Pages:
Author

Topic: BitShares PTS (formerly ProtoShares) Mandatory Upgrade & Snapshot Announcement - page 48. (Read 218428 times)

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
bytecoin said "This new proof of work can require gigabytes of memory to solve, but almost no memory to verify and as a result the ideal ASIC is memory" in a post but didn't give any further details. I imagine it would explain in the white paper but I haven't read it

Yes - imagine going to your local mall and trying to find two people who share a birthday. It would take you a long time, but it could be verified that you succeeded very quickly.


It shouldn't take that long unless you're incredibly socially awkward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Bear in mind difficulty! Back when years were only 365 days long it was easy, sure, but at higher difficulty when years are two to the umpteenth power days long it will be whole lot harder! Smiley

First you have to find two to the umpteenth power people to populate the mall with, too! Wink Cheesy

-MarkM-
member
Activity: 83
Merit: 10
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
.... but by making verification faster than finding a hash, I assert he opened a vulnerability that makes it easy to parallelize the finding of a hash and thus not CPU-only ...
Having a cheap verify function is a must for a proof of work, otherwise loading the blockchain would take forever. BTW, I have yet to see any evidence or proof of concept of your claims. Ranting is ok, especially in this subforum, but bear in mind that for this very same reason, people in here are used to start taking things seriously only when an evidence is provided, not before.

I have already described the algorithm as linked in my prior post. If there are any questions, I will answer when asked.

Anyone who is interested can code it and test it. I am not particularly interested to do so, because I am quite happy if bytemaster gets totally dependent on a non-CPU-only PoW. I have studied all the major PoW altcoins and none of them are CPU-only in my analysis. I don't have time to go proving them all, by implementing them all on GPUs. But I do suppose I will pay someone to do that soon (within months), so it benefits me to let these altcoins waste people's time so that they will then believe me when I later pay the someone like the author of cpuminer (if he is willing) to help me.

Indeed in my deep study, I have come to the conclusion that no coin can be CPU-only and have fast verification. Thus this presents a major problem for both verifying a long blockchain and for dealing with denial-of-service attacks (since the rate of determining if a received transaction or block solution is valid thus decreases). It is possible this is exacerbated for BitShares, because they attempt to do so much more within a block with their market clearing of bid/ask, but I would need to study their code to verify.

I would be happy to describe the algorithm for the GPU attack in more detail after I get back from eating dinner.
legendary
Activity: 1884
Merit: 1005
Any infos when the first exchange gonna accept PTS?
hero member
Activity: 724
Merit: 500
My client was apparently mining (getmininginfo showed 6.x hashes / sec all the time), but no blocks. Decided to restart it and got the message that it was 10 hours behind and downloaded blocks for about 30 seconds. WTF?
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Need a campaign manager? PM me
Restarted the client and it is 6 behind.

No blocks for 2 1/2 days now.
hero member
Activity: 637
Merit: 500
.... but by making verification faster than finding a hash, I assert he opened a vulnerability that makes it easy to parallelize the finding of a hash and thus not CPU-only ...
Having a cheap verify function is a must for a proof of work, otherwise loading the blockchain would take forever. BTW, I have yet to see any evidence or proof of concept of your claims. Ranting is ok, especially in this subforum, but bear in mind that for this very same reason, people in here are used to start taking things seriously only when an evidence is provided, not before.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
bytecoin said "This new proof of work can require gigabytes of memory to solve, but almost no memory to verify and as a result the ideal ASIC is memory" in a post but didn't give any further details. I imagine it would explain in the white paper but I haven't read it

Yes - imagine going to your local mall and trying to find two people who share a birthday. It would take you a long time, but it could be verified that you succeeded very quickly.


It shouldn't take that long unless you're incredibly socially awkward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

So could an effective workaround for this algorithm be ;

a HD 5850 ATI hooked up to a PA system ? !

With a mic gaffe taped out the end?

A bad suite, a slick back hairstyle and a game show smile... ??
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
bytecoin said "This new proof of work can require gigabytes of memory to solve, but almost no memory to verify and as a result the ideal ASIC is memory" in a post but didn't give any further details. I imagine it would explain in the white paper but I haven't read it

Yes - imagine going to your local mall and trying to find two people who share a birthday. It would take you a long time, but it could be verified that you succeeded very quickly.


It shouldn't take that long unless you're incredibly socially awkward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1030
bytecoin said "This new proof of work can require gigabytes of memory to solve, but almost no memory to verify and as a result the ideal ASIC is memory" in a post but didn't give any further details. I imagine it would explain in the white paper but I haven't read it

Yes - imagine going to your local mall and trying to find two people who share a birthday. It would take you a long time, but it could be verified that you succeeded very quickly.
hero member
Activity: 1426
Merit: 506
Genuine question about the protocol, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere: Bitcoin works well because it takes a huge amount of work to find a block, but only takes one hash to verify that a block is valid. So a wallet can verify thousands of blocks fairly quickly. From what I understand Protoshares works by the same concept, except one Protoshares hash takes many orders of magnitude more work to perform. Does the Protoshares wallet need to perform one hash to verify each block in the network? Seeing how most computers get ~5 hashes per min, wouldn't that take an outrageously long time to verify the block chain once it gets bigger?

bytemaster apparently designed Momentum PoW and didn't use Scrypt for PoW for precisely that reason, but by making verification faster than finding a hash, I assert he opened a vulnerability that makes it easy to parallelize the finding of a hash and thus not CPU-only. See the link to my claim on the bounty and judge for yourself.

And when (if) someone does implement a faster GPU miner for this coin, please kindly acknowledge I was correct. You don't have to tip me anything, the acknowledgement would be more than enough.
bytecoin said "This new proof of work can require gigabytes of memory to solve, but almost no memory to verify and as a result the ideal ASIC is memory" in a post but didn't give any further details. I imagine it would explain in the white paper but I haven't read it
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
Lol found another block on my piece of crap Celeron...nothing for 2 days on the i7  Shocked

lol how many hpm you getting on that celeron ?

5 haha. 2.5 per core.

Thats great ! And great to hear ,  no one really knows why yet , but I think this discussion is healthy.

Its good that we have a focus on the vulnerability aspect this early.

It remains to be seen if there is an implementation. 
legendary
Activity: 912
Merit: 1000
Lol found another block on my piece of crap Celeron...nothing for 2 days on the i7  Shocked

lol how many hpm you getting on that celeron ?

5 haha. 2.5 per core.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Went from 24 hours with nothing but stales blocks to 2 blocks mined within an hour on different computers.  Go figure.

New to mining in general. How many confirmations till a transaction is considered mature?
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
Lol found another block on my piece of crap Celeron...nothing for 2 days on the i7  Shocked

lol how many hpm you getting on that celeron ?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Genuine question about the protocol, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere: Bitcoin works well because it takes a huge amount of work to find a block, but only takes one hash to verify that a block is valid. So a wallet can verify thousands of blocks fairly quickly. From what I understand Protoshares works by the same concept, except one Protoshares hash takes many orders of magnitude more work to perform. Does the Protoshares wallet need to perform one hash to verify each block in the network? Seeing how most computers get ~5 hashes per min, wouldn't that take an outrageously long time to verify the block chain once it gets bigger?

bytemaster apparently designed Momentum PoW and didn't use Scrypt for PoW for precisely that reason, but by making verification faster than finding a hash, I assert he opened a vulnerability that makes it easy to parallelize the finding of a hash and thus not CPU-only. See the link to my claim on the bounty and judge for yourself.

And when (if) someone does implement a faster GPU miner for this coin, please kindly acknowledge I was correct. You don't have to tip me anything, the acknowledgement would be more than enough.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1018
Block 6048, rewards drop by 5%, from now 42.86875 PTS
sr. member
Activity: 315
Merit: 250

am totally done with this stupid coin.
long time hashing, no blocks to be found.
Total 8 orphan on i7 980x 12GB, 1 ok.

Also nice to see a proof of work,
but I don't see a proof of payment.

its not worth it,
good luck with it
hero member
Activity: 1426
Merit: 506
Genuine question about the protocol, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere: Bitcoin works well because it takes a huge amount of work to find a block, but only takes one hash to verify that a block is valid. So a wallet can verify thousands of blocks fairly quickly. From what I understand Protoshares works by the same concept, except one Protoshares hash takes many orders of magnitude more work to perform. Does the Protoshares wallet need to perform one hash to verify each block in the network? Seeing how most computers get ~5 hashes per min, wouldn't that take an outrageously long time to verify the block chain once it gets bigger?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
I called you a troll because you claim to read my mind.

I know very well you need fast verification time. I don't need to read your mind, I understand the design of a coin and what the tradeoffs are.

$5000 is the minimum you could make... if you are really able to do as you say, then implement it... mine a bunch of ProtoShares... dump them on the market and then collect $5000 too.  

I have a history of paying bounties when I am proven wrong having previously paid out over $1300 in May.

I gave you insight. You and I agreed from the start you would pay me whatever you felt was justified. I have explained a vulnerability. If you feel that is worth 0 and to be ignored, that is your prerogative.

However it doesn't justify calling me a troll and bringing up your spin on past events to deflect attention away from what I revealed.

You changed this from a technical discussion into a character assassination.

You on the other hand want paid for doing something you haven't.

If you feel my insight is worth 0, then so be it. The community is observing.

I don't need the money. I wanted to help you recognize your weakness early on.

You are arrogant and unable to be reasoned with.

[redacted by Anonymint, as much I would like to return his accusation in kind given what I've been told, it is not appropriate]

 I call you a troll because of past history of you posting off topic RANTS about world events in my threads.  

I thought we were doing software engineering, not politics on this bounty.

Please proceed. I am done with you.
Pages:
Jump to: