Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 816. (Read 3058816 times)

Dgb will have it's time but might take bit longer because of the supply coming onto the market for the time being. I also had a look at noble , net etc but you should really look at Guldencoin. That is a special project and it's not because of the devs but the community is adding some really good stuff but under WaterLooDown they building a seriously good dev team to back that community.

Dgb would be over 2 million usd marketcap if the supply was 10% of what it is now. Also if bitcoin price goes to 1000 usd again high supply coins will suffer regardless of how good they are. This is why it's important for coins like dgb and guldencoin to have it's own fiat pairings.

And there's zero interest in putting together an Investor's Pack either!



What more . . .

. . . bear with me here, I'll be done in a jiff.

Let's add the very curious phenomenon we've seen here in the last few days/weeks to the fact that there's no interest in "selling" DGB to investors.

Let's start that off with a chart.




Does that look like just about the best picture perfect, textbook example, of what is Pump and Dump?

On a chart, the answer is clearly yes.

In spite of all the constant rhetoric about how DGB is not just another P&D shit coin, the reality of the matter from the viewpoint of the market is that, in fact, DGB is just another P&D shit coin. There's no arguing that. It is what it is. The price chart does not lie.

Of course, the Devs can argue that the market is misinterpreting things, and, of course, that argument would be worth something if the Devs were around on a regular basis informing and keeping everyone abreast, or just engaging at very least.

Traders call it the "quiet period" when a Pump and Dump coin falls into a lower volume sideways pattern. They've named it such because the Devs deliberately stay "quiet" so that price will fall even further. This is an essential part of P&D.

You never see new ideas or initiatives during the quiet period - everything positive is quenched, that is unless it is a "positive" that's seen as being trivial by serious investors, of course, since that positive then becomes a double negative.

Any of this sound familiar?

Please don't take this personally, I'm only citing facts, facts that can seriously alter people's perception, and with perception being as important as it is, it's no wonder that everything possible is done to make perception as negative as possible during the "quiet period".

And then we've got this very interesting phenomenon here at DGB central to add to the template: the recent arrivals of people like barabbas, and, finally, the sudden and urgent need to fix a supposedly super critical vulnerability that has been with us for 7 months now, and that for some odd reason has now become paramount, and (not resembling barabbas in any manner other than their recent arrivals) that has been made present by recent arrivals with their newly found strong convictions (which could very well be sincere, but remember, I'm talking about very strict facts and how they can, and do, shape perceptions). Oh, and I almost forgot, the Dev comes out and says, again after 7 months, YES, this is a problem we need to address . . . but has not the time for the mention of long term positives (I've been soliciting a response on the Investor's Pack for a while now with no luck, hum). Can things get any more negative (other than outside observers finally pointing this out)?

Of course, this could all be coincidence . . .

Does anyone believe in coincidence?

o0o0, you made some good points that I'm sure many share, but it might be even graver than you think. I'm not one to say definitively what something is or isn't, nor do I talk about people's motivations or speculate as to whether something is intentional or not, nor do I judge others. On the other hand, I don't have any problems talking about how facts may be perceived, and what the benefits or damage may be, and in this case, the facts of the matter, circumstantial or not, have done great harm to DGB in my opinion, and it will take a lot of doing to bring me back to the thinking that DGB is not just another P&D and keep me from selling into the next pump.

And I, for one, should know better.  

Thanks for that background material - it's very helpful. You and MentalCollatz certainly are two welcomed additions to the community.

Nevertheless, there's still no statistical analysis there to speak of either. Lot's of great coders, "patching" things without really addressing whether or not the need is real. The probabilistic analysis is severely wanting. How in the world can a "coin [be] vulnerable to 51% attacks by attackers with far less than 51% of the network hashpower"? That just leaves my head in a fog. It must have done the same to 8bitcoder as well since he just left it at that and began working on a "patch" (which is understandable for a coder since the mindset is one of terrible dislike for bugs regardless of their impact).

Okay, and we pick things up from there, no real understanding, at least not documented (so far as I know), of what the real statistical ramifications are, but a 51% attack with less than 51% does cast some doubt, to say the least, on what the real possibilities are.

8bitcoder talks early on about the need to build a "side chain" and that the attacker would eventually catch up to the main network. That is practically statistically impossible, if not completely impossible. Does anyone really think a side chain of equal size to the DGB blockchain could be built? If diff were ZERO then a blockchain of equal size in blocks could be theoretically achieved, but with a zero diff, the "work value" would be infinitely inferior. In order to build a side chain of equal value, we'd need Superman to reverse time for us so that we could start at the same point in time. And don't come back at this by saying a forked side chain would work since by the time the attacker were to catch up that "fork" would be long known to be just that.

Of course, everything I'm saying is just off the top of my head, but without any serious statistical analysis on the part of those that say this is a reality - a 51% attack with less than 51%, or even with 61%, as has been said here - what I'm saying holds the same weight (if not more since common sense tells us that less than half is not equal to half).

Common sense tells us that a 51% attack requires a 51% control of the ENTIRE network, not 51% of 20% of the network, unless you're able to stop the other 4 algos from discovering new blocks over a short period of time, something which no-one has ever said is possible (will this be the next shoe to drop?) and something that doesn't happen regardless of how much one individual algo's hashrate spikes.

WarpTimer starts that thread by saying that in "theory it could be carried out on a single CPU." Seriously? What about the diff needed to generate the amount of work necessary in order to be equal to a real SHA256 block generated on the real blockchain? With a single CPU? Come on, where are we drawing our assumptions from, and, more importantly, just how are we validating them?

He even goes on to say that there needs to be a spike in SHA256 diff in order to begin the attack, and the attacker is going to be the block finder with one CPU? 

Let alone try to mine 2 other algos?

As always with the 51% attack, we're back to the need for some serious computational power, and, in this case, the failure of the other algos.

Don't know how to leave you on this other than to say that on this level I don't consider reddit and BCT comments to be anything more than that, comments, and I certainly don't put them into White Paper category, much less documented research.

BTW, do you have a link to where 8bitcoder moved the discussion on github?

@o0o0 Thank you very much for expressing your honest concerns. And thank you for your suggestions.

We have been planning to start making weekly video blog updates for awhile now so starting early next week everyone can expect the first video update. I will give a general introduction and welcome to beginers and then an overview of the vision of where DigiByte is headed and how best to explain DigiByte to others. As well as a current state of affairs.

I also would like to take the time to answer as many questions as possible. So if you have a question, both technical or business related please post it here so I can review them and include them in the video update.

There is a lot happening in the world right now. Between Greece, the Chinese stock market and a complete overload of debt worldwide there is a huge opportunity for DigiByte right now.

Thanks again to everyone for your honesty, support and passion for this amazing technology.

Cheers,

Jared

Going to be honest here yet again. I was a big DGB supporter and held around 106 million DGB but i've dropped my investment by approximately 50%.

I pride myself on transparency and activity as being a factor in my investments. I still believe DGB has a lot of potential but i don't believe there is as much communication and progress to continue to keep my faith at the level it was. Also i find the news lacking... sites are nice gaming wallet nice etc but there isn't enough team and community interaction and briefing. Yes there are deals that can't be released etc but you can report in a round about way to show something is happening. Last i heard was a hard fork to match visa stuff etc and that was due a while ago... its been delayed but not much news on why and when we can expect it. I think the game needs to be stepped up and people kept informed.

The auto miners from mintsy and multipools dumping into dgb is one factor and without buy pressure from adoption its a losing battle. Lets face it. In all honesty we are all here to make money realised in either fiat or believe that DGB can and will be a micro payment device where we will get increased value from our initial investment in the form of goods.

Jared is a good person i believe and has a lot invested but i don't think at present there is enough being done to address the general public and investors individually, This may change but i encourage Jared to introduce his complete programming team and pr team and provide an avenue where they can converse with the public. I also would like to see some kind of regular blog posting or news casts that show whats happening week by week with DGB. Blind faith leads to destruction i've seen it many times in investments and regardless of what i want to believe its mind over heart in this game.

DGB is simply not adopted enough nor does it have the community following of a meme like doge to fight on sells. What it does have is dedicated devs and community but that alone isn't enough to raise the price.

I'll maintain my 60 million DGB investment for the next few months and see if the outlook changes. Please don't take this as a threat its more an open look at how i invest.
For now i've diverted my funds into netcoin. I encourage others to take a look at this.

Netcoin is a lot like DGB except its a POS coin with 100% APR interest until block 940,000 which is around this november and it halves. Netcoin has a twist on Proof of Stake (POS). Its not around having to tweek block sizes to compete... just put all your coins in 1 address and leave the wallet open. every 6 hours (4 times a day) you get a promised stake... after 14 days i can confirm this to be true. The interest rate i think starts at 20% and leads to 100% once you hit 10 million coins... it steps up from 0->10 million.

A nice coin.. if you are the type to keep your wallet closed thats fine too. When you open it you get the missed stake you are owed... you just don't get the compounding effect. Be nice though and leave it open to secure the network.

Diversification is the key to any investment portfolio and i ask you take a look at netcoin but make your own decision. Its sitting on around 330 satoshi at present which is still a good price. I invested and got in around 220-260 satoshi but its still a good price. 1 to 2 million is a nice target... it'll cost around i think 5-6 btc. Returns in time aren't too bad... better than bank interest. If you want more info pm me and i'll take it off topic and have a chat with you.

else google netcoin foundation and open comms in there forums. The devs are great. 0 premine and no foundation member holds more than 7 million coins. The total coin cap is 440.44 million at present i believe.

To which extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs are you referring to? 8bitcoder (dev of myriadcoin) and Roshan (dev of Saffroncoin) are extremely experienced and they both acknowledged this problem. I know its hard to believe (i had the same) but one must not be blinded and hide for the truth no?

Read this conversation HR:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/

especially this part:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnonug
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnr5gd

TLDR: Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin has patched up their code with some workarounds (but still not optimal). Digibyte has not been patched up yet (but will be in digispeed, we hope).

esotericizm, can you give you best estimate how much usuable nodes we have please?

Does 51% automatically cause a problem, or would the entity with 51% have to put in some sort of logic (a specially coded wallet?) to actively reject blocks from everyone but themselves?

I've always thought the latter, so someone would need to plan this - not just have it happen by chance.

Good contributions. All I can say is that this needs to be thoroughly studied and documented with hard data. If you're correct, then we will have made a major improvement. If not, we run the risk of creating a major SNAFU.

Personally, until we have clear substantiated documentation on the subject (this would be a huge milestone that would make many people look like they would have been better off reading C++ for Dummies), I will remain skeptical and adhere to the original analysis and numbers backed by so many extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs. I find it incredible to think that a 51% attact would be possible with only 61% of one algo, except in the hypothetical case I concluded my last post with (and that is, in practice, impossible): The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

Good suggestion! We need more marketing! Perhaps the investor withdrawed his investment (took it back because he saw that crypto is not booming anymore)?
Jared, is the $250k investment still intact? And is there a possibility to use some of it for marketing please? Perhaps give some out of it to some trusted members to do marketing because you have so less time? Just a suggestion. We need to help you, i think this way we can help:

give funds out of that $250k to do marketing on: google, facebook, twitter, ads in greece etc etc.

Why use the $250k investment as a marketing gimmick? Is there a link somewhere to read how much has been already used for marketing purposes? If nothing is known about the investment or u do not want to tell anything about it then could we please stop using that as marketing, because people want transparancy.

Thanks for that clarification.

One last question for now and then I'll leave this to others who may indeed know more than I do.

"Work" only comes into play when determining which of two simultaneously discovered blocks is added to the blockchain, correct?

Even if the sha256d block contains more work, if block discovery is relatively equal at 20% per algo, how does that change the theoretical percentages necessary for a 51% attack on a multi-algo? Let's say each sha256d block contains more work, but it's still a relative 20% of the total (even if someone control 100% of that 20%) meaning that an incorrect chain could not be created and the attack would not be successful. Let's say that sha256d is worth 100 times more work than any of the other algos, the fact that those blocks are evenly distributed at a 1:5 ratio within the total blockchain would completely mitigate that "superiority", would it not? It's still only one of five.

The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

1. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. Currently only 61% on SHA256D algorithm is sufficient to attack Digibyte, you dont even need 1% of the other 4 algos. After the pull request of mentalcollatz will be merged (and if it will be merged) this will change to: an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. So basicly what we know today about multi-pow, it is not true. You dont need an average of 51% over the 5 algos since 61% of SHA256D is enough. So in plain english:
currently: the attacker only need hashrate in only 1 algorithm  
after pull request is merged: the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms

2. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. In the current implementation there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms.

Take your 250k money in the hands and place ads for DGB in Greece. That would make at least some sense.
"Send your money in DGB without any restriction"

That page just uses non-technical wording.  Bitcoin also uses the "most work" criterion.

Work factors only apply to multi-algo coins.

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network

"The best chain (black) consists of the longest series of transaction records from the genesis block (green) to the current block or record. Orphaned records (purple) exist outside of the best chain."

suggests that what you are presenting is a major "revelation" that stands the crypto-world on its head and that therefore needs some very serious documentation supported by hard data.


Add: BTW, a google search for "magic work factors bitcoin" yields these results:

https://www.google.es/search?q=best+chain+bitcoin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=upifVdevF4HzUPT5j8AL#q=magic+work+factors+bitcoin

Is your terminology also new?

Your misconception stems from this fact: the "best" chain is determined not by the number of blocks in the chain, but by the amount of work in the chain.  Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms (due to magic work factors set before asics were common).

You still need an average of 51% over the 5 algos. From an easy to understand point of view, why is it technically incorrect to say that DGB is 5 times safer then?

I'm very interested is seeing how the 5 algos are not weighted correctly. On a smoothed average over time there is a 28.64 ratio to individual network hashrates and their corresponding diff (hashrate / 28.64 = diff). That ratio rises as network hashrate rises, and falls as the hashrate falls, of course, since it is an algorithm too, but averaged over time, it's a pretty good rule of thumb. That means that if one algo's hashrate and corresponding diff rises substantially, so do the diffs for the other 4 algos since they all are linked to the same ratio that will automatically adjust higher as one individual network hashrates rises (even if each of the rest of the algos' hashrates remain stable at the time of the notable rise in the other algo's hashrate). Of course, as stated above, the actual block discovery over time supports this as no one algo ever achieves notable differences in actual block discovery.

As sated in this article from Coin Brief http://coinbrief.net/what_is_myriadcoin/ it's not just a substantial majority of hashrate in one of the algos, but a substantial majority COMBINED with important hashrate control in the other 4 algos:

"As each algorithm controls only 20% of the network, a 51% attacker would need to control an average of 51% of each algorithm to successfully attack the network.  For example, if someone brought in enough ASICs to capture 80% of both SHA256 and Scrypt, which would be very difficult on it’s own, that would still only amount to 32% of the overall network.  The remaining 19% would need to be carved out of the Qubit, Skein, and Groestl algorithms, and there are no ASICs in development for any one of those."


Add: Perhaps there is some confusion about "weighting". The algos are indeed weighted differently so that mining is "fairer" for all. The idea was to create a level playing field for all participants. This however, does not adversely affect the individual diffs: as the diff for one algo rises, so do the rest.

Good questions! I will try to answer 2 of them (as how i understand it, or is the community not allowed to answer technical questions? If so, i apologize and will stop answering them)

1.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. All algorithms are not weighted properly in Digibyte and thus only 61% on SHA256D is sufficient to attack Digibyte. If these problems get sorted (all algorithms weighted properly) then you an attacker can still attack Digibyte with only 87% with just 1 algorithm. How is that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint? It is not true that you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo. So not correct.

2. No also not correct. This is one of the flaws MaNI was talking about:
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11804113

And THAT^^ is why i nominated o0o0 and HR, they are not afraid to speak up (thats why i would never nominate for example Dennahz, sorry no offence but you blindly follow because you dont know what is going on. You even did a try to explain the 51% attack, but when u saw that Jared said it was true, you quickly removed your post. Sometimes its better to question people no?).

Let me repeat what o0o0 said (and i know for sure halinyo would agree also with me):

I think questioning is good in this community and it should be encouraged... devs should respond to such questions as it gives as active appearance and faith for the community and builds a strong base and price.

To not agree with this means that you pretty much blindly follow and you end up with another paycoin / Joshua Garza which crypto doesn't need. Jared should be addressing these concerns in the forum topic as part of his daily schedule. There is only this topic and the digibyte forum. For him to reply and reassure people would only take 30 mins of his day for this topic. I encourage Jared to do this. Digibyte growth is dependant on its customer base which means the devs should take the time to address these investors queries.

Its not about attacking Jared its merely about opening the channel so the public can address and converse with him direct. Its a little lacking at present (sorry but i'm just being honest). Communication channels that happen between specific members of the public and the dev lead to a closed system where people suspect things aren't always right. Be out and open and reply to all queries from all people direct.

Can we get an answer on this Jared? I think o0o0 is 10000% right.

Okay, Digibyte, my question is for you too so we can all understand this: what are you considering to be "work calculation"? A secondary question would be: how is that pertinent?

When looking at block discovery, all the different algos have basically the same daily average, meaning that from a "block discovery" contribution point of view, they are roughly equal. Correct, or not?

This leads to what is fundamental for a 51% attack to prosper: it needs to create a fork that essentially "pirates" the blockchain. Correct, or not?

That means that 51% of block discovery needs to be achieved. Correct, or not?

And I think that does indeed bring us back to the original calculations. Correct, or not?

BTW: An average of 1,000 is extremely small, so small as to rule out any kind of statistical validity - DGB averages just under 2,880 a day! I would recommend at least 10,000, and that with a focus on actual block discovery and the ratios you might develop from that. Would you really consider a pull request based on half a day's analysis?

(And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Now, inquiring minds want to know just where the "error" is and how it really affects DGB.