Topic: [ANN] FedoraCoin (TiPS) - New Dev team: Fedoracoin Foundation - page 76. (Read 111289 times)

Thank you for clear explanation here. I am here because I am also a supporter, if nothing happened, I may just be quiet. But now, we really need to do some work, I am glad that testbug team actually did some good things such as the blockexplorer, but we should primary focus on update the wallet first. I do not want to claim  how well I can do. But I definitely can provide support in someway. I PM testbug, but seems he/she is not interested to talk with me, but in case he/she changed his mind, he can still contact me. And since there is no "real" dev, we should all have the rights to vote what next we want to do, not one person decide everything. There are a lot more things we need to do, if we really want this coin grow.

Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" :

I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS.

That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code.

It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her.

I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here.

Can you elaborate on the vulnerabilities that exist or are you refering to the 51% problem solely here?

You have valid points here, but you realize that in both proposed methodes there is single entity deciding what gets a checkpoint which is somewhat against the spirit of a decentralized currency? How would be decided who will be running i.e. the checkpointing master and would you all trust this person to do the right thing (tm) ?

Are there running implementations of coins that use bytestamp so we could look at how it is done in the code? If yes, am I right that these just ask the website of bytestamp for a checkpoint or do they have to run the datacoin core too for this?


I am sorry, that paper was a bit hard to read and I only glanced over it, but as you quoted it as answer to my concerns that >40% are in top two wallets I quote from the conclusion of the paper:
Thank you for answering that question. If you have taken the time to read up the posts that led us here, you should probably understand why a newly created account called Fedoracoin raises some suspicions. In this harmful and scammy environment people can only rely on the reputation of a nick and as you seem to be experienced and knowledgeable person you have to understand that people suspect you to be the takeover dev. I'll give you the benefit of doubt though.


Well, can you point out where my questions and concerns that I wrote in the kindest possible manner were aggressive? I asked you politely if you where affiliated with the takeover dev and you denied which I for now take as your word. I really do not hope any "presidentes" pop up here, it's a scammy enough place already..


Thank you for permitting me my own biased views and oppinions, you are certainly entitled to the same and if my reply does read somewhere like you would need my or someonelse permission to speak up here, that's pure nonsense and I sincerely apologize for that.

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.

Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is.

1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what 
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/

Also we can try this Two Phase POW method.
A paper can be found here: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/files/sprojects/268.pdf
2.   Read this paper, it will answer your concern and you can learn. http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
3.   True, agree.
4.   I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore. 
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.

And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.

If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones. 

My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure.  4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.

This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.

Merged mining ,much  harder to attack,But effect value ,Such as doge,Alone mining is required.Tips daily mining value is close to Doge now,If keep alone mining,Tips value will exceep doge in the future

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.

Select 1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.

Expect，POS ，Merged mining.

I have been following the fork issue, and agree something must be done.  As for who did it, my money would be on the SHA256 takeover group.  They were unable to monopolize the coin because several exchanges other than BTER started trading real TiPS so they took another route.  I do not believe they have given up.

As for any of the above suggestions, I would be OK with any of them except changing the algorithm.
(Disclosure: I don't mine TiPS or any currency and haven't for a year or more)

BUT, I would tread cautiously.  Some wallet changes might play right into the hands of the SHA256 Group.

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

Good to see fedora community active. I have few mil coins from last 2 years in my wallet

You can reindex your local blockchain with -txindex. If you are you are sure you are on the right chain and fully synched and the transaction in question is not there (fedoracoind gettransaction ) it can IMO be safely assumed that the transaction did not happen and the coins are still in possession of the sender.
The above is just the method to check for the transaction locally without trusting a block explorer, naturally you can check that on a blockexplorer too.

Mind you, there is one exception: If the coins that were sent were mined also on/during the fork, they would dissappear the same as the transaction and indeed not reappear in the senders wallet - because they would have dissapeared anyway when the longer chain took over.

But it all boils down to the senders willingness to resend the coins... Wish you good luck with that.

No, the problem is, the sender sent me coins and after he recover his wallet those coin goes back, so I never receive them. But he denied. I am sure this went back. So I want to know is there a way I can prove that the coin goes back to his wallet?

I see.
On that case I will increase deposit time to 28 days.

Have you think about add POS feature for TIPS?
It should solve forking issues.

-halibit-

where can i mine this coin?

I do not think 7 days is enough ,last fork,about 6 days

Thank you for the reply.
TIPS wallet is back online and deposit time is 7 days.

halibit
alcurEX

Forks can happen again,If you want safe,Long deposite confirm time ,30-40 days,Fork 30 days blocks,Need over 600G hash,I do not think anyone would fork,The cost is very high