November 24, 2024, 11:11:23 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Alternate cryptocurrencies>Altcoin Discussion

Pages:

«
1
2
»

Author

Topic: fuck this shit, I want my own blockchain! (Read 3360 times)

Ukigo

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1000

Quote

So my current plan is to start developing relatively tame features in an established blockchain, and make a new one with radical features later, when/if I'll get a coherent vision.

Sounds good !

on "notacoin" :
With current lack of "friendly" legislation on blockchains,
this is maybe right path to us : "never claim ,that *coin is a currency !"
So "not a coin" is a quite good choice, IMHO.

Ukigo

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1000

newest thread about 'distributed escrow' :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/distributed-escrow-96250
-----------------------------------------------

about 51% attack :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96255.0;all

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: killerstorm on July 29, 2012, 06:32:42 AM

So my current plan is to start developing relatively tame features in an established blockchain, and make a new one with radical features later, when/if I'll get a coherent vision.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'd like to hear your input on decrits/encoin. I have clear pseudo-code for a lot of it written in my head, but actually taking it to task is a whole nother story.

Quote

But I need to evaluate feasibility of reviving of an old blockchain...

Not in any way worth it, imo. Everyone will have to download new software if you break the chain, so why not just release a new coin.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: ?? on ??

What about name of the new coin ?
BBQcoin sounds funny, but this was a joke. right ?!

More-or-less, I actually considered taking over a dead block chain instead of starting a new one, but now taking over bbqcoin is pretty much pointless.

But with this discussion list of potential features got really long and it would take quite a lot of time to make it into a coherent vision and implement them.

However, I now got an offer to take over maintenance of a dead blockchain, one a bit more established than bbqcoin

So my current plan is to start developing relatively tame features in an established blockchain, and make a new one with radical features later, when/if I'll get a coherent vision.

But I need to evaluate feasibility of reviving of an old blockchain...

As for new block chain name, I haven't settled of something particular yet, but I kinda like "notacoin". I.e. "Not A Coin". Quite in GNU tradition, I think. It's supposed to mean "It's not a coin, it's better" or "This is not a currency you're looking for". Also can be interpreted as "Nota-Coin", as in "notary".

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: killerstorm on July 29, 2012, 02:49:15 AM

Why do you think that there are significantly fewer account values then there are unspent transactions?

Because, at least with bitcoin, you are encouraged to use a different address for every transaction. And even if you don't, each transaction still creates a transaction in the ledger with unspent outputs. If one person doesn't care as much about anonymity, they can receive 50 transactions and thus have 50 pieces of data in the log whereas an account ledger would still have 1. And when he goes to spend all that money, 50 transactions worth of outputs will need to be combined. Then those outputs could be pruned, but the intervening bandwidth usage is still heavy.

Quote from: killerstorm on July 29, 2012, 02:58:23 AM

I believe that the right solution is 'divide and conquer', i.e. instead of having a huge-ass list of all transactions or list of all accounts we should split it into manageable parts and store on different servers. Like in a DHT, e.g. Kademlia. (Used in p2p file sharing, for example.)

With the account ledger system, assuming elliptic curve DSAs, you're looking at 100-150 bytes per account. A terabyte could hold the world's accounting.

PS - I forgot to mention that individual coins cannot be traced using an account ledger, so complex coin mixers are not required to "clean" coins.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

I believe that the right solution is 'divide and conquer', i.e. instead of having a huge-ass list of all transactions or list of all accounts we should split it into manageable parts and store on different servers. Like in a DHT, e.g. Kademlia. (Used in p2p file sharing, for example.)

Unfortunately DHTs do not provide features which are required for safe transactions, at least ones we know. But it doesn't mean that such technology won't be developed in future.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: Etlase2 on July 29, 2012, 02:28:10 AM

This is similar to what an account based ledger would do, except you'd have to store all of the unspent transactions instead of account values.

Why do you think that there are significantly fewer account values then there are unspent transactions?

What prevents person from starting a new account each time he receives money?

Why wouldn't he do that if that improves privacy?

You can introduce some account-creation fee, of course, thus encouraging people to reuse them, but it won't be like Bitcoin at all. It's a very radical, fundamental change.

If you're willing to do that, you can instead force txn defrag by making only outputs in last N blocks spendable. I.e. people will be forced to send money to themselves to save it. (It has numerous advantages: it fixes "grandfather's wallet problem", prevents deflation and subsidizes fees, thus encouraging miners.)

This requires only a tiny change to Bitcoin code. The only problem is that it will be hugely unpopular, but so will be switch to accounts, I think.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NASDAQEnema on July 28, 2012, 06:39:05 PM

Account based leads to a whole bunch of vulnerabilities.

Care to elaborate?

Quote

Transaction based is inherently resistant to common problems in the physical world.

Uhh cryptocurrencies are digital, fyi. Tongue

Tongue

And I don't see anything inherent.

Quote

What should be done is to store a compressed version of the last 1024 blocks in a new block and don't download intervening blocks.

This is similar to what an account based ledger would do, except you'd have to store all of the unspent transactions instead of account values.

NASDAQEnema

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Account based leads to a whole bunch of vulnerabilities. Transaction based is inherently resistant to common problems in the physical world.

What should be done is to store a compressed version of the last 1024 blocks in a new block and don't download intervening blocks.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: killerstorm on July 28, 2012, 04:19:25 AM

No, I don't see what value it brings from the start. And I don't see any solution which actually solves scalability problem. Pruning schemes only buy you some time.

Pruning, as it has to be implemented for bitcoin, currently does not even buy any time. Unless you trust someone, you will always have to download the entire history of bitcoin before becoming a full client. Now, down the road, the developers might at some point say hey, this is ridiculous, and attempt to push a fork-inducing change that will once again be decided by a few people in the community apart from the rest. See the BIP16/17 "scandal" if you are unfamiliar with what I am referring to. The solution is an account based ledger rather than a transaction ledger.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: ?? on ??

Do you plan to implement some sort of pruning/reducing blockchain's size from the start ?

No, I don't see what value it brings from the start. And I don't see any solution which actually solves scalability problem. Pruning schemes only buy you some time.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: ?? on ??

@killerstorm
Have you read this ?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79837.0;all
--------------------
Also about 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 :
Given that bounty will be a constant, you can completely eliminate tx fees

With dynamic block frequency, however, there is an alternative approach: block weight is computed via a rather complex function which takes into account difficulty, quality of transactions and block size.

If we have two blocks with same difficulty, one with 'good transactions' would win, so miners have an incentive to include them.

This function can also automatically filter out spam by penalizing large blocks.

The only downside is that it is really hard to implement this without sacrificing security. I.e. a double spend attack might exploit some weakness in function to make attack cheaper.

However it is good against 51% attack which simply produces empty blocks: those blocsk would have low weight making attack much more expensive. To block normal economic activity attacker needs a large supply of old coins to fake 'good transactions'.

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: ?? on ??

Given that bounty will be a constant, you can completely eliminate tx fees

No. This would remove incentive for miners to even include transactions into their blocks.
Without this incentive they can as well mine hollow blocks, it might be cheaper. (E.g. you don't pay for traffic as much.)

Of course we could find some way to penalize hollow blocks, but transaction fee incentive is more straightforward.

Also, as noted by bitcoin.me, it prevents spam.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: ?? on ??

@killerstorm
Have you read this ?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79837.0;all
--------------------
Also about 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 :
Given that bounty will be a constant, you can completely eliminate tx fees
and even purge/comment all related code from the sources.
There will be no more complaints about "unfair" fees.
I think it is a marketing advantage -- you can claim that all transfers for end user
are "virtually" free

This would be good for microtransactions if the tx fees are lower than all other coins

You still need some cost to deter dust spam on the network but that could be so low as to be insignificant.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: killerstorm on July 27, 2012, 05:54:15 AM

That would be point 3.3 in my original message. I don't have a complete picture right now, but I guess it should be a trusted node which signs blocks it sees so certain version of blockchain becomes locked. This isn't very different from locks in source code, it just doesn't require binary updates.

I spend hundreds of hours coming up with ideas behind encoin/decrits to solve most of the problems with bitcoin. I think I already linked you to it, but here it is again: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decrits-proposal-solution-for-an-unbound-energy-related-stable-value-currency-91183 the encoin wiki is here: http://justinbporter.com/encoin/doku.php - but that is not my site so I don't know how long it may stay up. The encoin wiki has mostly outdated ideas, but it still has a lot of the core stuff like the consensus block with an account ledger instead of a transaction ledger and so on.

I feel your frustration with the current crop of coins and developers, but bringing a project like this to fruition is beyond my capabilities, at least at this time.

NASDAQEnema

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

For cross blockchain transactions: see if this works for you. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coin-incubationnatural-split-95904

killerstorm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: NASDAQEnema on July 27, 2012, 10:26:50 AM

If "influential people" decide to attack your shit, this community will be split into no less than 4 factions.

Hmm, like what?

markm

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

They are just like the feds I guess, they don't want economies to spring up freely, they want to prevent trade by withholding the tool (means/token of exchange) needed to engage in trade, so that no one is able to prosper thus no one is able to afford to buy bitcoins. A vicious circle.

I guess maybe they never heard of the threshold drug or doorstep drug theory (soft drugs lead to hard drugs) so somehow keep trying to convince themselves that people getting a free taste of cryptocurrency won't graduate to the hard stuff (actual genuine original bitcoins)...

-MarkM-

NASDAQEnema

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

If "influential people" decide to attack your shit, this community will be split into no less than 4 factions.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: wormbog on July 27, 2012, 06:04:07 AM

I've got some BBQ coins for you too if that helps.

how could that possibly help?

Pages:

«
1
2
»

Bitcoin Forum>Alternate cryptocurrencies>Altcoin Discussion

Jump to: