Pages:
Author

Topic: [CLC] Cloud Coin Idea (Read 3603 times)

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
September 18, 2012, 03:02:52 PM
#21
cloud coin is still a simple, napkin idea hehehe

Yes, exactly. And many many napkins have been used on it already, lots of threads on all aspects of it.

Maybe part of why you aren't seeing the problems with it is they are way too big to fit on a napkin.

-MarkM-
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 18, 2012, 02:30:51 PM
#20
You are right. The paper should say "connected to at least 60%", so the nodes should be connected to more than 60%, maybe 70% or more to prevent the problem you said.

The objective of my idea is not to have cloud computing p2p, but to make better use of the cpu/gpu power. I like the idea of p2p currency, a lot indeed, but I also want to make a better use of the energy consumed, that's the reason I'm proposing the cloud service, to make useful calculations that while secure the net and the currency, also provide solutions to other problems and maybe profit from a fee, adding value to the currency.

With a currency that requires to be able different calculations and functions like this, it would be almost impossible that someone makes a custom device that broke the system and wins the 51%, because one don't know what is required to solve the next problem, maybe it is simply a hash, maybe it is a collection of Fast Fourier transformade, maybe it is a block of data to be transferred, maybe it is a full simulation of a protein molecule, who knows? and that is going to be impossible to predict and impossible to make a custom device.

About the cost for cloud computing, what you are getting is your block solved with your own kernel code, in at least 60% of the total nodes of the network, so if there are 100 nodes, you know that at least 60 nodes solved the problem with equal results. If something is wrong in the result is your fault, because you provided a bad kernel to solve it, and you need to fix your code and resubmit the block and the new kernel to solve it.

For storage, the idea is that in some countries the public TV is a garbage, with manipulated media, so an open TV, with people making it's own media, that also provides the big movie producers a way to have DRM or charge for the addition of video, that  can't be handled by any entity, because it is open and p2p like namecoin and bitcoin, could replace the public, manipulated TV. That will require a custom device that can be made with very cheap hardware (about 35-50 USD, check Raspberry PI or another micro computers), a GUI to present the video and menus to the viewer and the cloud storage.

One can setup that micro computer box, share the space of the flash card and the bandwidth to the network, win some coins while doing that, and use that coins to be able to consume blocks from the network and also to pay for DRM protected media. That payment is going to be redirected to the owner of the block of data, with a commission of the miners that relayed that block, and also that could add proof of work to the coin, because the block is required to be relayed by 3 nodes, generating work on that 3 nodes that require to confirm that the block was relayed by them.

cloud coin is still a simple, napkin idea hehehe

You do not seem to address the rather important matter of consensus.

If my node thinks 60% of everyone's data has arrived and thus closes the block, what happens with all the other versions of the block who heard from a slightly different 60% than I did? Each of us when we were at 59.9999% might not have had the same nodes in our collection but even if we did, we each could hear from a different node as our last straw that broke the 60% barrier and caused us to close the block.

Also, since your objective supposedly is to be a provider of cloud computing, all of this crap about how currencies could work is irrelevant, as there are already working currencies in existence. What you need to do as a provider of distributed p2p cloud computing is solve that goal's problems, such as how to decide which nodes to pay how much currency to and why.

As a person wanting cloud computing, how do you check you got what you wanted and are not being charged for services that were not in fact provided, stuff like that. See for example the distributed storage thread about dirt cheap remote disk storage which so far it seems turns out not to be dirt cheap at all due to being a difficult problem; notice how often they end up back at the idea of a centralised service that will co-ordinate home computer nodes that want to be paid for providing storage... And to cloud-compute, you need storage out there to hold data people want computation to be done with/on so storage is just part of the problem you are facing...

-MarkM-

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
September 18, 2012, 12:57:55 AM
#19
You do not seem to address the rather important matter of consensus.

If my node thinks 60% of everyone's data has arrived and thus closes the block, what happens with all the other versions of the block who heard from a slightly different 60% than I did? Each of us when we were at 59.9999% might not have had the same nodes in our collection but even if we did, we each could hear from a different node as our last straw that broke the 60% barrier and caused us to close the block.

Also, since your objective supposedly is to be a provider of cloud computing, all of this crap about how currencies could work is irrelevant, as there are already working currencies in existence. What you need to do as a provider of distributed p2p cloud computing is solve that goal's problems, such as how to decide which nodes to pay how much currency to and why.

As a person wanting cloud computing, how do you check you got what you wanted and are not being charged for services that were not in fact provided, stuff like that. See for example the distributed storage thread about dirt cheap remote disk storage which so far it seems turns out not to be dirt cheap at all due to being a difficult problem; notice how often they end up back at the idea of a centralised service that will co-ordinate home computer nodes that want to be paid for providing storage... And to cloud-compute, you need storage out there to hold data people want computation to be done with/on so storage is just part of the problem you are facing...

-MarkM-
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 17, 2012, 05:30:55 PM
#18
Please check the advance of my proposal. It is translated with google translator, so it is not very good translation.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=14z032-Vx_iN5GuoMj80A9SL1fUUd7A3qXjSkuIlJ2sE

I'm trying to cover all the basic requirements for a crypto currency, like security of funds, of transactions, anonymity and speed.

also I'm adding suggestions about how to provide cloud computing and cloud storage.

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
September 16, 2012, 08:21:24 AM
#17
Yeah it paid them to attack it. Real smart eh? Wink

-MarkM-
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1005
September 16, 2012, 07:57:49 AM
#16
Hit it with sheetloads of hashpower to drive up the difficulty then abandon it to months of more difficulty than its remaining hashers can lower (due to it taking umpteen blocks for it to change and it taking them huge time to complete each block).
This wasn't really an attack, which implies malicious intent, but was a consequence of the difficulty adjustment algorithm and chain hopping. People would mine namecoin when it was profitable, driving up the difficulty, and then leave when it wasn't and it would take a long time to come down. The people mining weren't deliberately attacking the chain, they were mining for profit.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
September 16, 2012, 07:17:49 AM
#15
is possibly more to do with having been attacked like namecoin
What attack on namecoin are you referring to?

Hit it with sheetloads of hashpower to drive up the difficulty then abandon it to months of more difficulty than its remaining hashers can lower (due to it taking umpteen blocks for it to change and it taking them huge time to complete each block).

In other words possibly the current difficulty of coiledcoin does not reflect the hashing currently directed at it; possibly it could take many months or even a few years for the few people still hashing it to reach the block number at which its difficulty will adjust.

-MarkM-
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1005
September 16, 2012, 06:50:53 AM
#14
is possibly more to do with having been attacked like namecoin
What attack on namecoin are you referring to?
newbie
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
September 16, 2012, 05:37:32 AM
#13
This is kinda similar to my gamecoin idea. I love the concept and believe that "true" cloud computing is going to be distributed massively across cheap hardware eventually (not in large custom built, corporate owned datacenters)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gamecoin-109904

I think  that starting a peer to peer cloud service based on virtualization is the way to achieve this, using de-centralized nodes all over the world which contribute towards pay-per use IaaS, SaaS etc
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
September 15, 2012, 12:32:11 PM
#12
mm, but coiledcoin is DEAD, so I think I can use CLC for CLoudCoin

It is not dead yet, although its reported "difficulty" : 6340.40526376 is possibly more to do with having been attacked like namecoin than with currently being mined a lot. (I think it maybe lacks the faster-adapting difficulty that some coins introduced following that namecoin attack.)

-MarkM-
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 15, 2012, 11:30:26 AM
#11
mm, but coiledcoin is DEAD, so I think I can use CLC for CLoudCoin
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 15, 2012, 11:26:50 AM
#10
The CLC abbreviation is already taken by "Luke-Jr's CoiledCoin"

Thanks! and CDC?
sr. member
Activity: 275
Merit: 250
September 15, 2012, 08:55:27 AM
#9
The CLC abbreviation is already taken by "Luke-Jr's CoiledCoin"
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 15, 2012, 03:23:16 AM
#8
I was thinking about how to solve this all requirements, and also adding some extra functionality to the energy and calculation power of the crypto currencies.

I think I found a better, faster way to do a crypto currency that is secure, not centralized, open, distributed, protected for double spending, protected for split brain problems, with faster transactions, and at the same time use the cpu/gpu power, bandwidth and storage more efficently than the current crypto currencies.

I will elaborate my suggestion this week, and post here, for you to analyze the potential risks and failures.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 13, 2012, 03:13:44 AM
#7
tl;dr: You need to find a problem that is: 1) very hard to solve (about 20,000 GPU-hours per solution); 2) trivial to verify it was done correctly (less than 1 GPU-second per check); 3) politically neutral (we have to agree on the problem being solved, and some people will object to using their GPUs to solve some problems).
You missed the hardest requirement -- the calculation must secure the blockchain somehow. SHA256 hashes do this because they hash the block so you can't take a solution and apply it to a different block without redoing all the work that went into it.
full member
Activity: 547
Merit: 105
Bitcoin ya no es el futuro, es el presente
September 13, 2012, 03:07:42 AM
#6
Great! thanks for the info and the links. I'm going to think about point 2, maybe some espresso coffee cups can help Wink

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52155.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60703.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86589.0;all

tl;dr: You need to find a problem that is: 1) very hard to solve (about 20,000 GPU-hours per solution); 2) trivial to verify it was done correctly (less than 1 GPU-second per check); 3) politically neutral (we have to agree on the problem being solved, and some people will object to using their GPUs to solve some problems).

No one knows a useful problem in this category, so we're using SHA256.  Feel free to suggest something better, but criteria #2 is the hard one.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
September 13, 2012, 02:51:35 AM
#5
Keep in mind that any approach in this direction will have to sacrifice security to do more useful work and verse visa.

Sacrificing security is not necessarily a requirement if you separate security from proof of work. This has been the basis of the encoin/decrits proposals since day 1.

Interestingly enough, I ran across a newer proposal just after reading this one that touches on this thread's subject: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/least-action-principle-as-an-alternative-proof-of-work-system-108888
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
September 13, 2012, 02:46:23 AM
#4
Using computing power needed to drive a cryptocoin for useful work is a worthy cause. The problem is it's not that simple.

The work has to be derived from the transaction data to provide security, on the fundamental basis. Approaches to accomplish that can either use the data which is normally derived from the 'nonce' to do useful computation or use a tradeoff where excess precision can be used to store transaction data.
Somehow they both mean the same thing and for non of those a solution has been found yet.

I think there might be very specific problems which could be approached in this manner and I have a candidate in mind, but it's a long shot and I need to do quite a bit of research and studying before I can come up with anything useful. Keep in mind that any approach in this direction will have to sacrifice security to do more useful work and verse visa.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
September 13, 2012, 02:40:23 AM
#3
What I dislike is the usage of the energy (I think it is a waste of energy to do only hashing) AND the problem with ASIC and other speciallized devices.

Hashing to create new currency, imo, is not necessarily a waste as it gives the currency a rudimentary backing. Hashing to secure the network, on the other hand, is a very big waste of energy.

Quote
It could use the same proof of work as BTC and LTC combined to start, but it must allow a proof of work that is different from simple hashing, like computing work.

This has been suggested in the past, but no one has gotten past the point of "how do we actually make this work?"

Quote
This way, if someone  wants to do a heavy computing work can use the CLC network paying a price for it. Because the individual requires to pay with CLC, he/she must have enough CLC on his account (address) to pay for inclusion of a block. Miners can chose which block to solve, based on the premium of solving that block.

I think in the long run it just makes more sense to pay people in digital currencies to perform these actions, not base the currency around it.

Quote
If no project is available, the CLC network can add blocks from boinc projects like SETI, to contribute to science.

I don't know if there is a viable way for the network to come to a consensus on what has been solved and so on with projects like SETI. I am unsure though. While bitcoin-like hashing is relatively "dumb", it is hard to produce and easy to verify. These are qualities that must exist for it to be the basis of creating currency.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
September 13, 2012, 02:39:45 AM
#2
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52155.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60703.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86589.0;all

tl;dr: You need to find a problem that is: 1) very hard to solve (about 20,000 GPU-hours per solution); 2) trivial to verify it was done correctly (less than 1 GPU-second per check); 3) politically neutral (we have to agree on the problem being solved, and some people will object to using their GPUs to solve some problems).

No one knows a useful problem in this category, so we're using SHA256.  Feel free to suggest something better, but criteria #2 is the hard one.
Pages:
Jump to: