[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“17558” timestamp=“1372165026”]
I guess a past tense would be more appropriate…
[/quote]
I would argue that it is still current, unless that user was able get rid of the coins to unsuspecting users. But let’s keep it clear that one thing is the product of fake block generation and another is the [b]attempt[/b] at double spending coins which at the lack of evidence otherwise were obtained legitimately. No news came about anyone complaining about having been defrauded in the multiple attempts at double-spending. Attacker could as well be just testing, or even naively trying to create coins out of negative fees(!)
[quote author=Simkill link=topic=2178.msg18030#msg18030 date=1372335133]
So, for those of us who aren’t able to grasp the document, what’s the conclusion?
[/quote]
My interpretation of the event has been quoted just above your post, this was meant as an exercise and I did not intend to advance it too much since was asked for objectivity. In a way I think the research is not finished and actually think that a deeper technical review would add much better insight to help the developers (any crypto) achieve a higher level of both prevention and protection.
To the non technical inclined the message is: be careful with the heightened risk associated with adopting such a cryptocurrency, where the known vulnerabilities are not just theoretical but exploited as a matter of fact.
More directly:
Devs - this was the attacker methods > neutralise them > develop realtime attack detection tools > make them public
Miners/Pools - cooperate with developers in the detection > help mitigate the attackers success by isolating its moves
Merchants and users - beware of attacks > keep alert for its footprints > act accordingly
Feathercoin is apparently joining forces with other cryptos, which can be very positive, but I remain skeptical until I see actual / structural improvements to crypto in general…
“Hope for the best, plan for the worse”