Topic: A fully decentralised consensus algorithm (Read 668 times)

DAG architecture definitely gives you more flexibility with consensus. Reputation can be used in a trust flow context to provide local consensus in a dynamically partitioned architecture. Imagine a partitioned DAG.

Radix has a very unique approach which I personally like a lot.

There are other reputation based consensus architectures out there which are trying to solve for the same problem.

In few months: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/elrond-1000x-throughput-6000-merchants-accepted-4430681

I agree that DAG based consensus is very interesting and fair. All it needs now is more scalability. Byteball also uses DAG and all works fine.

What about https://www.elrond.network/  ?

Yes, that one. The distribution of people poor enough to be willing to do such boring work is bound to be rather non-uniform across timezones.
I guess the poorest of the poor would be willing to sacrifice night-time sleep for such work, but others would not go that far.

Anyway, I just realized that this need not be a problem as long as difficulty adjustment happens on the scale of an hour at most.

You're suggesting timezones exist in which no human would be mining... or at least the man power rate would vary too much depending on timezone?

I'm not totally sure about that. For example, in traditional gold mining, crews will run 24/7 with a day shift and a night shift. It's fair to say the same thing would happen here, as its a similar, for profit enterprise.

Additional challenge: how to compensate for the time zone dependence of human hashing power?

interested as well

Btw, maybe we can achieve a point-to-point consensus network that relies on talking through our mouth.

The consensus of human can not be implemented at present, because the p2p consensus network is made up of many electrical machines, but human is not electrical, so if we want implement human POW consensus in the future, we need change the network communication architecture to human-network first, but How do people communicate with each other without relying on electricity??

Too bad it also resists human mining :-(

Challenge: give me one NP complete problem for which we can randomly generate instances of any desired difficulty and which humans can solve better than computers.

Please check out my new post. 

I developed a Proof of Human Work system that can be proven to resist computer mining.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-thought-pot-the-holy-grail-has-arrived-only-humans-can-mine-4459113

Rich like satoshi?  We in the open source world aren't driven by riches.

You posed a great definition of the problem and with such I got inspired with a solution.

I think the answer lies in any algorithmicly unsolved math problem like "travelling salesman" or any other problem that relies on heuristics.  Simple.

https://www.education.com/reference/article/problem-solving-strategies-algorithms/

NP-Complete problems would be the perfect solution you are asking for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-completeness

Travelling salesman may be ideal because humans are good at it.  Bees can also solve it.

"The TSP (traveling salesman problem) in particular the Euclidean variant of the problem, has attracted the attention of researchers in cognitive psychology. It has been observed that humans are able to produce near-optimal solutions quickly, in a close-to-linear fashion, with performance that ranges from 1% less efficient for graphs with 10-20 nodes, and 11% more efficient for graphs with 120 nodes.[47][48] The apparent ease with which humans accurately generate near-optimal solutions to the problem has led researchers to hypothesize that humans use one or more heuristics, with the two most popular theories arguably being the convex-hull hypothesis and the crossing-avoidance heuristic.[49][50][51] However, additional evidence suggests that human performance is quite varied, and individual differences as well as graph geometry appear to impact performance in the task.[52][53][54] Nevertheless, results suggest that computer performance on the TSP may be improved by understanding and emulating the methods used by humans for these problems, and have also led to new insights into the mechanisms of human thought.[55] The first issue of the Journal of Problem Solving was devoted to the topic of human performance on TSP,[56] and a 2011 review listed dozens of papers on the subject.[55]"

My apologies -- I see how that could be viewed as a shill. I just have this habit of bolding the subject matter in my emails. I very recently started looking into various consensus models, so I figured I'd engage in some dialogue here.

And yes, they didn't have a whitepaper until recently, and from what I've heard, there's an economics whitepaper on the way. So it is inconclusive until we have the whole picture. This got me excited 'cause of the the new consensus model, plus it doesn't fall in the whole blockchain spectrum.

If you do end up looking into it, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

The thing you are missing is that all these attack scenarios would apply to as well as any human based PoW, with the added bonus that they'd be easier to carry out as the hash rate market is much more mature than any human PoW market.

It's understandable that you'd have that opinion based on the purposely-limited information we've released currently.

There will be a Tempo Technical whitepaper released in about a week that will cover the various mitigation strategies (including this one).

Firstly, no worries about propagation, I just append the bytes to my statement.

Secondly, The sole fact that 70% of the coins have been destroyed they are automatically re-distributed to remaining coin owners,  in the most 'democratic' way ever.  Fewer coins, more valuable coins. Simple!

Thirdly, 'the rest' of the network is a bit stronger than 15% percent, say 16%, the rest of the 'manpower' is with me. I have poor class in my Anarchistic pocket.

Noways dude, just forget about this idea and go find something else to think about, I'm done here.

Firstly, your transaction is invalid and not accepted by the network for propagation.

Secondly, you will need to pay each one of these people you attempt to bribe more than the block reward they earn for playing by the rules. So this attack is going to be expensive.

Thirdly, your attack has an ongoing cost because you still need to outpace the rest of the honest network.

Your proposition is a simple 51% attack and achieving it is far more difficult than renting hash power because people are the ultimate limited resource.

There is no point in solving problems by humans (only) ... you are deeply out of the rails of cryptocurrency, imo.

To make it clear let's go a more further with your 'solution':

Suppose I'm an anarchist who claims to be a savior of poors and publish a message in the media, inviting people to commit a transaction that I've simultaneously submitted to your ideal network and is not confirmed yet because nobody (or just a few friends of mine) has committed to it.

In my statement I explain how good it would be if people just confirm my transactions instantly. I would say:

"Comrades,
This transaction destroys almost 70% of the coins which are in hands of less than 15% of people. Destroying these coins will automatically enrich the rest of the people by a quadratic ratio the poor owner who has just 10 coins in his wallet will find it to be 4 times more valuable now. Unite and confirm my proposed transaction and become 4 times more rich just by spending 10 seconds of your time which is not appreciated enough by capitalists by the way. They won't pay you a single penny for 10 seconds, you know."

What happens next? I know you and your parents are good guys, and have good faith, but dude, don't be naive, most of the people are not that honest, they will just try my proposal and commit my transaction ... please, now don't bring forward  PoS shits, I'm sick of its subjectivity.