Topic: DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks - page 17. (Read 70882 times)

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

How does the network achieve consensus, on who was the first, who was the second, etc.?

One thing is an altcoin: a copy of Bitcoin with minor modifications and nothing interesting. Another thing is a new cryptocurrency design.

This forum has aways been 100% open to discuss any possible cryptocurrency research direction.

Anyway, I'm not planning to implement DagCoin: it's just an idea. But I support all attempts to create new interesting cryptocurrencies. If they work, Bitcoin may use the new technologies using side-chains (and that's why I support side-chains 100%)

Bitcoin benefits from all cryptocurrency research (academic or amateur), because it gives us insight into what are the limits of the technology. As times passes cryptocurrency research is turning more academic, and "new ideas" posted in some blog/forum may become less common.
 

We discuss an idea and its implementations, where have you come from?

Maybe from Beyond...

Is this thread an altcoin discussion?  OP is well respected.

Its similar in some principles, very different in others.  We don't use blocks at all and just push individual transactions around as a kind of ordered soup.  No chain, but instead use transaction channels of which there can be millions, and we track balances not inputs/outputs.

All radically different and lots of hoops to jump through (balances are a lot harder to deal with than you might think) but allows a lot of benefits.  I'm writing some docs on our ledger stuff at the moment to go along with the consensus info I posted a couple weeks ago, hopefully be done with it this coming week.

I don't like their design because it leads to a heterogenous system which is harder to analyse and implement. Also it looks like a half-measure.

We were forced to go in another direction because our coin targets micropayment and IoT markets and must be friendly to devices with very limited processing power and storage. The goal was achieved by creating strong incentive to behave honestly in cases when "blockchain" data are split among thousands devices. The splitting allows to use different techniques (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce) and seems to ease the scalability problem.

Will be interesting to see how this coin develops and becomes a next generation coin without blocks. Will be following this one close for updates and developments. Will sure solve a lot of problems that a lot of the current cryptos face with blockchains.

I wonder if you have heard this Bitcoin-NG - next generation of Bitcoin - https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf

http://www.coindesk.com/cornell-research-blockchain-problems-bitcoin-ng/

Any comments on it?

how do 51% attacks apply in this dag scheme?

I think emunie uses a trust score now and I also think balance doesn't influence that score but I could be wrong on that.

is this tech similar to what Fuserleer is doing with emunie? afaik emunie uses balances now without any blocks

End of this month if the whitepaper is ready in time.

Any ETA for the announcement?

I'm guessing... Coin-From-Beyond

Classified till the announcement.

One could look at this as a one transaction per block blockchain with no difficulty adjustments. If this algorithm were used in a highly decentralized environment it would be extremely difficult for separate clients to reach consensus about a transaction history.
What would end up happening, because it would render the most consistent transaction history, is transactions would be sent to a node or maybe a handful of centralized nodes that would process the transaction.

You reference this problem here, emphasis mine;

And then you say you address it with the following incentive structure;
The first incentive is what is creating the problem. A node wants to get as many transactions as it can, and those transactions should reference themselves as much as possible.

The second, requiring that many transactions be unreferenced, is putting the cart before the horse. Nodes can't agree on what transactions are unreferenced before already having consensus about the current state of the network, which is what you're trying to solve to begin with.
Even if it wasn't putting the cart before the horse, only the most centralized nodes would have the most information about unreferenced transactions.

The third is irrelevant. Nodes can't compete to reference the same transaction because that would require they have the same information, which again, is the problem we're trying to solve in the first place; Consensus about the data.

So I don't see how this protocol addresses the problem of "degenerating the DAG into a star graph" as you put it, or being subject to extreme centralization pressures, as I would put it.

https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

What is the name of your system or coin?

I completely support this idea, hope this is successful would be interested in how things develop!