with gigahash nearing a large hash share…a lot of worry over there, and it fork to pos, pos this and pos that. Not sure anythign will come of it, but you could see a tusnami of BTC being exchanged for PeerCoin at this point.
It is at least putting POS on the map more of the POW’s
the risk of 51% attack is pretty high right now so the cause for concern is very real, and the only solution out there that seems to best resolve the issue and increase network security is POS. Again a great credit to the foresight of sunny king in his coin development, and all the more reason I am happy holding mostly Peercoins now 
Fuzzybear
Yes as far as I can see this is true if stats on D7 are correct
D7 ~ 50TH
Fixx ~ 15TH
Ecoining ~ 60GH
Coinotron ~0GH
This is why I am mining and supporting Ecoining and I suggest a few people do as well… all info here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=1908.0
Fuzzybear
…and this is why centralized checkpointing still exists in the 0.3 ppcoin client for now.
Don’t forget, it isn’t only pools creating new blocks. Some people are solo hashing, especially those with huge asic farms that don’t want to share their profitability with the pool.
Those stats are only for well known public pools.
Finally, those stats are unverifiable. A pool operator could inflate their numbers to make it look like they are bigger than they really are…
Let’s assume them to be true, 51% of hash rate doesn’t mean 51% of block creation or luck.
So many variables. But I agree with Fuzzybear, checking out the new mining pool: http://peercoin.ecoining.com/ is a good idea to help spread the load.
However ecoining.com is having problems at the moment. (Early growing pains?)
I’ve seen d7.lt have some problems lately too though, so it is a good idea to try moving hash power somewhere else.
Is there a way I can calculate/see Peercoins total Hashrate? How is the hashrate determined in general?
$ ppcoind getinfo and $ ppcoind getmininginfo doesn’t give me any info
This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=372303.msg3980207#msg3980207
claims that “Double spends are already occurring, and have occurred since over 1.5 years ago” for bitcoin. Anyone knows anything about it?
[quote=“mhps, post:7, topic:1392”]This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=372303.msg3980207#msg3980207
claims that “Double spends are already occurring, and have occurred since over 1.5 years ago” for bitcoin. Anyone knows anything about it?[/quote]
issit the time when Deepbit want to control at 51%?
[quote=“mhps, post:7, topic:1392”]This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=372303.msg3980207#msg3980207
claims that “Double spends are already occurring, and have occurred since over 1.5 years ago” for bitcoin. Anyone knows anything about it?[/quote]
they occur all the time… so much so that there is a list of the largest attempts in last 500,000 transactions here https://blockchain.info/double-spends
[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:9, topic:1392”][quote=“mhps, post:7, topic:1392”]This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=372303.msg3980207#msg3980207
claims that “Double spends are already occurring, and have occurred since over 1.5 years ago” for bitcoin. Anyone knows anything about it?[/quote]
they occur all the time… so much so that there is a list of the largest attempts in last 500,000 transactions here https://blockchain.info/double-spends[/quote]
These are not successful (confirmed 6 times), are they? I thought the above means double spends that were confirmed 6 times, which are not possible except for special cases e.g. when the v0.8 bitcoin-qt was initially released, or during an attack.
Dear all,
Now the possible 51% attack on Bitcoin is actual on the internet, I started thinking of the expresion “when two dogs fight over a bone”. When you have Bitcoin with the known flaws and Litecoin who also can face some problems in the future when volume and energy consumpion goes up, I`m thinking truly that Peercoin is the third dog.
This with the suspicion that Satoshi Nakamoto and Sunny King can be the same person. From one way it sounds plausible. Satoshi worked for several years hard to develop Bitcoin. In April 2011 he said that he had “moved onto other things” and then suddenly stopped replying to queries altogether.
It make no sense that when a man or woman who worked for over 4 years on a worldwide revolutionary project and suddenly decide to go fishing or shoot woodpeckers to save the woods
I`m thinking that he was wel aware of the flaws in Bitcoin in 2011 but it was to late to make decent changes without disadvantage other people who were putting energy in it. Gavin Andresen was it to admit on April 4 2011 that Bitcoin get into troubles when the volume is scaled up to millions per/second and when that happens that you not able anymore to run Bitcoin on you own computer.
To me it make sense that Satoshi start to work on a new project named Peercoin(and Primecoin). He had the experience, knows the flaws and could start over again under the new pseudonym Sunny King.
What do you think? Am I loosing it? :o
Ps) Love your work Sunny!
It’s certainly plausible, but my guess is that we may never know. In any case, even if they aren’t the same person, it’s a nice thought to know that there are at least two people in people with the foresight to design complex systems like the have.
I’ve also met people on the boards here with the skill to pull it off, so who knows
Problem rising again, more PPC checkpoint bashing :
Interestingly it’s the same guy from last time.
I think simplifying it as bashing is an exaggeration. I’d call it a lively debate on the merits of checkpointing.
At the end of the day:
a) the Peercoin network is alive, functioning, and doing well. +1 for Sunny King
b) So far the Peercoin network is operating as designed. +1 for Sunny King
c) It has a good following, and irregardless of naysayers, a fantastic community. +1 for Peercoin’s Community
All new inventions go through this type of banter. At the end of the day, the community and marketplace decide what works and what doesn’t.
How terrible is it, that the creator of Peercoin has the tools in his disposal to defend us against any attacks? It’s sheer brilliance that he put that into the design of the coin in the early stages of launching it.
Proof-of-stake was untested in this magnitude. It would be terribly irresponsible if Sunny King DIDN’T put central checkpointing in while he witnessed his creation in the wild.
Again, more loud mouth arguing noise on reddit. Geesh I hate that place.
+1 for you too
He is!
Yes as far as I can see this is true if stats on D7 are correct
D7 ~ 50TH
Fixx ~ 15TH
Ecoining ~ 60GH
Coinotron ~0GH
This is why I am mining and supporting Ecoining and I suggest a few people do as well… all info here http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=1908.0
Fuzzybear[/quote]
That does not matter, he still can’t 51%. He would need to control that 2.1M Peercoin account (top Peercoin holder), divide it into 10K transactions and try to double spend by controlling the PoW and PoS with those 10Ks, but that still would not guarantee 520 blocks in a row…
[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:4, topic:1392”]D7 ~ 50TH
Fixx ~ 15TH
Ecoining ~ 60GH
Coinotron ~0GH[/quote]
I didn’t see multipool.us quoted there.
You can force your miner to only mine Peercoin on multipool.us by specifying port 3335 on their pool. Even though multipool.us is currently pointing their SHA256 miners at Bitcoin (as of right now, this moment)…
…there is still 59 GH/s mining just Peercoin at multipool.us
When this happens, it takes a long long time for blocks to be found (last one was 10 days ago or so), but people get a higher payout since the coins aren’t distributed with as many miners.
Perhaps some of us should be going to multipool.us to even out the score?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Checkpoints are a good thing… At least at this point in history. I’d be freaked right now if I had considerable holdings in Bitcoin, Namecoin, Litecoin et al.
Even with 2.1m Peercoin account and no checkpoints, a couple of people on-line with >2000PPC at stake to ensure they’re creating a PoS block within those 520 would keep them busy for a while.
Each time they succeed the attacker have to try again for another 3.5 days in a row.
Interesting times.
I couldn’t merely imagine that is 51% is likely to happen. They say if an attacker gained physical or root access to a pool, they could set it to do what they wanted.