Fastcoin Forum

Interesting conversation from Forum Chat:

CarlHenrik:   I was wondering, why isn't the FST value at $10+ yet? I mean LTC has been over $50 even though this coin is faster. This is seriously asked
coradan:   only marketing... I think FST is more useful than LTC...
coradan:   Try it is enough to see it...
CarlHenrik:   Yes very fast. I think it has some akwardness for miners though with the orphan rate? That I think should be declared up front for miners so they know that's how it's supposed to work with a short block time. And they should know the payout for mining is still just as good, in fact better than most coins when I look at coinwarz or coinchoose. Regarding mining I found a pool hashing over 50% of the network, fst.zabmail.ru, that is not good, right? even if the owner is honest.
CarlHenrik:   I see one of the last block solvers in that pool is "coradan"... I moved my megahashes to hashfaster to even things out but it's not enough
coradan:    Yes I am mining there... I prefer coinex, but until they are back online...
CarlHenrik:   You don't care that hasrate is over 50% of network hashrate in that pool?
coradan:   I am waiting for coinex... the pool is not bad.
CarlHenrik:   But couldn't the pool owner do a 51% attack?
coradan:   if all nodes (members) of that pool will use a fraud mining client, could be...
coradan:   but that is very unlikely
CarlHenrik:   I think miners might not need even notice the attack, in fact, need to not notice it for it to work, and when miners notice they will leave pool. Still I like to create safety margins to support fastcoin network. A large pool is also suitable target for DDOS attack, here cutting network security in half thereby making 51% attack easier as second step.
coradan:   The big pool could hide the blockchain to the others miners, and miners on the pool would obtain advantages over others outside of it, but someone could be miner on that big pool, so I dont see a security problem on this...
coradan:   And with respect DDOS attack, it would be possible, but 51% attack as a second step is very unlikely, because the miners on the pool attacked would go to others pools

Hi  astalavister,

And thank you for responding to this topic and also for having run the biggest fastcoin pool for a long time. I hope you do not feel personally attacked by my concerns regarding a pool having more than 50% of network hashrate. For everyone I'm informing that I have no knowledge of the person running fst.zabmail.ru my concerns were solely based on having seen the network structure with one pool so large.

I think there are several situations with cryptocurrencies as well as with traditional currencies where the technical possibility for "ill behaviour" by people is avoided because people in general do not want to exploit these and become "bad guys". It is also probably a better situation to be owner of the largest pool for a well established coin than to be a "bad guy" no longer running an abandoned pool for a dead coin destroyed by a 51% attack.

But even if neither the incentive to be a bad guy or the incentive to destroy the coin exists for the pool owner of a large pool for a certrain coin, a dominant pool is still a weakness in the network that can be used by others with other incentives.

 Let's say the fastcoin network is 400Mh/s and 300Mh/s of these are at a single pool then the hashpower is centralised to a single point that can be attacked with much more ease than attacking many different points. The attack can be a DDOS attack or a local power outtage or by physically removing the servers in a burglary. Any of these possibilities will leave the fastcoin network at only 100Mh/s in the example.

A strong inidividual miner (currently strongest scrypt miners I've seen have 100 - 200Mh/s) or a scrypt pool owner from a "competing" coin may then succeed with a 51% attack against a weakened network.  That different coins compete with each other or that highly invested miners would gain by 51% attacks against coins they are not invested in is not necessarily true though because it reflectes badly on the whole cryptocurrency economy if 51% attacks succeed. 

Although an attack is unlikely I think that safety margins are beneficial for attracting users to a coin. 

I think that as a miner in any network that you support it is sound to join smaller pools to make the network safer and of course also to use failover pools if the primary one goes down for any reason.