Securing the blockchain - beyond ACP
-
[quote name=“Wellenreiter” post=“54598” timestamp=“1390561706”]
I’m in for some tests, if needed.
Just somebody needs to coordinate what and how the tests should be performed.
[/quote]Do it, go for it guys. I would pitch in if I could but I have no idea how to help test.
-
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.
Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
-
[quote name=“Calem” post=“54612” timestamp=“1390571026”]
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
[/quote]Yes, I’ve suggested this many times before.
Here’s the solution: Non-inflationary proof of stake.
Block reward for PoS is 0. Only transaction fees are available, which means the reward is not great, but it does allow for some reward while introducing 0 inflation, and wallets that are open for even a short amount of time as a function of their NORMAL USE will contribute to the security of the network… say nothing of the feathercoind clients that run on servers 24/7/365.
Distributed, wallet based security with reward and zero inflation.
-
[quote name=“Calem” post=“54612” timestamp=“1390571026”]
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
[/quote]Proof of Stake? Get NXT. ;)
-
[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“54832” timestamp=“1390603293”]
[quote author=Calem link=topic=6956.msg54612#msg54612 date=1390571026]
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
[/quote]Proof of Stake? Get NXT. ;)
[/quote]But how would you handle the initial distribution? Given that no genesis is fair surely that makes it worse as you would have to notify the entire world, give them enough time to make an informed decision before launch. It could take you years.
-
[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“54832” timestamp=“1390603293”]
[quote author=Calem link=topic=6956.msg54612#msg54612 date=1390571026]
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
[/quote]Proof of Stake? Get NXT. ;)
[/quote]Hrm your right… that does kinda sound like proof of stake :/ I’m not a fan of that at all…
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“54688” timestamp=“1390588650”]
Here’s the solution: [b][u]Non-inflationary[/u][/b] proof of stake.Block reward for PoS is 0. Only transaction fees are available, which means the reward is not great, but it does allow for some reward while introducing 0 inflation, and wallets that are open for even a short amount of time as a function of their NORMAL USE will contribute to the security of the network… say nothing of the feathercoind clients that run on servers 24/7/365.
Distributed, wallet based security with reward and zero inflation.
[/quote]That sounds a lot more like what I was hoping
-
After reading the source code, I note that Litecoin 0.8.6.1 has already implemented a “one off” 14 day look back “difficulty change” / ReTarget / sanity check mechanism, to counter 51% attacks.
This means the use of 2 Temporal block chain time averaging zones as a 51% difficulty manipulation rejection mechanism has already been tested.
Which also tends to confirm that “Advance difficulty averaging”, with 3 or more temporal zones, and a smooth adjustment of the difficulty is likely to be effective.
It will act to increase the cost of a 51% attacks as well as large variations of hash rate at Difficulty change.
-
[quote name=“wrapper” post=“54958” timestamp=“1390661457”]
After reading the source code, I note that Litecoin 0.8.6.1 has already implemented a “one off” 14 day look back “difficulty change” / ReTarget / sanity check mechanism, to counter 51% attacks.This means the use of 2 Temporal block chain time averaging zones as a 51% difficulty manipulation rejection mechanism has already been tested.
Which also tends to confirm that “Advance difficulty averaging”, with 3 or more temporal zones, and a smooth adjustment of the difficulty is likely to be effective.
It will act to increase the cost of a 51% attacks as well as large variations of hash rate at Difficulty change.
[/quote]That’s fantastic news! :)
-
[quote name=“chrisj” post=“53462” timestamp=“1390165988”]
Ok was this is @Wrapper?[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=1878.msg16932#msg16932 date=1371896674]
A novel method to stop attacks, distribute the confirmations logarithmically.I had an idea to make Feathercoin quicker / more secure. “Confirmation locality”. This would mean confirmations would decrease in value the distance (time) from the transaction with an exponential decay. This would mean the transaction is proportionally confirmed, but not fully confirmed till time > 80% network time. This means one person could not mount a 51% attack as the confirmations are distributed more widley through the network. Local confirmations have more value, the attacker cannot be local to everyone!
It would also have the added benefit local (small) payments are confirmed almost immediately with 99% validity.
[/quote]
[/quote]This is absolute genius as a starting point. But a 51% attack is still possible. What this approach prevents is someone rewriting someone else’s history. It does not prevent a rogue ledger from being injected.
-
Ok, I’m late to the tread, sorry busy in my life.
the faster we adjust to hash power input the easier a 51% will be to do as more mining means less profitability so profit miner goes away so you get Loyal vs attacker. if hashrate is big enough to keep diff high enough profit miner are out of the equation until the end of the attack. so in actual condition with .00034BTC/FTC a constant 6Gh can keep the diff at ~200 and profitability in the bottom list as we are at 138 diff. so a 51% of 10000 block would be possible. so number of confirm just make it more time but 10000 confirm is just not a valid option.
so difficulty retarget changes can help a bit, but would not solve the issue :(
one note the attacker get coins for mining if that don’t destroy too much FTC and he is not too much on the unprofitable side he will get a mining revenue that is nearly fair if this mining farm is already used for mining. so the cost if the attacker has the mining farm already is FTC price- usual mining coin price and he get what he benefits from the 51%(double spend, FTC rep down, etc.)
in my opinion POS in most form I have looked at would lead to another form of possible 51%
- consume coin day: i keep a lot of coin until i need to spend a lost of coins day for my 51% attack
- simple coins own and online: someone with large money just hold a lot and make the vote, most big wallet are offline for security reason so 1% should be enough (we know that more the 1.5M FTC was involve in previous attack)
- etc.
in fact if a distributed attack resistant concensus method is found the mining as we know would be useless(can be another form of mining). but i don’t know one
-
I must say the traditional PoS system originating from PPC isn’t good at the 51% attack prevention. There can be many improvements made. The whole idea of unlimited coin age accumulation for staking is bad.
-
Catcoin has got some cool charts we should have had, Hash rate against difficulty. You can plainly see that is being “Multipooled” as well, they have already made suggested changes, but could be just too small yet, to evade an attack.
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“54688” timestamp=“1390588650”]
[quote author=Calem link=topic=6956.msg54612#msg54612 date=1390571026]
I know I might be a little late in the game here, but is it possible to do whatever it is you want to try do, but in addition, work it in such a way that it utilises people leaving their wallets open to help in decentralizing the check pointing. Maybe have a minute % of ftc as reward.Or is what’s suggested is either A. already does that or B. doesn’t need to.
[/quote]Yes, I’ve suggested this many times before.
Here’s the solution: Non-inflationary proof of stake.
Block reward for PoS is 0. Only transaction fees are available, which means the reward is not great, but it does allow for some reward while introducing 0 inflation, and wallets that are open for even a short amount of time as a function of their NORMAL USE will contribute to the security of the network… say nothing of the feathercoind clients that run on servers 24/7/365.
Distributed, wallet based security with reward and zero inflation.
[/quote]Even a 0% PoS model breaks the current PoW coin distribution schedule. You need to modify the block structure and the reference GetBlockValue() code to operate with separate counters for PoW and PoS blocks.
-
I personally still see this as a priority. Keep up the brainstorming guys.
