and revised.
[disabled]
Topic: A type of consensus protocol that based on network latency and terminal users (Read 237 times)
April 08, 2018, 02:31:27 PM
updated with new node names.
and revised.
[disabled]
and revised.
[disabled]
April 08, 2018, 02:10:21 AM
I think they are in direct proportion, but I don't have the mathematical skills to prove it.
April 07, 2018, 05:47:42 AM
Are there anybody who can build a mathematical model of the theory and find the formula between the user number N and the probability P of meeting the target?
I really appreciate.
I really appreciate.
April 07, 2018, 05:39:01 AM
It's really simple formula and any developer should know about Big O notation. You can check about it at http://bigocheatsheet.com/
I have just heard about it before. Now I have known about it. But I still don't understand the principle. April 07, 2018, 05:34:27 AM
Not bad idea, but isn't it similar with PoW, but with including apps/developer within consensus system 
Also, i wonder how the consensus can be done fairly since apps/developer also in part of consensus system. CMIIW.
I have drawn a picture which might explain the competition process. Also, i wonder how the consensus can be done fairly since apps/developer also in part of consensus system. CMIIW.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.34050880
April 06, 2018, 12:17:24 PM
Gossip protocol converges in O(logN) where N is the Number of participants.
I don't quite understand that formula but I am pretty sure that the Gossip protocol is not related. Well when you said this
Quote
In this protocol, I use the transaction broadcast as the "distributed information" and the miners(App developers) make their users pick these signals as fast as possible.
I assumed you were going to use a gossip protocol to broadcast information across nodes. April 06, 2018, 06:26:54 AM
Gossip protocol converges in O(logN) where N is the Number of participants.
I don't quite understand that formula but I am pretty sure that the Gossip protocol is not related. April 06, 2018, 04:41:24 AM
Isn't it the opposite? In a decentralised system, the lesser users there is, the lesser hops is needed for the information to be passed around and the faster it would be.
Gossip protocol converges in O(logN) where N is the Number of participants. April 06, 2018, 03:42:34 AM
Isn't it the opposite? In a decentralised system, the lesser users there is, the lesser hops is needed for the information to be passed around and the faster it would be.
If the user picks up the signal successfully, the account of the owner will be stored in the transaction and his job is done.There is no hop happened.It doesn't exactly ensure security, if I'm reading you right. Whomever having the most number of phones would be able to choose whichever transaction to include.
Isn't it exactly what the miners do when they win the right of generating block?It is also impossible for app developers to add such mining malwares into their apps without significant backlash.
The malware's noly job is to answer some signals nearby. So whomever that has the fastest internet connection is the winner? How do you know who is the fastest if you don't rely on a central server?
It doesn't affect the fairness if some App's users have the fastest internet connection, that's also the ability to win the competition. Actually It doesn't matter if they don't even have any latency at all , by collaborating with the message sender. Refer to [disabled]And we don't need to know who is the fastest.
April 06, 2018, 03:15:44 AM
Because of the network lantency, the more online users an App has, the faster it picks up distributed information in the network. And I called that the ability of “network dispersity”.What if we use that ability to compete generating blocks?
Isn't it the opposite? In a decentralised system, the lesser users there is, the lesser hops is needed for the information to be passed around and the faster it would be.First, I think this ability can't be improved by enhancing the performance of a single machine or using more electric power, and the second, there are a huge number of Apps and their developers could join the mining competition.
If we do it right, it ought to be another consensus method of the fully distributed systems other than POW and POS.
It doesn't exactly ensure security, if I'm reading you right. Whomever having the most number of phones would be able to choose whichever transaction to include.If we do it right, it ought to be another consensus method of the fully distributed systems other than POW and POS.
It is also impossible for app developers to add such mining malwares into their apps without significant backlash.
In this protocol, I use the transaction broadcast as the "distributed information" and the miners(App developers) make their users pick these signals as fast as possible. As the first miner who answers a transaction, his account will be sealed in that transaction. Those sealed accounts will become the basis of the mining competition for the later blocks.
So whomever that has the fastest internet connection is the winner? How do you know who is the fastest if you don't rely on a central server? April 06, 2018, 03:04:20 AM
I will explain it with more detail.
The mining competition is shown below:
The mining competition is shown below:
April 06, 2018, 03:03:10 AM
Inspired by the app development process , I found a way to measure the user scale of Apps.
Because of the network lantency, the more online users work together, the faster they pick up distributed information in the network. And I called that the ability of “network dispersity”.What if we use that ability to compete generating blocks?
First, I think this ability can't be improved by enhancing the performance of a single machine or using more electric power, and the second, there are a huge number of Apps and their developers could join the mining competition.
If we do it right, it may be another consensus method of the fully distributed systems other than POW and POS.
In this protocol, I use the transaction broadcast as the "distributed information" and the miners(App developers) make their users pick these signals as fast as possible. As the first miner who answers a transaction, his account will be stored in that transaction. Those stored accounts will become the basis of the mining competition for the later blocks.
That process can be considered as the process of voting as well. To quote the article, it is
Because of the network lantency, the more online users work together, the faster they pick up distributed information in the network. And I called that the ability of “network dispersity”.What if we use that ability to compete generating blocks?
First, I think this ability can't be improved by enhancing the performance of a single machine or using more electric power, and the second, there are a huge number of Apps and their developers could join the mining competition.
If we do it right, it may be another consensus method of the fully distributed systems other than POW and POS.
In this protocol, I use the transaction broadcast as the "distributed information" and the miners(App developers) make their users pick these signals as fast as possible. As the first miner who answers a transaction, his account will be stored in that transaction. Those stored accounts will become the basis of the mining competition for the later blocks.
That process can be considered as the process of voting as well. To quote the article, it is
Quote
Every time they publish a transaction, the stakeholders vote with their stake on the miners to generate a block and on the branches to be accepted as part of the main chain. The more stake a block or a miner get, the higher chance they win the competition.
Jump to: