Quote from: _noname_ on March 30, 2014, 10:59:09 AM

Damn I really want this FUD to keep going on to scoop up the cheap coins. But your uselessness is way too evident. And it's wasting everyone's time to pay you any attention

1. There was no fork due to 51% attack. Fork at 5400 was planned since weeks
2. Time warp attack was solved as it was there in the Litecoin as well. That fix is incorporated in Auroracoin source too

Here's the diff for that https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/b1be77210970a6ceb3680412cc3d2f0dd4ca8fb9

This is as low as I will go to name calling. But you all (the one's claiming attacks) are clearly losers.

That so called fix of the timewarp is the ancient one, right? The one that this attack is not prevented by? The one litecoin never bothered to update to fix this attack because litecoin's hash rate seemed massive enough that the attack would take an inordinate amount of hashing power?

Litecoin is protected against this current proposed / planned / maybe-in-progress attack by its hashing power, as are most of the SHA256 merged mined coins that also do not have a better "fix" than that ancient "fix" that this current version of timewarp is not prevented by.

haven't you been following the thread(s) about this timewarp attack? All this was already explained, including BCX's assurance that most of the SHA256 merged mined coins have so much hashing power that (s)he cannot effectively use this attack against them despite their code being just as unfixed with regard to this variant of timewarp that the ancient fix you mention litecoin having deployed is no defense against this variant.

Basically coins like bitcoin and litecoin and, we are recently assured, even some of the SHA256 secondary chains, have so much hashing power they do not need a fix in code against this attack.

Nonetheless once you puny low hash power chains do come up with a code fix for it, it would probably make sense for even the high hash power chains to adopt the fix, even if doing so means waiting until their next schedule hard-fork in order to implement it.

It is possible, maybe even likely, that a need for a hard fork to implement such fixes might be a large part of why chains with enough hash power to deter attackers from trying this variant of timewarp have not yet implemented a fix for this variant of timewarp.

-MarkM-