The Foundation has been accepting BitCoin donations. Unfortunately, BitCoin is very wasteful in terms of electricity, and is therefore a dirty cryptocurrency.
I recommend that the Foundation immediately cease accepting BitCoin, and require donors who wish to donate in cryptocurrency to convert to FoldingCoin instead. Please see: FoldingCoin (FLDC) http://foldingcoin.net/ whitepaper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y4MV9AwGLTRFqD-kjC4uN0AX59kHOpO1OWsabnxx...
This conversion will place the Foundation at the forefront of cryptocurrency technology, and stop it from contributing to extremely dirty waste. As other cryptocurrencies based on proofs of useful work instead of useless work emerge, the Foundation should consider those. FoldingCoin is based on proofs of useful prediction of protein folding, which is useful for computer-aided antibody design, and used in turn for cancer therapies and many other applied and research medical fields.
I also invite anyone in the community interested in co-authoring my forthcoming derivative whitepaper on proofs of useful intelligibility remediation work to contact me off-list, please. I am also willing to help with proofs of useful encyclopedia article improvement, but I am not certain if ORES is yet robust enough to support such proof in a secure fashion.
Best regards, Jim Salsman
What would the expected energy savings be of such a move? Accepting more cryptocurrencies may make sense if the foundation can do that in a way that does not take a lot of effort. But to stop accepting bitcoin seems counterproductive to our mission.
Chico Venancio
Em Ter, 10 de abr de 2018 18:46, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com escreveu:
The Foundation has been accepting BitCoin donations. Unfortunately, BitCoin is very wasteful in terms of electricity, and is therefore a dirty cryptocurrency.
I recommend that the Foundation immediately cease accepting BitCoin, and require donors who wish to donate in cryptocurrency to convert to FoldingCoin instead. Please see: FoldingCoin (FLDC) http://foldingcoin.net/ whitepaper:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y4MV9AwGLTRFqD-kjC4uN0AX59kHOpO1OWsabnxx...
This conversion will place the Foundation at the forefront of cryptocurrency technology, and stop it from contributing to extremely dirty waste. As other cryptocurrencies based on proofs of useful work instead of useless work emerge, the Foundation should consider those. FoldingCoin is based on proofs of useful prediction of protein folding, which is useful for computer-aided antibody design, and used in turn for cancer therapies and many other applied and research medical fields.
I also invite anyone in the community interested in co-authoring my forthcoming derivative whitepaper on proofs of useful intelligibility remediation work to contact me off-list, please. I am also willing to help with proofs of useful encyclopedia article improvement, but I am not certain if ORES is yet robust enough to support such proof in a secure fashion.
Best regards, Jim Salsman
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is an awful idea.
The primary reason the WMF needs to accept Bitcoin as a donation is due to the substantial tax benefits accepting it gives to donors. It is an asset that has increased massively in value, and holders can donate it and deduct the current value from their taxes, without paying capital gains. If there is demand, it would likely make sense to accept Ethereum donations for the same reason.
Nobody particularly knows, cares, or has capital gains in FoldingCoin, and it's not the place of the foundation to promote it or your whitepaper.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation has been accepting BitCoin donations. Unfortunately, BitCoin is very wasteful in terms of electricity, and is therefore a dirty cryptocurrency.
I recommend that the Foundation immediately cease accepting BitCoin, and require donors who wish to donate in cryptocurrency to convert to FoldingCoin instead. Please see: FoldingCoin (FLDC) http://foldingcoin.net/ whitepaper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y4MV9AwGLTRFqD- kjC4uN0AX59kHOpO1OWsabnxxUIs
This conversion will place the Foundation at the forefront of cryptocurrency technology, and stop it from contributing to extremely dirty waste. As other cryptocurrencies based on proofs of useful work instead of useless work emerge, the Foundation should consider those. FoldingCoin is based on proofs of useful prediction of protein folding, which is useful for computer-aided antibody design, and used in turn for cancer therapies and many other applied and research medical fields.
I also invite anyone in the community interested in co-authoring my forthcoming derivative whitepaper on proofs of useful intelligibility remediation work to contact me off-list, please. I am also willing to help with proofs of useful encyclopedia article improvement, but I am not certain if ORES is yet robust enough to support such proof in a secure fashion.
Best regards, Jim Salsman
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10 April 2018 at 22:45, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation has been accepting BitCoin donations. Unfortunately, BitCoin is very wasteful in terms of electricity, and is therefore a dirty cryptocurrency.
They all are. The only difference is that bitcoin is Asic mined so doesn't directly drive up the price of graphics cards.
I recommend that the Foundation immediately cease accepting BitCoin, and require donors who wish to donate in cryptocurrency to convert to FoldingCoin instead. Please see: FoldingCoin (FLDC)
FoldingCoin is the one where you give fake results to Folding@home (since the maths is NP hard there is no real time way to check if your results are real or not) in return for tokens that have little in the way of actual value.
This conversion will place the Foundation at the forefront of cryptocurrency technology,
The forefront of cryptocurrency technology is coming up with new and exciting ways to scam people. The Foundation should not be getting involved.
As other cryptocurrencies based on proofs of useful work instead of useless work emerge,
Is gaming a Proof-of-Research useful? Because if so Gridcoin exist. In theory burstcoin could be used to provide archival storage although there are a bunch of ways of doing that without driving up hard disc prices.
the Foundation should consider those. FoldingCoin is based on proofs of useful prediction of protein folding,
No it isn't. The problem is it is based off the old folding@home which works on the basis that most people aren't trying to scam the system. If FoldingCoin ever became popular that would no longer be the case at which point it becomes proof of results given to results to Folding@home with no requirement that those results be real.
FoldingCoin is the one where you give fake results to Folding@home (since the maths is NP hard there is no real time way to check if your results are real or not)
Proof is stochastic, by random audit of submitted results, as I understand the situation. I'm not sure whether that understanding is congruent with their whitepaper, but that's the only way I can figure out how it could work with intelligibility remediation tasks. Improvements to the encyclopedia is a harder problem than attempted pronunciation or transcription.
In regard to the earlier responses, I the Foundation should offer to convert Bitcoin to FoldingCoin for those who wish to contribute Bitcoin.
Best regards, Jim
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:24 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2018 at 22:45, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation has been accepting BitCoin donations. Unfortunately, BitCoin is very wasteful in terms of electricity, and is therefore a dirty cryptocurrency.
They all are. The only difference is that bitcoin is Asic mined so doesn't directly drive up the price of graphics cards.
I recommend that the Foundation immediately cease accepting BitCoin, and require donors who wish to donate in cryptocurrency to convert to FoldingCoin instead. Please see: FoldingCoin (FLDC)
FoldingCoin is the one where you give fake results to Folding@home (since the maths is NP hard there is no real time way to check if your results are real or not) in return for tokens that have little in the way of actual value.
This conversion will place the Foundation at the forefront of cryptocurrency technology,
The forefront of cryptocurrency technology is coming up with new and exciting ways to scam people. The Foundation should not be getting involved.
As other cryptocurrencies based on proofs of useful work instead of useless work emerge,
Is gaming a Proof-of-Research useful? Because if so Gridcoin exist. In theory burstcoin could be used to provide archival storage although there are a bunch of ways of doing that without driving up hard disc prices.
the Foundation should consider those. FoldingCoin is based on proofs of useful prediction of protein folding,
No it isn't. The problem is it is based off the old folding@home which works on the basis that most people aren't trying to scam the system. If FoldingCoin ever became popular that would no longer be the case at which point it becomes proof of results given to results to Folding@home with no requirement that those results be real.
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 April 2018 at 22:37, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Proof is stochastic, by random audit of submitted results, as I understand the situation.
Only works if most people aren't trying to scam you. Which if you've had any experience with concurrency you will realise is not the case.
Oh and since the thing is GPU mined and not very popular there are a bunch of people who could carry out a 51% attack tomorrow.
In regard to the earlier responses, I the Foundation should offer to convert Bitcoin to FoldingCoin for those who wish to contribute Bitcoin.
But the foundation wants actual money (US$ mostly). Why convert bitcoin into anything other than cash (which is what it does at the moment)?
geni
On 11 April 2018 at 22:56, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But the foundation wants actual money (US$ mostly). Why convert bitcoin into anything other than cash (which is what it does at the moment)?
in fact, I believe the WMF never touches a bitcoin - BitPay takes in the bitcoins, changes them to actual money and gives that to WMF.
So you'd need to get Bitpay to accept FoldingCoin in this arrangement.
(I predict this will never happen.)
- d.
Only works if most people aren't trying to scam you
What else works that way?
you'd need to get Bitpay to accept FoldingCoin in this arrangement
https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/984428258530705408
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:39 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2018 at 22:56, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But the foundation wants actual money (US$ mostly). Why convert bitcoin into anything other than cash (which is what it does at the moment)?
in fact, I believe the WMF never touches a bitcoin - BitPay takes in the bitcoins, changes them to actual money and gives that to WMF.
So you'd need to get Bitpay to accept FoldingCoin in this arrangement.
(I predict this will never happen.)
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 12 April 2018 at 14:50, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Only works if most people aren't trying to scam you
What else works that way?
Thing where most people don't have money on the line. Its Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack?
It's still highly vulnerable to a 51% attack because there is literally no way to combat the basic principle without giving up on the idea of decentralization.
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
The only reason some of the larger cryptos don't get affected by this is because there are so many stakeholders that no one can really get enough power together to take over.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
In a nutshell, no. While Folding@home is a worthwhile project, FoldingCoin is not, and the fact one project is worthwhile should not be taken to men the other has any merit whatsoever.
No serious person should be investing in someone else's cryptocurrency, the underlying technology is free and if you want one, make one. The blockchain is just a software package that anyone can make their own version of as easily as installing a MySQL database. Simple as that.
J.
On 11/1/18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey all,
The Wikimedia Foundation does not hold cryptocurrency in Bitcoin. Whilst we do accept bitcoin donations, this is currently done indirectly via BitPay which converts from Bitcoin/Bitcash to Dollars prior to receipt.
This is documented on our Ways to Give page:
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#Bitcoin
Regards Seddon
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:59 PM Jeremy Lee-Jenkins jemlee15@gmail.com wrote:
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack?
It's still highly vulnerable to a 51% attack because there is literally no way to combat the basic principle without giving up on the idea of decentralization.
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less
vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
The only reason some of the larger cryptos don't get affected by this is because there are so many stakeholders that no one can really get enough power together to take over.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to
FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
In a nutshell, no. While Folding@home is a worthwhile project, FoldingCoin is not, and the fact one project is worthwhile should not be taken to men the other has any merit whatsoever.
No serious person should be investing in someone else's cryptocurrency, the underlying technology is free and if you want one, make one. The blockchain is just a software package that anyone can make their own version of as easily as installing a MySQL database. Simple as that.
J.
On 11/1/18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and
age
the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack
on
this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a
consensus
of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions
and
coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using
the
currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of
attack. A
bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more
common,
though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size
of
their community.
https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at
present.
If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never
have,
and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Warm Regards
Jeremy Lee-Jenkins
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey,
For once, I'll make this one short : I agree, let's stay away from widely fluctuating, purely fiduciary, resources-hogging (and no, FLDC does *not* rely on "clean electricity", it's still an energy hog like the lot of them), crypto-currencies. And while we're at it, pretty please, let's also stay away from this long-dead thread. 6 months is dead enough, I don't think we need to go through that again.
Thanks.
Roger / Alphos
Le jeu. 1 nov. 2018 à 19:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com a écrit :
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a
consensus
of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack.
A
bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size
of
their community.
https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That is a complete useless responds. Bitcoin, Litecoin and all are no piramide games.
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
worth noting again that in my (I am paid to have these opinions now) professional opinion, nothing about cryptocurrencies is good or useful, and WMF's involvement should proceed precisely as far as taking donations at arm's length (never touching an actual cryptocurrency). And documenting the phenomenon accurately on the wikis.
yet again, anyone reading this list is welcome to read my book for free! (Got good reviews in NYRB and BBC News)
http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=41A766EE9752E757169A46C936C2EC17
there you go, an *official* bootleg copy.
- d.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 05:54, Father Of Lies fatheroflies@dr.com wrote:
That is a complete useless responds. Bitcoin, Litecoin and all are no piramide games.
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
David, what if the Foundation converted their next largest bitcoin donation over some set amount to foldingcoin, and then cash in a press event designed to educate cryptocurrency enthusiasts that they don't have to be as destructive, strictly as a principled stance against bitcoin's waste of electricity? I'd love to get a sense of your idea of the potential drawbacks.
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:49 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
worth noting again that in my (I am paid to have these opinions now) professional opinion, nothing about cryptocurrencies is good or useful, and WMF's involvement should proceed precisely as far as taking donations at arm's length (never touching an actual cryptocurrency). And documenting the phenomenon accurately on the wikis.
yet again, anyone reading this list is welcome to read my book for free! (Got good reviews in NYRB and BBC News)
http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=41A766EE9752E757169A46C936C2EC17
there you go, an *official* bootleg copy.
- d.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 05:54, Father Of Lies fatheroflies@dr.com wrote:
That is a complete useless responds. Bitcoin, Litecoin and all are no piramide games.
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
> Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer > exploit this" you are doing it wrong.
I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its article is featured on enwiki.
I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has any either.
Best regards, Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think any involvement in it is nonsensical and nobody should entertain any of these ideas for a moment.
- d.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 16:42, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
David, what if the Foundation converted their next largest bitcoin donation over some set amount to foldingcoin, and then cash in a press event designed to educate cryptocurrency enthusiasts that they don't have to be as destructive, strictly as a principled stance against bitcoin's waste of electricity? I'd love to get a sense of your idea of the potential drawbacks.
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:49 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
worth noting again that in my (I am paid to have these opinions now) professional opinion, nothing about cryptocurrencies is good or useful, and WMF's involvement should proceed precisely as far as taking donations at arm's length (never touching an actual cryptocurrency). And documenting the phenomenon accurately on the wikis.
yet again, anyone reading this list is welcome to read my book for free! (Got good reviews in NYRB and BBC News)
http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=41A766EE9752E757169A46C936C2EC17
there you go, an *official* bootleg copy.
- d.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 05:54, Father Of Lies fatheroflies@dr.com wrote:
That is a complete useless responds. Bitcoin, Litecoin and all are no piramide games.
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Bitcoin and its ilk rely on an overabundance of energy. In this day and age the speculation of these "currencies" is irresponsible. The best attack on this pyramide game is to stay away from it. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:38, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
What is a 51% attack?
A 51% attack is when a single malicious entity controls >51% of the computing power being used to validate the blockchain of a particular digital currency. Blockchain-based digital currencies rely on a consensus of computing participants acting in good faith to verify transactions and coin ownership. However, if a single entity controls a majority of the compute power, then it is possible for them to maliciously validate bad transactions to steal, double spend, and otherwise commit fraud using the currency.
Smaller digital currencies, with fewer participants acting to maintain their blockchain, are generally more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A bad actor can rent a large block of computing power and then use it to attack a small blockchain. Such attacks have been becoming more common, though the largest coins (e.g. BTC) are still resistant due to the size of their community. https://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-feared-51-attack-now-becoming-regular/
I don't know anything about FoldingCoin and whether it is more or less vulnerable to this kind of fraud than other cryptocurrencies.
However, the 51% attack may just be the death of many smaller alt-coins, unless an effective countermeasure can be developed.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> Cryptocurrency. If your first thought isn't "how could a scammer >> exploit this" you are doing it wrong. > > I've thought about that for several hours now, and I'm sure scammers > far prefer bitcoin. Folding@Home's lab director is a partner > Andreessen Horowitz, so he has certainly had no lack of resources to > defend against the possibility, and I am persuaded that the Indiana > nonprofit behind FLDC is sincere and acting in good faith at present. > If the Foundation is hesitant, they might sponsor an audit of either > or both, but the Folding@Home project is so established that its > article is featured on enwiki. > > I have no financial interest in any cryptocurrency, and I never have, > and I don't have a familial interest with anyone who I am aware has > any either. > > Best regards, > Jim
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 07:23, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
You've had 6 months to do this basic research.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
No. Cash is more efficient.
Please please please take this conversation to another venue. It has little to nothing to do with this movement.
Joe On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 18:15, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 07:23, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
You've had 6 months to do this basic research.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
No. Cash is more efficient.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. I am glad to withdraw my cryptocurrency proposals below, which are not included in the proposals at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movemen...
It seems fair to assume that changing circumstances can result in changing answers to questions. Anyone should be forgiven for asking the same question when there is evidence that consensus has changed. Accordingly, I do expect that the cryptocurrency cash-out instructions question will arise again, probably in years or decades not months. I remain in favor of converting to foldingcoin before cashing out in fiat currency if and only if foldingcoin hasn't been corrupting the validity of the Folding@Home results.
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Please please please take this conversation to another venue. It has little to nothing to do with this movement.
Joe On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 18:15, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 07:23, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, it's the "Day of the Dead" now so I want to attempt to resurrect this thread.
Is FoldingCoin still vulnerable to a 51% attack? What is a 51% attack?
You've had 6 months to do this basic research.
Do you think it is reasonable for the Foundation to convert bitcoin to FoldingCoin as part of its program to source clean electricity?
No. Cash is more efficient.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org