Litecoin Netflix - How to sell drugs online (fast) S02E03

Netflix - How to sell drugs online (fast) S02E03
Why are the LTC explorers showing balance for my address, where as listunspent RPC API returns no UTXO?
Why is PoW > PoS ??
Anyone working on WLTC?

Netflix - How to sell drugs online (fast) S02E03

Posted: 25 Jul 2020 11:43 PM PDT

submitted by /u/CBDoctor
[link] [comments]

Why are the LTC explorers showing balance for my address, where as listunspent RPC API returns no UTXO?

Posted: 26 Jul 2020 11:36 AM PDT

This is my address: tltc1qyj3ffmz55s67hqdevl6h685alrfjvpzx6p2z4j

Below is one of the explorer. https://blockexplorer.one/ltc/testnet/address/tltc1qyj3ffmz55s67hqdevl6h685alrfjvpzx6p2z4j

submitted by /u/spider143
[link] [comments]

Why is PoW > PoS ??

Posted: 26 Jul 2020 07:26 AM PDT

I have read this article about Charlie and Xinxi Wang's thoughts about PoS: https://blockmanity.com/news/litecoin-foundation-xinxi-wang-pos-has-no-visible-advantage-over-pow/

I am writing this thread to discuss the security risks of PoS and propose a possible PoS scheme for Litecoin.

First of all, i consider only pure PoS (*) with no delegation/pools.

IMO DPoS systems like Tron are insecure, in that regular nodes have the possibility to join a malicious pool and give it their stake/power, without being able to vote/flag eventual dangerous blocks it produces, since a voter is not even required to be online when a block is produced.

So i fully agree with the article when it comes to DPoS.

About regular PoS (*), what Charlie and Xinxi say about plutocracy of PoS (rich get richer), in my opinion may be true for PoW as well, because the mining power that can be purchased by an actor is still proportional to his wealth.

Exactly like the PoS "mining opportunity" is proportional to an actor's stake/wealth.

A wealthy actor will simply purchase more hardware than a poor one. So what's the difference?

------------------------------------------

*) PoS scheme proposal

A possible pure PoS consensus system that i find secure, is one that doesn't allow delegation and requires online voters: nodes that are staking some coins to give a VALID/NOT VALID vote to each candidate block, before it is added to the chain. Optionally, the system may require the voters to choose , at every block height, one block to be added to the chain among the VALID ones (which usually are many, at a given block height, because each producer may put a different set of transactions into it).

In this PoS scheme the votes for a candidate block are collected only before it is added to the chain, that's why the voters must be online at the moment a block is produced.

The following is a more complete list of rules for this scheme, and i ask you if it is vulnerable to attacks in your opinion:

- A node must stake a high amount of coins to be a block producer (to discourage dishonest ones). The required stake is a fixed constant. Of course a wealthy actor may set up several block producers, possibly colluded.

- Every node can be a voter, by staking some coins and marking each block as VALID or NOT VALID. Every vote has a weight proportional to the voter's stake. The voter of course will validate a block before marking it as VALID.

- After marking a block as VALID, a voter can give an additional vote to the block : PREFERRED, which means it is not only VALID, but this block among the valid ones should be the one to be added to the chain.

- At any block height, the voter can mark at most one block as PREFERRED , among the VALID candidate blocks with the same height

- A block is VALID if the majority of the voters' stake voted for the block to be VALID

- The winning block producer is the one with a block that is voted as VALID, and among the valid ones, has received the highest number of PREFERRED votes

- The winning block producer shares a fixed part (say, 50%) of the block reward with all voters that marked the block as VALID (the shared reward percentage must be the same for all block producers, to avoid incentivizing the voters to join a malicious block producer ).

- An additional (and fixed) part of the reward (say 10%) is given to the nodes that marked the block as PREFERRED

- If a block has been voted as NOT VALID by the majority, the block producer loses its stake, which will be added to the next block reward

- If a voter marked an invalid block as VALID or vice versa, and it belongs to the minority, it will lose its stake , which will be added to the next block reward

- VALID blocks must respect the validation rules of the protocol, including the fact that the transactions in the block must be ordered by hash, to avoid the proliferation of several valid blocks with the same transactions.

- a voter will broadcast its VALID or NOT VALID vote for a candidate block as soon as it receives the block from other peers and elaborates it

- Before marking a block as PREFERRED, the voter will wait some time T necessary to receive most (or all) of the candidate blocks from other peers, to be able to compare all the candidate (and VALID) blocks together

- After time T, a voter will mark a block as PREFERRED if it is the one with more transactions, among the VALID candidate blocks with the same height

- No delegation possible. And every voter should be online, since it is supposed to provide a signature for its vote, to be included in the next block.

- The voter rewards will be distributed in the next block (since the votes for a block are included only in the next block, we don't know which nodes are getting their reward until the next block is mined).

- If a voter goes offline, of course it cannot keep voting. When it is back online, it must sync with the blockchain, and start voting only for the next block height. Of course there may be several competing chains. For each of them, the voter can only vote for the upcoming block height.

Do you see any flaws or possible attacks to this scheme ?

EDIT: Maybe a flaw with this scheme is the excessive block size , due to the fact that all the votes are included in the next block.

And they take too much space, since they are triplets <voter's address, vote, signature> for each voter! And this not considering the voter rewards, which are more transactions to be added to the block.

submitted by /u/stealthepixels
[link] [comments]

Anyone working on WLTC?

Posted: 25 Jul 2020 07:44 PM PDT

getting ltc into defi could give this project a big boost. bitcoin in defi is booming now, i could see wrapped ltc working as well.

submitted by /u/BoyScout22
[link] [comments]