> 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.meijs...@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 <raro...@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 <jsals...@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 <jsals...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to