Quote from: achimsmile on November 03, 2014, 04:01:31 PM

Well I agree with you, it would be nice to have an independent in-dept review on the security of transparent forging. But it doesn't actually change the forging algo, which was reviewed here:
http://www.docdroid.net/ahms/forging0-4-1.pdf.html

and the crypto behind it looks sound (https://gist.github.com/doctorevil/9521116)

The paper you cited doesn't refer to transparent forging algorithm except as a footnote link which shows a forum post where there is a proposed algorithm.

It would be nice if a Whitepaper is available discussing transparent forging in detail otherwise the use of the term is mostly marketing fluff.

Quote from: achimsmile on November 03, 2014, 04:01:31 PM

It just let's you know the next forger (in it's current state). How would that negatively impact security? It makes it much harder to compute a longer fake chain.

How does this protect you from 7-12 compromised stakeholders?

Quote from: achimsmile on November 03, 2014, 04:03:59 PM

Quote from: inBitweTrust on November 03, 2014, 03:50:47 PM

I'm not blackhat and won't go around commiting crimes to prove a point. My logic is sound and eventually some blackhat may perform a NaS. I don't believe NaS is a likely attack vector for PoS and never claimed as much however ignoring the possibility is irresponsible.

Apart from the likeliness of the attack, I'm agreeing with you, ignoring an attack vector is irresponsible.

So you are disagreeing with me and are suggesting a NaS attack is likely?