Topic: Idea about a new blockchain - page 3. (Read 480 times)

I like where this is going. Decentralized Twitter? Sign me up Depending on the direction, I might have some ideas regarding sybil attacks, spam prevention and reputation in my drawers

While I agree that you'll have to find a way to make users "pay without realizing that they are paying", which is pretty much what PoW per transaction looks like, you'll still have a problem with users who would be able to completely flood the network due to their vast computing power, while it is virtually impossible to get the needed PoW done on a Samsung Galaxy S III. Any thoughts on how to tackle this problem?

You nailed. That's exactly how I think of it.

• Do you run a full node if you're not a miner?
• Miners can afford to buy more disks space

You're missing the point though. I'm a developer, I dream of building something like twitter but descentralized. I can't unless my users are willing to pay in Ethereum for posting. That makes no sense. I should pay as a developer for posting an smart contract, but my users shouldn't pay gas.


Read my reply from above.


That's what IOTA is doing every once in a while. And they have to stop the entire network for that. That is just silly.

Pretty sure Raiblocks has implemented ledger pruning. Never understood why more crypto don't implement it. I like the PoW concept with zero fees, sure some people would still fill ledger with crap but unless they find a way to monetize it that traffic would be limited.

If people had to pay for every interaction with the Internet it would have never become this big.

I posted here exactly for that. For the hard questions. I won't do any single of code unless it makes complete sense.

I think the 'gas' approach that Ethereum has is the correct way of doing. I just don't think gas should come from ether, but rather by showing some PoW that you have done. I haven't thought on too much detail, but I my idea is to perform more than PoW task if needed.

To avoid cheating the PoW should has:

• A reference (hash) to the last known header (there should be a threshold for 10 or 20 last header). This to prevent doing PoW in parallel to spam the network. The PoW that people do have an expiration date.
• The hash of your transaction (Before the signature, the whole block should be signed). If your transaction needs a lot of gas, you can simple perform two or more PoW hashes..

.

From the top of my head I think the format could be something like

:::

The goal is to find a hash with 4 or 5 zeros (sha256). And each PoW block should have a fixed gas value.

The PoW is attached to your transaction, and it can have 0 or more. In case you're transferring the native currency, it should have none because you should pay a fee (like in Ethereum).

It should also be optional, if you can't or don't want to do any PoW, you can always pay a 'fee'.

To incentivize miners, *each* PoW block should generate them a 'fee'. So they would get `block reward + fee + generated fees for each PoW block`.

The problem is that one of the main bottlenecks of blockchains is space, and every "non-value" transaction use space, too, so charging a fee for it is fair.

PoW is just another kind of fee (if it should be effective in spam-reduction, then the electricity costs needed to create the PoW should be as high as a standard transaction fee. Otherwise, you could simply charge a smaller fee and have the same anti-spam effect as with a "easy PoW".).

A more "sustainable" solution could be ledger pruning. For interactions which are not important for the state of the blockchain, the message that interacted with the contract would be pruned after it has achieved its purpose. Such a system (albeit without smart contracts) is used, for example, in NXT/Ardor. Burst uses NXT's pruned transactions and supports turing-complete smart contracts, but it charges a mandatory fee, so it's also not ideal.

The Ardor child-chain feature could also be a solution if adapted to a chain with support for turing-compĺete smart-contracts, because it allows different asset types in separate "child-chains" which don't bloat the main chain and can be pruned, and in these "child-chains" transactions are not charged a main-chain fee. So there could be a specific "child-chain" for smart contract interaction.

There's currently  - to my knowledge - no blockchain supporting all needed features (solution: fork Burst, adapt Ardor's child-chains and thrash the mandatory fee?).

The "pruning" solution is not a complete solution - analyzing it deeply, the validation work (the other blockchain scalability bottleneck besides space) would not be lowered by it. However, the space saved by pruning could be enough to allow very-low-fee or even fee-less transactions.

Hmm, this might be an interesting idea indeed, but how do you determine the amount of PoW needed? You'll have to set it rather high to prevent spam – interacting with a smart contract from a smartphone will likely not be possible, unless you rent computing power.

I don't want to come off too much as a Negative Nelly here, because I like new ideas and new approaches, but you have to ask the hard questions before they are your downfall.

EOS does not exists yet. And when it does it will be super centralized. Think of it on a VISA-like company own by ~20 something nodes. Not for me, thank you.

You nailed it. My idea is rather simple. PoW on your transaction.

Have you explored the idea of an EOS platform? I think, interacting with the blockchain will be free for end users on the EOS.

I can't imagine a way to prevent spam without some type of fee. You could do something like a PoW to let someone interact with a smart contract, which might be neat, but that is just a hidden fee.

Another way might be permissioned smart contracts, where you'd need "tickets" to interact with them, which could be granted to certain addresses… Or bought, so back to a fee then.

I see you point, I just don't see a good solution. I'm interested, though.

Hello,

Lately I've been thinking in creating a new blockchain but I decided to share the reason why before doing it.

I firmly belive that what's holding great platforms such as Ethereum (and their clones) from massive adoption is the gas price which is paid in Ethereum. I believe that having to pay a 'fee' to interact with the ledger is incovenient

• Buying ETH with a credit card is complex, expensive and annoying
• Most people don't want to register into 3 or 4 pages to buy crypto

I think fees are fair is you want to transfer value, for instance sending ether from one address to another. I don't think it is fair to interact with smart contracts.

I know that fees are also to prevent spam attacks.

I'm thinking in creating a new cryptocurrency, similar to Ethereum, but does not require 'gas' to be paid in the currency.

Things that will be free:

• Interact with smart contracts
• Create transactions with `0` of the native currency.

Things that will require a 'fee' to be paid:

• Transfer the native currency
• Create smart contacts.

Why do we need this?

I think we need an ubiquitous blockchain, free to use, in which developers can create mainstream applications. For instance, move centralized applications to a blockchain. Think of a Twitter-clone running entirely on the blockchain. It cannot happen in the Ethereum network because of the `gas`.

If this seems a good idea I will discuss in further details how I'm planning to prevent spam, reward miners (beside the block reward itself).

Cheers,
Zhang

PS: Please excuse any typos, English is not my first language.