I never realised that stock settlement took a few days. Bloody, hell. No wonder stock exchanges are falling over themselves to use Blockchains:
“We can now trade equities in 150 microseconds, then it takes two days to settle. That makes no sense — A retail investor in Australia should be able to sell their shares, go to the nearest ATM and get their cash out.”
https://news.bitcoin.com/blythe-masters-firm-build-asx-blockchain-raises-52-million/
Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | Decentralize Everything (decentralized blockexplorer coming) - page 182. (Read 790391 times)
February 05, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
February 05, 2016, 04:07:21 PM
I expect that I need another 50 hours or so to finish everything and put all the loose ends together before we can start testing it.
This could mean best case, that I will be ready in 1 week, or worst case by the end of january.
Is end of January still looking feasible?
Pretty much.
I was able to do about 50% of what's still needed.
If might not be able to finish the other half in the next week (collisions with dayjob), so it might slide a few days into first week of february.
I'll probably create an explanatory video about current state of overlay network and how the blockexplorer behaves, so you better know what the problems are I'm working on.
I owe you that much.
Any news? Any update?
February 04, 2016, 01:11:52 PM
Great paper on zero knowledge proofs.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507.pdf
No, wait. Did I just say that?
edit
For the youtube generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS3smRAfUd8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjUNj8ow6UE
https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507.pdf
No, wait. Did I just say that?
edit
For the youtube generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS3smRAfUd8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjUNj8ow6UE
February 04, 2016, 06:02:09 AM
I haven't checked in on Spread in a while. However while syncing wallet (9 weeks behind) I noticed the network speed has doubled and even tripled at times. What are/is the likely contributing factor(s) to this. More participants, improved mining software, pooling (not likely), I am curious if anyone has a definitive answer or observation. I like this project very much, 1.5 GH is a good step up for SPR
I think its a little bit of all the points you mentioned that are contributing factors to the growth of the network. Improved mining software is available and I have noticed a large miner jumping in when difficulty is low and back out when it rises. With more people mining to wallets now this helps to secure the network and make everything a bit more robust. I am not so sure about the pools since the only one I know of(spr.suprnova.cc) has not seen much activity for quite some time.
February 03, 2016, 08:50:13 PM
huh. well thats weird. my spreadcoin wallet at bittrex is disabled.
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
Get a support ticket from them and report back?
I have the same problem, maybe the wallet is being updated?
Probably.
I just did some transactions from my node. No issues. Showed up on different explorers within a few minutes.
ok just checked back...all better now
taint nuthin but a thang!
5 Blocks mined today. yee ha! Go SpreadCoin !
February 03, 2016, 08:20:14 PM
huh. well thats weird. my spreadcoin wallet at bittrex is disabled.
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
Get a support ticket from them and report back?
I have the same problem, maybe the wallet is being updated?
Probably.
I just did some transactions from my node. No issues. Showed up on different explorers within a few minutes.
February 03, 2016, 07:56:54 PM
huh. well thats weird. my spreadcoin wallet at bittrex is disabled.
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
Get a support ticket from them and report back?
I have the same problem, maybe the wallet is being updated?
February 03, 2016, 07:50:38 PM
I haven't checked in on Spread in a while. However while syncing wallet (9 weeks behind) I noticed the network speed has doubled and even tripled at times. What are/is the likely contributing factor(s) to this. More participants, improved mining software, pooling (not likely), I am curious if anyone has a definitive answer or observation. I like this project very much, 1.5 GH is a good step up for SPR
February 03, 2016, 07:22:21 PM
huh. well thats weird. my spreadcoin wallet at bittrex is disabled.
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
Get a support ticket from them and report back?
February 03, 2016, 07:19:36 PM
The stuff you find while doing research. I guess that's the nature of research....in trying to find an answer to x, you discover an answer to a yet to be explored y.
Anyway...looks like cross chain transactions between Bitcoin and altcoins has been posed in the past but it could not be pursued due to transaction malleability. When segwit fixes this issue, then cross chain transactions could be on the cards.
What does that mean?
Well, that could go quite a ways to creating the decentralised exchange that's on our road map. Well, an exchange of sorts.
Title: Atomic Cross Chain Transfers: https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki
edit
looks like someone has been doing just this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-coincer-the-decentralized-cryptocurrency-exchange-1182342
Anyway...looks like cross chain transactions between Bitcoin and altcoins has been posed in the past but it could not be pursued due to transaction malleability. When segwit fixes this issue, then cross chain transactions could be on the cards.
What does that mean?
Well, that could go quite a ways to creating the decentralised exchange that's on our road map. Well, an exchange of sorts.
Title: Atomic Cross Chain Transfers: https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki
edit
looks like someone has been doing just this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-coincer-the-decentralized-cryptocurrency-exchange-1182342
February 03, 2016, 06:55:51 PM
huh. well thats weird. my spreadcoin wallet at bittrex is disabled.
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
anyone know whats up with that? not comfortable with depositing until fixed.
wondering if its due to a low balance? i have dust there (.05 spread) just as a kind of "placeholder"
February 03, 2016, 06:26:33 PM
....snip
Zk-snarks are probably the way ahead. Nodes can take their time to verify what they contain and then issue a proof every couple of hours.
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/19884/what-are-snarks
I really like the idea of:
Secure multi-party computation (background here)
I guess we could have 5 node peers all agree to compute an output proof based on data contained in the blockchain. If you're a fake node, would you be able to contribute? If every node is part of a 5 peer computation, you could probably work out which nodes are fakes.
There likely still exists an issue that a fake node could outsource the computation and serve the answer. But the time window to contribute could be narrowed down to something that would cause the fake node some problems. If you do several rounds, a slow response rate each time could indicate a node that is trying to lookup the answers because it can't do the math itself.
edit
Something similar has been tested:
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/b89cb24ad2fa4e7ef01426d318c9b98b/decker2015making.pdf
February 03, 2016, 02:51:18 PM
....snip
Zk-snarks are probably the way ahead. Nodes can take their time to verify what they contain and then issue a proof every couple of hours.
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/19884/what-are-snarks
February 03, 2016, 12:29:50 PM
Is it me or does it feel like we're in the eye of a storm?
no storm ...
i feel like we are at the base of a city construction site - that is about to begin ...
solid construction and progress ahead is all i see ...
skyward people - skyward ...
...#crysx
I meant in the market not in general, no one is selling much and ServiceNodes are due
February 03, 2016, 04:29:21 AM
Is it me or does it feel like we're in the eye of a storm?
no storm ...
i feel like we are at the base of a city construction site - that is about to begin ...
solid construction and progress ahead is all i see ...
skyward people - skyward ...
...#crysx
February 03, 2016, 04:03:38 AM
Is it me or does it feel like we're in the eye of a storm?
February 02, 2016, 07:22:45 PM
Interesting that Satoshi mentions that nodes can broadcast alerts to protect against invalid blocks:
Writing about SPVs getting attacked:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Alerts from network nodes raises the possibility of nodes signing an alert and including a message with a PoW hash related to what the node is storing....also, there is already a ping facility:
So, if we could have a serial number for each node that gets downloaded, then we could ask the nodes to sign a message, compute ping times around the network, hash ping times (including some form of SHA or zero knowledge proof) & node serials (own and other peers pinged) and then sign the message.
The ping pong could then be validated against node serials in the network and that's where fakes would have trouble. You would be able to triangulate, without knowing IP addresses, peers in node networks and any fakes would standout.
OK, including the ping times are distracting. Maybe the hash of a ping just helps to create proof that a separate message hash came from a particular node within the network withing a set of peers.
So, basically, the checksum needs to include a way to allow for a unique serial for each downloaded client. Then everything else is possible.
edit
there is also the question about actual data transfer between nodes. nodes should be able to sign how much data they sent and received at any given time, with the inclusion of their unique serial.
edit edit
Zk-snarks are probably the way ahead. Nodes can take their time to verify what they contain and then issue a proof every couple of hours.
Writing about SPVs getting attacked:
Quote
One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency.
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Alerts from network nodes raises the possibility of nodes signing an alert and including a message with a PoW hash related to what the node is storing....also, there is already a ping facility:
Code:
UniValue getconnectioncount(const UniValue& params, bool fHelp)
{
if (fHelp || params.size() != 0)
throw runtime_error(
"getconnectioncount\n"
"\nReturns the number of connections to other nodes.\n"
"\nResult:\n"
"n (numeric) The connection count\n"
"\nExamples:\n"
+ HelpExampleCli("getconnectioncount", "")
+ HelpExampleRpc("getconnectioncount", "")
);
LOCK2(cs_main, cs_vNodes);
return (int)vNodes.size();
}
UniValue ping(const UniValue& params, bool fHelp)
{
if (fHelp || params.size() != 0)
throw runtime_error(
"ping\n"
"\nRequests that a ping be sent to all other nodes, to measure ping time.\n"
"Results provided in getpeerinfo, pingtime and pingwait fields are decimal seconds.\n"
"Ping command is handled in queue with all other commands, so it measures processing backlog, not just network ping.\n"
"\nExamples:\n"
+ HelpExampleCli("ping", "")
+ HelpExampleRpc("ping", "")
);
// Request that each node send a ping during next message processing pass
LOCK2(cs_main, cs_vNodes);
BOOST_FOREACH(CNode* pNode, vNodes) {
pNode->fPingQueued = true;
}
return NullUniValue;
{
if (fHelp || params.size() != 0)
throw runtime_error(
"getconnectioncount\n"
"\nReturns the number of connections to other nodes.\n"
"\nResult:\n"
"n (numeric) The connection count\n"
"\nExamples:\n"
+ HelpExampleCli("getconnectioncount", "")
+ HelpExampleRpc("getconnectioncount", "")
);
LOCK2(cs_main, cs_vNodes);
return (int)vNodes.size();
}
UniValue ping(const UniValue& params, bool fHelp)
{
if (fHelp || params.size() != 0)
throw runtime_error(
"ping\n"
"\nRequests that a ping be sent to all other nodes, to measure ping time.\n"
"Results provided in getpeerinfo, pingtime and pingwait fields are decimal seconds.\n"
"Ping command is handled in queue with all other commands, so it measures processing backlog, not just network ping.\n"
"\nExamples:\n"
+ HelpExampleCli("ping", "")
+ HelpExampleRpc("ping", "")
);
// Request that each node send a ping during next message processing pass
LOCK2(cs_main, cs_vNodes);
BOOST_FOREACH(CNode* pNode, vNodes) {
pNode->fPingQueued = true;
}
return NullUniValue;
So, if we could have a serial number for each node that gets downloaded, then we could ask the nodes to sign a message, compute ping times around the network, hash ping times (including some form of SHA or zero knowledge proof) & node serials (own and other peers pinged) and then sign the message.
The ping pong could then be validated against node serials in the network and that's where fakes would have trouble. You would be able to triangulate, without knowing IP addresses, peers in node networks and any fakes would standout.
OK, including the ping times are distracting. Maybe the hash of a ping just helps to create proof that a separate message hash came from a particular node within the network withing a set of peers.
So, basically, the checksum needs to include a way to allow for a unique serial for each downloaded client. Then everything else is possible.
edit
there is also the question about actual data transfer between nodes. nodes should be able to sign how much data they sent and received at any given time, with the inclusion of their unique serial.
edit edit
Zk-snarks are probably the way ahead. Nodes can take their time to verify what they contain and then issue a proof every couple of hours.
February 02, 2016, 06:56:59 PM
Sorry for not being very active here right now.
big update coming soon.
big update coming soon.
bump.
Still nibbling away at the odd SPR on Trex. Enjoying this relatively quiet accumulation period.
February 01, 2016, 07:04:37 PM
Very interesting proposal on proof of storage and why miners would need to pay nodes for information:
http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/
and in particular, this:
edit
Seems like an idea already raised, but here are some other interesting points:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas
http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/
and in particular, this:
Quote
Exempli gratia : if the fourth block is added to a blockchain consisting of
60 bd e7 67 77 70 20 b2 e6 7c 46 c3 (12 bytes)
75 80 d2 b0 6e 6c 6d a9 5d 12 98 fe bf (13 bytes)
df fc 22 5f 2a 4d 50 d6 f3 fc c3 (11 bytes)
Then should that block use a nonce of 17, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(70 6e 50), whereas should that block use a nonce of 11, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(c3 fe df).
60 bd e7 67 77 70 20 b2 e6 7c 46 c3 (12 bytes)
75 80 d2 b0 6e 6c 6d a9 5d 12 98 fe bf (13 bytes)
df fc 22 5f 2a 4d 50 d6 f3 fc c3 (11 bytes)
Then should that block use a nonce of 17, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(70 6e 50), whereas should that block use a nonce of 11, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(c3 fe df).
edit
Seems like an idea already raised, but here are some other interesting points:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas
February 01, 2016, 03:04:14 PM
A bitcoin node with over 800 GB of data transfer in Jan 2016
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43o74m/my_bitcoin_node_contributed_more_than_850_gb_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43o74m/my_bitcoin_node_contributed_more_than_850_gb_of/
Jump to: