A fully decentralised consensus algorithm - page 2.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: aliashraf on June 10, 2018, 06:36:50 AM

Sybil attack is not the issue, I'm talking about 50%+1 attack.

As for sybil attack classical PoW again gets the lowest profile unlike what you claim, because it is not about identities but about costs, nobody can forge costs:

To consume or not to consume? This is the question!

Not hard to understand, you decide (being a human or a machine, whatever) based on your analysis of the incentives and costs involved. PoW is the king here, a proven untouchable legit king.

Suppose I give you a problem, solvable only by a human, that a human performing at his best takes 10s to complete. How can you improve this solution time? You can't.

Alternatively, I give you a machine solvable problem, which takes 10s on a the best CPU to solve. How can you improve this solution time? ASIC. You can probably improve it by at least 100x.

That is the difference here. You've getting hung up on PoW being a machine solvable problem.

aliashraf

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1175

Always remember the cause!

Quote from: monsterer2 on June 10, 2018, 06:25:36 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on June 10, 2018, 06:20:04 AM

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

You're still not thinking about the problem properly. A PoW solvable only by people would be the ultimate system because you cannot sybil attack it - the best thing you can do is crowd source it, but it would still have the lowest sybil coefficient of any system possible.

Sybil attack is not the issue, I'm talking about 50%+1 attack.

As for sybil attack classical PoW again gets the lowest profile unlike what you claim, because it is not about identities but about costs, nobody can forge costs:

To consume or not to consume? This is the question!

Not hard to understand, you decide (being a human or a machine, whatever) based on your analysis of the incentives and costs involved. PoW is the king here, a proven untouchable legit king.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: aliashraf on June 10, 2018, 06:20:04 AM

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

You're still not thinking about the problem properly. A PoW solvable only by people would be the ultimate system because you cannot sybil attack it - the best thing you can do is crowd source it, but it would still have the lowest sybil coefficient of any system possible.

aliashraf

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1175

Always remember the cause!

Quote from: monsterer2 on June 10, 2018, 06:03:49 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on June 10, 2018, 05:37:47 AM

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm, won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more Grin

only fools will put their money in such a network.

You're thinking about politics when you should be thinking about consensus. Anything you can apply to politics applies to all possible consensus mechanisms since they're all controlled by people.

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: aliashraf on June 10, 2018, 05:37:47 AM

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm, won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more Grin

only fools will put their money in such a network.

You're thinking about politics when you should be thinking about consensus. Anything you can apply to politics applies to all possible consensus mechanisms since they're all controlled by people.

aliashraf

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1175

Always remember the cause!

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm, won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more Grin

only fools will put their money in such a network.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

A truly decentralised consensus mechanism is one where humans perform the PoW. The trouble is, finding a problem that only a human can solve that is also easily verifiable by a machine is unsolved.

The person who solves this problem will be very rich indeed.

Anonymous Kid

member

Activity: 183

Merit: 25

Quote from: wolfewells on June 10, 2018, 04:43:16 AM

I was wondering if you've looked into the "Tempo" consensus model? I believe its used by Radix.

heh. zero activity on this account. bolding the words Tempo multiple times. It's pretty obvious you just came to shill in this thread but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have heard of Radix quite a while ago, but at the time there was very little info about them (they didnt even have a whitepaper if I recall). I'll give this a look though.

wolfewells

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

Quote from: Anonymous Kid on June 09, 2018, 12:58:31 PM

Currently no crypto has this feature... with PoW based systems anyone can effectively *buy* the chain with their hashpower. With PoS the same can be said with buying actual stake within the network in terms of coins - the same applies to DPoS, and pretty much every other consensus mechanism I have come accross... WITH the exception of IOTA

I was wondering if you've looked into the "Tempo" consensus model? I believe its used by Radix. I stumbled upon a discussion about it on reddit recently, and I found it to be very interesting. They may have a better approach to incentivizing good actors, all while keeping the network decentralized

Forgive me for the lack of info - I'm still in the middle of my research researching Tempo. But from what I have gathered so far in, it appears to have done away with the whole mining/staking aspect of PoW & PoS. Which means no hashpower/majority stake/ crazy hardware etc etc. According to the whitepaper, anyone can run a node, the prerequisites are little to nothing - With the barrier being so low, every participant in the network gets an opportunity to weigh-in on the ordering of events.

The consensus model relies on "Logical Clocks" -- Here's an explainer I found --http://www.mangoresearch.co/radix-dlt-logical-clocks-explained/

But THIS is what really caught my attention -- Unlike IOTA , it appears that this Radix network is already up and running.

Anonymous Kid

member

Activity: 183

Merit: 25

Quote from: ?? on ??

Each consensus algorithm/method isn't perfect, even the one that IOTA uses. While the idea requiring users to verify 2 other tx isn't bad idea, i think there are potential problem such as :
1. What happen if parts of the network unable to connect to the another part of the network? Do they run independently?
2. When those separated network can connect again, how to determine which network is more "true" considering there's double-spend chance? In PoW, the nodes/network simply choose longest PoW.

Well the simple solution would be to give a weight to each transaction that get's increased with each pow verification done on top of it - though that still has the risk of an attacker just buying hashpower. Tbh I have no idea how else the game theory can be changed/modified without increasing risk of attack. I wonder if it is even possible...

ir.hn

member

Activity: 322

Merit: 54

Consensus is Constitution

Quote from: mindphuq on June 09, 2018, 04:17:51 PM

The only way to limit voting right now is binding the votes to some kind of a value, be it hashpower or investment in the blockchain. That's the whole reason why all of this exists. You want the decentralized system to be anonymous (or pseudonymous at leas) at the same time too, because the most free form of voting and participating is the anonymous one, and you will want to make voter fraud as expensive as possible. The system also has to be trustless, that means you are not required to trust a voter to play fair.

That's just how it is.

Yep. Unfortunately the future of mainstream crypto will likely be identity verification, fingerprinting, facial recognition, gait recognition, background checks ... and god forbid mark of the beast, etc. It will be fair all right (at least among the proletariat), but also fairly intrusive into your life. So yes, here in the Resistance, we must come up with ways to prove work or existence in at least a pseudonymous way.

mindphuq

member

Activity: 187

Merit: 20

The only way to limit voting right now is binding the votes to some kind of a value, be it hashpower or investment in the blockchain. That's the whole reason why all of this exists. You want the decentralized system to be anonymous (or pseudonymous at leas) at the same time too, because the most free form of voting and participating is the anonymous one, and you will want to make voter fraud as expensive as possible. The system also has to be trustless, that means you are not required to trust a voter to play fair.

That's just how it is.

btj

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 16

The majors disadvantages of IOTA: The tangle and Zero fee transaction.

Quote from: Anonymous Kid on June 09, 2018, 12:58:31 PM

A fully decentralised (or rather, distributed) consensus algorithm in a perfect world would be where, every participant in the network has an equal voting weight on what the correct history of transactions is.

And yes you are right, actually there no perfect consensus algorithm ... but there will be many improvments in the futur.

ir.hn

member

Activity: 322

Merit: 54

Consensus is Constitution

Good job for reminding us what a consensus algorithm is intended to do, simply give one person one vote...or give people vote/rewards based on how much they contribute. There are limitless ways to do this and many might have significant advantages over what is done currently.

Always good to keep a fresh mind and go back to the beginning constantly of what we are actually trying to do at the most fundamental level. If we do this then we won't get off track.

Anonymous Kid

member

Activity: 183

Merit: 25

A fully decentralised (or rather, distributed) consensus algorithm in a perfect world would be where, every participant in the network has an equal voting weight on what the correct history of transactions is.

Currently no crypto has this feature... with PoW based systems anyone can effectively *buy* the chain with their hashpower. With PoS the same can be said with buying actual stake within the network in terms of coins - the same applies to DPoS, and pretty much every other consensus mechanism I have come accross... WITH the exception of IOTA - despite the fact that IOTA doesn't work yet, I think the core game theory behind it, is probably the most innovative in the entire crypto space.

Instead of incentivising transaction verification through a monetary reward within the network (i.e. a coinbase reward), transaction verification is incentivised by the user's willingness to MAKE a transaction*.

The problem with this method and the reason it doesn't work properly is that it is quite easy for an attacker to game.

In what other ways can you shift around the game theoretic model of incentivising transaction verification and honesty on the network? I think this is the key to a fully distributed network where 1 person = 1 vote.

*If you don't know how IOTA works, user's basically have to perform a PoW on two previous tx. confirming them within a DAG like structure in order to broadcast their own tx.

Topic: A fully decentralised consensus algorithm - page 2. (Read 668 times)