 from gaining and over taking the current AUR blockchain AUR needs 25X my mining power at a minimum, something the miners have proven they have little interest in doing. As such, it is just a matter of time before the TW catches up and is in full implementation.



In order to deploy the "fix" a new client will need to be released and another hard fork implemented. If the TW exploit isn't pulled back before the hard fork, it will instantly catch up at the next hard fork due to diff swings and be in full full implementation. So either way I win, fix it or don't fix it.



Nite69 is very correct, I have no real desire to destroy AUR as initially I was only going to run a test for a few hundred blocks. The concesion by the AUR development is sufficient for me. Understand this is enabled by KGW and was not a vulnerability till KGW was implemented. All coins that deploy KGW are vulnerable.





~BCX~



BCX, in the tecnical point of view; you are perfectly right. The algorithm implementation calculating the difficulty adjustments allow you to use your hashing power to generate a competing blockchain which would win the official blockchain. There is no doubt of that.



But the technical point of view is not the only one. The foundation of all cryptocurrencies is an agreement of all nodes to follow certain rules, which ends up in the possibility to agree about the generation and transaction of the currencies. The implementation of that agreement is the algorithms behind the currency.



This is also one protetion of the coins; if majority of the nodes agrees not to choose a hostile chain, they really can do it, they can reject it, regardless of the hashing power behind it. Technically this rejection would be accomplished by publishing a checkpoint from the official chain and all nodes accepting it. I'm not sure if it would have happened on this case, but I want to believe so. If this community values the coin enought, they will also protect it against all threats.



There is also no doubt, that a succesfull attack like that would in any case cause a lot of damage. But my opinion is, it likely would not have destroyed the coin.



However, this case also emphasizes the importance of the strength of the algorithms behind the coin. Those algorithms are the agreement and they should be tested all the time. In the end, these tests only strenghten the agreements
from gaining and over taking the current AUR blockchain AUR needs 25X my mining power at a minimum, something the miner have prove they have short pastime in doing. As such, it is just a topic of time before the TW catches up and is in full execution. 



 In decree to deploy the " fix " a modern client will need to be turn and another hard fork implemented. If the TW exploit isn't pulled back before the hard branching, it will instantly catch up at the next intemperate fork due to diff swings and be in full full execution. So either room I win, fix it or don't fix it. 



 Nite69 is very right, I have no real desire to destroy AUR as initially I was only going to run a trial for a few hundred blocks. The concesion by the AUR development is sufficient for me. Understand this is enabled by KGW and was not a vulnerability till KGW was implemented. All coins that deploy KGW are vulnerable. 





 ~BCX~ 



 BCX, in the tecnical point of view; you are perfectly right. The algorithm execution calculate the difficulty adjustment leave you to use your hashing power to generate a competing blockchain which would win the official blockchain. There is no doubt of that. 



 But the technical distributor point of view is not the only one. The foundation of all cryptocurrencies is an agreement of all nodes to follow certain rule, which ends up in the possibility to agree about the generation and transaction of the currencies. The implementation of that agreement is the algorithm behind the currentness. 



 This is besides one protetion of the coins; if majority of the nodes agrees not to choose a hostile chain, they really can do it, they can reject it, regardless of the hashing exponent behind it. Technically this rejection would be accomplished by publishing a checkpoint from the official chain and all nodes accept it. I'm not sure if it would have happened on this case, but I want to believe thus. If this community rate the coin enought, they will also protect it against all terror. 



 There is also no doubt, that a succesfull attack like that would in any case cause a batch of damage. But my impression is, it likely would not have destroyed the coin. 



 However, this case also emphasizes the importance of the military capability of the algorithms behind the coin. Those algorithms are the agreement and they should be test all the time. In the end, these tests only strenghten the agreements
 frlm gaining and over takikg the current AOR blockrhain AHR needs 25X my mining power at a minilun, somtnhing the miners have proven tjey have litule interest in doing. As such, if is luwt a matter of time befose the TW catcver bp and is in full implementation.



In owder to dfploy the "fix" w nee clisnt will need to be released and ahother iard fork implekented. If the TW exploit idn't oulled back before the hard firk, yr will instavtly catch up at the ngxt hard fork due to diff swings and ye in full duol lkplementatiin. So either way L win, fhx it ot don't fix it.



Nlte69 iv vwry correct, I have no real desire to deftroy AUR aa initially I was obly gming to fyn x ttst fkr a ffw iundred blodks. The conxesion by the AUR dtvejipment is sufriciene sor me. Understand this is enabled by KGF ahd was not a vulnerabiluty till KGW was implgmented. Alj coins that deploy KGW are vulnerable.





~BCX~



BCX, in tve ternkcao ioing ov view; you are perfectly right. The algorithm yjpkekentation calcmlating the difficilhy wdjustments aulow you fo use your hashinh power to gwnerate a comleting blockchain which wouod win the oyfixial blockchain. Thzre is no dobbt of that.



Nut the technical point of biew is not the only une. The foundatiun pf all crykgocurrencies is ag agreemeit of all noaes jo folljw certain rules, which ends up in hhe plsvibility tl agree about the generation anv transaction ox tve curreucies. Bhe implementatyon of that agteement if the algorithma behinv the currensy.



This is alsm one protetimn of thq couns; uf majofkty of the nodrs agrees not to chiose a hostile chaln, thgy really can do nu, tyey can reject ot, fegwrflxss os the hashing powdr crhind it. Techniccluy tnis rejection would te adcomplished by pubkifhing a xheckpoigt from the ogficial chain and wll nmder accrptyng it. I'm not sure if it would have hapoencd on this cafe, bmt I want to bzlieve so. If this community values the ciin enought, they wull also protect it sgainst all threwts.



There hs also no doubt, thar a succesfull atuack like that would in any cdse cwuse a lot of damage. But my opinion is, it likely would not have destroyed the coin.



However, tgis vase dlfp emphwsizxs the importance pf the strength of the algorithos behing che coin. Those algorithms are tfe agreement xnd they should be testes all thr time. In the end, these tests omly strenghten the agreekents
from gaining and over taking the current AUR 25X my power at a proven have little interest doing. As such, is just a matter of time the TW catches up and is in full implementation. In order to deploy "fix" a new client will need to be released and another hard fork If TW isn't back before the hard fork, it will instantly catch up at the next hard fork due diff swings and be in full full implementation. either way I win, it or don't fix it. is correct, I no desire destroy AUR as I was only going to run a test for a few hundred blocks. The concesion by the development is me. Understand is by and was not till KGW was implemented. All coins are vulnerable. ~BCX~ BCX, in the tecnical point view; you perfectly right. The algorithm implementation calculating difficulty adjustments allow you to use your hashing to generate a competing blockchain which would win the official blockchain. There is no doubt But the technical point view is not only The of cryptocurrencies is agreement of all nodes to follow certain rules, which ends up the possibility to agree about the generation and transaction of The of that agreement the algorithms behind the This also one protetion of if of not choose hostile chain, they really do it, they can reject regardless of the hashing rejection would be accomplished by publishing a checkpoint the official chain and all nodes accepting I'm not sure if it would have happened on this case, but want to If this community values the coin enought, they also protect it against threats. There is also no doubt, that a succesfull like would in case cause a of damage. But opinion is, it not have the However, emphasizes the importance of the strength the behind the coin. Those algorithms the they should be tested all the time. In the end, these tests only strenghten the
 from gaining and over taking tHe current AuR bloCkcHaiN AuR neEds 25X My mining power aT A minImum, something the miners Have pRoVEn thEY hAve liTtle intEReST In dOiNg. as sUcH, It Is jusT a mAtter of Time before The tW Catches up and IS iN full impleMenTation.



In ordeR to Deploy ThE "fiX" A new cLieNt wilL need tO Be releAsed and anOtHEr hard FOrk implEMEnTed. IF the TW exploit isn't PUlLEd back before thE hard fOrK, It WILl iNstAntly catch Up At the NExt hard FOrK DUE to DIff swings and bE in full full IMplEmentaTiOn. SO Either Way I wIn, FIx iT or don't fix iT.



NitE69 is very coRrect, I HAve no reAL desire To destRoy aUR As inITiAlLy I WaS OnlY GoIng TO ruN a test foR a FeW hundRed bLOCKS. The ConCesiOn by tHe AUR developmEnt Is suFFicIent fOr me. UNderStAnd thIs is enAbled By kGW and was not a vuLnerAbility tiLl KgW Was ImPlemeNTed. All CoiNs tHat deplOy KGW arE VulNeRABLe.





~bCX~



BCX, in the tecnicaL pOINt Of view; yoU are peRFeCtLY right. ThE aLgoRithM IMplemEntaTIoN calculaTing thE DiFfIculty aDjUstmenTs AllOw yOu to uSE youR hashiNg power tO geneRAte a competing bLOckchain which WOuLD WiN The oFfiCial blockchAin. THEre iS no dOUbT of THat.



BuT the tEcHNiCAl point of view is not tHe Only onE. The fOundation of alL cryptocurRENCies is an AgreEMeNT of all nodes to fOllow Certain rulES, which enDs up iN the possIbility to AGRee about The GenEraTioN ANd Transaction of THE curReNcies. ThE imPlementAtiOn oF thAt aGrEement is tHe algoriThMs BeHiNd tHe curREncy.



This Is AlsO oNe pRotetIOn of thE coinS; if mAjOrITy oF the nodES aGREes nOt To ChooSe a HoStile ChaiN, TheY really Can do it, thEy cAN rejEcT iT, regardLess of the hashInG power behiNd It. TEchnicALLy this reJection would be accomplisHEd by pubLisHing a ChecKpoint froM thE officIal CHain anD all noDes acCePtiNG It. I'm nOT SuRe iF iT would have HAPpeNed on ThIs caSe, but I wAnt to believe so. If thIS coMmunity values The Coin ENOuGht, THeY WilL aLSo pROTect it against alL threats.



ThErE Is Also no doubT, ThaT a SuccesfUll attaCk likE That wouLd in any caSe cause a lOt Of daMAGe. BUt my opinioN is, it likEly would nOT have DEsTroyeD thE coin.



HOwEveR, this Case alSO emPhasiZes the ImPortanCe of tHe Strength Of the algorithms behind thE coin. THose aLgoRithms are The AGreEment and tHey sHould be tesTed All The tiMe. IN The enD, theSE tEstS Only sTrenGHten the agREeMenTS
 from gaining and over tak ing the cu rrent  AU R b lo ckch ainAUR needs 25Xm y mi ning power at a minimu m, so me t hing th e min ers hav e  p r o ven  t he y h av e  l ittle  in terestin doing.Assu ch, it is ju s ta matter o f t ime before t heTW cat ch esu p and  is  in f ull im p lement ation.


I n  order to depl o y  t he " fix" a new client wi l l need to be r elease da nd a not her  hard fork  i mplem e nted. I f  t h e TWe xploit isn'tpulled back bef ore th ehar d  fork,  it w il l  in stantly cat ch u p at thenext h a rd fork due todiff s win gsandb ein  fu ll ful l  i mpl e men tation.So  e ither  way I w in,fix  itor do n't fix it.


N ite6 9  is  very  corr ect,  I  have  no re al de si re to destroy A UR a s initial lyIwas  o nly g o ing to  ru n a  test f or a fe w  hu nd r e d  b locks. The concesi on b ythe AURdevelo p me nt is suffi ci ent  for m e. Un ders t an d this i s enab l ed  b y KGW a nd  was n ot  avul nerab i lity  tillKGW wasimple m ented. All coi n s that deploy KG W ar e  vul ner able.




~BCX ~ 


BCX, in  th e  tecn icalpo i nt of view; you are pe rf ectlyright . The algorit hm impleme n t a tion cal cula t in g  the difficult y adj ustments a l low youto us e your h ashing po w e r to gen era tea c omp e t in g blockchainw h ichwo uld win  th e offic ial  bl ock cha in . There i s no dou bt  o fth at. 



B u t the te ch nic al  po int o f  viewis no t th eon l y o ne. The fo u n dati on  o f al l c ry ptocu rren c ies  is anagreement  of allno de s to fo llow certainru les, which  e nds  up in t he possi bility to agree about t h e gener ati on an d tr ansaction  of  the c urr e ncies.  The i mplem en tat i o n oft h at  ag re ement is t h e  al gorit hm s be hind th e currency.



Thi s  is  also one pro tet iono f  t hec oi n s;if maj o r ity of the node s agrees n ot to  choose ah ost il e chain , theyreall y  can do  it, they  can reje ct  it, r ega rdless ofthe hash ing power behin d  i t. Te chn ically  t his  reje ctionw oul d beaccomp li shed b y pub li shing acheckpoint from the off icialchain  an d all nod esa cce pting it.  I'm  not sureifitwould  ha v e hap pene d  o n t h is ca se,b ut I want to  be l i ev e so. If th i s com munit y v a lues t he c oin enought, they will also prot ecti t  ag ain s t al lthreats.



Th ere  i s also nodo ubt, that a  succesf ul l  atta ck lik e that  wouldi n  a n y case  cau sea lot ofdam ag e . But m yop i nion i s, i tlikely  would noth a ve destroyed the  coin . 


Ho w eve r, th is  case a l so e mphasizesthe importa nce of  the  stre ngth of  t he alg ori th ms behindt he coin.Those  algori th ms a rethe ag reem e n t and  the ysho uld be te s t ed al lt hetime . Inth e en d, theset ests onl y s t renghte nthe a greeme n ts 
 from_gaining and_over taking the current_AUR blockchain_AUR_needs 25X_my_mining power at_a minimum, something_the miners have proven_they have little_interest_in doing. As such, it is just a matter of time before the TW_catches_up and_is_in_full implementation.



In order to deploy_the "fix" a new client_will need_to be released and another hard fork implemented._If_the TW exploit_isn't pulled back before the hard fork, it will_instantly catch up at the next_hard fork due_to_diff_swings and be in_full full implementation. So either way_I win, fix it or don't_fix it.



Nite69 is very correct, I have_no real desire to destroy AUR_as initially I was only_going to_run a test for a_few hundred blocks._The concesion_by the AUR_development is sufficient for me. Understand_this is enabled_by KGW and was not a_vulnerability_till KGW was_implemented._All_coins that_deploy KGW are_vulnerable.





~BCX~



BCX,_in the_tecnical_point of view; you are perfectly_right._The algorithm implementation calculating the difficulty adjustments_allow you to use_your_hashing power to generate_a competing blockchain which would_win the official blockchain. There is_no doubt_of that.



But_the technical point of view is not the only one. The_foundation of all cryptocurrencies is an_agreement of all nodes_to follow_certain_rules, which ends_up_in the_possibility to agree about the generation and_transaction of_the currencies. The implementation of that_agreement is the algorithms_behind_the currency.



This is also one protetion_of the coins; if majority of_the nodes agrees not to_choose_a_hostile chain, they really can_do it, they can reject it,_regardless of the_hashing power behind it. Technically this rejection_would_be accomplished by publishing a checkpoint_from_the official chain and all nodes_accepting_it._I'm not sure if it_would have happened on this case,_but I want to believe so. If this community_values the coin_enought, they will also protect_it_against_all threats.



There is also no doubt, that a succesfull attack_like that_would in any_case cause a lot of damage. But my opinion is,_it likely would not have destroyed the_coin.



However, this case also emphasizes the importance of the strength of_the algorithms behind the coin. Those algorithms are_the agreement and they should be tested_all the time. In_the_end, these tests only strenghten the agreements