If you think you can, I'm interested to see what happens then 
(The 'not revealed' has now been revealed but you're right that it isn't implemented yet)
Topic: Cleanup: I'll attack some coins - I owned APEXcoin for 90 blocks - page 3. (Read 17227 times)
January 27, 2015, 11:59:18 AM
Hmm, still can't see how you can jump the forging queue if it calculated and known to all other forgers independently. They will all see you pushing in the queue when it isn't your turn If you think you can, I'm interested to see what happens then
(The 'not revealed' has now been revealed but you're right that it isn't implemented yet)
If you think you can, I'm interested to see what happens then (The 'not revealed' has now been revealed but you're right that it isn't implemented yet)
January 27, 2015, 11:50:13 AM
transparent forging isn't a magic silver bullet. I think it doesn't solve much.
My understanding is that only the predicting part is implemented, but they don't do anything with that prediction... quoting this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
I read "not revealed" as " not implemented". And even if implemented, I'm attacking with 2% of the stake: I don't need to skip blocks. The analysis on that post doesn't apply to my attack.
My understanding is that only the predicting part is implemented, but they don't do anything with that prediction... quoting this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
Quote
...but this can be counteracted by some mechanisms of advanced consensus (still not revealed)
I read "not revealed" as " not implemented". And even if implemented, I'm attacking with 2% of the stake: I don't need to skip blocks. The analysis on that post doesn't apply to my attack.
January 27, 2015, 08:09:55 AM
Looking at the constants we can see that 8 steps have been made so far:
Code:
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_2 = 47000;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_3 = 51000;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_4 = 64000;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_5 = 67000;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_6 = isTestnet ? 75000 : 130000;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_7 = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
public static final int TRANSPARENT_FORGING_BLOCK_8 = isTestnet ? 78000 : 215000;
January 27, 2015, 07:12:16 AM
More than 50%.
Only because CfB said that 50% was implemented about 6-9 months ago
Only because CfB said that 50% was implemented about 6-9 months ago
Thanks mate, ... although, thinking about it,... seems a bit rough your number
January 27, 2015, 07:09:18 AM
More than 50%.
Only because CfB said that 50% was implemented about 6-9 months ago
Edit: Tried to find the link but couldn't
Only because CfB said that 50% was implemented about 6-9 months ago
Edit: Tried to find the link but couldn't
January 27, 2015, 07:06:45 AM
Is TF already running and working on the testnet ?
I think the better question is, what's the percentage of TF already implemented in the current version of NRS 1.4.10
@Daedelus, do you have a number?
January 27, 2015, 06:42:22 AM
The "ability to predict the next forger to a high prbability" part of Transparent Forging is already running on the mainnet.
Check the forging accounts of the next few blocks against the predictions here...
http://188.138.33.10
...to prove it.
The first stages of Transparent Forging were added to NRS v.0.4.8, if you check the change logs. That was block 30000 (1st Jan 2014). (It was planned for 32000 but there was a hiccup ). The roll out of TF on the mainnet as been happening for over a year.
See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4235982 for Jean-Luc's announcement.
There won't be a point where you can say "that is when TF began", the algos are tweaked to turn bits on and additions made over time.
Check the forging accounts of the next few blocks against the predictions here...
http://188.138.33.10
...to prove it.
The first stages of Transparent Forging were added to NRS v.0.4.8, if you check the change logs. That was block 30000 (1st Jan 2014). (It was planned for 32000 but there was a hiccup
). The roll out of TF on the mainnet as been happening for over a year. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4235982 for Jean-Luc's announcement.
There won't be a point where you can say "that is when TF began", the algos are tweaked to turn bits on and additions made over time.
January 27, 2015, 06:26:50 AM
Cool. The main problem I see that I spoke about earlier was how to get around Transparent Forging. Each forger/miner can predict who is due to forge the next block with high probability. You can see the predictions live from the real Nxt mainnet here:
http://188.138.33.10/
(red are accounts that missed their turn, blue are ones competing for Nxt block with a prediction for the time to next block)
If cynicSOB starts broadcasting blocks when it isn't his turn, the network with blacklist him/reject all his blocks. He will have to fool many nodes in the network to tell the remainder of the network that he is next for his blocks to be accepted. And it might only lead to a temporary fork, with the network reorging later on (upt to 720 blocks later) and orphaning all his blocks. Not a trivial problem to crack.
You can read more about the background to Transparent Forging here, if you are interested: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
http://188.138.33.10/
(red are accounts that missed their turn, blue are ones competing for Nxt block with a prediction for the time to next block)
If cynicSOB starts broadcasting blocks when it isn't his turn, the network with blacklist him/reject all his blocks. He will have to fool many nodes in the network to tell the remainder of the network that he is next for his blocks to be accepted. And it might only lead to a temporary fork, with the network reorging later on (upt to 720 blocks later) and orphaning all his blocks. Not a trivial problem to crack.
You can read more about the background to Transparent Forging here, if you are interested: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
Is TF already running and working on the testnet ?
January 27, 2015, 06:15:49 AM
Cool. The main problem I see that I spoke about earlier was how to get around Transparent Forging. Each forger/miner can predict who is due to forge the next block with high probability. You can see the predictions live from the real Nxt mainnet here:
http://188.138.33.10/
(red are accounts that missed their turn, blue are ones competing for Nxt block with a prediction for the time to next block)
If cynicSOB starts broadcasting blocks when it isn't his turn, the network with blacklist him/reject all his blocks. He will have to fool many nodes in the network to tell the remainder of the network that he is next for his blocks to be accepted. And it might only lead to a temporary fork, with the network reorging later on (upt to 720 blocks later) and orphaning all his blocks. Not a trivial problem to crack.
You can read more about the background to Transparent Forging here, if you are interested: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
http://188.138.33.10/
(red are accounts that missed their turn, blue are ones competing for Nxt block with a prediction for the time to next block)
If cynicSOB starts broadcasting blocks when it isn't his turn, the network with blacklist him/reject all his blocks. He will have to fool many nodes in the network to tell the remainder of the network that he is next for his blocks to be accepted. And it might only lead to a temporary fork, with the network reorging later on (upt to 720 blocks later) and orphaning all his blocks. Not a trivial problem to crack.
You can read more about the background to Transparent Forging here, if you are interested: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transparent-mining-or-what-makes-nxt-a-2nd-generation-currency-364218
January 27, 2015, 05:02:31 AM
For anyone wondering, CynicSOB is working on nxtforum.org to try and break the testnet. You can follow here:
https://nxtforum.org/testnet/nxt-security-audit-attack-simulations-on-testnet/
https://nxtforum.org/testnet/nxt-security-audit-attack-simulations-on-testnet/
Thanks I'll follow along, interesting stuff.
January 27, 2015, 04:39:40 AM
For anyone wondering, CynicSOB is working on nxtforum.org to try and break the testnet. You can follow here:
https://nxtforum.org/testnet/nxt-security-audit-attack-simulations-on-testnet/
https://nxtforum.org/testnet/nxt-security-audit-attack-simulations-on-testnet/
January 23, 2015, 10:12:17 AM
hey, there's no sendmany in nxt? If I want to split my nxt in 50 accounts then I have to pay 50 NXT in fees, right? that's a bummer....
I post here because I don't have my nxtforum password with me right now....
I post here because I don't have my nxtforum password with me right now....
Yes, that's right. For each transaction you have to pay the transaction fee of 1 NXT (so multiply by 50, in your case).
January 23, 2015, 10:08:39 AM
hey, there's no sendmany in nxt? If I want to split my nxt in 50 accounts then I have to pay 50 NXT in fees, right? that's a bummer....
I post here because I don't have my nxtforum password with me right now....
I post here because I don't have my nxtforum password with me right now....
January 23, 2015, 03:10:21 AM
Watching
January 21, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
This looks interesting, reminds me of BCX and Monero
what happened with that? was there an attack or not?
BCX threatened Monero and their price fell, but nothing happened after a while.
January 21, 2015, 12:07:09 PM
^
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
True, but he forgets how anally fixated large stakeholders are.
There are already promising assets such as supernet or Jinn, which aims to revolutionize CPU's, by going from binary to trinary data processing (in theory it can beat any CPU manufacturer in terms off efficiency. disclaimer: I don't own any Jinn assets)
All of these super promising project did not attract a large percentage of overall NXt. I don't know what would.
Certainly not "a digital hedge fund that promises weekly returns of up to 7%" like pirate40's.
Remember that there is a lot more money in bitcoin, so 5,6M$ was not a lot of overall bitcoin stake.
I would never invest in such a fund, and I bet larger stakeholders wouldn't either.
We believe the same.
Plus, ideas like his could kill PoW coins as well: create very attractive mining pools, attract a lot of hashrate by asking for zero fees (use the typically lagged payout as your resource to pay the servers), as soon as your pools reach critical size, make bets against the coin with big leverage and then effect a 51% attack... not really gave it too much thought, but something around those lines.
That's exactly what happened with Ghash too. Zero fees and >50% hashing.
And then before that we had Deepbit over 50, and BTCGuild dangerously close to 50%.
Maybe PoS isn't in it's final fully robust form yet, but I think it sounds pretty solid. Someone could borrow or rent miners in PoW too. Or hack a pool like Ghash. And in PoS people get bent out of shape when they see a single account with 4-5% of supply when Bitcoin itself has had 3 separate mining pools around 50% already.
January 21, 2015, 09:32:37 AM
^
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
True, but he forgets how anally fixated large stakeholders are.
There are already promising assets such as supernet or Jinn, which aims to revolutionize CPU's, by going from binary to trinary data processing (in theory it can beat any CPU manufacturer in terms off efficiency. disclaimer: I don't own any Jinn assets)
All of these super promising project did not attract a large percentage of overall NXt. I don't know what would.
Certainly not "a digital hedge fund that promises weekly returns of up to 7%" like pirate40's.
Remember that there is a lot more money in bitcoin, so 5,6M$ was not a lot of overall bitcoin stake.
I would never invest in such a fund, and I bet larger stakeholders wouldn't either.
We believe the same.
Plus, ideas like his could kill PoW coins as well: create very attractive mining pools, attract a lot of hashrate by asking for zero fees (use the typically lagged payout as your resource to pay the servers), as soon as your pools reach critical size, make bets against the coin with big leverage and then effect a 51% attack... not really gave it too much thought, but something around those lines.
January 21, 2015, 09:21:42 AM
^
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
True, but he forgets how anally fixated large stakeholders are.
There are already promising assets such as supernet or Jinn, which aims to revolutionize CPU's, by going from binary to trinary data processing (in theory it can beat any CPU manufacturer in terms off efficiency. disclaimer: I don't own any Jinn assets)
All of these super promising projects did not attract a large percentage of overall NXt. I don't know what would.
Certainly not "a digital hedge fund that promises weekly returns of up to 7%" like pirate40's.
Remember that there is a lot more money in bitcoin, so 5,6M$ was not a lot of overall bitcoin stake.
I would never invest in such a fund, and I bet larger stakeholders wouldn't either.
January 21, 2015, 08:51:03 AM
^
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
I believe that ArcticMine typically assumes some kind of super-ponzi-scheme to get a huge amount of stake/borrowed stake.
(The economic incentives would be based on this illusion/fictive returns)
January 21, 2015, 08:12:59 AM
So, found any holes the Nxt devs missed in their implementation? 
I think so... but as I said, I need some time to implement the attack and completely understand the implications... attacking still requires a lot of stake, looking how to improve that...
Which is why borrowing state becomes an option for someone wishing to attack a POS coin. That is the essence of the "Second Pirate Savings and Trust" attack.
I think borrowing coins/leased forging and such is the only major danger that I've seen thus far to a solid PoS set up like NXT. In general I think PoS communities need to be vigilant about discouraging mass lending as it seems to be the only plausible way that an attacker could gain a sufficient amount of stake.
Agreed.
But there is not enough economic incentive in Nxt forging to form such large pools.
1M Nxt would have earned about 68USD if forging 24/7 over the whole last year.
Jump to: