Topic: Best altcoin to be able to handle lots of transactions? - page 3. (Read 4381 times)

Picked up by who/what? The nodes are the network, so if you control a majority of nodes, you control the majority of the network. In any case, what all of this means is that, like instant-x, zero-time has a constant probability associated with the success of a double spend.

What does it take to control a majority of the network? Not much. Unlike instant-x, no collateral is required to be locked up, so you don't need to buy a bunch of VNL, all you need is a bunch of IP addresses.

Mintcoin can handle a lot of tranactions., and they are confirmed in less than 30 seconds.

There you go, someone that has looked at it closer than me...

I was under the impression that the double-spend would still get picked up before it could actually cause any damage, but again, I didn't spend much time digging around in it once I'd realized that DoS was possible.

It's worse than that:

If I control a majority of nodes*, I can confirm a transaction lock to the recipient of a double spend, then dump the transaction lock from all my nodes and double spend the coins back to myself with a new transaction lock which I hold until N blocks have been built.

"defence" mode cannot work as designed because of the nature of sybil attack.

*) there is a constant probability of success which increases with the number of nodes I own

How many transactions can the plattform or Crevacoins handle per second / minute / hour / day? Could not find appropriate information.

I cant comment on the matter of FUD, nor the accusations of lying etc....I'm far to busy to be concerned about those kinda things.

I can comment on what I have read in the paper, I haven't looked at any code, and I only briefly got into the paper, so take these following thoughts as you will.

It seems to me though, that ZT is susceptible to Sybil attacks, which can in turn lead to a DoS of the ZT feature for most of the network.  

If there is a consensus conflict on the lock of a particular transaction, then the network goes into "defense" mode regarding that transaction and has to wait for a full confirmation before it can be spent.  This is the right thing to do, and ensures that double spends are not possible (assuming the rest of the algorithms and code are correct).  

However, it seems trivial to set up a number of nodes operating a Sybil attack that willingly cause conflicts on these locks, which means that a large portion (or even all) of transactions are forced to wait a confirmation, this of course makes ZT inoperable, and could be attacked endlessly.

As I said, I only briefly read the paper and didn't follow up on it in anyway, there could be things missing from that paper that could relieve these concerns, so take from my opinion what you will, and that it could be wrong due to lack of research on my part.


Heh, the name might be a bit 'cute' but it does what it says on the tin, and Joe public love cute names

A long term project that is going to need a new name for launch, but I will look into it.  I love scratch code that does new and innovative things and this sounds like genuine conversation, a refreshing change from the usual bitcointalk shilling.

He's the lead developer of eMunie, which is a long term project with actually built from scratch code and new ideas, unlike Vanilla's fake claims of new code. Check out the links in his sig if you're curious.

Whoever you are, you seem to be an expert in these matters.  Aside from the stolen code, lying dev, and other FUD (well deserved) surrounding Vanillacoin, what is your opinion of their claimed zerotime protocol?  
  
They say it let's you confirm transactions in less than a second and respend them as well.  It also is supposedly very scalable.  
  
I've heard it described as everything from hogwash to interesting.  I'll be following you as we go forward; looking forward to what you have to release.

Indeed, from what information I been able to dig up, this claimed 100k tps was in a closed and controlled test environment, with a specifically constructed ledger, local LAN and almost certainly some very high powered hardware.

Kinda like when you buy a new car and the manufacturer states a 0-60 time of 6s, yet try as you might you cant get it below 7!  That's because it was controlled, super grippy tyres on a super grippy test track, a drop of fuel in the tank, spare wheel out, seats out, starved driver that weighs only 6st

Yes, it's worrying that they seem to be promising something that for it to be accurate would probably break the laws of physics(1 second block times?).

This isn't the first I've had issues with Bitshares marketing and claims. I think it's very much a legit project, but they go about it in a way that often reflects poorly on themselves.

I recommend you CREVACOIN !
 It trades in C-CEX.com lively and launched ATM for crevacoin

so anytime , you can transacting when you want !

Monero can handle 1600 tps

Bitshares is a vertical scale and it'll never be able to process 100,000 tx/s on commodity hardware let alone expensive server boxes.  Even the very fastest CPUs at the moment will struggle to validate 30,000+ signatures per second and that is before doing anything else with regard to transactions like verifying outputs, read/writes to the DB etc...

I haven't seen any evidence of stress testing that proves BitShares's claim or the claims of any other crypto, and until we do, it should be taken as false advertising.

Bitshares 2.0 - releasing in September - 100,000 transactions per second. Its already popular and price is good now if you want to get in.

Also, the NXT framework can scale transactions.

Have had the same questions a few days ago here -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12175194

Got the following answer -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218

BitShares 2.0 will be able to easily scale up to 100k TPS with 1 second block times. check bitshares.org / blog.bitshares.org. Here's a feature overview video: http://blog.smartcoin.pw/2015/07/bitshares-20-smartcoin-tech-overview.html

Please checkout DigiByte. Block times are 30 seconds and with the upcoming DigiSpeed hardfork we are planning to match Visa's average TPS. Here is a video explaining more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haCDqhaTqc

We also would warmly welcome you into the DigiByte community here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/digibytedgb-core-v61651-digishield-digispeed-segwit-408268

I'm not sure there's a hard cap, but yes, it's not going to scale linearly. I personally think any main chain inevitably becomes a clearance network (note - I don't like this, but that's my analysis), but the limits on Bitcoin are too low even just for a clearance network (it currently compares with the US-only interbank-only CHIPS network).

Back to the initial topic; don't believe anything unless a coin has actually run stress tests. Anyone can drop the block target time in the code, it's having the network reach consensus in that time that's difficult.

You're not going to see any of the current technology able to process much more than a 1000 per second even with major advances in hardware (despite what some cryptos claim).

Vertical scaling just will not get the job done no matter how well designed and optimized your algorithms are, the only solution is to scale horizontally with a different ledger/consensus design.  This is the approach we have taken, and we'll be releasing information on topics such as this very soon.