Quote from: bytemaster on July 17, 2014, 12:26:12 am

Quote from: alt on July 17, 2014, 12:16:57 am

still can attack with these rules, if I have about 1% XTS.

1. use about 10^7 XTS  or more, control the price to 500USD/XTS, get about 5*10^9 USD
2. usd about 10^7 XTS or more + maybe 10^5 USD, control the price to 0.0005USD/XTS,get all the backup XTS.

It is just a matter of scale.  Attacking the network in such a manner would destroy the network and make your 1% worthless.  We can set that value as high as 5% or more.  The assumption is anyone with that much steak we not want to harm the network.  No one else would participate in the network and instead could go to a new bit asset.  You and then be trading against yourself and not profit at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arrrg.  I'm not a tester, but I don't think I like this reasoning at all. Assuming that no individual person or group would spend money to harm the network is a bad assumption, especially at the early stages when the total NAV is still low.  There could be great incentives to try and destroy the network.    Please tell me I don't know crap and I'm wrong because that's what I want to hear right now. 

for AGS - PTS shareholders, even if we import the keys we cannot play until 2.5 months have passed correct? So in any case we should wait until 2.5 months have passed before we import our keys, or have I misunderstood?

Quote from: FreeTrade on July 15, 2014, 12:33:42 pm

Quote from: JakeThePanda on July 15, 2014, 11:56:27 am

Yeah, this recommendation concerns me a little, especially since my biggest balances are AGS and we can't move those.  I already imported my private keys so I hope these are just precautionary measures.  Is this a real risk? Should I  ?

There's a chain of trust involved in getting the software to you - if you're reading and compiling yourself, that's the shortest chain - you're just trusting the code I've published and that your own system isn't compromised.
If you're using the binaries, or relying on someone else to vet the code, that chain is longer, you're trusting the compiler isn't compromised, that his system/software isn't compromised, that the network isn't compromised, that github and that your own system isn't compromised.
We're looking at other ways to handle this private key issue that require less risk and trust.
For now, there is no reason to import AGS/MMC/PTS keys - those balances don't start maturing for another 2 months anyway.

Wow! Now that I know this I'm very surprised the community would support any DAC without reviewing the code first.  Why are these risks only being brought up now?  No offense, but the code should have been completely reviewed before it was agreed to have it's own section in the forum and be fully supported.  Thank you for adding AGS/PTS to the distribution list, but at what cost do we blindly support a DAC?

At this early stage in the developement of DACs and this community, the leadership of Invictus has the most to say.  I'm pointing at I3 for not making this an important issue.  It could potentially compromise the entire project. No?

If you believe in the market peg then you would buy BitUSD when it is undervalued *even if* you want to short USD vs btsx in the long term. It's guaranteed short-term returns, once the peg is there you can slowly change your position.