Topic: MAVE: Digital Signature Protocol for Massive bulk verifications - page 2. (Read 4061 times)

Thanks Mike for the feedback related the typos and for the patience to reach page 6. Have you finished it?

I want to point out that the concept of MAVE is very simple. If the paper is complicated, then is my fault in explaining it (my native language is not English).

Regarding finway questions:

1) MAVE, as a new cryptographic algorithm, is it safe?

In the paper I sketch of a proof of resistance for three types of attackers I can identify. As my humble opinion, is it secure. Please review the paper and try to break it! The underlining security of the scheme is the impossibility of inverting a one-way hash function, which is the same assumption Bitcoin relies on for mining.

2) Are you a Cryptographer ?

I´d like to think myself as one. But probably I´m not, since I don´t like writing proofs. Though my graduate thesis was about new developments in cryptography, and I was a teacher assistance on cryptography in university,  and I have spent many years doing computer security, and I have a few of patents on crypto.
Make your own mind.

3) I think we should stop reinventing wheels.
Tell that to Satoshi 

We should start reinventing, re-engineering,  and re-thinking, all time. The moment you think a problem is "solved", the moment you cannot innovate.

Best regards,
 Sergio.

P.S: Today or tomorrow I´m publishing the MAVEPAY paper.

Thanks for this. Don't be discouraged by the minimal feedback so far. Your paper is large and complex, so it will take some time to work through it and fully digest. Also some people have previously posted papers here that appeared at first to be useful but were actually of fairly minimal contribution.

However so far (I'm on page 6) it seems credible and worth spending the time to understand.

One minor thing - I'd suggest asking somebody to proofread it and run it through a spelling checker, eg:

Interesting.

So MAVE costs less GPU/CPU power to verify, while staying at  the same level of security than ECDSA?

Or MAVE use a ledger_based_system rather than transactions_based_system to save storage ?


EDIT: First glance, too complicated. Insurance? Really ?

EDIT: The real problem is, MAVE, as a new cryptographic algorithm, is it safe? Are you a Cryptographer ? I think we should stop reinventing wheels.

If your interest is purely economical, I recommend you to skip MAVE-3 paper and wait a few days more until I publish MAVEPAY paper, where I apply MAVE to define a p2p currency.

Also I calculate the cost of handling 1000 tps for 5 million users at aprox. 10 USD per user/month. (this figure includes electricity, hardware amortization, bandwidth usage, etc.)

Bye!

In that case I will read your paper carefully and try to comment on economic aspects (the technical details are largely beyond me, but security involves economics as well).

Yes, MAVE adapts well to the proof-of-stake model (but implementation really matters).

Note: MAVE REQUIRES checkpoints (or user defined limits in transaction amounts) in order to reduce the incentive to revert payments accumulated from the last checkpoint.

 
Bye!

Can you use a proof-of-stake element as a source of txn verification security? Many people, not just me, view stake as a more secure and lower cost method of achieving consensus on txn validity than proof-of-work.

1) Bitcoin does not scale well (this has been discussed, refuted and debated, so this is just my opinion)

2) With an alternate digital signature system, it can scale upto 1000 tps (transactions per second) with an average computer, and some idle CPU time. Periodic balance sheets are required though.

A cryptocurrency based only on MAVE has the drawback that confirmation times are higher. So I would propose a hybrid system, using MAVE for low valued transactions and ECDSA for high value payments.


In a couple of days I'm posting a second paper with implementation details...

Best regards,
 Sergio.

I'll bump this because I am eager to hear about it. Can you provide a short summary in the OP of 1) what the issue with the current bitcoin protocol is 2) how your protocol might help resolve this issue.

I think this might help attract more interest.

I am reading it now and will give feedback when I am finished. I am very interested because the cryptocurrency I am designing encoin is planning to use signature aggregates and a system of reputation and consensus. This might have a very useful application.

As I promised in the thread about Poker, here is the preliminary version of my paper on new digital signature protocols suitable for Bitcoin-like networks.

I've posted the MAVE paper on my blog:
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/mave-digital-signature-protocol-for-massive-bulk-verifications/

Another paper (HBOW) with notes of how to properly implement MAVE for a p2p cryptocurrency is coming soon.

Please read it, comment it and give feedback.

Thanks.
 Sergio.