@TPTB_need_war
The final whitepaper isn't up on github. The bounty goes for double-spening on the ZT testnet.
If in theory it is so easy for you, feel free to just download it and do it. You don't seem that busy since you can do various comments and call coins names which had probably thousands of hours invested. The bounty is there to try and give some incentive to spend time on it, meanwhile you act as if this project would be pumped with the testnet + bounty.
Also you are basing most of your assumptions on a draft?
Topic: [BOUNTY] VNL - Vanillacoin - ZeroTime double-spend reward - page 5. (Read 6036 times)
One could argue that if all "slots" in the zerotime algorithm report a lock, then there is consensus.
What is a "slot" in regards to ZT? It will be funny to see your answer. 
Thank you for your support.
Zilchcoin
Zerotime to zero consensus. Zero for all and all for zilch.
(sorry just needed to crack a joke... so much tension here when ever disagreeing with fanboiz)
Zerotime to zero consensus. Zero for all and all for zilch.
(sorry just needed to crack a joke... so much tension here when ever disagreeing with fanboiz)
Thanks AM.
I will PM you when he releases the updated ZT whitepaper. We'll see if that answers any of your questions. I have heard some of these problems like Byzantine general brought up with other coins, but perhaps in a different context.
I will PM you when he releases the updated ZT whitepaper. We'll see if that answers any of your questions. I have heard some of these problems like Byzantine general brought up with other coins, but perhaps in a different context.
I like talking to myself...
Reread my posts (I added analysis). And weep fool.
I like talking to myself...
One could argue that if all "slots" in the zerotime algorithm report a lock, then there is consensus.
The description of the algorithm in the white paper doesn't appear to discuss what is done when there is discord (as I wrote above just a blackbox in a chart). It is in that area that the influence of a Sybil attack needs to be analyzed. I didn't have time to detail exactly how it breaks down, but the research has been done by others in terms of analyzing how consensus can propagate in the face of a Sybil attack.
The description of the algorithm in the white paper doesn't appear to discuss what is done when there is discord (as I wrote above just a blackbox in a chart). It is in that area that the influence of a Sybil attack needs to be analyzed. I didn't have time to detail exactly how it breaks down, but the research has been done by others in terms of analyzing how consensus can propagate in the face of a Sybil attack.
Let me add that is essentially what he has done is to incentivize network propagation influence. Thus adversary floods the network with a Sybil attack.
Does the word "sybil" even appear in the white paper? I should check.
The zerotime paper does tersely mention Sybil attacks:
https://github.com/john-connor/papers/blob/708f488c8c17e08a12bc4bdb4fc5ac1e2aaf6e24/zerotime.pdf
There he is talking about his past experience in for example Bittorrent client systems where a DHT is employed. A DHT system is concerned with mapping hashes to resources where the reference point can be the IP address for example. That is a different issue than propagating a consensus wherein there is no reference point because the adversary is forming the transactions and the routing decisions at-will, which can be uncorrelated from the IP address.
There are no details provided whatsoever. All we see is a chart of a blackbox called "Lock Tx eviction mismatch". Great so the n00bs are just going to accept some technobabble as gospel. Nice circle jerk but it won't get by me.
P.S. What is up with the name? Blueberrycoin again. A name is very important. Ice cream has what to do with currency? Ice Ice baby, lol.
Edit: why i am doing this? Because someone asked me in a PM for my opinion. And also because I don't want to see people throwing more good money down rat holes. Shitcoin shit needs to be called out.
Does the word "sybil" even appear in the white paper? I should check.
The zerotime paper does tersely mention Sybil attacks:
https://github.com/john-connor/papers/blob/708f488c8c17e08a12bc4bdb4fc5ac1e2aaf6e24/zerotime.pdf
Quote from: John Conner
Security Considerations
The inability to forge identities in the UDP routing layer prevents Sybil attacks and the structure of the network was designed to deal with common attacks found in DHT-like systems.
The inability to forge identities in the UDP routing layer prevents Sybil attacks and the structure of the network was designed to deal with common attacks found in DHT-like systems.
There he is talking about his past experience in for example Bittorrent client systems where a DHT is employed. A DHT system is concerned with mapping hashes to resources where the reference point can be the IP address for example. That is a different issue than propagating a consensus wherein there is no reference point because the adversary is forming the transactions and the routing decisions at-will, which can be uncorrelated from the IP address.
There are no details provided whatsoever. All we see is a chart of a blackbox called "Lock Tx eviction mismatch". Great so the n00bs are just going to accept some technobabble as gospel. Nice circle jerk but it won't get by me.
P.S. What is up with the name? Blueberrycoin again. A name is very important. Ice cream has what to do with currency? Ice Ice baby, lol.
Edit: why i am doing this? Because someone asked me in a PM for my opinion. And also because I don't want to see people throwing more good money down rat holes. Shitcoin shit needs to be called out.
paging John Conner. 
....or bat phone to Wayne Manor?
....or bat phone to Wayne Manor?
Apologies problem with eye sight earlier (no joke). Now I see the bounty rules link. So roughly $2100 at current exchange rate. Probably not worth my time right now, because I am working on something orders-of-magnitude more lucrative and under a deadline.
I changed the post in the other thread, so as to link to this thread and check for discussion here.
I am not referring to a 51% attack.
It appears there is some sort of "zerotime" algorithm wherein the P2P network attempts to form a consensus (a "global lock") on inputs to a 0-confirmation transaction sent to the network. I didn't study the details of the network propagation exhaustively. I see some diagram with "slots" and various nodes propagate a lock logic across the P2P network.
Well recently Skycoin has proven the game theory about Sybil attacks with reputation, propagation networks and the best case is that if 7% of the nodes lie, then the network fails to get the correct consensus:
I will quote from your white paper:
...
Rather the key innovations of your consensus algorithm appear to be:
...
Hopefully you can understand the "global lock" is not leveraging any compute power for Byzantine fault resistance, i.e. it is not proof-of-work. Rather it is relying on the structure of the propagation of the P2P network to converge on a consensus. This is basically analogous to Skycoin's consensus network at the conceptual level. So the analysis of vulnerability should be in the same ballpark.
There are no short-cuts around proof-of-work or proof-of-share for unambiguous, global consensus, i.e. Byzantine fault resistance. If the developer of VanillaCoin thinks otherwise, he needs to prove it with some math. I don't see any such proofs in the white paper.
It is almost as if he didn't learn Bitcoin 101, which is ludicrous to say, because obviously he is knowledgeable. So either I have a big blind spot or he just somehow deluded himself. It is actually bizarre.
The only thing you could do is poll the nodes and make sure 51% of the network hashrate is reporting the global lock. If you can tie the reputation to hashrate, then you might have a solution. But then the problem is they can lie and you can't prove they won't (if necessary via a Sybil identity).
You've got three ways to do consensus: proof-of-work, proof-of-stake/share, or long-term reputation.
If it was as simple as he apparently thinks it is, don't you think it would have already been done for Bitcoin?
I changed the post in the other thread, so as to link to this thread and check for discussion here.
I am not referring to a 51% attack.
It appears there is some sort of "zerotime" algorithm wherein the P2P network attempts to form a consensus (a "global lock") on inputs to a 0-confirmation transaction sent to the network. I didn't study the details of the network propagation exhaustively. I see some diagram with "slots" and various nodes propagate a lock logic across the P2P network.
Well recently Skycoin has proven the game theory about Sybil attacks with reputation, propagation networks and the best case is that if 7% of the nodes lie, then the network fails to get the correct consensus:
Our new paper of phase II research on consensus is released: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03927
Still a lot to do further.
Still a lot to do further.
I will quote from your white paper:
Quote
Under the SkyHash model the wiki dataset can survive under
DoS attack committed by 7% random nodes or 0.9% top
influential nodes defined as the first 0.9% nodes by sorting all
nodes in descendant order on the count of a node’s followees,
however, the throughput will decrease 50% even when the
network survives. In all the cases that the network survives,
correct nodes can always reach almost-everywhere consensus
within 45 seconds without correct nodes agree at different
values, while under DoS attack by 7% random nodes, 1.5%
nodes refuse to agree at any values, and under DoS attack by
0.9% top influential nodes, 4% nodes refuse to agree at any
values.
As we introduced in Section II, Bitcoin’s PoW is the
best Sybil-proof consensus at present, but it is a different
mechanism to our work and not comparable directly in Fig. 6.
Through the automatic adjustment of the difficulty of PoW,
Bitcoin generates a block in about 10 minutes, and a fully
confirmed consensus need 6 blocks thus needs about 1 hour.
However if a single node or a group of nodes has a large
proportion of compute power, it can compromise the network
and create a fork. Table II shows the probability of success
attack for 6 blocks confirmations [23]. If one adversary in
Bitcoin has a threatening compute power, the whole network
can’t do anything to resist it because the power is controlled
by the adversary itself, while in our approach a node’s power
is controlled by its followees, thus a node can be unarmed by
unfollowing it.
DoS attack committed by 7% random nodes or 0.9% top
influential nodes defined as the first 0.9% nodes by sorting all
nodes in descendant order on the count of a node’s followees,
however, the throughput will decrease 50% even when the
network survives. In all the cases that the network survives,
correct nodes can always reach almost-everywhere consensus
within 45 seconds without correct nodes agree at different
values, while under DoS attack by 7% random nodes, 1.5%
nodes refuse to agree at any values, and under DoS attack by
0.9% top influential nodes, 4% nodes refuse to agree at any
values.
As we introduced in Section II, Bitcoin’s PoW is the
best Sybil-proof consensus at present, but it is a different
mechanism to our work and not comparable directly in Fig. 6.
Through the automatic adjustment of the difficulty of PoW,
Bitcoin generates a block in about 10 minutes, and a fully
confirmed consensus need 6 blocks thus needs about 1 hour.
However if a single node or a group of nodes has a large
proportion of compute power, it can compromise the network
and create a fork. Table II shows the probability of success
attack for 6 blocks confirmations [23]. If one adversary in
Bitcoin has a threatening compute power, the whole network
can’t do anything to resist it because the power is controlled
by the adversary itself, while in our approach a node’s power
is controlled by its followees, thus a node can be unarmed by
unfollowing it.
...
Rather the key innovations of your consensus algorithm appear to be:
- It is based on reputation following instead of compute power.
- The fail case is only 7% (or 0.9% for influential nodes) versus 50% (or actually as low as 25% for selfish-mining) for proof-of-work.
- It doesn't waste computing resources and electricity.
...
Hopefully you can understand the "global lock" is not leveraging any compute power for Byzantine fault resistance, i.e. it is not proof-of-work. Rather it is relying on the structure of the propagation of the P2P network to converge on a consensus. This is basically analogous to Skycoin's consensus network at the conceptual level. So the analysis of vulnerability should be in the same ballpark.
There are no short-cuts around proof-of-work or proof-of-share for unambiguous, global consensus, i.e. Byzantine fault resistance. If the developer of VanillaCoin thinks otherwise, he needs to prove it with some math. I don't see any such proofs in the white paper.
It is almost as if he didn't learn Bitcoin 101, which is ludicrous to say, because obviously he is knowledgeable. So either I have a big blind spot or he just somehow deluded himself. It is actually bizarre.
The only thing you could do is poll the nodes and make sure 51% of the network hashrate is reporting the global lock. If you can tie the reputation to hashrate, then you might have a solution. But then the problem is they can lie and you can't prove they won't (if necessary via a Sybil identity).
You've got three ways to do consensus: proof-of-work, proof-of-stake/share, or long-term reputation.
If it was as simple as he apparently thinks it is, don't you think it would have already been done for Bitcoin?
How much is the bounty?
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
Rules are clear on how it pays out. Sounds like you've implied 51% attack, which is the same for many coins. Not trying to fud you, just not following. also not sure why you are duplicating your post in multiple threads instead of linking to one.
How much is the bounty?
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
do it. i believe you will earn 20k vnl, and it will be a great challenge to the dev Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
How much is the bounty?
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
Vanillacoin
cryptographic currency
The community has put together a bounty for a successful double-spend on the ZT test network. ZeroTime is an approach to decentralized autonomous zero confirmation cryptographic-currency transactions.
Vanillacoin official topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064326
Vanillacoin unofficial discussion topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-vnl-vanillacoin-041-instant-incentivized-innovative-977245
Information on the bounty and rules: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty
Vanillacoin official topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064326
Vanillacoin unofficial discussion topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-vnl-vanillacoin-041-instant-incentivized-innovative-977245
Information on the bounty and rules: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty
VNL is so rad i fell in love with it instantly. Bad luck I did not discover it 5 weeks earlier
Over 16 members (including myself) + dev participated in this bounty pool.
Good luck.
This image shows an attempted, failed double spend attempt by dev on test network for Zero Time. Those showing Sending 0/1 are double-spend attemps.
They will always show -1 confirmations and will not make it to blockchain.
https://twitter.com/john_a_connor/status/630517006643494912
Good luck.
This image shows an attempted, failed double spend attempt by dev on test network for Zero Time. Those showing Sending 0/1 are double-spend attemps.
They will always show -1 confirmations and will not make it to blockchain.
https://twitter.com/john_a_connor/status/630517006643494912
Bounty no longer available, ZeroTime final code is up on github and will soon be deployed in a public release.
Vanillacoin
cryptographic currency
The community has put together a bounty for a successful double-spend on the ZT test network. ZeroTime is an approach to decentralized autonomous zero confirmation cryptographic-currency transactions.
Vanillacoin official topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064326
Vanillacoin unofficial discussion topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-vnl-vanillacoin-041-instant-incentivized-innovative-977245
Information on the bounty and rules: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty
Vanillacoin official topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064326
Vanillacoin unofficial discussion topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-vnl-vanillacoin-041-instant-incentivized-innovative-977245
Information on the bounty and rules: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty
Jump to: