. A 51% attack is where one actor (person, group, organisation, whatever) gains control of enough resources to be able to create their own blockchain, isolated from the main blockchain, at a rate at least as quickly as the main blockchain is being created. They can then spend Dogecoins on the main blockchain, before releasing their fake blockchain; if their fake blockchain is longer than the existing blockchain, nodes will switch to the new blockchain (as they would when repairing a fork), and essentially the spent Dogecoin on the main blockchain are reversed and can be spent again. This is mostly of consequence to exchanges and payment processors (such as Moolah), who are most likely to end up holding the loss from the double-spend.
The concern about a 51% attack stems from a couple of weeks ago now, when Wafflepool was around 50% of the network hashrate (mining power). It’s still high (at the time of wring about 32GH/s out of almost 74GH/s, or about 43%), but it is diminishing as a proportion.
Lets talk about proof of stake first, as this one’s simpler. Proof of stake has been suggested as a way of avoiding the risk of Wafflepool having control of too many mining resources by itself, by changing from securing the blockchain through computational resources (work), to using number of Dogecoin held. The theory is that those with most Dogecoins have most to lose, and will act in their own interests. Major examples of proof of stake coins include Peercoin, Mintcoin and more recently Blackcoin.
However, this essentially means we take control from Wafflepool, and hand it to Cryptsy (who are considered most likely to be the holder of some of the huge Dogecoin wallets out there). I by no means expect either organisation to attempt a 51% attack, but hopefully it’s clear that simply switching risks isn’t actually improving things. I’ve also had significant concerns raised from the merchant/payment processor community about potential impact of proof of stake, and that it may encourage hoarding (as coins are awarded for holding coins, rather than for mining). The price instability of Mintcoin and Blackcoin (and that Peercoin appears to only avoid this through very high transaction fees to keep the entire network inert) does not encourage confidence, either. For now, proof of stake remains something we’re keeping in mind, primarily in case price does not react as anticipated to mining reward decreases over time, but certainly we’re not eager to rush into such a change.
Before I get into a discussion on proof of work, let me summarise this quickly; right now, uncertainty about changes is holding back our community from adopting ASICs. It’s high risk to spend hundreds, thousands or in some cases significantly more on ASIC hardware which could be left useless if we move. Those who have already purchased ASICs to support the Dogecoin hashrate would most likely have to mine Litecoin to recover sunk costs, if we did move. ASICs are virtually inevitable, and in our assessment we are better off pushing for rapid adoption, rather than expending resources delaying a problem which will re-occur later.
At the time of writing the development team has no plans to change proof of work algorithm outside of the eventuality of a major security break to Scrypt. We are focusing on mitigation approaches in case of a 51% attack, and adoption of the coin as the most sustainable approaches to dealing with this risk.
The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary:
A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip.
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed).
X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt.
Beyond algorithm analysis, this week has been mostly about testing 1.7. Last weekend Patrick raised the issue that we had been incorrectly running the automated tests, which had led to several automated test failures being missed earlier. This led to other tasks being dropped as we quickly reworked the tests to match Dogecoin parameters instead of Bitcoin. So far, all tests have passed successfully once updated to match Dogecoin, however this work continues. On the bright side, it turns out we have a lot more automated tests than we realised, which is very useful for later development.
The source code repository for Dogecoin now also uses Travis CI, which sanity-checks patches submitted to the project, to help us catch any potential problems earlier, thanks to Tazz for leading the charge on that. This is particularly important as of course we’re developing on different platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux) and what works on one, may not work on others. Over time, this should be a significant time saver for the developers. For anyone wanting to help push Dogecoin forward, right now the most productive thing to be doing is testing either Dogecoin, or helping Bitcoin Core test pull requests. Feel free to drop by our Freenode channel for guidance on getting started with either.
Right now, I’m working on the full technical report on X11, and will then be back working on the payment protocol for Dogecoin. I’ve approached a few virus scanning software companies about offering their products for Dogecoin, with so far no response, but will update you all if I hear more.
Lastly, the next halvening (mining reward halving) is currently expected late on the 27th or early on the 28th, both times GMT. Given that it was initially expected on the 25th, we’re obviously seeing some slippage in estimates, and a total off the top of my head guess would be that we’ll see it around 0500 GMT on the 28th at this rate. I have taken the 28th off from the day job, and will be around both before and after in case of any problems (love you guys, not getting up at 5am to check on the blockchain, though!)
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Proof of Stake (PoS)

Proof of Stake (PoS)
Source https://coinscapture.com/blog/proof-of-stake-pos-explained

https://preview.redd.it/5z3n0jtw1p031.jpg?width=5002&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc5ca29cfbab03055de174b11faee9ca2875c49d
The validation of transactions through Proof of work (PoW) consumes a lot of computational energy and time for solving a complex cryptographic puzzle in mining, so as an alternative to this Proof of Stake (PoS) was developed. Proof of Stake (PoS) is a consensus algorithm that was initially suggested in 2011 on the Bitcointalk forum and the first cryptocurrency to implement it was Peercoin in 2012.
What is Proof of Stake (PoS)?
It is a consensus algorithm having the same work purpose as PoW of achieving distributed consensus - a system giving incentives for validating people’s transactions and maintaining integrity but the way to reach this goal is quite different. In PoS, the users who validate transactions and create new blocks are referred as Forgers and the blocks are referred as “forged” or “minted”. The selection is done on the basis of two elements. Let’s check each of them.
Forger’s Stake:
The first element considered is the user’s stake. Forgers (validator) in order to get a chance to verify transactions have to stake some portion of their coins or tokens. Thus, the forger holding the highest amount of coins has the highest chance of being chosen. During the transaction validation, the forger stakes his own coins which are held securely in the system. If the forger mistakenly validates a fraudulent transaction, he may lose the stake amount along with the right to participate in the forging process. However, to resume participation in the forging process, the forger has to again stake some coins. In the PoS algorithm, the incentive is always given in the form of transaction fees.
Selection Methods:
The second element is the selection method that depends on the blockchain type. The two selection methods are Randomised Block Selection and Coin Age Selection.
1. Randomized Block Selection:
The next forger is selected on the basis of a formula i.e. the combination of the lowest hash value and the highest stake. Each node in the system can predict the next forger on the basis of stake as it is public. Nxt and BlackCoin are two cryptocurrencies that use the randomized block selection method.
2. Coin Age Selection:
In this method, the forger is selected on the “coin age” of the stake amount. The coin age is calculated by multiplying the number of coins with the number of days of coins that are held as a stake. The coins should be held for a minimum of 30 days before they compete. The chance to become the next forger turns brighter when the coins are stalked for a longer time and more amount of coins. Once the user has forged the block, the coin age is reset to zero and waiting period of 30-90 days is applied. This prevents users dominance on the blockchain. Peercoin uses coin age selection process combined with a randomized selection method.
Advantages:
1. Energy efficient:
As PoS involves no mining process that consumes a lot of electricity.
2. No 51% attack:
It is an attack that includes a group of entities that control the maximum hashing power of a blockchain which is used for personal gains. In PoS, this attack is avoided because it an expensive process to accumulate 51% of the coin.
Disadvantages:
1. Nothing at stake issue:It is a situation which can occur due to consensus failure due to which there is fork generation (i.e. splitting of blockchain in two) and validator is left with no option but has to support both the chains and validate the block. Due to this issue, the stake would be duplicated on both chains meaning the validators can claim twice the amount of rewards.
Proof of Stake is a protocol that determines the creator of the new block in a deterministic way depending on the wealth, effectively and efficiently fulfilling the intended purpose of achieving and maintaining a decentralised system.
submitted by coinscapturecom to u/coinscapturecom [link] [comments]

My Full High Level Summary of Nexus - Everything you need to Know

Bite Sized Coin Analysis - Nexus
Overall Moon Score - 80.3/100
Coin
Nexus (NXS) - Founded 2014
Current Price - $4.30AUD (at time of writing)
ATH - $4.83AUD
Brief Description:
Based off Peercoin, Nexus has been built around addressing all the shortcomings of bitcoin. Nexus is not an ICO, is aiming to be a major player in the crypto space not just with software but a decentralised mesh satellite system and has the connections to make a good go of this via the founders connection to Vector Space systems owned by his dad. Vector space systems is backed by some of the largest VC firms as well as NASA and claims 1/12th the cost of SpaceX to get this Mesh network happening.
Unique Features
  1. Decentralised using satellite mesh network - harder to regulate in space
  2. Founders dad Jim Cantrell owns vector space systems, spaceX co-founder and has already test launched satellites
  3. Built with quantum security in mind using SHA3
  4. Mesh network will support bitcoin which is a smart move to aid with adoption and will also offer LiFi Internet to help too, especially in poorer countries is my thoughts.
Product Stage
Development
Upcoming Events
Nexus Conference - 21st of this month, starting to moon due to this
Supply
Low supply, 53M Circulating, 71M Total
Mining
3 Channels for unprecedented security - Prime, Hash, and Nexus Proof of Stake (nPOS). Each channel reinforces each other to prevent 51% Attacks
No Reward halving for mining difficulty, one of bitcoins problems
Transaction Speed
Super Fast - a big problem with other currencies like bitcoin
Core Team
  1. Colin Cantrell - Founder, Core Developer
  2. Preston Smith - PR
  3. Keith Smith - GUI Developer
Small team, key people risk but nothing to worry about here for now. Colin Cantrell connected through his father to solid space connections, backing and hype.
Sentiment
Amazing. This coin stayed stable through the previous china dips and prices has been controlled. Positive sentiment on most channels, many people hodling
Exchange Adoption
Low Exchange Adoption currently as this coin is under the radar meaning there will be good future pumps.
Overall Moon Score - 80.3/100
Request Moon Scores for specific coins in the comments.
submitted by moonscores to nexusearth [link] [comments]

On the nature of 51% attacks and pronged cutlery

Sorry everyone, this one’s going to be very serious again, and I'm going to start with administrivia. First of all, a few people have mistake me for lead developer recently; I'm not, I'm just the one that’s more vocal and therefore gets attention. langer_hans is lead developer, and has been working on the coin much longer than I have.
Quick reminders of a couple of things; for new shibes getting started with the main client, you can download a blockchain bootstrap file which helps you get going faster. So Chain is hosting instructions, and copies of the bootstrap.dat are hosted by themselves and Moolah (see links on that page). We've also seen a few people asking about the 1.7 release; yes it’s out, no you don’t have to upgrade, but it does seem a lot faster to us, so we would encourage upgrading. Also there is a mailing list for announcements of upcoming client releases at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dogecoin-releases which I would recommend subscribing to.
So, yesterday lleti asked about an idea to see if there was community support for it. A developer asking does not mean something is going to be done. Even if it was done, it does not mean you have to follow (I’ll talk about that in a moment). Feedback to date has been overwhelmingly negative, though, so consider the idea abandoned.
A few people asked have why the idea was suggested; the intent would be to remove sharp shocks from the mining schedule, and spread it over a longer period of time in order to give adoption of Dogecoin a chance to catch up. One thing I'm not sure was clear was that there was consideration of changing block time to reduce the resulting inflation. As said, we’re not seeing community support for it.
Talking of adoption; /dogecoin has just ticked over 87,000 subscribers. Some Dogecoin users don’t read the subreddit, some subreddit readers don’t use the coin, but lets use that as an estimate for user base. That’s huge for a coin that’s 6 months old, and tiny in terms of an Internet service. And it’s worth remembering Bitcoin is 5 years old, Litecoin 2 years. Peercoin, almost 2 years. That’s the coins we’re in the midst of right now. The developers are cautious of making big technical changes because we want to stabilise the coin so the more cautious companies can know the coin is rock solid, and encourage them to get involved.
So, everyone’s been all about the price this week, and while I hate talking price with you guys, I need to as background on a lot of other stuff. So, the DOGE/BTC price is down, yes. DOGE/USD also a bit, but much less. DOGE/DOGE still solid, though. We’re Dogecoin, though, the price shouldn't matter… well, agreed, but it’s worrying people, and in particular there’s a lot of people worrying the price drops will lead to a 51% attack. So lets talk about 51% attacks, and lets also talk forks.
A 51% attack is where someone gains control of over 50% of the hashrate of the network, and maliciously uses that hashrate to make their own private blockchain which grows faster than the default blockchain. The malicious part is really important here; it’s an attack, not something that happens accidentally. In doing this, they can spend money on the current blockchain, then release their private blockchain. The network sees the longer blockchain and moves to it as part of the fork handling code (note the fork, it’s important). This effectively reverses the spending of Dogecoin that they’ve done.
Note that this is only really an attack on exchanges, as the attacker has to get their Dogecoin into another form (i.e. Bitcoin) before the transaction reverses, or the whole thing has no effect. So far, no exchange has communicated any serious concern about a 51% attack on Dogecoin to myself, and I am unaware of them having done so to any other developer.
The concern over price is raised because as Dogecoin rewards per block diminish over time (which they continue to do for the next 6 months or so), the payments to miners become less valuable (in USD/BTC terms) unless the price goes up. Many of our miners are here to support the coin (with thanks to /DogecoinDefenseForce), but some are just here for the money, and people worry that losing them will make it easy to 51% attack the coin.
So how does one a get enough mining power to 51% attack a coin? I mean, our hashrate is in the 40-50GH/s range, how do you get 51% of that (or more, if it’s a group not currently mining us)? Well, a hacked mining pool is the main scenario that worries people; it’s considered unlikely any mining pool would decide to attack their own funding source (and the big pools are making big money through entirely legal means). When Bitcoin had the same problem back in January, there was a major push to adopt what is called p2pool, which is a distributed alternative to conventional mining pools. There’s been a few issues with p2pool and Dogecoin which is part of why it’s not more widely used, but I’d really like to see more people looking at it, and talk to the developers about what (if anything) it needs for wider adoption. Ideally I’d like to get all new miners picking up p2pool, so if anyone wants to help with tutorials that would be awesome.
A number of other ideas (apart from p2pool adoption) have been proposed; change proof of work, change to proof of stake now, change to proof of stake later, merged mining, multi-protocol mining… all of these have something in common, they require that we fork the coin.
Now, a deliberate planned and controlled fork is quite different to a 51% attack fork, but that does not mean that it’s risk free. One scenario would be a disagreement with the developers over path the coin is taking (as we’re seeing with the tapering suggestion), and the community not updating, leaving the developers on their own very small fork.
Other scenarios could include significant numbers of exchanges stuck on the wrong “prong” of the fork for an extended period of time. We've had at least one exchange get “stuck” for days or weeks on every fork so far, causing significant confusion and distress to those trying to send coins to or receive coins from the exchange. Same for merchants, who might report not receiving coins if they or the sender are on different forks.
Although unlikely, it’s also possible that the fork would introduce a serious bug. There are a number of coins which have been PoW at launch and intended to move to PoS shortly afterwards, and failed to actually switch. Certainly any such change is not without its risks.
Lastly, on a personal note, I'm going to be focusing primarily on co-ordination and communication from here on in, rather than working on the code base directly. I’d like to give a shout-out to our many other developers, there are far too many people now involved to name them all, but langer_hans as lead developer, leofidus-ger, patricklodder have all worked extensively on the 1.7 client. Go give them a hug! If any of the community want to get involved with development, please do swing by #dogecoin-dev on IRC Freenode and we can help get you started.
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Sibcoin back to GPU mining and fully up to date with dash!

Hi, everybody!
Many people ask me about the transition to PoS and about further plans. I apologize for the timeout we had to take. To understand how to move on we had to read a number of different whitepapers and scientific articles. We also had to go through the code of systems that already use the Proof of Stake algorithm and other solutions.
The main reason for the possible transition to PoS was to ensure the stable operation of the network, taking into account the growing number of 51% attacks on various blockchains, including ours. Just switching to another PoW algorithm couldn't solve this problem. One possible solution to 51% problem was the introduction of dynamic checkpoints, as was done in the PeerCoin project. However, they did it in a centralized way that does not meet our requirements. As a temporary solution, we prohibited deep reorganization of the network at the masternod level back in September. However, this was done in a rather primitive way, which does not provide a 100% guarantee. Therefore, we decided to switch to the Proof of Stake algorithm as a solution to 51% attack problem, but after we synchronize our code base with the latest changes from the Bitcoin and Dash projects.
Despite the decision, we still had doubts about the Proof of Stake, because of technical and economic characteristics of this algo. Now I will focus on the economic part. The main advantage of the Proof of Stake algorithm in my opinion is that it does not need to burn electricity to maintain the network. However, it also has significant drawbacks, one of which is that this algorithm operates on the principle of "the rich get richer". Because Sibcoin was originally developed as "people's money", i.e. egalitarian currency, I didn’t like this way to solve "51% attack" problem which is quite technical. So, in parallel with studying technical details of Proof of Stake, I was looking for other ways to solve "51% attack" problem.
Fortunately, the guys from the Dash project have proposed an acceptable solution. You can read about it in this article:
Пожалуйста, войдите или зарегистрируйтесь для просмотра ссылок
Although there is not everything perfect and there are some technical issues, in general, it seems quite reliable. After some consideration we decided to use this solution.
Someone will surely note that, in the presence of ASICs, our currency is still not egalitarian because only small group of ASIC owners can mine now. Of course, because there are masternodes in the system, it cannot be absolutely egalitarian. But in the case of transition to the PoS, most people with small deposits will not mine for some small interest rate, and as a result only large holders will be engaged in this. In contrast, many people have a GPU card. Mining on GPU cards caused us problems due to the dependence of the reward on the difficulty. This dependency will be removed.
Summarizing everything written above, we have the following plan for the next month:
  1. We change the PoW mining algo to remove ASICs.
  2. We remove the dependence of block reward on difficulty. The reward itself will be slightly increased.
  3. We update our codebase with latest changes from Dash 13.0 version to be able to use that protection mechanism against 51% attacks.
These changes will be implemented in two updates. In the first update, we will change the mining algorithm and remove the dependence of the reward on difficulty. In the second, we will update codebase.
submitted by vayrak to sibcoin [link] [comments]

List of solutions we have against ASICs and 51% attacks. Which do you think is best?

  1. Merge Mining An brought up by the creator of Litecoin, one of the Doge devs brought up the idea of merge mining with Digibyte. Merged mining allows a miner to mine for more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of both (all) currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. You can learn more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Both communities are linked leading to a larger community. Low risk as merge mining has been successfully tried before. Increase hashing power. Miners would get both Litecoin/Digibyte and Doge when mining.
Cons: High likelihood that Litecoin or Digibyte miners will dump their Doge and vice versa. Still susceptible to a 51% attack by a large ASIC scrypt farm. All risk lies on Doge and not Litecoin when implementing the required fork.
  1. Change to Scrypt-N algorithm. Current coin used by Vertcoin you can read more about it here...ok you can in all seriousness look more into it here or here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Benefits GPU miners (significant portion of the Doge community is made up of GPU miners).
Cons: Short term solution. Scrypt-n ASICs will probably be developed in the future leading us to where we are now. Scrypt-n can also damage GPU over time.
  1. Change to SHA-256 algorithm. SHA-256 is the mining algorithm that Bitcoin uses. Not much to say here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases.
Cons: Little innovation. GPU miners can no longer mine Doge.
  1. Change Doge from pure PoW (proof of work) to PoW/PoS hybrid. Coins like Peercoin, Mintcoin and Blackcoin follow this system. You can learn a little more about the how the system works here or here
Pros: Attacker would need 51% of all Dogecoins to do a 51% attack. Significantly energy efficient. GPU mining is no longer necessary. Dogecoin owners will gain coins simply by leaving them in their wallet;.
Cons: Changing from pure PoW to PoW/PoS has (to my knowledge) never been tried before. Can encourage hoarding.
  1. Change to X11 algorithm. This algorithm was brought up in the comments. I don't know much about it but it is very interesting! I'm currently reading up on it here, here and in /hirocoin
Pros: Potential 51% attack decreases. Energy efficient. Lower GPU temperature for miners. More fair to laptop miners and people with lower end tech.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scypt to X11 as its never been done before. Higher risk of 51% attack by a botnet.
  1. Change to Multi-Algo algorithm. Also brought up in the comments. Multi-Algo uses SHA-256, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein and Qubit as one algorithm. In use by Myriadcoin. You can read more on it here and in /myriadcoin.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (I don't even know if its possible).
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to Multi-Algo as its never been done before.
  1. Change to HVC algorithm. Brought up in the comments. Similar to Multi-Algo in that it has multiple algorithms in one. Currently used by Heavycoin. You can read more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (Just like Multi-Algo, I am not sure if its even possible). More secure.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to HVC as its never been done before.
If you have any more solutions please let me know. If there is something you want to add to a con or pro or a correction let me know as well. I would like this post to drum up discussion. Thank you for participating.
submitted by kanada_kid to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 51% Attack - Clearly Explained Bitcoin 51% Attack, Alt Coin Delistings And BCH Satoshi Vision Is Damaging Why a 51% attack is impossible on Bitcoin - YouTube BITCOIN MINING ATTACK! Shadow Mining, Chain Reorg ... What is a 51% Attack - Bitcoin Tutorial

Bitcoin Design is fundamentally flawed. I decided to move on to other cryptocurrency like Peercoin. Bitcoin consumes too much electricity, large blockchain size and counting, 51% attack, etc. Why risk our hard-earned money to some chance that it may/may not happen? Everytime it happens, bitcoin value will drop, and we will lose value. Every time we have to move our money in and out of the ... Verge Attack. On April 4th, 2018, Verge, formerly known as DogecoinDark, suffered a unique 51% network attack, resulting in someone mining 1560 XVG every second for 3 hours.Typically, a 51% attack requires creating a massive amount of hash power and overwhelming the network. However, in this case, the attacker decided to work smarter, not harder. Recent reports indicate that a 51% attack has been carried out on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blockchain, where two mining pools decided to reverse several transactions carried out by another miner. Verge Attack. On April 4th, 2018, Verge, formerly known as DogecoinDark, suffered a unique 51% network attack, resulting in someone mining 1560 XVG every second for 3 hours.Typically, a 51% attack requires creating a massive amount of hash power and overwhelming the network. However, in this case, the attacker decided to work smarter, not harder. On the 26th of June Crypto Briefing, Bitcoininst, CryptoVest, Smartereum, LiveBitcoinNews and CryptoCoinNews all reported on the Bitmain-owned pools Antpool & BTC.com reaching close to 51% of Bitcoin’s total hashpower together. What they failed to consider is the fact that the company does not own the majority of the miners participating in the pools, but rather just supports them with ...

[index] [32206] [36832] [41940] [32326] [36521] [19484] [1181] [13652] [38344] [19512]

Bitcoin 51% Attack - Clearly Explained

Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack Bitcoin 51% Attack - Clearly Explained - Duration: 5:39. Nugget's News 7,559 views. 5:39. What is BLOCKCHAIN? The best explanation of blockchain technology - Duration: 6:27. ... A 51% attack is a potential attack on a blockchain network, where a single entity or organization is able to control the majority of the hash rate, potential... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue 51 precent attack is a kind of Blockchain vulnerability that allows attackers to seize the controll of transaction confirmation and block generation. It occu...

#