Quote from: ArticMine on June 21, 2016, 11:44:21 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 21, 2016, 11:14:47 PM

You guys are welcome to provide a succinct pseudo-code for your difficulty adjustment algorithm and then I will explain how it is broken in those more specifics.

Just like I did to ArticMine when he explained the precise equation and algorithm of Monero automatic block size adjustment algorithm (c.f. the "Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem" thread), I showed him how it is broken. Recently he tried to speak some nonsense about CounterParty and Rootstock and I also explained to him how he was wrong. Before that it was some nonsense about CopyLeft licenses and I explained how he was wrong. A clear pattern has developed. And ArticMine I also don't want to sound disrespectful, but sorry I don't have time for all your mistakes.

Of course you guys will deny it, so how about you stop wasting my time.

iCEBREAKER, you don't know what you think you know, as I showed you last time you tried to belittle me about my work on programming language design. Go find another tree stump to hump. Your nonsense is so banal and repetitive.

We can't have a technical proof in a forum post. Both of you guys know that. So stop fooling the readers.

In the adaptive blocksize limit case as in this case the attacks you formulated required a greater hashpower than the hashpower required to mount a 51% attack on the coin; however I must say than in the blocksize limit case the attack you proposed did not require 100x the hashpower of the coin. Can the difficulty adjustment algorithm in Monero be improved? Of course it can but that does not give any validity to an attack requiring 100x the hashpower of the coin since with a small fraction of such hashpower one can fork the coin and replace the difficulty adjustment algorithm by one that is completely broken by design.

As for our differences on the relative merits of proprietary vs free libre open source software development or between copyleft and non copyleft FLOSS licenses it is best to simply agree to disagree on licenses philosophy.

No you've forgotten smooth's point, because the 51% attack requires ongoing hashrate expended by the attacker indefinitely. The network eventually heals when the attacker stops.

The 100X attack is death star. The chain doesn't heal (even after the attacker has stopped mining) without external intervention of a fork, because the difficulty is in the stratosphere so thus no block is ever created again (or not for a long, long time such as years).

I must admit I am most frustrated with iCEBREAKER, because he is intellectually dishonest (probably because of ignorance but I am not sure). You can fiddle with the difficulty algorithm to try to auto correct from the 100X attack, but you open other security flaw holes by doing so.

Agreed you and I, can agree to disagree on the philosophy of licenses.