Topic: [ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released - page 468. (Read 1356149 times)

I agree a larger and more widely decentralized coin would not have to face such a dilema.

PoS is like gravity though it really is a weak force that encourages centralization by rewarding people for hoarding coins.

Ok, so i skipped all the posts from 462 to now.  Did I miss anything besides FUD?  Got the new wallet installed last night, syncs normally and getting all the awesome interest right on schedule.  Waiting for the hangout and thankful for the team and our community.

This is a wrong conclusion, in my opinion. The problem is not POS protocol. The problem is the scale. A SMALL POS is a problem. A big one is the solution.

LOLZZZZ, The title itself was all I needed to see to distinguish this from news.

Then ALL POS coins must be considered flawed.

Eth.

if you could in fact manage to steal or borrow 1 million bitcoins and then double spend them on an exchange and transfer them for another coin you wont get any argument from me.. if someone managed to do that it would be catastrophic.
however you're talking 600 million dollars here.. I'm sure someone would notice your double spend attempt.

the point is though that in order to do that to bitcoin you would have to hack 2 places and pull it off before the network could react.
and I would be very very surprised if the network failed to counter your move.
if they did however fail then sure the only other option would be to try and hard fork you out...  which would be a very difficult and costly process in itself given the size of the network.

I agree that would be theoretically possible to do on bitcoin but  given the sheer size of the network and the fact that you have to carry out two successful attacks... it would far less likely than attacking a small PoS coin where you need only hack one place and then you can pretty much use those coins to wreak havoc on the network as many times as you like once you get them.

if such an attack happened on BTC it would probably be cheaper to just hire a small army of mercenaries to hunt you down and make sure everyone who holds the private keys to those stolen coins is eliminated.

but now we are getting well into the realms of pure fantasy lolz.

Well Patrick Charlie Lee can be your god but he is VERY wrong this time around. And by being wrong in "his opinion" he is perpetuating not just the biggest flaw in cryptos but defending that the ostracism from the real world will continue. He lives, by his choosing and his opinions, in the bubble of the underworld or nerds who code, watch massive porn amounts, masturbate frequently and are high or doped most of the time. Yes I know a lot in the crypto community adhere to this short of lifestyle and it won't be me criticizing it -or any other lifestyle chosen by adults-, but the fact of the matter is that in that bubble no people from the outside has either a place nor a minimal interest in joining. It's the people that in the name of some form of self-laws and self-government (all of it BULLSHIT, by the way), not only justify thievery and fraud but promote it and even brag about it. It used to be stealing intellectual property and now it has escalated to stealing plain old fashioned money. And that has to stop, by a minimal progression through some semblance of ethics or, most likely, by real law. And regulation.

Meanwhile he dares to call you selfish because you refused to immolate yourself and your partners, forever, while allowing a thief to profit maybe in the millions of dollars at the expense of investors. That's some peculiar sense of "humor" right there. Why not asking directly for you and your partners to commit suicide because you have made a decision that, HOPEFULLY, will forever change crypto and convert it into something with a real practical use for an economy many times bigger than the nerdy coders now crippling it. Where is Litecoin, by the way, going? All the way to Palookaville, I'd say. Where's VRC? We don't know. But if Mr Boricuaman and his Black Hand don't put it out of business -and it is up to you to not allow that to happen, to a certain extent at least-, it is breaking off, or could be breaking off the pack towards a sensible, close to the real people mainstream assimilation.

So sorry but Mr. Charlie Lee is, to me, one asshole more perpetuating crime in crypto and hindering his progress. Yes, you acted selfishly in the way that it was preserving the coin you created that some asshole had marked for death because of the amazing negligence of MintPal. But you decision also saved the hard earned money of over 600 investors/traders. A whole community that believes in you and your partners and avoided another terrible blow to the perception of digital currencies by the mainstream. You didn't have much choice beyond self-immolation but what that selfish decision has and will accomplish, is nothin g short of remarkable.

Let's just say that from now on, just like it did when you gay put your real names out there, there's a before and after in crypto. Hopefully this will separate the assholes and criminal from the progressive ones that will take crypto currencies forward to reach the goals that the technology allows and NOT the political agendas of pathetic rejects and assorted criminals.

That is the current block.

When will they turn on the power?   I updated my wallet to 1.3.3.0 and it seems to be stuck at block 109654.

Which is the point that FUDsters conveniently "forget" or "overlook". Had the community been against the fork we would have remained on the old blockchain/wallet and pnosker would have to just go make a new coin, we would have continued, or died, with the current vericoin and all the stolen coins.

As a decentralized community we reached consensus on this decision and went forward with it, no one was forced to upgrade to the new wallet/blockchain and if ONLY the 3 devs wanted to then it would not have happened. Period.

 All the main devs did was provide the technical management to get it done quickly, veri quickly. No one mandated or forced anyone to do anything.

Don't like it, dump your coins and leave. That is a free decentralized market in action, you are free to go and we are free to stay, on a new blockchain, theft free.

If you want to blame, blame the exchange that left 8 million vericoins in a hot wallet staking out of greed.

i dont think you understood me.

ok one more time for you:

1. a great amount of bitcoins get stolen > 1 million by hacker

2. same hacker gets control over big mining pools, gets control over bitcoin network because 35%-51+% hashpower

3. double spends the amount of stolen bitcoins

4. ?



/edit

coin supply is in fact pos hashing power...

What you obviously don't understand:
Did VRC fix the protocol?  No...  VRC is still vulnerable to exactly the same majority holder attack. 

This is why Proof of Share coins are inherently inferior.

VRC cannot fix the flaw, because it's built into the protocol. The coin is permanently flawed.

why should I imagine that?

51% hashing power in a PoW system does not give you the power to take coins from anyone.

you cannot mine 1 million btc with stolen hashing power without people noticing well before you get there. do you know of some kind of magic spell to make the entire world fall asleep for some 6 months and not notice their miners aren't paying out ? because I sure don't.

even with 51% of all Vericoins which uses PoS you cannot take coins directly from people.

people gave their coins to mintpal. That is how the hacker was able to steal them.

if people were stupid enough to put 1 million BTC into an exchange where it could be hacked....*ahem*  mt gox... then that should be their problem not the problem of the payment network.

the mintpal/vericoin hack only became a problem for the vericoin devs because it would have opened pandoras box.
you just cannot let anyone control 30% of the coin supply of any coin (coin supply is not hashing power) and expect the network to function properly.. especially when those coins are stolen.

mintpal claims they weren't staking but what if they were? and what if another exchange is staking their pos coins using hot wallets.... this could just be the tip of the iceberg.

^^^

Sorry forgot to mention, which lead us to the following conclusion:

Those that believe that rollingback was not the right thing to do are

a) To stupid to understand the implications

or

b) Just using that excuse as a reason to FUD

Either way, both deserve to be ignored.

Eth.

(BitTrex): Last price: 0.000314 BTC
(Cryptsy): Last price: 0.00031875 BTC
(Poloniex): Last price: 0.00032 BTC

What you and many others fail to understand, (or more believably use as excuse to FUD) is the fact that not rolling back would exactly lead to the situation in where protocol would be exploited.

Therefore same situation.

Eth.

yes exactly what you said. now imagine not some 2000 btc but 1 million btc and more, so we have the right scale to compare to the vrc theft.

indeed...

do you understand what a double spend attack is?

with 51% you cannot double spend anyone else's coins only the ones you control.


so lets say you hack the ghash.io and manage to control if for a few hours before someone notices (say everyone watching the pool was asleep, all miners  absolutely everyone using the pool fell asleep)

so you point the pool to your mining address and mange to mine some 2000 or so bitcoins.
you then go ahead and transfer those coins to an exchange and buy up some LTC or some other coin with them. and then withdraw those LTC.
once you have your LTC you then use your massive 51% hashing power to fork the network so that your 2000 bitcoin deposit effectively never happened. <-- the double spend.
you have your 2000 btc and your bag of LTC...

meanwhile the miners and pool operators begin to wake up and take their hashing power off the pool.

this is what could happen in an absolute worst case scenario.
 a few million dollars stolen from the BTC network.

given the size of the bitcoin network of some 8 billion dollars,  I doubt that even that handsome some would be enough to trigger a roll-back  which would destroy and entire 8 hours worth of transactions and shake confidence in the network.

we are talking economies of scale here... as was said by one of the previous posters.

btw the attack in mintpal was not a double spend it was a simple SQL injection attack.
but if the attacker was left to keep those 30% vericoins that were stolen then they could have used those coins for numerous attacks in the future.