A new consensus that promises high levels of security (PoH) - page 2.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 2166

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: Atherus on August 28, 2018, 12:29:54 PM

The mentioned consensus seems to be very interesting especially when it comes to who users have the authority in the validation process.

Federated trust as decribed by GeeqCorp is precisely how humanity has done monetary transactions for centuries. Merely throwing in a blockchain for good measure doesn't change anything. Getting rid of federated trust is what made Bitcoin so revolutionary. Returning to it seems rather regressive.

Quote from: Atherus on August 28, 2018, 12:29:54 PM

[...] but I think we should not criticize the project as it is still in the beginning of developing and we haven't seen proof of Honesty in practice.

That's how public discourse works though. Otherwise they should have just worked in the shadows and presented the world with a finished product.

Atherus

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

The mentioned consensus seems to be very interesting especially when it comes to who users have the authority in the validation process.

My concern can be to the fact that this game theory of honest and dishonest nodes can bring confusion to the chain and cause latency in the transactions.
I have my doubts as well on the implementation of the consensus, but I think we should not criticize the project as it is still in the beginning of developing and we haven't seen proof of Honesty in practice.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 2166

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?

I would not agree to this point. I can see it as a democratic option and people can decide where to put their money depending on their fork preferences.

There's a difference between hard forks as a democratic option (see blocksize debate) and chain splits as a regular occurance. A blockchain that hard forks regularly without internal consistency becomes unreliable as users end up on different forks and transactions get "lost" due to users following different chains.

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 11:09:39 AM

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

Centralized it is, then.

It may defined as Centralized, but it will guarantee that blockchain is running smooth and with the same features as any other in the ecosystem.

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

I want to see more on GBBs as well. I don't think that you have to purchase something but maybe you have to gain access to that somehow and It could be limited to a specific number of users.

Why use a blockchain then? If the network is centralized and permissioned one might as well just the classical banking system and the likes of VISA and PayPal. Same difference.

DeluxeJR

jr. member

Activity: 72

Merit: 1

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

Centralized it is, then.

It may defined as Centralized, but it will guarantee that blockchain is running smooth and with the same features as any other in the ecosystem.

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?

I would not agree to this point. I can see it as a democratic option and people can decide where to put their money depending on their fork preferences.

Quote from: HeRetiK on August 28, 2018, 09:44:41 AM

GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

I want to see more on GBBs as well. I don't think that you have to purchase something but maybe you have to gain access to that somehow and It could be limited to a specific number of users.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 2166

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 02:33:58 AM

I was navigating through different projects and a new consensus called "Proof of Honesty" (PoH).

[...]

The idea is that users do not select the "dishonest" nodes as they let only the "honest" validators to validate the transactions, resulting to nearly 100% BFT.

[...]

Sounds pretty much like Ripple's and ByteBall's consensus algorithm, which suffer from either centralization, vulnerability to Sybil attacks or both.

Let's look at their whitepaper.

Quote from: https://geeqcorp.github.io/papers/geeq_white_paper.pdf

Genesis blocks are created by GeeqCorp at the request of other companies who wish to build applications.

Centralized it is, then.

Quote from: https://geeqcorp.github.io/papers/geeq_white_paper.pdf

If one or more forks exist, the user is able to inspect them and then decide which one he wishes to use for his transactions. The CDM places the responsibility of choosing between forks in the hands of users who hold tokens on the chain and who would therefore be harmed if false transactions were written into “verified” blocks.

Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?

Quote from: https://geeqcorp.github.io/papers/geeq_white_paper.pdf

If a user or node detects any dishonesty, he can send an audit request to the network. If dishonesty is verified, misbehaving nodes are ejected from the validation network and Good Behavior Bonds (GBBs), previously posted in order to join the network, are forfeited and used to pay rewards to the agents who called for the audit.

GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

DeluxeJR

jr. member

Activity: 72

Merit: 1

Quote from: nc50lc on August 28, 2018, 05:36:05 AM

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 05:13:45 AM

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

I have checked the link and the "POH Explainer Video" but nothing's really explained but the possible positive effects of using their newly developed "just nodes coin".
Noticeably, they allotted more time explaining the downside of POW coins like Bitcoins than explaining their system.
Just like the quoted reply.

Not to mention, Proof of Honesty is the worst name for a system that was built for security.

Is there a better resource where "Proof of Honesty" was better explained?
Please provide some links.

Here is a link that may help: https://youtu.be/m5zL2euruYQ?t=20m47s

it is also a provided example of how this can work. I know they are still in an initial stage and I want to see something "tangible" (I.e. code) in order to let us have a clear opinion about what Proof of Honesty really is.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Bitcoin and most cryptocurrency supposed to be trustless and use consensus method which enable trustless, so IMO this consensus isn't practical at all. Why don't we back using fiat/bank if high degree of trust is required in here.
I also check their explanation (https://www.geeq.io/the-most-secure-blockchain) and they vaguely explain the PoH which don't help at all.

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 05:13:45 AM

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

That also applies to most consensus method, but in PoW and some kind PoS, there's punishment/wasting resource such as big amount of staked coins taken away or require million USD for ASIC/electricity when someone attempt to attack network.

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 05:13:45 AM

As for "who decides who is honest or dishonest", the answer is "Users". People who would be affected by a wrong validation, in other words.

Just with this sentence, there are few critical problem such as :
1. How do they find out whether the user is real or don't have multiple votes/identity within the network?
2. Even if assuming they magically find way to solve 1st problem, people can be bribed, manipulated or have their device hacked to manipulate the vote.

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 6080

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: DeluxeJR on August 28, 2018, 05:13:45 AM

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

I have checked the link and the "POH Explainer Video" but nothing's really explained but the possible positive effects of using their newly developed "just nodes coin".
Noticeably, they allotted more time explaining the downside of POW coins like Bitcoins than explaining their system.
Just like the quoted reply.

Not to mention, Proof of Honesty is the worst name for a system that was built for security.

Is there a better resource where "Proof of Honesty" was better explained?
Please provide some links.

DeluxeJR

jr. member

Activity: 72

Merit: 1

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 28, 2018, 03:02:20 AM

But how does Proof of Honesty prevent collusion in how to decide "who" is honest and dishonest? Plus, more importantly, how cheap is it to collude?

Proof of Work works because there is no need to trust one another. A miner simply provides his "power" to hash and leaves his opportunity to win a block depending on how much power he gives. Plus colluding in the network would be expensive because the miners would be risking their investment in mining equipment and electricity, making it more profitable to be honest.

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

As for "who decides who is honest or dishonest", the answer is "Users". People who would be affected by a wrong validation, in other words.

If discrepancies in a block validation may be noticed, then the user can inspect them and then decide with fork of data he wants to use for his transactions. I cannot though define the cost as i'm not a programmer in this project (www.Geeq.io).

I just read about it and wanted to bring it there in order to exchange opinions about the implementation of a new consensus that may be beneficial to current projects as well.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

But how does Proof of Honesty prevent collusion in how to decide "who" is honest and dishonest? Plus, more importantly, how cheap is it to collude?

Proof of Work works because there is no need to trust one another. A miner simply provides his "power" to hash and leaves his opportunity to win a block depending on how much power he gives. Plus colluding in the network would be expensive because the miners would be risking their investment in mining equipment and electricity, making it more profitable to be honest.

DeluxeJR

jr. member

Activity: 72

Merit: 1

I was navigating through different projects and a new consensus called "Proof of Honesty" (PoH).

In simple words, in this consensus users select in which nodes their transactions will be validated, rather than PoW and PoS where nodes determine the validity of the transactions.
The idea is that users do not select the "dishonest" nodes as they let only the "honest" validators to validate the transactions, resulting to nearly 100% BFT.

Do you think that this idea may improve the security of blockchains?

Topic: A new consensus that promises high levels of security (PoH) - page 2. (Read 608 times)