Topic: If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press? - page 6. (Read 5518 times)

lol double spending isnt an issue, if it was you would be getting "the press" 

Its an issue because by claiming these things shows a lack of understanding of information theory at its most basic, or highlights some potential dishonesty.

If its the former, then what other hidden gotchas are present in the platform?  You would rather that nobody challenged these wild claims and just took a developers word for it, then at some later point in time non-technical individuals invest because they trust the word of the developer and lose money?  I think there is already enough of that going on that is having a massive negative impact overall.

I get endless challenges from others on my research when it doesnt contradict proven theories or "truisms", so why should it be any different for more grandiose claims.

Should someone turn up here claiming to have found a way to exceed the speed of light, everyone would have a problem with it because it is common knowledge that current theories, proven or not, have shown that it cant be.   What he is claiming is the same thing with regard to information theory, the issue is that these topics are not as common knowledge as the speed of light limit, so its easier to pass them off as fact.

You make it sound as if nobody is going to try and to this due to the difficulty, and not being "worth it". 

So why is this even really an issue? 

Maybe it isn't solved per se,  but it may be that its even *more* difficult to do with this coin.
I'm guessing people are looking for evidence of that?

It's called vanilla for a reason, when its feature complete more attention will be spend towards the proper channels (press, peer reviews etc).

In a trusted or centralized network it is easier to provide high levels of consistency (and the other 2) because there is a governed control over the network, the connections between them can be faster, etc etc

You don't have that control over a P2P network, so the latency is generally longer, and consistency is further compromised.  The same applies though with P2P networks, synchronous or asynchronous, you don't need to know or trust any of the network.  

A creates a transaction and broadcasts to all connected nodes, it still takes time for those nodes to receive that communication and apply it (if they agree with it and are honest) so that they are in the same state as A.  In the mean time another node C can create a transaction that conflicts with A's at the exact same time (measured in planck time) and broadcast it too, then you have an issue.  Even if C is honest, it is impossible for it to be in the same state as A at the same time if as state has changed.  As far as C is concerned A is still in the same state it was before A made that transaction for a duration of time after the event.


Because it isn't easy to do even with a moderate duration of attack window, and so is not worth the time and effort to prove something is false that can not be true in the first place due to accepted laws of physics.

Then why are people not exploiting that and double spending? 

Please prove by doing a double spend.

I thought the point was A goes "Hangon, need to talk to B"; which sure, that depends on A trusting B, and being able to know that B is gone? This doesn't work for a peer to peer network as you don't inherently know all of the network, so a major netsplit is hard to detect and impossible to be certain of, but is presumably what organisations such as Visa do?

OK fair point a truism, that is close enough for me.

Consistency alone is impossible, assume you have 2 machines connected over a distance and they are both synchronized.  Lets call them A & B.

Some event happens to A, and it wants to inform B of the change.  Even if B accepts the change immediately, consistency in the literal sense can never be achieved due to the speed of light and the limit it places on information delivery.  It always takes some amount of time for the information to travel from A -> B, so A and B can never be in the same state 100% of the time.

Thus, there are always periods of time, no matter how short, where A and B are not consistent with each other.  An attacker can take advantage of this window of time and cause disruption.

CAP theorem itself is unproven..  


http://markburgess.org/blog_cap.html

If he can prove that the currently accepted CAP theorem is false, and that it is possible to provide all 3 100% of the time, then I'll accept it.  There is no other way as it can not be done as he claims, it might seem like its solved, but it isn't.

hahah still time to be here posting in detail the issue though.


I don't know what a developer can do to prove something works apart from white paper, open source code, and beta....he even gave a reward to anyone who could do a double spend when the transaction has 0 confirmations. So apart from answering peoples concerns there is nothing left.


So I'll just put you down as someone who won't put their ideas (FUD) to the appropriate people to be openly challenged...ie Chicken.

Actually I'm not bursting at all, as I know he can't have solved it as claimed, plus I have enough to do as it is.

It's his responsibility to prove he is right, not ours. 

So... you didn't actually want an answer to why it's not getting press attention?

Edit: 'cos I'm not press, can't help you, I can only tell you how I'd get their attention.

Well as you've spent so much time on it I imagine you must be bursting to ask him how he at least claimed to of solved it. Tell us if you do go and ask your question.

https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#Vanillacoin

Like I said everything is open source, John Conner is available on IRC. Ive seen a few challenge him with potential issues and he quickly shows they don't know what they are talking about and they sheepishly wander off.

So IF you think there is a problem with the code then its you as a challenger to directly address them to the developer who has made himself completely available in a public place. Otherwise an indirect criticism is just FUD.

https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#Vanillacoin

You obviously haven't seen the level of shit I've been put through over the past 2 years then haha

It's simple, if he claims he has solved it 100%, he's either lying, or doesn't understand CAP theorem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

In brief CAP theorem:

• Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
• Availability (a guarantee that every request receives a response about whether it succeeded or failed)
• Partition tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures)

   
    
You can never have a network that can provide all 3 all of the time, and it has been proven.  Most distributed networks allow for failures in all of them, but prioritize 2 of them.

For John to have 100% solved double-spends, he would have to support all 3, 100%, probably the most important being C.
    

Nobody is going to take Vanillacoin seriously until it's peer reviewed, survived for a few years, and all the shills stopped hyping it as the next Bitcoin.

You asked why no-one's talking of Vanillacoin's technology, I'm answering that question. Did take a quick look for anything on NXT, turns out it's all articles about Lego! What's NEM claiming it's fixed?

I honestly think the Bitcoin casual community has plenty of experts...I'ts weird but I never saw another Altcoin come under this level of suspicion, scrutiny and generally have its innovations claims simply dismissed especially after they post the code, white paper and and have a working beta.


When did NEM, NXT, etc get pulled apart by MIT?

I'm saying I'm too tired of debating this and the next step for having it reviewed is to put it out in something more widely read. 30 seconds with Google suggests something like http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?reload=true&punumber=71 but there may well be better suited journals.

That said, fairly certain a major netsplit (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption) would render parts of the network unreachable from other parts, creating a fork there's no way of reconciling until the network is repaired. I didn't read it as he was claiming that's solved, but it's still a double-spend risk.