Timeline for Any thought on the Minergate hard fork of Dashcoin? Is it a 51% attack?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2017 at 2:49 | comment | added | Mika Lindqvist | Same argument, just clarified why I think it is that way. | |
| Oct 20, 2017 at 22:46 | comment | added | user36303 | I meant the argument in your original post, obviously :) | |
| Oct 20, 2017 at 22:22 | comment | added | Mika Lindqvist | The argument I made was that people don't want to lose their coins they have earned since the forking. Minergate is well-known for being home for newbie miners who don't really care about all the technical details. | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 19:46 | comment | added | user36303 | That is not the argument you made. | |
| Oct 19, 2017 at 18:56 | comment | added | Mika Lindqvist | I don't think users care about which one of the forks is valid as long as they get their coins. Switching to another fork is always a risk for users with low-end machines. Not everyone wants to run own full node for all possible coins as in worst case it requires 40 GB disk space per coin and syncing whole blockchain can take upto 4 days if not using fast SSD. | |
| Oct 18, 2017 at 17:10 | comment | added | user36303 | The valid chain with highest cumulative difficulty "wins". My understanding is that Minergate's chain is invalid due to double spends. So that makes the other one the longest valid chain. | |
| Oct 18, 2017 at 16:24 | review | Late answers | |||
| Oct 25, 2017 at 22:17 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2017 at 16:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 23, 2017 at 20:50 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2017 at 16:09 | history | answered | Mika Lindqvist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |