Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained] - page 441. (Read 1369778 times)

There is probably validity to your statement Mg.

Soepkip and others post on this thread and say they are trying to help. However if one looks at the posts outside of this thread, you will see them openly mocking Mint.

Still, I think we should just ignore them while our dev takes a look and makes a statement. Having Paspi look into it is a big plus too as he has already fixed a minor bug for our community.

Just because they didn't kill the coin, doesn't mean they can't. It just means they didn't.

Choppy, can you explain this? Saying something is "anti-fragile" isn't the same as writing a technical explanation as to why, and will only invite further attacks.

Agree completely. Like they say "all press is good press". Too many trolls lately talking about random coins in other coins ann threads.

No it's even better than we thought!  If you investigate the block chain and understand how POW/POS works you will realize that Mintcoin has just survived the worst possible attack possible. Mintcoin is anti-fragile even more so than bitcoin. If you don't understand what anti-fragile means then I wouldn't trust any FUD that your smearing with a grain of salt.

There is probably validity to your statement Mg.

Soepkip and others post on this thread and say they are trying to help. However if one looks at the posts outside of this thread, you will see them openly mocking Mint.

Still, I think we should just ignore them while our dev takes a look and makes a statement. Having Paspi look into it is a big plus too as he has already fixed a minor bug for our community.

You guys here make more Blackcoin PR as you think here.

All those bashing makes you look like being jealous, focus should be on MINT not on BC here or not?

They said they would look into if it becomes an issue, actually



All I know is that the time for all this talk is over. they say they can kill the coin. I'll believe it when I see it. until then, well, talk is cheap.

Believe me, if they could kill MINT they would have. They can't do it so they are left with trolling.

No it's even better than we thought!  If you investigate the block chain and understand how POW/POS works you will realize that Mintcoin has just survived the worst possible attack possible. Mintcoin is anti-fragile even more so than bitcoin. If you don't understand what anti-fragile means then I wouldn't trust any FUD that your smearing with a grain of salt.

So it's even worse than we thought. The entire network was frozen with no confirmations, and that was only carried out by the first stage of the attack.

Game over.

So far a new person reading this topic will see that 50% of the regular posters are actually liars if they read the last few pages and then check the blockchain explorer to see the attack in black and white.

I used to be a big MINT supporter, feel free to check my post history I was here in the early days.

I know, and they said they were looking into it/working on it. My point to everybody is, lets be patient and wait for the next update.

Thanks paspi

I'm investigating the issue. I'm not a dev of mintcoin, but I believe in this community and I try to address issues that I can fix in the code and send a patch to devs as much as I can. (Let it be network connection issues that troubled v1.0, or high CPU usage of v1.4, there were one or two more minor fixes I submitted, but I can't remember now:) )

I saw the devs responded to the issue here, but I don't know when they'll provide a fix (or if they believe there's a problem that need to be fixed -- or if there's really a problem). They usually prefer to do their development behind the scenes, and release their changes in a new version.

I'll investigate the issue anyway for my own curiosity. I would like to provide a patch, but it seems like a security issue in the core, so it's not one person's job to fix it. More eyes are needed to validate any changes to make sure the changes indeed fix the problem and don't introduce new flaws. (In fact not only validation, but also code/idea contributions would be needed).

I believe the devs are trying to understand the issue and fix it. Still, if enough people are interested, we may create a fork on github and try to create a patch there, which can later be merged into the main client codebase when it's ready. I would volunteer for creating a patch for this if there are enough people who will contribute -- by reviewing changes, committing changes, or discussing security issues. But it has to be a community effort, I won't dare to change core components by myself and then submit an unreviewed patch to the devs -- it would be risky.

So what are your thoughts? Anyone is interested in working on this?

PS: I haven't read entire https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/security-analysis-of-powpos-hybrids-with-low-pow-reward-551861 yet; and I might have missed some posts here if anyone proposed a solution. I'm yet trying to digest the issue introduced in that topic and the blockchain explorer.

mr_random why are you here, doing exactly what you just described: "such blatant FUD attempts." All the information about the situation that needs to be shared here has already been shared, you are doing nothing but trolling as usual.

You have always been a troll on this thread, nobody is going to listen to you no matter what you say. Leave the discussion to reputable and respectable members of the blackcoin community.

I'm investigating the issue. I'm not a dev of mintcoin, but I believe in this community and I try to address issues that I can fix in the code and send a patch to devs as much as I can. (Let it be network connection issues that troubled v1.0, or high CPU usage of v1.4, there were one or two more minor fixes I submitted, but I can't remember now:) )

I saw the devs responded to the issue here, but I don't know when they'll provide a fix (or if they believe there's a problem that need to be fixed -- or if there's really a problem). They usually prefer to do their development behind the scenes, and release their changes in a new version.

I'll investigate the issue anyway for my own curiosity. I would like to provide a patch, but it seems like a security issue in the core, so it's not one person's job to fix it. More eyes are needed to validate any changes to make sure the changes indeed fix the problem and don't introduce new flaws. (In fact not only validation, but also code/idea contributions would be needed).

I believe the devs are trying to understand the issue and fix it. Still, if enough people are interested, we may create a fork on github and try to create a patch there, which can later be merged into the main client codebase when it's ready. I would volunteer for creating a patch for this if there are enough people who will contribute -- by reviewing changes, committing changes, or discussing security issues. But it has to be a community effort, I won't dare to change core components by myself and then submit an unreviewed patch to the devs -- it would be risky.

So what are your thoughts? Anyone is interested in working on this?

PS: I haven't read entire https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/security-analysis-of-powpos-hybrids-with-low-pow-reward-551861 yet; and I might have missed some posts here if anyone proposed a solution. I'm yet trying to digest the issue introduced in that topic and the blockchain explorer.