Topic: [ANN] [NAUT] Nautiluscoin - First Coin w/Stabilization Fund - Digishield - page 243. (Read 901828 times)

Quote from: Doging on July 14, 2014, 09:49:09 AM

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

Maybe the pot size can depend on supply/demand too, almost a manual way of adjusting stake reward. If the price is down we could buy more coins off the exchange and provide an extra incentive to hold.

BTCrawl

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: mdtspain on July 14, 2014, 09:38:41 AM

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

hardcoreprime

full member

Activity: 147

Merit: 100

Quote from: SwedishGirl on July 14, 2014, 09:29:07 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on July 14, 2014, 09:23:48 AM

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

Quote

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

   Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
   Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
   Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

   Reverse other people's transactions
   Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
   Change the number of coins generated per block
   Create coins out of thin air
   Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

Any idea how to avoid the possibility of a 51% attack?

I'm not to familiar withe the technical aspects, but would some programming logic work for this? For Ex.

If one wallet has less than 51% of the total supply of all mined coins, then just allow the wallet to accept more coins, otherwise don't allow any more coins in the wallet.

Doging

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 500

Quote from: SwedishGirl on July 14, 2014, 09:29:07 AM

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

Quote from: mdtspain on July 14, 2014, 09:23:48 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on July 14, 2014, 09:23:48 AM

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

Quote

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

   Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
   Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
   Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

   Reverse other people's transactions
   Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
   Change the number of coins generated per block
   Create coins out of thin air
   Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

Any idea how to avoid the possibility of a 51% attack?

SwedishGirl

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Looking for shmexy coins!

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

Quote

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

   Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
   Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
   Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

   Reverse other people's transactions
   Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
   Change the number of coins generated per block
   Create coins out of thin air
   Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

hardcoreprime

full member

Activity: 147

Merit: 100

Daily Facebook Advertisement Update. We have had 214 Website clicks and 66,000 impressions on campaign #1!

We have received 400 Naut! or 0.138987*400 = $55.60 USD in Donations which will extend the ad for 11 more Days! (July 25th)

http://nautinsight.buddylabsapps.com/address/NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

--------
The Donation period is now over. Thanks for all of your help!

HCP

---------------------
On another note I will be leaving to go on holidays on Thursday July 16, I will let the campaign run in the meantime, however i wont be able to give full daily updates.
I will give full updates as soon as i get back on July 26.

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

Quote

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

   Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
   Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
   Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

   Reverse other people's transactions
   Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
   Change the number of coins generated per block
   Create coins out of thin air
   Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

BTCrawl

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

BK_PHI

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003