📝 Although developers constantly process incoming data and update software, this is not always enough to secure the blockchain network from targeted hacking. According to statistics, in most cases, the reason for the loss of funds is the negligence of users. Five popular ways to hack a blockchain network:
⠀⠀1. 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 - The method consists in replacing a domain name close to the original one belonging to the existing exchange. Fraudsters not only gain full access to the wallets of mistaken users, but also earn on advertising displayed on the site.
⠀⠀2. 𝗦𝘆𝗯𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 - The reception is similar to the symptoms of the personality disorder disease: due to the action of the algorithms, the hacker fills the network with a huge number of fake nodes, causing a system crash. In this case, the attacker gains control over the operations carried out within the network.
⠀⠀3. 𝟱𝟭% 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 - as a result of hacker actions, control is obtained over more than 50% of the computing power of the blockchain network. This gives fraudsters the right to create controlled blocks, obtain coins and manage online activities.
⠀⠀4. 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 - The user must remember that in the blockchain there are 3 nodes responsible for conducting financial transactions, and this is only 60% of transactions. Hackers are left to take over the remaining interest in order to gain access to the personal data of users.
⠀⠀5. 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 - Suspicious links, spam in the mail, unverified sites and downloaded files - this can lead to infection of the computer, after which the hacker gets access to the user's personal data.
⠀
⠀⠀𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗣𝗿𝗼 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
⠀
🔗 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝟱𝟭% 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. After a single node makes a decision, the network is updated and another main node is selected - dynamic change every second. This excludes various kinds of ambiguities – collisions, double spending, and other things. There are no standard consensus principles. The more nodes are in the network, the better is the performance. This is achieved by the unique architecture of 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝘀𝗮𝗿 and the organization of the virtual circuit switching network.
⠀
🔵 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗣𝗿𝗼 biometric facial recognition system
A person’s hash is taken, in conjunction with SecureCall – the confirmation of a transaction with a phone call. During a call, the user enters a password using a DTMF signal along with the following solutions:
▪️ After a successful transaction, the private key loses its relevance, and the client is inevitably obliged to generate a new key (or this is done automatically);
▪️ The public hash from the concatenation hash [Token + passphrase] or [Token + random text] in binary form is recorded in the smart contract chain.
▪️ It is possible to use 2 short keys with a sequential check, after checking the 1st key (regardless of the result of the check), it is proposed to enter the second key. The mechanism assumes, after the 1st check, to output a string that is the hash of the 2nd key, which means a hacker will need to pick up the 2nd key without knowing. To prevent hacking, it is possible to limit the number of attempts.

In fact, for such projects, the experience of creating other projects is not necessary, since the development of this project in the future will not be the primary goal.

Recently, POS and POW hybrids have become more and more common ...
In this connection? Do these two systems complement each other and work more efficiently?

Is there really any exchange today where a new little-known project can add its coin for free?

I have an interesting idea regarding Bounty campaigns and drawing attention to the project. Who can I contact with this question?
It is free of charge.