Lol.
Yes of course. Nonsense to share an excerpt of a technical topic redacted. I am just a bit overexcited to see it explicitly written down concisely. Can't share because the damn implementation isn't ready.
Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 21. (Read 91144 times)
November 14, 2016, 03:09:51 PM
November 14, 2016, 03:06:46 PM
Opinion of your Design
[redacted]
[redacted]
Teaser from my white paper:
Quote
Proposed Improvement Overview
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
November 14, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
Well unfortunately im not smart enough to understand the technical intricacies of all of this stuff, at the end of the day im just an investor seeking for something profitable in the crypto world that actually doesn't end up stagnating in price just like 99.9999% of altcoins out there after the ICO's.
So I will keep an open mind about this and see if you really deliver something anywhere near a "bitcoin killer". I am skeptical and think bitcoin 80% market dominance is not going anywhere, but we'll see.
So I will keep an open mind about this and see if you really deliver something anywhere near a "bitcoin killer". I am skeptical and think bitcoin 80% market dominance is not going anywhere, but we'll see.
I am skeptical also.
You'll start with the whitepaper, which I think will shock people the same that Satoshi did, and they will say, "why didn't I think if that?".
Then we will move on the naming, marketing concepts, and most important the implementation.
My skepticism is most significant on the last two items: marketing concepts and implementation. We are trying to do a major coup with marketing (referring to mass adoption by the millions, not marketing to investors) and that is not easy to do successfully. And implementation worries me most especially while I continue to suffer from a health ailment which restricts my cognitive energy and productivity. But I do go to Singapore in the 2nd week of January to get an expert diagnosis. Then I will know. And then make decisions based on that, for example as to whether if i am not capable of leading on implementation, then finding someone who can. But of course I am hoping for good news in January. And also fighting very intensely every day, e.g. running 3X a day, fasting 12 - 16 hours a day, etc..
Also the skepticism because the project is bigger than what one healthy person can do. So I have to find a way to transition it to others being more involved and resources, i.e. a larger ecosystem. Any way, I plod along on my plans...
Edit: I am not skeptical about the consensus ordering system technology I have written down already in the white paper. I understand very well the taxonomy of possible designs and I can see where mine fits into that general model. And I know its weaknesses. Nothing is perfect, but this I believe has much better qualities than both Delegated Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake. I say DPoS is much closer to my design than PoW is.
November 14, 2016, 01:37:37 PM
this is why the BEST SYSTEM you can have in place is a HYBRID system!
WBB dev (soon to be name change) and ecosystem is doing this now and it's about to be implemented in its first stage!
WATCH AND LEARNS NIGGAZ
WBB dev (soon to be name change) and ecosystem is doing this now and it's about to be implemented in its first stage!
WATCH AND LEARNS NIGGAZ
November 14, 2016, 01:25:08 PM
Well unfortunately im not smart enough to understand the technical intricacies of all of this stuff, at the end of the day im just an investor seeking for something profitable in the crypto world that actually doesn't end up stagnating in price just like 99.9999% of altcoins out there after the ICO's.
So I will keep an open mind about this and see if you really deliver something anywhere near a "bitcoin killer". I am skeptical and think bitcoin 80% market dominance is not going anywhere, but we'll see.
So I will keep an open mind about this and see if you really deliver something anywhere near a "bitcoin killer". I am skeptical and think bitcoin 80% market dominance is not going anywhere, but we'll see.
November 14, 2016, 08:37:46 AM
Teaser from my white paper:
Quote
Proposed Improvement Overview
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
November 13, 2016, 04:41:05 AM
November 12, 2016, 06:31:21 PM
When we finally have quantum computing ... Thats less than 5 years away.
Proof
November 12, 2016, 05:57:01 PM
10 years, 20 years from now we will look at 1s1 gen crypto the way we look at old cars. When we finally have quantum computing it will open a whole new level of development. Thats less than 5 years away.
November 12, 2016, 05:44:31 PM
I know you don't know this
Thus, the mention/joke about the Paradox thread. Relax. I can delete it if it gets your panties in a twist. Just let me know.
No worries her panties are fine right where they are on my head with the fishy crotch draped over my nose. Smelling salts for coping with the delirium.
November 12, 2016, 03:29:25 PM
Dropping this here as a 'Heads Up' because I know you bright folks like reading, reviewing, etc. such stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5cjdcd/viper_a_new_total_functional_strongly_typed/
Let's see if it will end up in the Paradox thread!
I know you don't know this, but that has nothing to do with Decentralization.
That is a programming language for Ethereum's VM. Should go in an Ethereum thread. Please don't discuss it further in this thread as it is off-topic.
November 12, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
I thought I was dreaming them I realized I was awake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTz93Y-qeq0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPUhWZLeO5g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTz93Y-qeq0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPUhWZLeO5g
November 12, 2016, 08:54:08 AM
...I think there may also be other game theory vulnerabilities of Byzcoin dealing with the ability to jam the Byzantine consensus of the consensus group (it apparently requires 67% agreement) and then mine on a hidden consensus group with more hashrate. It is a variant of selfish mining reconstructed (invented only in my head in about 30 seconds) to apply to this new sliding window concept, but I need to think this out in more detail (and read the Byzcoin white paper!) to be sure.
It seems perhaps the 33% selfish mining vulnerability perhaps remains in Byzcoin, by shifting the attack to jamming.
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/08/04/byzcoin/#byzcoin-s-design
So if the attacker applies 33% of the systemic hashrate for holding a position in the consensus group, then attacker can block the consensus group from adding any transactions for mining revenue from fees (and forming any blocks although I presume that any minted block reward would still be split amongst all in the group).
The attacker can make his own hidden grouping and mine it releasing it periodically. Although it has less hashrate difficulty (thus is not the longest chain) than the jammed branch, the rational majority will choose to abandon the jammed branch and mine on the attacker's branch because they are gaining no revenue at all on the attacked branch. The attacker will allow them some revenue on his branch, thus educating the miners what their rational decision must be. Attacker will periodically repeat forking off the branches he forks periodically. Note this only applies when the minting block reward has declined to (near) 0.
The 2/3 can't pull out of the main grouping without making it hidden, but they aren't so coordinated because if they were then it wouldn't be hidden. And if it isn't hidden, then the attacker can also take 1/3 of the group and jam it.
Note even when the minting block reward hasn't declined to (near) 0, the attacker gets 33% of that revenue and blocks all transactions, so those who need transactions will refer to his chain as the correct one, even if it is not the longest, because it is the longest with any transactions.
Unless I have a mistake in my haste, seems I just blew up Byzcoin. Sorry. Don't let me play for a few minutes with explosives.
Edit: it doesn't appear that the authors have considered this sort of attack in the sections Selfish and Stubborn Mining Attacks and also the Defenses Against 33%+ Attacks.
November 12, 2016, 08:22:02 AM
I wrote the following quote before knowing that the Byzcoin research existed (which I just became aware of a couple of hours ago):
And that is exactly what Byzcoin attempts to solve by employing an anti-aliasing filter comprising a sliding windowed sampling of the partial orders, thus the outlier point (e.g. Goose Egg) is not manifested as aliasing error.
Btw, I had (privately) considered a very similar design to the Byzcoin design in early 2016 as one of my candidate designs along the way of my process of finalizing my choice for an optimum design. It of course occurred to me that I could use proof-of-work to elect a group of delegates. Even Dash (Evolution) was pointing to that sort of design.
However, in addition to the insoluble problem of relying only on transaction fees for any design that employs blocks (and proof-of-work) which I explained in my prior comments today, I think there may also be other game theory vulnerabilities of Byzcoin dealing with the ability to jam the Byzantine consensus of the consensus group (it apparently requires 67% agreement) and then mine on a hidden consensus group with more hashrate. It is a variant of selfish mining reconstructed (invented only in my head in about 30 seconds) to apply to this new sliding window concept, but I need to think this out in more detail (and read the Byzcoin white paper!) to be sure.
A key design decision distills down to mitigating that Satoshi's design has aliasing error due to taking point samples on the continuous domain of partial orders.
And that is exactly what Byzcoin attempts to solve by employing an anti-aliasing filter comprising a sliding windowed sampling of the partial orders, thus the outlier point (e.g. Goose Egg) is not manifested as aliasing error.
Btw, I had (privately) considered a very similar design to the Byzcoin design in early 2016 as one of my candidate designs along the way of my process of finalizing my choice for an optimum design. It of course occurred to me that I could use proof-of-work to elect a group of delegates. Even Dash (Evolution) was pointing to that sort of design.
However, in addition to the insoluble problem of relying only on transaction fees for any design that employs blocks (and proof-of-work) which I explained in my prior comments today, I think there may also be other game theory vulnerabilities of Byzcoin dealing with the ability to jam the Byzantine consensus of the consensus group (it apparently requires 67% agreement) and then mine on a hidden consensus group with more hashrate. It is a variant of selfish mining reconstructed (invented only in my head in about 30 seconds) to apply to this new sliding window concept, but I need to think this out in more detail (and read the Byzcoin white paper!) to be sure.
November 12, 2016, 07:43:03 AM
No freedom of speech.
No freedom of transaction.
No freedom of fees.
No freedom of blocksize.
No freedom of transaction.
No freedom of fees.
No freedom of blocksize.
I believe there are solutions. I am writing the white paper. Of course nothing should be assumed until any solution is published and peer reviewed.
November 12, 2016, 07:37:24 AM
November 12, 2016, 07:24:55 AM
November 08, 2016, 06:05:09 PM
I do believe my design is a Bitcoin killer any way, in the sense that I think microtransactions are the big enchilada of the near future despite them being maligned up until now:
http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/
The reason is that most of what people do online is for fun. And the earnings that some companies make now online derives typically in the pennies per user. When you've only got to extract a few pennies from each user, the users don't care what it cost especially if they don't have to do a damn thing to pay. The low hanging fruit for crypto-currency is not replacing high valued transactions, since everyone already has a well entrenched option for that called fiat.
I think we are moving to a collaborative economy (e.g. open source) where we want to throw a few pennies towards each thing we use each day, then these get aggregated (funneled in) on projects and fan back out as salaries and commissions in morsels that enable people to pay rent, buy food, etc.. I don't think the majority of our Knowledge Age economy will be large ticket item sales, because most of what we will be producing will not be one-off creations with high effort for one user/customer (we may have customization per user but it will be automated). Economies-of-scale will continue to increase (as they did for factories in the Industrial Age), although customizability will also increase due to technological innovation, e.g. 3D printers and software (which was not possible in one-size-fits-all factories).
This is sort of the economy I have envisioned ever since I wrote the seminal essays that appear in the OP of the Economic Devastation thread.
http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/
The reason is that most of what people do online is for fun. And the earnings that some companies make now online derives typically in the pennies per user. When you've only got to extract a few pennies from each user, the users don't care what it cost especially if they don't have to do a damn thing to pay. The low hanging fruit for crypto-currency is not replacing high valued transactions, since everyone already has a well entrenched option for that called fiat.
I think we are moving to a collaborative economy (e.g. open source) where we want to throw a few pennies towards each thing we use each day, then these get aggregated (funneled in) on projects and fan back out as salaries and commissions in morsels that enable people to pay rent, buy food, etc.. I don't think the majority of our Knowledge Age economy will be large ticket item sales, because most of what we will be producing will not be one-off creations with high effort for one user/customer (we may have customization per user but it will be automated). Economies-of-scale will continue to increase (as they did for factories in the Industrial Age), although customizability will also increase due to technological innovation, e.g. 3D printers and software (which was not possible in one-size-fits-all factories).
This is sort of the economy I have envisioned ever since I wrote the seminal essays that appear in the OP of the Economic Devastation thread.
And microtransactions may be the only plausibly reasonable security cost model?
I spent some time on DAG based designs and this one reminds me of something that I rejected early.
As far I understand, the level of security against double-spends basically depends on the total amount spent on fees on the legit DAG. If so, an attacker just secretly builds a subDAG that includes a few double-spends, spends more on fees in the subDAG than was spent in the legit DAG, then publishes his subDAG. Now everybody should switch to the subDAG as it has burnt more fees. As long as the total amount of double-spends exceeds the fees, the attack succeeds.
As far I understand, the level of security against double-spends basically depends on the total amount spent on fees on the legit DAG. If so, an attacker just secretly builds a subDAG that includes a few double-spends, spends more on fees in the subDAG than was spent in the legit DAG, then publishes his subDAG. Now everybody should switch to the subDAG as it has burnt more fees. As long as the total amount of double-spends exceeds the fees, the attack succeeds.
Smart, sorry, I'd missed that from your original post. But it seems like V. Buterin's argument from the link in the OP still applies:
"This seems weak, but in reality it isn’t; we know that in the case of Bitcoin, once the currency supply stops increasing mining will rely solely on transaction fees, and the mechanics are exactly the same (since the amount that the network will spend on mining will roughly correspond to the total number of txfees being sent in); hence, fee-based TaPoS is in this regard at least as secure as fee-only PoW mining."
"This seems weak, but in reality it isn’t; we know that in the case of Bitcoin, once the currency supply stops increasing mining will rely solely on transaction fees, and the mechanics are exactly the same (since the amount that the network will spend on mining will roughly correspond to the total number of txfees being sent in); hence, fee-based TaPoS is in this regard at least as secure as fee-only PoW mining."
@TomHolden, I agree that Satoshi's PoW has the same potential vulnerability in that if double-spends exceed the value of what was burned to provide security, then a 51% lie-in-wait attack is possible funded by the value of the double-spends (possibly also shorting the exchange value in case the successful attack craters the price).
Thus, @tonych's concern applies to every consensus design (including Satoshi's) which is based on burning some resources as the metric of the longest-chain-rule (regardless whether multiple branches are merged to form the longest-chain, e.g. a DAG).
We really don't want a crypto-currency that is too liquid into fungible monetary equivalents, as it would not be secure except by overpaying for security. This points to future of crypto-tokens more for micropayments as a more viable reasonable security cost paradigm. As block rewards wind down for Bitcoin, then this may become more apparent.
November 08, 2016, 03:48:14 AM
As I am writing down my design and working out how it relates to all the prior art, it is amazing to me how close everyone was to the actual solution, yet they just didn't quite pull it all together. Perhaps it is because I have been around since 2013 studying everyone's research. I can see elements of all of the following in my design:
A key design decision distills down to mitigating that Satoshi's design has aliasing error due to taking point samples on the continuous domain of partial orders.
My design is serious. It is correct. And it is a major decentralization, scaling, and instant transactions breakthrough for blockchains and crypto-currency.
Essentially it solves all the outstanding problems.
- GHOST protocol
- Bitshares' DPoS and TaPoS
- Fuserleer's eMunie descriptions
- The various DAG proposals
- Bitcoin-NG
A key design decision distills down to mitigating that Satoshi's design has aliasing error due to taking point samples on the continuous domain of partial orders.
My design is serious. It is correct. And it is a major decentralization, scaling, and instant transactions breakthrough for blockchains and crypto-currency.
Essentially it solves all the outstanding problems.
November 07, 2016, 08:54:06 PM
Bitcoin incorporates PoW as a method of verifying transactions and charges units within its own token system.
A better solution may be to charge PoW instead of units, similar to how spam messages are made costly. The PoW provided from the clients in order to have a transaction accepted onto the network is then used to verify blocks. Large-scale miners would no longer be necessary, replaced by pools instead; users then run dual-duty as clients and miners. There would also be no need to charge units for payment.
Essentially, the idea is: P2Pool meets hashcash meets blockchain.
Thoughts?
A better solution may be to charge PoW instead of units, similar to how spam messages are made costly. The PoW provided from the clients in order to have a transaction accepted onto the network is then used to verify blocks. Large-scale miners would no longer be necessary, replaced by pools instead; users then run dual-duty as clients and miners. There would also be no need to charge units for payment.
Essentially, the idea is: P2Pool meets hashcash meets blockchain.
Thoughts?
Jump to: