[color=red][ *** Duplicate post with Personal Attacks ***]

[*** Post removed by Moderator ***][/color]

[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“15226” timestamp=“1371291854”]
[b]Intro[/b]
The recent attacks have made us look around for ways to protect ourselves when the hash power is low. There may be longterm solutions, but we need something to protect us now. There is an Advanced Checkpointing system that Sunny King has developed. If you do not know, Sunny King is the chap who first implemented Proof-of-Stake in PPCoin.

Checkpoints allow us to define in the client, blocks from our blockchain, that the client will look for. The client will reject any chain that does not have the blocks specified. There is more information on checkpoints on the page below.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Checkpoint_Lockin

Currently checkpoints need to be coded into the client which then needs to be redistributed. This system is far to slow to be able to protect us when we are under attack. What Advanced Checkpointing will allow us to do is define checkpoints without having to redistribute the client.

[b]How it works[/b]
The system works by allowing clients to subscribe to checkpoints that we issue. Subscribed clients will then only accept chains with the checkpoints we define. The idea is that we would ask the pools to subscribe so that the majority is protected. Local clients can choose whether to subscribe or not. After attacks have finished we can remove the checkpoints from the system and continue as normal.

[b]In practice[/b]
This would have been extremely useful in the last attack we found ourselves under. We could clearly see the genuine blocks which got orphaned seven or more blocks a time. They were using a continuos chain to try and make the next difficulty start from a day earlier. With Advanced Checkpointing we would have checkpointed a genuine block moving the attacker away from on our chain who would end up with his own fork, separate from the subscribed network. When the attacker stop the attackers chain will die and all the clients will pick up the protected chain.
[/quote]

Dam i had this idea - and i contacted Balthazar about implementing it for nibble - if you guys implement that would rock ! : D -

ah so it’s not a dynamic checkpointing system - its just checkpoints ?

I’m no network expert - but my friend is in network security - so I’m going to ask him also

I’m thinking in terms of LTC and Novacoin future , hopefully FTC survives this but :

1. Can the client have any way of determining if a single miner is on which pool?

If so…

2. Why not limit all pools to say 77M#

3. Consider any pool above 77M# as hostile.

You might say that then the attacker will just split his # power into many pools - but so what , if the client has a way to bulk detect a pool then that’s not a problem.

As an attack begins , just turn off the pools that are initiating it ?

Plus - the information of the community will pretty quickly determine what pool is suspect or legit -

??

zerodrama:

what do we learn from this - so by limiting every pool to say 50 M# could that be a way to eliminate this sort of thing happening ?

when one takes into account that fact that there are enemies that do not care about their own stake in a Cryptocurrency

Does not a pools system then become a potential problem if there is not enough information in the market?

for example “Big Vern” what’s stopping someone like that from opening a pool and not capping it at a certain M#

Does this not then create a problem - the solution of course is as a community to monitor every pool and agree on an upper limit to the pool rate “say 100M#”

when someone discovers a pool with a higher rate - make it well know all over the forum{s} - advising officially that people mining here are not supporting the currency - and then start a new pool.

or is this effectively what happens?

In this way if people discover a pool growing and growing they will certainly know the source of attacks, they could in extreme cases even block those pools ? from the client?

[quote name=“justabitoftime” post=“12052” timestamp=“1370830433”]
I guess I’m confused concerning this thread. These are false choices… maybe we can give Bushstar a minute to catch his breathe and work on a few solutions? There’s quite a few tradeoffs on technical choices we’ll have to make… but choices that are being evaluated.
[/quote]

let me help you out - they are attacking FTC to get it delisted from BTC-e - the attackers despise all that is :

1. BTC-e
2. Novacoin
3. sCrypt
4. any other potential sCrypt currency that is gaining in popularity.

so if whatever action you take - does not cause a delist from BTC-e do that , including contacting the BTC-e admins and explaining what you are going to do , and asking if that will cause them to delist it , so go contact them first - then take action .

if a few traders backlash , don’t worry about that , but get the technical’s together to protect the Chain in future-

these traders will forget about that in a matter of days or weeks , {they have short memories} - what is important is that :

1. you take protective action
2. communicate the action
3. don’t get delisted from BTC-e

if that happens no one will care about a few lost trades - but if the action looks like it brings BTC-e into disrepute - then talk to them first.

I’m from a political socioeconomic background so let me give you guys a little education - :

1. work on sCrypt FPGA or ASIC -
2. Spam out “Alt coins” < that you made and control < to spread the base of the smaller miners while they chase after all the spam.

3. concentrate you ASIC or FPGA # power.

4. Attack the weakest at the time with the aim to destroy [b][i]Confidence in the unit and entity [/i][/b]

this all = attack is from people with lots of capital caught up in Bitcoin and ASICS.

there are two parts to the confidence vector , [i][b]Traders Confidence and miners Confidence.[/b][/i]

I think the Devs made the right decision as Trading is the life and death.

I will now mine FTC and I may have never before , so the attack may have blow back as it may bring a lot of attention to FTC , plus FTC is low enough in price that i can significantly benefit anyhow .

it sounds like the idea that was had of many pools with 100MH limits could help?

Just want to say - I dropped support for FTC after I found out about the block reward - but after this attack - I’d just like to say i want to help in any way possible - obviously FTC is enough of a threat to warrant it - so if there is any way in which we/i can help FTC , i’d like to .

and enemy of an enemy is a friend to me ! :D

who is the main Dev of FTC these days?

[quote name=“ShadowEW” post=“3613” timestamp=“1368607091”]
[quote author=DigitalDoom link=topic=467.msg3492#msg3492 date=1368564618]
I’ll toss in my 2 bits here. Apologies if these suggestions have already been made here or already implemented. To be honest, I’ll admit that I haven’t yet been to every section of this forum so it’s possible that I may be suggesting ideas that are already in action.

I was thinking it would be nice to maybe have a couple of new areas available:

1. [b]An “Alternate Coins/Currencies” section where people can be free to discuss non-FTC currencies (ie. fiat, crypto, precious metals, etc.).[/b]
   [/quote]

I think falls under " [u]Negative Direction[/u] [b]Advertisement of other coins[/b] " of the Feathercoin.com Forums Rules [i]at the moment[/i].
http://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?topic=466.0
Discussing another currency could be seen as promotion, but we’ll see. x3
[/quote]

Hey maybe its just me, but i’m not sure you are seeing the big picture here?

more traffic to this website = more exposure to FTC = successfull currency.

when [b][u]you[/u][/b] have the control to direct that information, i really don’t see how that is a threat to FTC?

just make posters go to their correct section.

the BTC forum is trying to take advantage of an “information” marketing advantage, by keeping the “ALternative Cyrptocurrency” section there but not letting the Mod organize it.