DanielVF

#!/opt/homebrew/bin/fish

# Usage:
# ./compare_live.fish CONTRACT_ADDRESS

# Config
set SRC_DIR /PATH/TO/REPO/CONTRACTS
set OZ_DIR $SRC_DIR/node_modules

# Download

CaliosD

const bs58 = require('bs58');
const { SHA3 } = require('sha3')
const nacl = require('tweetnacl');
const EC = require('elliptic').ec;
const secp = new EC('secp256k1');
const BN = require('bn.js');
const IOST = require('iost')

// equals to `IOSTCrypto.sha3(seed)` in contract
const hash = (seed) => {

meyer9

Note to XSN devs: Not to dwell on TPoS, but I'm on vacation and have nothing better to do than analyze protocols of other coins.

Introduction

I'm arguing against XSN's claim that TPoS increases network security. It either decreases or does not change security.

We'll analyze how much it costs for an attacker to attack the network through a 51% attack by either buying up 51% of coins or bribing 51% of staking power. Note that the second scenario is much more applicable to Proof-of-Stake because market liquidity generally prevents buying 51% of the coins in any economically-efficient attack, so we'll focus on that.

The second scenario is easier because users do not have to give away/sell their coins to participate in the attack. Users simply have to act like the attacker asks. (Download a different client)

TPoS enables stakers to allow others to stake their coins for a (generally) small commission.