It Should be Observed That this probability does not outstretch to 0 (asm! 1) if the bad guy has at Least 1 = 3 of allactivebalances inthe network in the case of U-algorithm (corresondingly, At Least 1 = 2 in the case of exp-algorithm). There should exist some methods for speci c network against protectingthe Such an attack in the CASE WHEN there is risk that (active) relative balance of the bad guy theabove Could Become larger than threshold

it may be a good idea to limit the forging power of accounts by somexed  threshold,  e.g.,  if  an  account  has  more  than,  say,  300K  NXT,then it forges as if it had exactly 300K NXT. Of course, a rich guy cansplit his fortune between smaller accounts, but then all those accountswould forge roughly as one big account (without threshold) under Exp-algorithm.   One  can  one  use  the  computationally  easier  U-algorithmwithout having the drawbacks discussed in this section.

limit forging power 1/3 active balance.

this means you need to continuously monitor which is the total active balance everytime and limit forging power to 1/3 active balance maximun per account.

limit forging power 1/3 active balance.

this means you need to continuously monitor which is the total active balance everytime and limit forging power to 1/3 active balance maximun per account.

this can be interesting as inlet will penalize large accounts for small.