Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] eMunie (EMU) - NOT a BitCoin fork/clone - call for beta testers - page 23. (Read 78405 times)

member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

This Quora answer describes the Byzantine General's problem well:

Quote
The Byzantine Generals' Problem roughly goes as follows: N Generals have their armies camped outside a city they want to invade. They know their numbers are strong enough that if at least 1/2 of them attack at the same time they'll be victorious. But if they don't coordinate the time of attack, they'll be spread too thin and all die. They also suspect that some of the Generals might be disloyal and send fake messages. Since they can only communicate by messenger, they have no means to verify the authenticity of a message. How can such a large group reach consensus on the time of attack without trust or a central authority, especially when faced with adversaries intent on confusing them?
http://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea

Obviously if you change the problem so that generals can trust certain other generals or messengers or outside "unique nodes", you can "solve" it.  This is how banks and ripple solve it.  Bitcoin's breakthrough was solving the problem with no trust by using a proof-of-work system.  If a coin does not use POW, that means that there is centralization/trust involved.  Emulah doesn't seem to understand this concept very well.

You did not even comment on the mechanism that Emulah claims to use above (ie. proof-of-work-of-verification). ie. Emulah attempts to rely on proof-of-work. The proof is just different from hashcash. ie. Emulah is using something different from hashcash to prove that work was done. Bitcoin and all other alts rely on the hashcash concept.
sr. member
Activity: 328
Merit: 250

A proof-of-work or proof-of-stake system are the only known ways to stop someone from running a lot of client peers or hatchers in a decentralized system in order to block transactions or double-spend.  I do not see any new solution to the Byzantine Generals problem in your answers.

What about a "unique node list"? As employed by Ripple.

https://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List

This Quora answer describes the Byzantine General's problem well:

Quote
The Byzantine Generals' Problem roughly goes as follows: N Generals have their armies camped outside a city they want to invade. They know their numbers are strong enough that if at least 1/2 of them attack at the same time they'll be victorious. But if they don't coordinate the time of attack, they'll be spread too thin and all die. They also suspect that some of the Generals might be disloyal and send fake messages. Since they can only communicate by messenger, they have no means to verify the authenticity of a message. How can such a large group reach consensus on the time of attack without trust or a central authority, especially when faced with adversaries intent on confusing them?
http://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea

Obviously if you change the problem so that generals can trust certain other generals or messengers or outside "unique nodes", you can "solve" it.  This is how banks and ripple solve it.  Bitcoin's breakthrough was solving the problem with no trust by using a proof-of-work system.  If a coin does not use POW, that means that there is centralization/trust involved.  Emulah doesn't seem to understand this concept very well.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
I'd like to be a beta tester as well.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
i'll help with the beta testing
full member
Activity: 162
Merit: 100
I'd like to be a tester as well, sounds interesting
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016

A proof-of-work or proof-of-stake system are the only known ways to stop someone from running a lot of client peers or hatchers in a decentralized system in order to block transactions or double-spend.  I do not see any new solution to the Byzantine Generals problem in your answers.

What about a "unique node list"? As employed by Ripple.

https://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List

I'm also thinking there must be a way to mathematically achieve "proof-of-verification", ie. a type of proof-of-work that is less random, and has more utility toward making the system honest. ie. the work done to verify a set of transactions results in a mathematical proof/signature, that can be verified by other nodes. If one of the nodes finds out that you did not do the work (ie. tracing the transactions to that point shows an invalid transaction, or mathematical derivation is incorrect), then your node gets penalized or ignored.

That's precisely what our method attempts to achieve.

There seems to be some stigma about the method we are developing, but I haven't at one point said that it's unbreakable, it is, IF you have enough resources to pull it off.  What our algorithm and network architecture should achieve (and we'll soon see if it really does in the beta) is more resiliance. 

The network as a whole trades some efficiency for security of verifying the transactions almost exactly as you state.

Lots of new posts in here today, so I'll trawl through and pick out any other interesting ones and reply over the course of the evening.
newbie
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
I am interested.  I would be happy to help beta test.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

A proof-of-work or proof-of-stake system are the only known ways to stop someone from running a lot of client peers or hatchers in a decentralized system in order to block transactions or double-spend.  I do not see any new solution to the Byzantine Generals problem in your answers.

What about a "unique node list"? As employed by Ripple.

https://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List

I'm also thinking there must be a way to mathematically achieve "proof-of-verification", ie. a type of proof-of-work that is less random, and has more utility toward making the system honest. ie. the work done to verify a set of transactions results in a mathematical proof/signature, that can be verified by other nodes. If one of the nodes finds out that you did not do the work (ie. tracing the transactions to that point shows an invalid transaction, or mathematical derivation is incorrect), then your node gets penalized or ignored.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

A proof-of-work or proof-of-stake system are the only known ways to stop someone from running a lot of client peers or hatchers in a decentralized system in order to block transactions or double-spend.  I do not see any new solution to the Byzantine Generals problem in your answers.

What about a "unique node list"? As employed by Ripple.

https://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List
sr. member
Activity: 415
Merit: 250
I'd love to betatest Smiley Sounds interesting, something actually new!
full member
Activity: 239
Merit: 100
Socialist Cryptocurrency Devote
I would like to help test too  Grin
full member
Activity: 186
Merit: 100
This coin will never be able to compete with VaginaCoin.  Huh

+1 for the effort and for actually doing something new. ( although it will fail when everyone switches to WeedCoin)
member
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Will you support Linux during beta? If yes then count me in, please.

It is written in Java.
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
I'd like to be a tester Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
sr. member
Activity: 289
Merit: 250
Not sure how many testers you are seeking. I would be interested in testing if a spot is available.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
ill beta test too if needed, looks like you already have plenty though
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Pages:
Jump to: