Quote from: HunterMinerCrafter on June 07, 2014, 02:06:20 PM

Quote from: WilliamLie2 on June 07, 2014, 10:21:22 AM

Quote from: HunterMinerCrafter on June 07, 2014, 01:29:25 AM

Yes, but IMO as long as the chain is still hashing and no-one has demonstrated the proposed difficulty time-warp the coin is still safe and surviving, for now.

Though this could change entirely at any moment, I suppose.

It is not safe. Bot owners (including you) can fork the whole blockchain, it is not what people call safety.

Only if they can overcome the production rate of the other bot miners, though. This is, after all, still a form of 51% attack.

Let's look at some facts:
* To date, our longest fork was 13 blocks, this is *significantly* lower than historical forks of most other "fast" coins, including in particular HUC - the closest coin to moto in many ways.
* There have been only 10 forks longer than 6 blocks, which is the "traditional" confirmation count for BTC at 10 minute blocks. (Considering we average only 47 seconds per block since block 8000, we should "expect to need" almost 20 times as many confirmations (120) for the same level of integrity.)
* The vast majority of forks are simple stales, 1 block forks. These are entirely to be expected at such a low block interval.

Given these facts I'd argue that (historically, at least) the coin has shown itself to be pretty damned safe and secure! Personally, I don't know of any other coin at all with such a high transaction confirmation speed and such a low fork rate.

This is a complete nonsense. The only reason why it works now is because no one is performing an attack. Current network difficulty is very low, bots can generate blocks with current difficulty in mere seconds if not faster, using several computers they would be able to do it even faster. Spacing between blocks is now long just because bots don't use their full potential.

Quote from: DeepCryptoanalist3 on June 07, 2014, 02:37:44 PM

Quote from: WilliamLie2 on June 07, 2014, 10:16:17 AM

Quote from: DeepCryptoanalist3 on June 06, 2014, 10:10:12 PM

We are already very far from original satoshi idea... so I propose to use a floating threshold. If no one is able to find a block in 2 mins then threshold will be increased. Or better say that new block threshold should be somehow linked not only to the previous 2000 blocks and separation between them but also to separation between this block and previous. It is hardly to find any hole in there... looks fine to me at first sight. It may introduce some kind of oscillation but I do not see any big flaw that can be used in attack. If you are issuing new block in just one second then your solution shall be shorter than say 5 second. If you are issuing next block after a five minute of game than your solution can be very slow and not optimal.

How can you reliable measure time interval between adjacent blocks? I don't think there is a way.

The sum of block times in a chain shall be always smaller than the current time. It can be used to let miners to build chains where block will be accepted if it contains a solution passed the threshold deduced from a block separation from previous. For example if a new block is issued in K mins from previous then the solution shall be faster than the square of K. If you want to issue a new block in 10 sec then your solution shall be shorter than (10/60)^2 * 60 = 1,67 seconds, if you want to issue a new block in 30 sec then solution can be already 15 sec long. At one minute mark you will be able to issue one minute long solutions. Then to build a longer chain in the same period of time you will still needs to build it from rather optimal solutions. You wouldn't be able to make a long chain of block whose solutions are inefficient because floating threshold will prohibit it.

You still didn't answer my question. How will you measure time interval between adjacent blocks? You are describing what you are going to do with it, but my question is how will you find it?