Topic: [ANN][C2.1] Coin2 | Pow/PoS | ChainOfConflict[FPS] The Future of Gaming is Now - page 262. (Read 499723 times)

Outstanding, then all we need to do if hardfork into the NXT PoS block allocation system, problem solved.

I can't code c++ yet but would be interested to know if and upper limit on coin age could be coded relative to instantaneous network coin age.

on a side note i'm a fan of a quick and dirty fork with a dev controlled majority to be unwound as c2 becomes more decentralised.

G.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

Looking at diffs of the two source codes it is pretty clear that c2 is a shallow copy of peercoin.

If c2 is using the peercoin PoW/PoS hybrid, you are right and I am wrong.

Quick and dirty way is to create a monoply controled by the devs which is always minting but never used, this fixes the problem.

Long way would be (if we are staking like mintcoin), to change to a PoS system like NXT and impose an upper limit on coinAge (which is to say an upper limit on the probability of finding a block / maybe, got to look at the math).

G.

This is a really interesting discussion and it's fascinating reading two knowledgeable people discussing the minutiae of this event.

What do you both suggest as the best way to invalidate the attackers coins?

This is more of a question for DeathandTaxes really as gts476 has already answered that I think.

I believe your math is incorrect there is no probability of failure (the attack chain isn't published until it is longer and the next block solved by the attacker will always extend his chain).  It is only a question (based on variance) of how many blocks it will take before the attacker is ahead.  

Still that is the minor point so I will accept your assumption.  I don't think you realize how trivial it would be to make 10 billion attempts.  It would be like saying vanity addresses that have 6 digits are impossible because it would take 38 billion attempts on average to compute one.  10 billion sounds like a large number until you consider the rate at which modern hardware can compute hashes.


That is a fundamental error in thinking.  An increased number of confirmations improves security under the scenario where the attacker has less than a majority of the hashrate/stake.  If the attacker has a majority of the hashrate/stake then it is a certainty he can produce a longer chain.  No amount of confirmations can provide you with a level of assurance.   I don't really care if you disagree but I would hate for some noob to believe you and then wonder how an attacker did the "impossible" and performed a 100 block or even 1,000 block reorg because he had a majority of the stake.

tl;dr, yes, but mostly hell no, more confirms make a HUGE difference, mintpal fucked up.

@gts476

You seem very experimented to me.

What is your proposals to solve the problem or to make this coin safer ?

This is not true when the attacker has 51% of the resource (either computing power for PoW or stake for PoS).  With >50% of the critical resource it is a mathematical certainty the attacker will eventually build the longest chain.  10 confirms, 100 confirms, 20,000 confirms isn't sufficient to guarantee the attack can't double spend.  This is the basic security assumption which forms the foundation for all decentralized crypto currencies.

The attacker picked the weaker of the two exchanges however if both mintpal and bter used 100 confirmations the attacker could have double spend both by building an parallel chain containing the double spends that resulting in a 101+ block reorg.  At block X the attacker has >50% of the network stake.  At block X+1 the transactions depositing funds to both exchanges are confirmed.  At block X+101 the funds are available for trading.  Attacker sells for another crypto currency, and withdraws.   Meanwhile the attacker has been building an alternate chain which double spends the deposits in block X+1.  At some point after block X+101 and once the traded coins have cleared and the attacker has the longer chain he publishes this alternate chain and the network reorgs to to the new longer chain and the deposit transactions to both exchanges become orphaned and invalid.

yea, this is only if we are able to successfully destroy their coins

Which is why I asked, can the dev see exactly how many / which wallets were created after 5/16 ?  If so we could use this information to ensure that the attackers stash of coins are absolutely eliminated, and anyone else we eliminate by mistake we could simply reimburse by them providing proof here. Obviously if you have 100 people showing up claiming they lost 200,000 coins each or one user showing up claiming they lost 20m for example that'll be fishy

Leave them in your wallet and earn PoS rewards till next announcement.

UPDATE:

A FEW WORDS FROM ME (THE HEAD DEV):

I sincerely apologize that the coin has been subject to an attack twice.  This is emerging technology and I am relatively busy in the real world.  However, I assure you, this coin is my passion and my real joy.  

The problem was that the exchanges had a majority of the coin in their wallets and exchanges do not stake aka "mine".  So someone did not need 51% of the 60 mil total coins.  They only needed 51% of "staking coins".  Being that most coins were on the exchanges, the attacker was able to figure out a double spend method without 51% of total coins.  

Mintpal does not have the double spend coins.  I dont know what the attacker did with them.  SO HERE IS THE PLAN.

1. We are going to make a new coin with 60 million total supply and a lower interest rate (5%)
2. We are setting up a db to allow people to send in their old coins.  IF YOU HAVE COINS ON AN EXCHANGE, LEAVE THEM THERE.
3. Any wallets created after 5/16/14<--THE DAY OF ATTACK, are invalid and WILL NOT RECEIVE NEW COINS.  This will eliminate the attackers stash of coins    and we will be left with a surplus.  Mintpal lost 22 mil coins from the double spend.  We will reimburse Mintpal, so that they can give users back their coins.  
4. The board members have decided to keep all of our coins in 2 or 3 wallets and have them staking 24/7.  This will make sure that there is always a sufficient amount of coins "minting" and will nearly eliminate 51% attack potential.
5. This will take time and we ask you to bear with us.  Again, I apologize for this.  Thank you all.  

Please do not send emails to Mintpal, Polo,or Bter they are aware of what is going on and your coins are safe.

I have 80000 C2.0 in my local my local wallet. Should I send them to Bter?