Topic: AI Coin Development Diary - page 8. (Read 49308 times)

I'm not upto speed on all of this project ie spent about 2 minutes.

However you wish to hardfork BTC beginning of 2016? you want major holders to follow your fork?

Why not just create a new chain?

What is the point of using BTC when for a start even a bitcoin advocate could hardly consider bitcoins current distribution as ideal?

Also well before you finish there will already be a bitcoin pos on its own blockchain (another project with significant backing far removed from this forum).

Yes, andytoshi personally, and gmaxwell on IRC.

Before writing the whitepaper I met with andytoshi here in Austin, Texas and we discussed the issues of achieving consensus in a distributed system. He believed then that my ideas were not Bitcoin, as I sidestep distributed consensus by not having a Satoshi-style, join-and-leave at will, anonymous, volunteer peer-to-peer system. CPoS has paid-for, authenticated full nodes that are permanently operated by geographically dispersed, non-affiliated system administrators. CPoS is cooperative and achieves trustless behavior via transparent software agents that verify each other's actions. Gmaxwell, I believe, wants to see the working system.

Core developers will likely closely scrutinize the nomadic central mint that enables all CPoS advantages. As I plan to use bitcoind as is, I actually do not need core developer acceptance of a pull request for changes to the Bitcoin Core software. Rather my code encapsulates a slave bitcoind instance and proxies its connections to the secure network CPoS manages.

I plan to explore microtransactions as a route to more general acceptance, as CPoS has benefits for this up-to-now unserved market, namely 100x less transaction fees and immediate acknowledgement  for inclusion in the next block.

Should CPoS prove successful in its forks of the popular PoW coins, then I expect the system to use a portion of the block rewards to hire a relatively large number of developers to join those already working on Bitcoin Core.

I am dropping the idea of paying dividends to existing coin holders, as the system stake is provided by the paid-for full node operators. The block rewards are better spent to improve the coins, and encourage their use in transactions.

I was wondering whether CPoS has been reviewed, or commented on, by any of the Bitcoin core devs.

The coins I would fork are currently the highest market capitalization Satoshi proof-of-work coins. Perhaps in a few more months, Dogecoin will fall out of that group. Or on the other hand, a rally in Bitcoin might lift most altcoins as happened November 2013.

I understand your points about the relative merits of coins. But, analogous to current industrial mining, I want to position the CPOS system as an agnostic platform that secures the network for a variety of branded coins without controlling their respective business communities, and thus isolated from their behavior. The CPOS system would drop a coin whose block rewards no longer pay for the storage of their blockchain.

CPOS will enable each supported coin to have lower transaction fees and immediate, certain acknowledgement that accepted transactions will be included in their respective blockchain. CPOS operators, as directed by the software, will contribute a significant portion of respective block rewards to the Litecoin and Dogecoin foundations for use as those communities see fit.

Furthermore, CPOS supported coins will not be subject to 51% attacks. Their transactions will be immutable and thus not subject to double spend attacks. All traffic between paid-for full nodes is TLS/SSL encrypted, and because each such full node is identified by a unique X.509 certificate, there will be no Sybil attacks.

To buoy coin prices and to encourage user migration to the CPOS fork, I would establish a CPOS system policy that allocates a modest portion of block rewards to post-fork unspent transaction outputs in the blockchain as a dividend.

Once the system is up and running, new coins can be enrolled in CPOS during the coin's development process by substituting CPOS for the otherwise required mining pool, on the condition that the developers clone Bitcoin Core, i.e. bitcoind, software. Aside from premining, promoters can pay themselves by owning the foundation that CPOS funds via block rewards, or by accepting payment directly from CPOS to add features - again via block rewards.

This part makes no sense. Why would you want to do that? Do you realize by 2016, those coins might not even exist anymore? Both of them have been falling in BTC price non-stop as expected from their lack of usefulness, and will probably be displaced by non-Bitcoin clones like Monero for example, which at least adds *something* new (true decentralized anonymity thanks to the use of ring signatures).

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/litecoin/

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogecoin/

If you don't know much about what happened in the dogecoin world you should read this:

http://www.dailydot.com/business/moolah-dogecoin-alex-green/

There's also this leaked video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e63_1404777061

About Litecoin: The tale that Scrypt made it ASIC resistant is now proven to be false. It's being mined by ASICs, and even the creator of Scrypt himself said "they used it poorly", because it was supposed to use a lot of RAM, but it didn't. So it's basically just another Bitcoin clone with nothing new, less adoption, less investment in mining gear, less security, less brain power working on it, less venture capital, less companies, less network effect, less market capitalization, less everything.

August 18, 2014 Status and Thoughts.

I have about half of the Texai cognitive architecture migrated to GitHub. The knowledge base repositories are larger than GitHub guidelines, so I need to find another more appropriate cloud data server, e.g. Dropbox for those. I configured three separate computers in my lab with the same development environment to ensure redundancy and to document the build recipe. The configuration for developers is . . .

• Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on bare metal
• Oracle Java 8 with JCE highest level security policy
• Netbeans 8.0 Java IDE
• Maven 3
• Docker

The Docker platform is currently used to host a Jenkins continuous integration server that I uploaded to the Docker container registry.

My GitHub page is https://github.com/StephenLReed?tab=repositories.

My Docker repository page is https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/stephenreed/jenkins-java8-maven-git/.

I would like to have bitcoind in an agent-controlled, non-verifying proxy by early October, 2014, for hallway demonstration at the Hashers United conference in Las Vegas. Consequently, I will upload broken aspects of Texai that have no relationship to Cooperative Proof-of-Stake, as the agents I need to write are dependent upon working code embedded in those otherwise broken dialog modules.

------------

Here are my latest thoughts about how CPOS will work.

I am considering hard-forking the popular Satoshi blockchains: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin and Namecoin. They would operate on networks separate from the Satoshi originals and be branded respectively CPOS-B, CPOS-L, CPOS-D and CPOS-N. Users would be required to configure their respective client wallets, payment processors, mixing services, etc., to respective CPOS seed node addresses - that's all. There are no changes required to the client protocols I believe.

The forks could come much earlier than January 2016, depending upon the ambition of the network and the state of system testing.

I would use a portion of block rewards to pay geographically dispersed operators to run full nodes for these plus a Tor relay. Each operator would be required to provision a high-availability enterprise server in a datacenter having redundant high bandwidth Internet connections. Specifications for the server will include protection against DDoS attacks.

As operators will be relatively well compensated, I expect to add new servers only with increased market capitalization and transaction traffic. VisaNet runs the majority of the world's credit card transactions with only two datacenters, so less than ten geographically distributed servers with likewise separate ownership may be adequate to start. Supposing that CPOS grows to the same market capitalization that Bitcoin has currently, then 10,000 distributed paid servers could be justified.

I would choose either CoreOS or Ubuntu LTS for the base operating system, and use Docker containers for the cryptocoin bitcoind software, where each coin gets its own container. Likewise the tor relay gets its own container. Each server would run the latest identical software and as the network grows in size, there are existing softwares to manage the worldwide deployment of Docker containers. Unpaid volunteers could download and run the CPOS agent software to record blockchains and verify peer agent behavior, but would not be permitted to operate agents that mint new blocks or that provide support services to other agents.

Governance of the CPOS network will be performed by the Texai cognitive architecture, in which simple transparent algorithms enforce policies decided at periodic meetings of the node operators. Each operator will be required to purchase a commercial membership in their local Bitcoin Foundation. A portion of the block rewards will fund developers tasked via the Texai cognitive architecture. Each paid person performing a task for the system will have at least two other non-affiliated paid persons check their work. A portion of the block rewards will fund development of the Texai architecture, Bitcoin Core, and relevant altcoin features. Supposing that CPOS coins grow to the current market capitalization of bitcoin, then 300+ developers could be supported. Paid human participants in the CPOS system, e.g. operators and human agents, could be anonymous but would be required to possess X.509 certificates for digital signatures and network authentication. Likewise they must provide verifiable contact information. All communications in the network are digitally signed, TLS/SSL encrypted, and logged. We want the network to be trustless in the sense that Satoshi's Bitcoin is trustless, but paid participants must be held responsible for their behavior via cyrptographic credentials and tamper-evident logs.

I expect the block rewards of the CPOS coins to greatly exceed the transaction revenue with respect to paying for the system. Consequently, I would set transaction fees to the lowest sensible values which I believe are 100x less than what bitcoin charges. Rather than $.05 fee at today's bitcoin price, I would set CPOS transaction fees at the equivalent of $.0005 which encourages the use of microtransactions.

As an example of "eating your own dog food", the Texai software agents will pay each other for services rendered using bitcoin microtransactions. This will encourage software developers to write skills for the system, as they will receive the net earnings of software skill they provide in accordance with a scheme to maximize innovation.

In accordance with the precedent set by Satoshi's Bitcoin, the CPOS network will not be a legal entity in any jurisdiction. The network, despite Tor anonymity capabilities, will not place servers in jurisdictions where their operation would be against the local law. The network will pass through all earnings, e.g. block rewards, transactions fees, and software agent income, to human participants who will pay taxes according to their local jurisdictions.

I'm attending there!

Damn, wish it was in Europe;/

Hashers United Conference

I will be participating in a panel discussion at the Hashers United Conference to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA on October 10-11. The panel topic concerns mining algorithms and my modest role will be to briefly describe Cooperative Proof of Stake for Bitcoin. Sharing the podium will be notable crypto coin designers.

This is a great chance to meet up. If you like, PM me.

http://hashersunited.com/

After returning from vacation I found that the disk drive on my server crashed. When rebuilding the system I decided to make it identical to my development desktop and use Docker to contain the Jenkins continuous integration application that I used to run on the server. Having a second development computer makes it easier to bring one along on vacation, and also a documented and scripted build for developers that this project will ultimately pay to enhance CPOS Bitcoin.

Docker is a Linux based technology that enables applications to run efficiently in secure containers. I created a Docker container for running Java continuous integration with Jenkins, Maven, Java 8, and Git. This is a generally useful contribution to the Java development community.

The repository for my container is https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/stephenreed/java8-jenkins-maven-git-nano/

And here is a screenshot . . .

CPOS Bitcoin will create a new block exactly every 10 minutes, so on average the CPOS Bitcoin blockchain should be equal in length to the original Satoshi Bitcoin blockchain after the fork. Transaction counts per block will differ because of the relative popularity of the two forks.

Additionally I want CPOS Bitcoin to reliably accept low fee transactions and especially microtransactions to highlight an important advantage of CPOS.

Thanks for the tip!
-Steve

PoS coin blockchains seem to grow faster than PoW coin blockchains. Will a CPoS bitcoin fork's blockchain grow faster than bitcoin's?

I'm posting this to commit myself to reading everything including all references in this thread some day soon. The work going on here is phenomenal. I want to reach a level where I can comprehend what's going on here and possibly have a part in it. Thanks for making such an awesome topic OP. 

Interesting, reading..

This is a good idea, and the approach I am taking with Bitmark.

Why not use the wiki feature on github?

How can someone contribute? Is the project in a stage where more devs can join?

I have migrated a few more code modules from the Texai system over to the Texai CPoS code repositories on GitHub. Notably there is an implementation of BitTorrent over TLS/SSL which I will later use for rapid blockchain update of new full nodes.

Texai previously used the Chord distributed hash table to find peers, but I want to replace this mechanism with something else that can connect the CPoS network and be subject to remote verification by peers. Continuing the pattern I set by a single writer to the canonical blockchain, which is then widely replicated, I suppose that the MessageRouter will use a shared dictionary of full node IDs and IP addresses. This shared tamper-evident dictionary would be maintained by a single writer and widely replicated. Changes to the dictionary should be verifiable by peers.

I will think about this feature and also the tamper-evident logs required by the blockchain operations. I believe that there is a Java abstraction that both these use-cases may inherit from.

Here is my contribution activity chart from GitHub. The migrated and tested code from Texai now totals 42,000 lines of Java source code, not including the 450 regression test methods.

Another great idea. I will add a glossary to the OP.