Topic: Is VCash the most scalable crypto around? (Read 2281 times)

ok this is going off topic.

Let me try to unpack those points a bit for laymen:

1. Full nodes in DPOS are elected delegates. With Satoshi's PoW, we don't know which node will win the next block. So an attacker wouldn't know which node to jam with a DDoS attack. Any node attacked would simply not participate in competing to produce the next block, but this wouldn't harm the system at all. Whereas, when we designate the node that will decide what goes into the next block, then an attacker knows which node to attack. As well, a node knows when it will control the next block, and thus it can attack the network by withholding (although it would probably get voted out of being a delegate node soon, although it might be difficult to prove when it was a legitimate network hiccup or when it was intentional). I believe Bitcoin-NG may have an analogous weakness.

2. For me, this is the other huge weakness. With DPOS, the set of nodes which process blocks is static until the next voting. And even after voting, standing up a full node is not something an individual can choose to do by himself. There is always politics and centralization involved. The ideologically great thing about Satoshi's design is that anyone at any time can go standup a full node and process his/her transactions on any block he/she wins. The problems of course with Satoshi's design is that it doesn't scale and also that PoW economics of SHA256 means an individual can no longer win a block nor prevent the centralization of mining over time due to it being 100 to 1000X more profitable for the ASIC farms and because scaling can't work without centralization. So DPOS doesn't really gain anything that we can't get by centralizing Satoshi's design other than saving electricity.

I have another solution which I think is a better compromise than both of those. But I won't describe it, because surely others will start to figure out my design if I describe it further. I need to release it asap, so the discussion of its merits can be open sourced.

3. If one full node's block period is say 5 seconds, but the propagation to another of the full nodes is 10 seconds, that latter node will not be able to receive the new block from the former and produce another new block within its 5 second allocation. Thus the block period has a lower bound which is dictated by the slowest propagation on the network of full nodes. And 5 seconds confirmation is too slow for certain types of microtransactions. Imagine you want to start listening to a song, and you have it set to pay a microtransaction automatically, but you have to wait 5+ seconds everytime you want to click to listen to a new song you have not yet paid for. Or similarly when using microtransactions instead of a CAPTCHA. Even 1 second might be too slow! Vcash's Zerotime can't even get close to being fast enough. Probably Lightning Networks won't be fast enough either, not to mention it doesn't scale well.

5. DPOS (delegated proof-of-stake) is still POS with all its flaws. My desire is to attain Satoshi's security model, but with 100% decentralization, massive scaling, 1 second confirmed transactions, and no economic trend towards centralization!

I am glad you are back youarenotback! Mostly I don't understand all you're saying, but at least your posts challenge me to try to learn new things. Thanx!

1. Since the chosen single node for each block is deterministic, then in theory it could be very vulnerable to botnet DDoS attack. More generally it lacks fault tolerance, which is critically needed in real world systems. A redesign to have simultaneous disjoint blocks from multiple delegates can't be allowed because there could be double-spends in the presumed disjoint blocks.

2. For DPOS, this is not decentralized control, because the minority has to accept the will of the majority on the election of delegate DPOS nodes, i.e. the permissionless attribute can be lost such as ChainAnchor being planned for ButtCON. No one can just standup a full node at-will. This also means there isn't really competition in terms of a free market rate for transaction fees.

Btw, Bitcoin-NG accomplishes basically the same deterministic node per block and with decentralized control over the selection of the delegate in real-time employing PoW, yet with chain reorganization issues.

3. The maximum speed (minimum delay) of confirmations is lower bounded by the slowest latency of block propagation to every DPOS node, because otherwise some nodes can't keep up. This can be reasonably fast say several seconds if you've got a very organized set of delegate nodes (but then you really don't have decentralized control), but this is not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions.

4. Zero-confirmation double-spend transactions (aka Finney Attack) are even more plausible, because a colluding delegate node knows deterministically when it will win the block. Note block periods can be reasonably fast in DPOS, so 0-conf is probably not needed although not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions, although such probably wouldn't be Finney attacked due to their small values.

5. Proof-of-stake is not a secure consensus algorithm, because for example the nothing-at-stake problem. We compiled a laundry list of flaws in proof-of-stake. Note I recently made a suggestion to jl777 and we mutually designed how to record check points for DPoS coins in a PoW block chain.

And what about DPOS? Lisk uses DPOS with 101 nodes only with high performance each one wich permits faster transactions and i believe it is able to scale much better than any existing blockchain.

So you insult the guy by saying he is all talk (mind you, in an attempt to deflect from valid concerns) and then you pull the "stop being mean" card? Like shill, like dev.

You can give detailed answer/retort anytime to as why v-cash can or can't scale--and if you don't understand the code enough, that leads to a bigger question, "you want us to buy something you don't understand or can't vouch for with a technical explanation?" Yikes.

I am not intending to be any more rude than the rudeness of your insinuation that I have not done action. How is for example this action by myself not action?

Action is a nebulous term. That is what I am explaining to you by example.

I am also explaining you are quite blind to the action that others are doing. A single-minded focus on the random tree stump in front of you, is what a dog does.

bigfryguy I don't think your going to get the response you were hoping for. It seems the whole thread just devolved in a pretentious pissing contest.     

Vcash is in beta sure but damn guy you don't have be to rude. Sure we have different views no need to get hostile and start insulting others for it.     

Action. Like the 1000 shitcoins that came before and died. And Vcash is apparently not entirely launched yet.

Yes you are welcome to hump any random garbage can along the side of the road. That is a form of action. Again I pity you.

Welcome back TPTB. I thank you for your sincerity but I don't really need your pity. I have every confidence in John Conner's work because he actually developing and pushing real software. He doesn't just talk, he does. In my n00bie opinion that's what matters most. Talk is cheap because action speaks louder than words.  

I think you've put too much ketchup on John's sausage, maybe you should stop before you choke. Your sincere lack of details is as repulsive as your constant salivating over this guy's imaginary coding skills.

I pity you n00bs. Sincerely good luck.

In all honesty the Vcash project moves fast. It's only a year and half old and has evolved quite a bit since genesis. Because of Johns rapid pace of development on the Vcash project we (the community) are consistently trying to play catch up understanding his technology and architecture. It's a learning process for us as much as it is for you. We are only human and that takes time. Unfortunately the very people like Fuserleer who could take a deeper look into John's code is unwilling. So what more is there to discuss? His mind is made up already and who are we to tell him he's wrong?

A noteworthy fact is Poloniex a reputable crypto exchange (I think we can all agree) has done a code audit on Vcash and to their satisfaction has allowed XVC to be accepted in one single confirmation (deposit/withdraw). That should signal that Vcash is uniquely different. Bitcoin is the only other coin that's granted a single confirmation. That notable feat considering how many coins are trading on poloniex.  

Edit: word typo (ketchup) thanks for the heads up (I'm on a mobile).      

Prepare to be shocked, as everyone else will be when I launch the Bitcoin killer.

Re-read my prior post, as I edited it.


No. Zerotime speeds up confirmation of transactions, but it actually can't scale because it requires all the nodes to vote on all the "instant" ("zero" time) transactions.

Note the transactions are not really instant nor zero time, because the voting process requires network propagation over many nodes with multifarious latencies and network hiccups.

Zerotime would also be vulnerable to Sybil attack but we can't prove that on the highly centralized testnet nor accurately test how likely or unlikely such an attack would be, because afaik the testnet is largely controlled by Vlanders supporters (i.e. centralized in that respect). Besides, I don't have time to waste for any silly little bounty on proving John's designs are broken. I am rushed on more important/lucrative work to complete.

John's anonymity technology also is weak.

John appears to be a former Bittorrent programmer who is in over his head in block chain tech. From what I've seen thus far, he is making more hype than actual technical advances that matter. The recent lashing out against Monero was mostly lame and a sign of desperation, although I've also heard from others that Monero is very abusive to the disk storage so he may have a valid point about Monero killing SSDs.

Sorry to criticize but you asked a question and this thread asks a question, so I am giving you frank feedback. You are welcome to try to destroy my credibility (which is the usual reaction of Vlanders to my posts), but it won't help you as I will release far superior technology later this year.

Unless someone responds to Fuserleers points, this thread just looks like someone trying to pump Vcash, then lacking the knowledge to respond to legitimate points raised.

I do know that Vcash can be moved around quickly, it seems like it could actually work as a currency (if people actually accepted it, which they probably never will) but I thought that the scalability came from centralization, i.e off chain transactions.

John Connor's work in this space is astounding (mind blowing). His work imho has made bitcoin's promises into reality. John is a master cryptographer/coder and probably the best in this space.   

 
I'm scared of him too--is it true that he came from the future to tell Monero Devs about a bug they fixed in the past? Talk about bending the time/logic continuum.

Anyone from V-land want to dig into what Fuserleer and not-anonmint have said about the topic of scalability--or is this anbother noob-trap that refuses to talk honestly and openly about what the technology can and can't do?

The skills of John Connor are beginning to scare me a bit, even compared to things like Ethereum.

No.


True for Satoshi's design. Other designs are feasible.


Correct but incorrect.

Please note that centralization of control is orthogonal to other aspects of centralization. When we say 'decentralized', what we really mean is decentralization of control.

And that is the strongest hint I have ever provided about my design.


Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.

Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT. And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi, that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.

---

Problem is that sharding destroys Nash equilibrium if ever any state transition (e.g. transaction) from two or more different shards needs to be combined, because the two or more shards need to validate the history of each other else they rely on trust which destroys Nash equilibrium. But if they must validate each other, then they are back to the single-threaded process where all full nodes validate all transactions. You could try to isolate histories of individual transactions within shards (I suspect this is what eMunie does?) but it won't require too much cross-shard transactions before most of the history of each involved shard has to be validated.

Thus I have never viewed sharding as a workable solution to scaling validation (which is the design error of Ethereum's coming Casper). Instead I viewed ephemeral sharding as an excellent solution for the bandwidth and latency aspects of scaling. Unfortunately I must be vague else I will give too many hints about my design before it is released.

On top of all that, control must be decentralized.

I believe I have already the perfect design for a block chain. I am in implementation mode.