This very entertaining, add more category next year and giveaway for guests.
Congrats to all doge wowwide
Congrats to all doge wowwide
Next year the awards will be a week long event with 1-2 categories released each day.
Topic: First annual crypto-currency awards! Featuring host 'Baroness' Yurizhai Krayt~! - page 3. (Read 4784 times)
December 11, 2013, 08:06:32 PM
Next year the awards will be a week long event with 1-2 categories released each day.
December 11, 2013, 04:11:07 PM
This very entertaining, add more category next year and giveaway for guests.
Congrats to all doge wowwide
Congrats to all doge wowwide
December 11, 2013, 04:02:24 PM
Very good. Thank you for taking the time to compile it.
December 11, 2013, 03:51:21 PM
would protoshares count as an innovative altcoin?
December 11, 2013, 02:14:17 PM
I LIKE IT
December 11, 2013, 01:44:52 PM
December 11, 2013, 11:43:12 AM
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Firstly: @Yurizhai
Nice post! Very entertaining.
Secondly: @t3a
In earlier stage it would indeed have been rather the PoW that has been vulnerable to "> 50% attacks" than the PoS (because the PoW of Peercoin utilizes SHA-256 like Bitcoin and there are legions of SHA-256 devices in the wild...).
The Peercoin network is already quite far on its way to transition to PoS. If you have a look at this block explorer you see that only 7 of the last 50 blocks have been PoW blocks. So a "> 50% attack" with PoW is not really possible.
With PoS a "> 50% attack" is still possible but much more difficult and costly than attacking a "PoW only" coin! Absolute security is not possible but the relative security of PoS is higher than the security of PoW. If you want to attack using the PoS process, you need more money (in relation to a PoW attack).
It is an illusion that there is an "easy attack" for PoS
I have made a calculation some weeks ago.
Feel free to point out errors in it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3526904
And as previously stated: the checkpoints will phase out.
You need money to perform the attack in the first place, but finding alternative histories where you're awarded the PoS block is computationally inexpensive.
December 11, 2013, 06:41:23 AM
DOGE so wow much prize so winner
nice show vry compete
amaze
nice show vry compete
amaze
December 11, 2013, 06:33:13 AM
wow such awards wow
very shibe dogecoin to the moon very skyrocket wow
very thanks doge approves wow
wow very millionaire
very shibe dogecoin to the moon very skyrocket wow
very thanks doge approves wow
wow very millionaire
December 11, 2013, 05:05:40 AM
I appreciate this thread 
December 11, 2013, 04:51:40 AM
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Firstly: @Yurizhai
Nice post! Very entertaining.
Secondly: @t3a
In earlier stage it would indeed have been rather the PoW that has been vulnerable to "> 50% attacks" than the PoS (because the PoW of Peercoin utilizes SHA-256 like Bitcoin and there are legions of SHA-256 devices in the wild...).
The Peercoin network is already quite far on its way to transition to PoS. If you have a look at this block explorer you see that only 7 of the last 50 blocks have been PoW blocks. So a "> 50% attack" with PoW is not really possible.
With PoS a "> 50% attack" is still possible but much more difficult and costly than attacking a "PoW only" coin! Absolute security is not possible but the relative security of PoS is higher than the security of PoW. If you want to attack using the PoS process, you need more money (in relation to a PoW attack).
It is an illusion that there is an "easy attack" for PoS
I have made a calculation some weeks ago.
Feel free to point out errors in it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3526904
And as previously stated: the checkpoints will phase out.
December 11, 2013, 04:27:36 AM
Quote
So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization?
Oh yes. That's a known fact. The disagreement was whether or not that made PoS a 'failure' or non-innovative. That would be like saying someone who invented a cell phone that never needed to be charged wasn't innovative just because they had to put a temporary cap of 10 calls per day on it.
I see what you're saying. The council will not change the award though.
December 11, 2013, 04:06:20 AM
nice post
+1
+1
December 11, 2013, 03:56:08 AM
made my year, if you have a dogecoin wallet, ill give you some
December 11, 2013, 03:52:36 AM
Quote
So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization?
Oh yes. That's a known fact. The disagreement was whether or not that made PoS a 'failure' or non-innovative. That would be like saying someone who invented a cell phone that never needed to be charged wasn't innovative just because they had to put a temporary cap of 10 calls per day on it.
December 11, 2013, 03:39:43 AM
Quote
So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization?
Oh yes. That's a known fact. The disagreement was whether or not that made PoS a 'failure' or non-innovative. That would be like saying someone who invented a cell phone that never needed to be charged wasn't innovative just because they had to put a temporary cap of 10 calls per day on it.
December 11, 2013, 03:27:09 AM
Quote
The reason for the checkpoints was the ease of a 51% attack using the PoS. If the innovation doesn't work I wouldn't consider it innovative.
But the innovation does work it just turned out it needed to be approached differently than a regular coin. New ideas lead to new problems. It's not like PoS was turned off completely, it's benefits are being reaped as of today.
Do not argue with the cryptogenic council. They do not make mistakes sir.
>it needed to be approached differently than a regular coin.
So are we agreement that that different approach is centralization?
December 11, 2013, 03:14:31 AM
Quote
The reason for the checkpoints was the ease of a 51% attack using the PoS. If the innovation doesn't work I wouldn't consider it innovative.
But the innovation does work it just turned out it needed to be approached differently than a regular coin. New ideas lead to new problems. It's not like PoS was turned off completely, it's benefits are being reaped as of today.
Do not argue with the cryptogenic council. They do not make mistakes sir.
December 11, 2013, 03:07:13 AM
Thank you for your feedback everyone!
Nothing in PPC has 'failed'. The checkpoints are just a safety measure until it is reasonable to remove them. As this coin is designed with the long term in mind I have no problem with it. Bitcoin had the luxury of being the first coin that did not have as many people interested in cryptos at the time. Feathercoin has been successfully attacked twice this year I believe. Other coins as well. The checkpoints will be removed starting in client version 0.5(0.4 is due out in a week or two).
I do not see his caution in regards to his long term oriented cryptocurrency as a stain on the innovation of the coin overall.
The award stands.
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Nothing in PPC has 'failed'. The checkpoints are just a safety measure until it is reasonable to remove them. As this coin is designed with the long term in mind I have no problem with it. Bitcoin had the luxury of being the first coin that did not have as many people interested in cryptos at the time. Feathercoin has been successfully attacked twice this year I believe. Other coins as well. The checkpoints will be removed starting in client version 0.5(0.4 is due out in a week or two).
I do not see his caution in regards to his long term oriented cryptocurrency as a stain on the innovation of the coin overall.
The award stands.
The reason for the checkpoints was the ease of a 51% attack using the PoS. If the innovation doesn't work I wouldn't consider it innovative.
Quote from: gmaxwell
the problem with PoS is, ironically, that there is nothing at stake. When you PoW mine you expend costly resources and the expense only has a return if your blocks have a chance of making it into the longest chain... you're wasting energy going off to mine a losing fork.
in PoS you expend no resource, your PoS mine in one chain doesn't preclude you from PoS mining infinite forking chains.
PPC was exploited via this basically as soon as PoS mining became possible: someone started mining many alternative histories, finding ones where his coins got selected in block after block.
PC was revised so that the identity of the PoS stake was depended on past PoW blocks, ... making it forever dependant on PoW for security too... the weird incentives still remain, though you can no longer use it to mine all the blocks without also having hashpower.
initially the developer signatures were just supposted to bootstrap it until PoS was mining most blocks, ... but its remained due to pos turning out to be less awesome than expected.
in PoS you expend no resource, your PoS mine in one chain doesn't preclude you from PoS mining infinite forking chains.
PPC was exploited via this basically as soon as PoS mining became possible: someone started mining many alternative histories, finding ones where his coins got selected in block after block.
PC was revised so that the identity of the PoS stake was depended on past PoW blocks, ... making it forever dependant on PoW for security too... the weird incentives still remain, though you can no longer use it to mine all the blocks without also having hashpower.
initially the developer signatures were just supposted to bootstrap it until PoS was mining most blocks, ... but its remained due to pos turning out to be less awesome than expected.
December 11, 2013, 03:02:23 AM
Thank you for your feedback everyone!
Nothing in PPC has 'failed'. The checkpoints are just a safety measure until it is reasonable to remove them. As this coin is designed with the long term in mind I have no problem with it. Bitcoin had the luxury of being the first coin that did not have as many people interested in cryptos at the time. Feathercoin has been successfully attacked twice this year I believe. Other coins as well. The checkpoints will be removed starting in client version 0.5(0.4 is due out in a week or two).
I do not see his caution in regards to his long term oriented cryptocurrency as a stain on the innovation of the coin overall.
The award stands.
Agree with everything except PPC. I don't think they deserve the award because their algorithms failed. PoS is vulnerable which is why they had to centralize it. Maybe if they got it working without easy attacks and centralization they would deserve it.
Nothing in PPC has 'failed'. The checkpoints are just a safety measure until it is reasonable to remove them. As this coin is designed with the long term in mind I have no problem with it. Bitcoin had the luxury of being the first coin that did not have as many people interested in cryptos at the time. Feathercoin has been successfully attacked twice this year I believe. Other coins as well. The checkpoints will be removed starting in client version 0.5(0.4 is due out in a week or two).
I do not see his caution in regards to his long term oriented cryptocurrency as a stain on the innovation of the coin overall.
The award stands.
Jump to: