Topic: delete - page 7. (Read 34055 times)

there is no 'attack'.  the blockchain is working as designed.  

Due to the rampant inflation of its supposed value, the hashrate cannot protect the blockchain from an attack anymore. learning about the state of the blockchain should be important to anybody that researchs cryptocurrencies before investing hashrate into them.  If you cannot protect a blockchain which is distributed by design from a single entity, there is nothing that will stop even a small cartel from wrecking the coin.

ergo, auroracoin is overvalued because the inability of the community to maintain its own blockchain.  the solution is to send the value of auroracoin down to a level where it is sustainable, and can build a network hashrate that can protect the value of the coin.

the thread discussions here are déjà vu with previous BCX threads, so you should at least read up on what's happened in the past.  

It is very much a possibility that there are AUR holders in a country where doing whatever OP is planning on doing will be illegal, i.e. attacking money transfers, forging transfers, and what not. Or OP himself might be living in one. Comparing shares of a company to a currency is not applicable.

Would you please shut it with the property rights property rights property rights nonsense?

Of course property needs to be respected. That's not even questionable. I am questioning your thinking about why you think someone needs to take your investment into consideration when they clearly have no obligation to. For example, If you hold a considerable amount of shares of Microsoft, and If im a programmer who discovered a serious security flaw in the Windows OS that enabled me to switch on your webcam without you knowing, and I exposed that to the world. That resulted in millions trying to "check it out" leading many people to abandon the OS and move to Linux, thereby plummeting the stocks to peanuts and millions of people losing millions. In a scenario like that, do you seriously think I have an obligation to consider the value of your shares in Microsoft before I make my move? Of course not! You choosing to buy Microsoft shares from all other available shares is a risk you take.... so why is it any different with AUR?

As for the second one, are you like: "Oh, we have an end-justifies-the-means fellow. Must be evil." You seem to be relying on predetermined stereotypical conclusions instead of actually going about and giving any proper arguments on WHY I am wrong. Using that logic, I too can throw out pseudo Buddhist farts like "Progress should not come at the cost of harming someone", etc

wrt your first argument, it sounds like you are advocating for a lawless society where other people's property rights are not respected

wrt your second argument, this is the old 'The ends justify the means' argument, which has been used in the past by all kinds of miscreants to justify harm against others.

+ignore until you show evidence of a high school diploma

If you bothered to read my text, I suggested to prevent generating blocks whose timestamps are in the past, not a change in the KGW (well actually I suggested that a while ago, but I was wrong, it was not the core failure).

Yes, KGW just allows one to use the possibility to get quickly lower diff by timestamping the blocks to the future. And since standard allows to warp back after 5 blocks, you get your private, low-diff block chain back in real time so others will accept it as the new official chain.

Edit: I could be wrong, I could be right. But as long as there are no comments from the others, this is just my opinion. But as I said, I could be right. So I suggest you call all KGW implemented altcoins to review my theory. You should do it quicky; if I happpen to be right, you might already have someone building an own blockchain.. hurry up! Prove I'm wrong and there is no flaw!

Lol, perhaps this will be good for coins like Ltc and Dgc who did not jump onto the KGW bandwaggon but came up with own solutions.

Ok, BCX, and the audience. What is the judgement? Busted or not busted? We have plenty of time to fix this. But do the other alt coins having KGW?

Edit: I assume silence as an admitting response.

Litecoin does not have KGW. There really is a flaw. It should be fixed.

Another scenarion:
After block 5400, our secret miner (or not-so-secret) makes a private blockchain. Normal block interval is 5 minutes, but our miner decides to timestamp his block 1 day forwad. For the next block he gets 20% lower difficulty than the outside word. He cannot publish the block, it will not be accepted because it is not in the present 2 hour time window. No matter, he continues, generates another block 1 day forward. Again, 20% lower difficulty for the next.. after 5 blocks he is at 33% of the official difficulty. Then, he makes the trick; he can go backward in time to the *median* time of 11 last blocks.. ie he can go to the time he started. And he has 33% of the difficulty compared to the outside word.  (Edit: actually going backward in time costs him 20%, but 33 + 20% is still under 40%)

After generating 6 blocks at normal rate, he can do it again. And again..

He cannot publish the chain unless the highest block is on the time window. But that is not a problem, he can travel in time, as long as he follows the rule!

Remove that one "1" from the source. Has someone counted the blocks that has gone backward in time? Is there really any need for that?
(Edit: lol, this must be the smallest security hole fix in the history of bitcoin..)

Edit: Found out that the limit on going lower is not 20%, but 10%. It slows down a bit this, but does not prevent it.

Still waiting for Litecoin to be 51% attacked. All this causes is FUD and temporary price loss. Nothing is going to happen.

no worry about the BCX clown
Balduro is more skilled (roll back is possible)

To be fair, just because you have invested time and money in acquiring AUR either by mining or trading, that does not mean others have to uphold the value of the "property" you posses. If someone else found a method to drive your coins to zero value, fair and square by expoiting a hole in the open source system, then by all means its his right to do so. He's not hacking into your system and stealing them from you or anything. To me you sound like the horse carriage owner who is huffing and puffing at the news of a different kind of carriage that does not require horses. We need these kind of black swan events to strengthen the system.... you don't build earthquake proof skyscrapers if you don't have earthquakes. Get what I'm saying? We need earthquake proof crypto... and nobody really cares for the people who are caught in the crossfire.... the emergence of the better system after a catastrophy is what is going to drive cryptos forward.

Lol I'm hardly BCX sockpuppet, his testing/mining in the past has cost me, we've also had a few big clashes in the past (many regulars from the old cryptsy chat could confirm that).

However despite several difference of opinion, we are both intelligent enough not you just blanket disagree with each others every comment out of spite etc.

BCX could just as easily experimentally mine a coin I've invested in, just be happy you've had the headsup.

+1

such truth, much appreciate, subscribed to yo nuts.

He pretty much does this to extend and have people stroke his e-peen. I can't really see any other reason for it, but it is entertaining to watch his back and forth.

Because messing up with wrong kind of people's monies might get you killed.

Disclaimer before mouths start to foam: No, I'm not that kind of people. No, I'm not threatening anyone. Simply stating it's a possibility and a reason not to do it.



Probably asberger's, narcissism, and lack of mother's love as a child. Also doesn't bench even 150 lbs.

The real motive for the ~BCT~  'experiment' :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-505534

That is a very cavalier and self serving statement.

I guess your implied argument is that because there is risk in cryptos, it is acceptable for someone to conduct experiments on the AUR (and others, by self-incrimination {errrrmm self-admission}) block chain even though they can be expected to result in property loss to other people.

I'm done with you buddy until you show some signs of independent thought and stop being a ~BCT~ sockpuppet
+ignore

From the OP: "Simply because in the past when I use alt coin chains as test subjects, people tend to lose coins."