Building the Next Generation of Crypto-Currency (developers required) - page 10.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote

Maybe you could start a wiki or do you have another idea?

I guess I could host a wiki in a sub directory my bitfreak.info domain. I haven't actually installed a wiki before but I'm guessing it should be fairly easy to do. I was actually about to get some sleep but I'll see if I can get it installed quickly and then give you an admin account or something so you can get it set up and add your stuff to it. Give me 10 or 20 mins and I'll get back to you.

aaaxn

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitfreak! on June 02, 2013, 01:44:11 PM

Quote from: aaaxn on June 02, 2013, 01:29:16 PM

Quote from: bitfreak! on June 02, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

Quote

With account ledger you can get rid of unspent outputs. There is no such thing. You just operate on account balances.

Exactly, I'm not sure bytemaster has really read the paper properly, or he isn't fully grasping it based on what he has said in this thread so far. I'm glad you seem to understand my design better than I do though. lol.

Well it's because I consider it MY design, that you independently came up with. lol Grin

lol well in reality it was more of a group effort. I had help from a lot of people, including you, to develop the idea into what it is now. But you definitely helped out the most and I will admit you deserve a lot of credit too.

Of course, it was just little joke

Anyway I did some work on technical details, but where can I put it? Forum is not good place for such things. Maybe you could start a wiki or do you have another idea?

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote from: aaaxn on June 02, 2013, 01:29:16 PM

Quote from: bitfreak! on June 02, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

Quote

With account ledger you can get rid of unspent outputs. There is no such thing. You just operate on account balances.

Exactly, I'm not sure bytemaster has really read the paper properly, or he isn't fully grasping it based on what he has said in this thread so far. I'm glad you seem to understand my design better than I do though. lol.

Well it's because I consider it MY design, that you independently came up with. lol Grin

lol well in reality it was more of a group effort. I had help from a lot of people, including you, to develop the idea into what it is now. But you definitely helped out the most and I will admit you deserve a lot of credit too.

aaaxn

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitfreak! on June 02, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

Quote

With account ledger you can get rid of unspent outputs. There is no such thing. You just operate on account balances.

Exactly, I'm not sure bytemaster has really read the paper properly, or he isn't fully grasping it based on what he has said in this thread so far. I'm glad you seem to understand my design better than I do though. lol.

Well it's because I consider it MY design, that you independently came up with. lol Grin

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote

With account ledger you can get rid of unspent outputs. There is no such thing. You just operate on account balances.

Exactly, I'm not sure bytemaster has really read the paper properly, or he isn't fully grasping it based on what he has said in this thread so far. I'm glad you seem to understand my design better than I do though. lol.

aaaxn

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

Quote from: bytemaster on June 02, 2013, 10:37:10 AM

So how much compression does this actually give you?

The most compression I can think of is:

20 bytes trx hash
1 byte output idx
int64 balance
string scriptOut

~50 bytes * total unspent outputs.

If you got really fancy, then you can reduce it to perhaps 30 bytes by compressing the scryptOut field.

All of this could be implemented with the existing blockchain.

With account ledger you can get rid of unspent outputs. There is no such thing. You just operate on account balances. I believe that tx between already known addresses can be as small as 24 bytes + signature.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote

All of this could be implemented with the existing blockchain.

Something like it can be done with the existing blockchain, such as the ultimate blockchain compression concept, but it will be a very difficult thing to do and will still never be anywhere near as efficient as this scheme unless you can find some way to perfectly compact all the transactions into a rolling blockchain similar to the mini-blockchain. The transaction data is the bulk of the data in the blockchain and the beauty of this concept is that no one has to store the full blockchain, they only need the mini-blockchain and the account tree. The account tree will eventually end up being the most bulky part of the scheme but it will still be very tiny for a very long time because it will only need to track non-empty addresses. Look at the current stats on Bitcoin for how many addresses the network has seen and then do the math. We're talking an ultra-compact alt-coin here.

bytemaster

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 566

fractally

So how much compression does this actually give you?

The most compression I can think of is:

20 bytes trx hash
1 byte output idx
int64 balance
string scriptOut

~50 bytes * total unspent outputs.

If you got really fancy, then you can reduce it to perhaps 30 bytes by compressing the scryptOut field.

All of this could be implemented with the existing blockchain.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote from: aaaxn on June 02, 2013, 10:19:55 AM

I made attempt to making secure 0-confirmation for some subset of all transactions: transaction for accounts with spending limit. It is not universal but maybe worth including. See here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2083400

Ok yes I do remember that post now but I kind of skimmed over it the first time I read it because it seemed like a fairly complex idea. Reading it again more carefully it does make sense to me and I think it could work, but it is a moderately complex idea and it will require a new field in each account tree to keep track of the account withdrawal limit if I'm not mistaken. It's definitely something to keep in mind, but probably better to include it in a later version of the implementation rather than put it in too early. It would be good to have something like that included before the first official client is publicly released though.

aaaxn

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitfreak! on June 02, 2013, 09:44:28 AM

Quote

Btw, it adds some other important features, as aaaxn said:
I think the most important one is that secure 0-confirmations would be possible.

Where did aaaxn say that, because I'm not sure that is true. It seems to me that one must still wait for a few confirmations for the same reason one must wait for multiple confirmations in bitcoin: orphaned blocks (and more unlikely, a 51% attack). But obviously quicker confirmation speeds will make it faster than bitcoin.

I made attempt to making secure 0-confirmation for some subset of all transactions: transaction for accounts with spending limit. It is not universal but maybe worth including. See here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2083400

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote

Btw, it adds some other important features, as aaaxn said:
I think the most important one is that secure 0-confirmations would be possible.

Where did aaaxn say that, because I'm not sure that is true. It seems to me that one must still wait for a few confirmations for the same reason one must wait for multiple confirmations in bitcoin: orphaned blocks (and more unlikely, a 51% attack). But obviously quicker confirmation speeds will make it faster than bitcoin.

nomailing

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: tom1 on June 02, 2013, 03:17:31 AM

Wouldn't it be better to improve Bitcoin rather than creating a new currency?

The problem with the increasing blockchain size is within the bitcoin protocol itself. As mentioned in the white paper there is the thread about 'ultimate blockchain compression' for bitcoin. But it is by far not as good as this new proposed coin. It only tries to fix some effects without really fixing the underlying problem. If you have a proposal, which could improve the existing bitcoin protocol which is comparable to the performance of this proposal here, then everyone would definately like to hear it.

This new coin proposed by bitfreak is really designed from a new perspective to reduce the bloat which we see in BTC. So I think it really deserves to be implemented and tested!

Btw, it adds some other important features, as aaaxn said:
I think the most important one is that secure 0-confirmations would be possible. I would definately add this to the first post.

tom1

full member

Activity: 130

Merit: 100

Wouldn't it be better to improve Bitcoin rather than creating a new currency?

scooter

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

First altcoin proposal that truly looks interesting to me.
Looking forward to following your progress.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote from: stellarman on June 01, 2013, 07:40:11 AM

+1. I think we need a "proof-of-concept" implementation first. Then think about tying this to other ideas.

Yes exactly, I'm fairly confident in the idea but we can't be 100% sure that the concept will work as we except it to. That's why I just want to leave out all the extra stuff for now, so we can focus on what is important and get it done as quickly as possible.

stellarman

newbie

Activity: 60

Merit: 0

Quote from: bitfreak! on May 25, 2013, 12:57:38 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on May 25, 2013, 12:28:07 PM

There is potentially synergy between this blockchains features an my economic model for offering a crypto-USD, crypto-GOLD, etc that maintains near parity without having any counter party risk. If a new chain were to be created I believe it should include as many 'good ideas' as possible because we will be stuck with it for a while if it works.

I will investigate your proposal and would appreciate if you would investigate my p2p bank/exchange system.

I actually took a look at your thread a few hours ago and your idea seems fairly complex. I would recommend writing a white paper or something. While I agree it may be beneficial to mix together as many good ideas as possible it's still problematic. At this point my goal is simply to just implement this mini-blockchain scheme to see if it actually works. The job is already difficult enough and I don't want to go including all these other untested ideas, it will just make the process longer and harder. As I said, the goal of this project is really just to stay as close to the bitcoin protocol as possible and just play it safe. I would recommend the same thing with your project as well, first just build it as you imagine it and see if it actually performs as you believe it will. When you try to start off with too much on your plate it can often lead you to troubles. At some later point maybe we can have a mini-blockchain + PoS + your exchange model (although I'm still skeptical of the PoS stuff and I'd need to understand your proposal better for actually backing it), but right now that isn't the best course of action to take in my opinion.

+1. I think we need a "proof-of-concept" implementation first. Then think about tying this to other ideas.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Quote from: Impaler on June 01, 2013, 07:21:47 AM

Why not implement your new protocol on top of Terracoin
...
I always recommend people look to expand on existing coins rather then make new ones

Unfortunately the scheme can't be built on top of an existing blockchain scheme. The closest thing to something like that is the "ultimate blockchain compression" scheme. We were just talking about how this scheme is quite similar to the ultimate blockchain compression scheme in the white paper thread. It is very similar but because we're not trying to apply a change on top of an existing blockchain scheme we can leave out many unnecessary features and make it more efficient than the ultimate blockchain compression scheme. I did start off looking for ways to improve the Bitcoin blockchain but eventually I ended up designing this whole new scheme.

Impaler

sr. member

Activity: 826

Merit: 250

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Why not implement your new protocol on top of Terracoin, TRC is basically a strait BTC clone so your staying close to its code as you said you wanted to. And it would be an excellent dry run so to speak for bringing the feature to BTC some day. From what I've heard TRC would be friendly to trying out such a feature as it exists to do this kind of experimentation. I always recommend people look to expand on existing coins rather then make new ones so we see less fragmentation of the ecosystem.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

It looks like digitalindustry might have also given up on his PoS + Mini-Blockchain project because he nows appears to be managing the nibble alt-coin. It appears to be just another run of the mill coin that offers nothing new. One thing about it did catch my attention though:

Quote

Ascending reward system that proved effective and prevented insta-mining, pre-mining, unfair rewards for early adopters.

bitfreak!

legendary

Activity: 1536

Merit: 1000

electronic [r]evolution

Apparently bytemaster's idea isn't going to work out like he had hoped. He posted this in his BitShare Economic Theory thread a little while ago:

Quote from: bytemaster on June 01, 2013, 02:12:46 AM

The only way to make BitShares work anything close to what I had dreamed would require users to post collateral in excess of the current exchange rate to create crypto-GLD (closer to Version 1.0)

Why didn't I see this before? I was looking at small 'incremental' rises that would push it up and then extrapolating wrong. I was thinking that individuals who 'wanted interest bearing USD' would pay a premium to get the return, and therefore cover losses. It might work for small movements, but certainly not for large ones.

Why couldn't anyone convince me before? Because no one could explain it in such simple terms.

I'm now trying to persuade him to join this project. Wink

Topic: Building the Next Generation of Crypto-Currency (developers required) - page 10. (Read 23571 times)