Quote from: cynicSOB on January 19, 2015, 08:14:52 PM

Quote from: Rent_a_Ray on January 19, 2015, 08:04:20 PM

Quote from: cynicSOB on January 19, 2015, 07:50:36 PM

Quote from: fenghush on January 19, 2015, 07:29:11 PM

But killing zombies is a lot of fun.

so is this

c'mon, APEX's price hasn't moved, and they didn't even have checkpointing servers (not that it would have helped, but It shows they didn't care or they were not prepared to run a coin).
I like to think I'm not destroying work, I'm building a more secure future. For our kids! would anybody think about the children !?

Hey cynicSOB,
what do you think about that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897493.msg10208018#msg10208018

Would it lower your success?

Cheers,
Ray

I think it wouldn't work: how can you tell an attack from normal use? if you have 2 chains that look similar but have one conflicting tx you have to choose one, there's just no way to avoid that. How do you define which is the "good" one? an attack may not even change the difficulty

The theory behind it is , it blocks both Normal Use or Attack of anything that might have the potential to stake over the % where the attack could happen. So in theory if there are 2 blocks, anything over the % line is blocked, but anything below the % line is accepted normally, and if you have 2 block come in 1 over the % line , and 1 under , the one under it would be accepted , complete opposite of its normal behavior.
If both blocks are under the % line, then it stakes normally. If both are over the % line , then both are blocked for another block under the % line.
Kind of like we have to give the prize to the 2nd or 3rd place runner, cause the 1st one was too fast.
It would affect staking for a lot of users, but would be worth it, if it could remove the 51% vulnerability for all POS coins.

Thanks,
Kiklo