Topic: Feathercoin Advanced Checkpointing released today - page 2. (Read 11133 times)

That's right. But it could be almost impossible, because he can start another one, even at home PC behind the NAT. It will be interesting to see how they would try to DDoS his ISP.

If Bush's node does not work, the network will continue to function as it is doing now. The extra protection provided by ACP won't be there.

What happens if someone DDoS's the node?

Maybe it's my own many concerns with the coin coming up, but now I really think the community should see the code.

Quote from: Smoothie on August 29, 2013, 04:16:48 pm
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.

Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.

Wesphily replied:
Everybody that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don't have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.

Follow me carefully, the way I was comparing them is as follows:

Master Node -> Physical Machine -> Physical Security -> How Banks are secured mainly.

They enforce their PAPER by the status quo of having physical security in the form of Guns, Guards, Walls, Etc.

There are talks of changing the difficulty algorithm once again because it is "unfair" that certain miners get to "abuse" the rules set forth.

To change the rules again shows that the first change was not well thought out and should not have happened at all. Sorry if this is off-topic but it is essentially in the same category as this thread as it is another change being spoken about currently.

I don't think there should be any other difficulty adjustment changes. Disclosure: I am not a miner and have not been for 2 years now.

And here in lies the problem of having a centralized master node.

Now it boils down to mainly physical security. Our current banking system already has that problem. Only difference is they have the status quo and resources to protect their systems and Peter doesn't.

QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?

Congratulations to Feathercoin for now adding extreme legal hazard to its already amazing record of technical failure.  By becoming a centralized virtual currency, Feathercoin has now become de facto controlled by a single entity and is thus at risk of government crackdown like what happened to Liberty Reserve.  The owner of the checkpoint key also puts themselves enormous personal risk.

The track record of technical incompetence of Feathercoin development is clear and quite humorous.

* Despite claiming that Feathercoin is about innovation, Feathercoin hasn't fixed ANY OF THE BUGS since copying the old Litecoin 0.6.3 source.  They have had months of opportunity to copy critical bug and security fixes from Litecoin 0.6 or to upgrade to 0.8.

* To add to this further, when Bushstar copied Litecoin, he failed to change the alert private key (which was seriously bad), but the way Bushstar responded made it even worse.  Instead of replacing the alert key with his own, he disabled alerts entirely making it impossible to alert all users that they need to upgrade in the event of a future emergency.

* Also the way that Feathercoin modified its difficulty formula without understanding what he is doing and without modifying the pool software created that breathtakingly awesome time-travelling exploit.
 
Feathercoin has managed to fix no bugs, added more bugs, make themselves a regulatory hazard that is highly likely illegal as a centralized virtual currency, and has failed to upgrade to 0.8 despite months of source code access to litecoin.  Amazing.

The excuse against centralization being bad where individual users can remove or disable checkpoint enforcement is a meaningless lie.  If the major pools enforce checkpoints, then it doesn't matter if the users are enforcing broadcast checkpoints.

There are talks of changing the difficulty algorithm once again because it is "unfair" that certain miners get to "abuse" the rules set forth.

To change the rules again shows that the first change was not well thought out and should not have happened at all. Sorry if this is off-topic but it is essentially in the same category as this thread as it is another change being spoken about currently.

I don't think there should be any other difficulty adjustment changes. Disclosure: I am not a miner and have not been for 2 years now.

Please read Balthazar's teachings in this thread , you guys need to learn , I'm not a particularly intelligent being and i can seem to understand it.

the other point is , that of course um,...well, just this:

A nations currency supply is "issued" and wait for it , its "issued" into debt, and has "interest" added to it, it is issued by a central authority.

now i know Bitcoin is very controlled and centralized , Bitcoin is really actually centralized because of the very few that hold so many, but that aside , not even Bitcoin as flawed as it is is a "central issuing authority"

so:

How do you even start to compare the two?  

{and i assume you are not stupid}

so to be very clear in my question:

How can you compare a National issuance of central currency INTO DEBT, though the creation of a Bond and then a shell game "open market operation" and then Currency issued/monetaized as a "loan" with "interest" added , for then that to be multiplied by the Fractional reserve system, with the only way of a human to get "currency" is the expend labor or energy or borrow it AGAIN , after it was borrowed into existence, with the double whammy , and wait for this ... the new borrowed money adding to the currency supply and essentially inflating the current actual supply thus meaning the existing human loses more standard of living?

to and with

Advanced Centralized Checkpoints?

And here in lies the problem of having a centralized master node.

Now it boils down to mainly physical security. Our current banking system already has that problem. Only difference is they have the status quo and resources to protect their systems and Peter doesn't.

QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?

If checkpointing server can be stolen and it would not make any difference, then what is the point (pun not intended) of having a checkpointing server at all?

It contradicts itself - if this checkpointing server is so important for security, then how can the theft of this server not compromise security in any way?