Topic: Anti ASIC/GPU/FPGA POW-algorithm. New (2019). (Read 1230 times)

The official good news ...
Today we concluded an agreement with foreign investors on the implementation of our first project, which was called VenusGEET. Now, however, it will be realized under a different working name, but the essence remains the same.

Firstly, it is a cryptocurrency for everyone, the coin mining in which is protected from specialized equipment like ASIC, GPU, FPGA. That is essentially CPU_Only cryptocurrency. Such protection will be based on the innovative POW algorithm developed by me based on RBF (ring bit functions).

Secondly, it will be the first cryptocurrency such as RawCoin in the world, that is, a crypt whose value is tied to the raw materials most used by mankind.

Thirdly, it will be paired with a decentralized messenger based on the possibility of complete anonymity of users on the network, and will be provided with strong cryptography.

Well, there are still interesting things that I just do not want to reveal in the interest of intrigue.

In any case, this is a good and interesting project that has long been awaiting not only the crypto community, but also many users of information technology in the world. And I hope that he will nevertheless help our company take a step forward.

In the current state of things, its already the case that mining is mostly pooled, but this system would at least give a chance for small miners without expansive specialized equipment and limit the electricity bills. So in itself that would still make it less centralized than current situation.

But even the purely decentralized bitcoin solo mining would still fail with 51% of bad nodes anyway.

This system would probably be less expansive to game, but the huge power cost of bitcoin is the number one argument against bitcoin and crypto, if a solution can be found it still worth a try. Even if the model is different and doesnt have same characteristics and requirement, need to see the pro and cons and the bigger picture of the economic implied to see if it can keep consistency across all nodes, which is what interest me, im not extremely concerned with privacy.

Bitcoin mining pools are centralized. What you posted are not real solutions for a decentralized blockchain.


It's common sense to be sceptical when someone is asking for money on the internet.


Yes, I'm advocating for decentralization, that's why I don't see your centralized pool-protocol as a solution to anything.

And please look up what argument from authority means. I didn't make any. I simply pointed out the holes in this concept and expressed my opinion that they cannot be fixed. If someone posts an actual working solution, I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong.

I don't see why this would be more problematic than the bitcoin network with mining pools.

Anyone can emit some work, as block header + work circuit, then miners decide on which work they want to mine, like they would choose a mining pool. If the work is invalid then the block is not going to be accepted by the network and they loose their work, so they need to have source for valid work with valid transactions and circuit that will match the protocol and will be accepted by other nodes.

Bitcoin protocol doesn't rules this at all, in theory nothing would prevent to have hash rate evenly distributed between 1 millions pools and the blockchain being in constant conflict. Miner choose large trusted pool because it maximize their reward and decrease the risk, the same logic should apply with this system.

It still require a form of miner id to distribute the work, and this miner distribution should be the same for the whole network, but then there can be different block headers proposition with different work circuit. As long as the final the proof contain enough information to confirm that the work is made and conform to the protocol, i don't see why this is more a problem than the current configuration with pooled mining.

Miners should have some sort of work-seed that they agree to work on, and all miners can check that the transactions are valid and match the merkle root, and that the work circuit is conform to protocol specification.

If the miner id is made with address/ip pairs, then ok one obvious problem is avoiding IP/address spamming. But if there is IP spamming, does all the IP lead to the same physical machine ? In that case that can be detected, and it doesn't even need a strong consensus because everyone can check this, and if IP are found to be clone of the same machine, they should be excluded from the miner pools. If it need a different physical machine or system for each, it's already not the same attack cost. And that would be the only garantee that the system give, you need to have a unique IP and address to be able to mine, and anyone who can provide that has equal chance to earn a reward, no matter how much cores or computational power it has.

If the decentralization barrier become about spamming address and IP for 1$ the billion, it's still not worst than 10 000$ of mining equipment and an hydroelectric dam.

The same principle still apply that even if miners provide an invalid block, proof of work, or that the circuit cannot be proved to fit with the protocol, then the block is rejected and miners wasted their work.

I'm not saying there is no problem with this approach, but i don't see a "fatal flaw" with it either.

You seem to have this stance that proof of work = bitcoin protocol, and if a solution doesn't follow the model then it's flawed, but that's what i would call dogmatism. Yes it's not the same model, it doesn't have the same characteristics and requirement, and it needs a good system to distribute the work, additionally to the pow, the proof for a valid block need to contain the miner circuit as well as the work itself, but is it really unsolvable , i don't know.

I'm just doing surface study for the moment, maybe there is something i don't see and i just take the problems one by one, and see if there is a really a brick wall to them, or in the end how resistant to byzantine fault it is, knowing that decentralized distributed system cannot keep consistency with 51% of bad nodes. That's same for bitcoin and any decentralized distributed system.

Yes for the moment there is no full solution, but it doesnt mean one cannot be found.

I didnt see a point you made that not solvable with similar characteristics to bitcoin mining pool.

Wanting To obtain funding is not incompatible with having a working solution, what kind of logic is that lol it make you skeptical, doesnt mean everyone "should be" its ironical for someone advocating decentralisation to make so many argument of authority, maybe there is room for skepticism about your opinion as well

There is no "pow problem".

Proof of work is a solution to the problem of decentralized consensus. The PoW posted here doesn't solve it.


I don't see any solution posted anywhere. It looks like he is using this argument to obtain funding, which everyone should be very sceptical about.

He Said after it solve the pow problem in itself with the properties he listed, which i already checked and they work.

The pool part is the third part, where he says its not a full solution for all blockchain problems in the following posts.

The problem you talk about has been issued also in the first posts, where he says he has other solution to solve work distribution.

I didnt see any point you made that is not solvable, if you only have arguments of authority its not going to have a lot of impact on me.

The claims made by OP are certainly strong:


I was just pointing out that this is not something usable at the moment and probably never will be. The things I mentioned above are not just minor issues but fundamental flaws.

It's not my protocol lol

I just find the principle interesting, and i think it can be made to work with certain advantages, i'm just studying the system If it can't work then too bad, i just discovered this few days ago like everyone else, but i'm really not so sure it can't be made to work.

I read your arguments and i understand them, but i don't see much anything else than bold statement of authority, and no brick wall for this, if you can think outside of the box of bitcoin pow protocol, nobody claimed this is a full solution to solve all problems of current blockchain protocols.

I'm just extrapolating possible solution path, would need to out think the whole things a bit more thoroughly, but also waiting for more informations from OP as he said he has a solution, so need to see his side as well. Would need to put all the problematic on paper flat down and seeing the properties and problems and how they can be solved or not. I wouldn't be so categorical so far.

It's not just for solo mining. Different pools also need to reach consensus among themselves. Your argument would be valid only if 99.9% of bitcoin hashrate came from a single pool.

Your protocol fails even in the very likely case that two pools mine two blocks with different merkle roots.

The proof of work can prove that a certain number of nodes, ideally selected evenly in the pool, have agreed on the merkle root that they have mined. Pooled mining cannot provide more than this, all nodes needs to work on the same block.

This protocol is different than bitcoin, i'm not saying it's the same consensus method or equivalent to bitcoin pow, it needs another mechanism added to it that is still not clearly defined to make it as decentralized as bitcoin solo mining that is used by 0.1% of bitcoin miners today.

So basically you want to fight ASIC mining centralization with even more centralization.


And if two nodes have a different merkle root?

It seems that you have missed the main point of proof of work and the Nakamoto consensus.

for the third rule the two-step signature. I agree with the two stages you mentioned. But I still want to ask, do we need another three-stage four? 

It could still be less centralized than pooled mining on certain aspect, like currently nothing prevent mining pool to cheat on the reward / share, and they already take a % of the benefits, here at least this aspect is more transparent.

The problem with different version of the blockchain is transposed to establishing the consensus on a "mining route" , that start with a merkle root, and break the work into different miners selected evenly in the pool.

But pooled mining is necessary for this system to work, it cannot work if every node solo mine its own block.

I will follow the principles that you have summarized. I really like the first rule is periodic calculations. Forced hashing is what is needed, which is the main algorithm for block signing. In your opinion, it's great to replace it with the Ring Bit Function (RBF).

Hi. You created the stable POW algorithm not only with ASIC devices, but also against GPUs, which is awesome. We hope you will develop it further and make it more popular. 

So you are basically saying "all nodes must agree otherwise they will not agree". Then you will have at least several chain splits per day and the whole network will malfunction. You simply cannot hope that all nodes will always have the same set of transactions.



If there was a way to link bitcoin addresses to IP addresses on the protocol level, it would be a huge issue for bitcoin. Although bitcoin is already pretty much a surveillance coin due to its linkable transactions, this would be a whole new level of orwellian proportions.

And modelling a decentralized network based on pooled mining is flawed since pooled mining is centralized.

Everyone can still check the transactions in the merkle root, the pow consensus show that all nodes agree on this merkle root. If not they will not mine the block. Enough node need to be honest like in any byzantine fault tolerant system. As far as i know, it's already like this on most mining pool even if in theory the stratum protocol allow for each miner to change the block, i don't think a lot of miner really even check the merkle root in a pool mining.

In monero they take more care about privacy, but in itself bitcoin protocol doesn't specially protect again ip/address association. All nodes that receive a new mining block know the ip of the mining node and the address used for the reward.

Mining pool already know your ip and your mining address and it wouldn't be really hard for an attack to connect the two.

I'm not saying there are no problem with this system, but i'm not so categorical that they can't be fixed at all, keeping it in a sufficient byzantine fault tolerance range comparable to bitcoin pool mining. Maybe maybe not The OP also said he had full solution

Then what you are describing is not actually a consensus mechanism. You are saying that there is only one version of the truth and all nodes have to follow it. That's a centralized network. You may as well have a central bank to simplify everything. Pooled mining is also centralized.

If you want a consensus protocol, you need a way to choose which version of the blockchain to follow (and all nodes must agree on that).


Yes, the IP addresses of nodes are known but not linkable to their coin address.

There was a recent attack on ZCash an Monero which allowed IP addresses to be linked with funds. It's already been fixed. Do you want to reintroduce this attack as a "feature"?

1. All nodes need to work on signature starting from a hash that contain the same merkle root, like pool mining.

2. One solution to this could be have several possible miners for the same work, either spreading the reward, or selected depending on network latency or other method.

3. All miners should have unique IP. The technique for routing is not for detecting internet layer network routing, but an internal routing between blockchain nodes. A specific node routing could be selected for mining nodes.

The network address is already known to all nodes or mining pool that you are connected to, and physical address are actually propagated to the whole network to increase the number of nodes that can connect to each other, so if you connect to an open P2P network like blockchain, you're IP already potentially shared on the whole network. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Network_address https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#addr, so in theory an attacker with a certain number of spying node can already do this. If you mine on a pool, this connection is already made. It inself bitcoin protocol doesn't really prevent ip/address association.

For billion IPs harder to solve. Need to see if a distribution on ip range or location could mitigate this.