Pages:
Author

Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 4. (Read 195184 times)

legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
Some further questions:

Couldn't someone just creates a whole lot of addresses and then submit with every address the needed amount, so he can win the lottery safely?
Ticket distribution is controlled by purchasing them with the number of coins equal to the stake difficulty, so increasing the number of addresses for coin concentration is actually deleterious (there is an input quantity limit).

Quote
I can't see any incentitive for runnig full nodes, which is a problem as you might see at bitcoin. How about the idea only full nodes receive tx_fees(running a wallet with full blockchain) and miners not?
Full node running is incentivized by the PoS system, who have it in their personal interest to ensure that abuses of the blockchain (weird tx types, tx exclusion as seen with bitcoin) does not occur.

Quote
Where is the incentitive to submit tickets? When there are no "fresh issues", you will probably earn as much, as you submit, but ypu can't use a part of your coins. This will end in nobody submitting tickets.
If you don't use your ticket to validate your block, it becomes invalid. So you are strongly incentivized to vote on your block, unless you'd prefer to lose your reward.

Quote
Or maybe, i didn't undertsand it correctly and everybody gets their money afterwards back and the lottery winner gets a reward for the block he submitted. Which one is right?

As far as I understand, even people, who didn't win in the lottery, can use their tickets, to sign a block. Otherwise it would be really insecure
Only persons with tickets corresponding to the lottery winner number can sign the block.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
Well, it seems like an (almost) perfect coin Smiley

Some questions though:
1.
Quote
These tickets are spent by the stakeholder when the lottery
winner selected by the current PoW block is the same as the
ticket number.
I thought, he can spent his ticket freely to vote for a block? I think I missunderstood their sth.
Tickets can only be spent when ticket number == lottery winner number.  Ticket number is static (and randomly selected at sometime in the past), lottery winner number is random per block.

Quote
2.
Quote
2. the attacker has 51% of the stake of the coin, and
So a signature also contains the amount of coins a stakeholder has to do this or
Quote
the stakeholder difficulty
is this a value based on the amount the stakeholder has?
Stakeholder difficulty is similar to bitcoin difficulty, and is a number of coins that is fixed for some period to meet a target of 5 new tickets issued per block.  It's a minimum value required to buy a stake ticket, or really, the price of a stake ticket.

Quote
In addition to
Quote
the attacker must withhold use of their stake transactions in addition to mining PoW blocks in secret.
you could implent, that in every transaction the hash of the most recent block has to be included and the block chain enforces the rule that the transaction can only be included in block chains that build off of that block then no one will be able to build secret block chains. This would add an additional security layer  -Source
That actually doesn't help (as far as I can tell) in the situation, as you would just incorporate the headers of your malignant secret chain.

There are also severe issues with this -- if a chain is reorg'd, you can never reincorporate tx that had block header hashes that no longer exist and so double spending becomes much, much easier.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Not sure yet, but it'll be GPU mineable from the get go.
I find it a big concern that a coin requires an expensive graphic card to be mined. Sorry, but "democracy" and "you need to have expensive hardware" don't mix well together.

For me, everything that requires more than 25 dollars of hardware cannot be democratic. 25 dollars is the price of an Arduino, by the way.

Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists.  

If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples.

If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs.

Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better?  10:100 or 10:50,000


Why make it mined at all? Why not go with Proof of Stake?
Ultimately it is money which decides stake or hashing power.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
Some further questions:

Couldn't someone just creates a whole lot of addresses and then submit with every address the needed amount, so he can win the lottery safely?

I can't see any incentitive for runnig full nodes, which is a problem as you might see at bitcoin. How about the idea only full nodes receive tx_fees(running a wallet with full blockchain) and miners not?

Where is the incentitive to submit tickets? When there are no "fresh issues", you will probably earn as much, as you submit, but ypu can't use a part of your coins. This will end in nobody submitting tickets.
Or maybe, i didn't undertsand it correctly and everybody gets their money afterwards back and the lottery winner gets a reward for the block he submitted. Which one is right?

As far as I understand, even people, who didn't win in the lottery, can use their tickets, to sign a block. Otherwise it would be really insecure

Sorry, will answer soon. Really sick with food poisoning and was out yesterday
member
Activity: 93
Merit: 10
Some further questions:

Couldn't someone just creates a whole lot of addresses and then submit with every address the needed amount, so he can win the lottery safely?

I can't see any incentitive for runnig full nodes, which is a problem as you might see at bitcoin. How about the idea only full nodes receive tx_fees(running a wallet with full blockchain) and miners not?

Where is the incentitive to submit tickets? When there are no "fresh issues", you will probably earn as much, as you submit, but ypu can't use a part of your coins. This will end in nobody submitting tickets.
Or maybe, i didn't undertsand it correctly and everybody gets their money afterwards back and the lottery winner gets a reward for the block he submitted. Which one is right?

As far as I understand, even people, who didn't win in the lottery, can use their tickets, to sign a block. Otherwise it would be really insecure
member
Activity: 62
Merit: 10

MC2 really long time Grin
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
Quote
These tickets are spent by the stakeholder when the lottery winner selected by the current PoW block is the same as the ticket number.
How would you compare MC2 with Sharecoin and Chancecoin (a decentralised casino)]?
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
Cpu coin are cr*p. Don't try to decentralized currency me when they are botnets raping every cpu coin.

At least with a GPU mineable coin the distribution will be skewed towards users who are at least partially vested in cryptos versus botnet operators who have nefarious intentions at best and are most likely dumpers.

The mining algo is not really the issue, greed is.  I think a better way for an organic coin distribution is to have MC2 off of any exchange that deals in fiat or BTC.  I am not saying that will happen (never will) but that would be one way to minimize the greed factor in the coin distribution.  Being un-exchangeable does nothing for the usefulness of the coin though so you have to balance this with the less altruistic users so the coin has a chance at success.
Counter-example: monero. Not exchange, only OTC. Doesn't change a thing.

I like your "mining algo is not really the issue, greed is". Perfect one-liner Smiley
member
Activity: 93
Merit: 10
Well, it seems like an (almost) perfect coin Smiley

Some questions though:
1.
Quote
These tickets are spent by the stakeholder when the lottery
winner selected by the current PoW block is the same as the
ticket number.
I thought, he can spent his ticket freely to vote for a block? I think I missunderstood their sth.
2.
Quote
2. the attacker has 51% of the stake of the coin, and
So a signature also contains the amount of coins a stakeholder has to do this or
Quote
the stakeholder difficulty
is this a value based on the amount the stakeholder has?

In addition to
Quote
the attacker must withhold use of their stake transactions in addition to mining PoW blocks in secret.
you could implent, that in every transaction the hash of the most recent block has to be included and the block chain enforces the rule that the transaction can only be included in block chains that build off of that block then no one will be able to build secret block chains. This would add an additional security layer  -Source
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
I owe my soul to the Bitcoin code...
Cpu coin are cr*p. Don't try to decentralized currency me when they are botnets raping every cpu coin.

At least with a GPU mineable coin the distribution will be skewed towards users who are at least partially vested in cryptos versus botnet operators who have nefarious intentions at best and are most likely dumpers.

The mining algo is not really the issue, greed is.  I think a better way for an organic coin distribution is to have MC2 off of any exchange that deals in fiat or BTC.  I am not saying that will happen (never will) but that would be one way to minimize the greed factor in the coin distribution.  Being un-exchangeable does nothing for the usefulness of the coin though so you have to balance this with the less altruistic users so the coin has a chance at success.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
My honest opinion of egalitarianism right now is that it exists in all platforms in some way, be it ASIC, GPU, or CPU.  For instance, with ASICs from Bitmain pretty much anyone can hop onto the Bitcoin network and build a massive mine.  I just got the most requests from people with GPU mining farms, so I've opted for some kind of initially GPU minable algorithm.

Mining itself is simply a "proof-of-burn" mechanism that trades power for competitive distribution, whichever way you want to do it through.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1012
Cpu coin are cr*p. Don't try to decentralized currency me when they are botnets raping every cpu coin.
member
Activity: 196
Merit: 10
cpu coins, allow for more people to participate. non techies. as more consumers go into the market, value and use increases for that particular coin.
GPU mining limits it to certain people. your familiarity with computers, prevents you from seeing even what may appear to be simple tasks as very complex to average users.

5% adoption world wide i am sure would dwarf a botnet. and I think that is the ultimate goal, for cryptocurrency to be adopted.

member
Activity: 118
Merit: 10
Almost all CPU coins end up being cracked to be mined with gpu's any way.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000

I live in a very small flat. Even one graphic card makes a lot of noise which prevents me from sleeping.

So your reasoning claiming CPU only coins are needed and that GPU coins need to be struck down is entirely based off self interest for a particular type of house you live in without any regard to which algo will actually see better market penetration or distribution.............ok.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
Not sure yet, but it'll be GPU mineable from the get go.
I find it a big concern that a coin requires an expensive graphic card to be mined. Sorry, but "democracy" and "you need to have expensive hardware" don't mix well together.

For me, everything that requires more than 25 dollars of hardware cannot be democratic. 25 dollars is the price of an Arduino, by the way.

Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists.  

If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples.

If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs.

Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better?  10:100 or 10:50,000
CPU: everyone can male a little, some are making a lot (botnet)
GPU: most people can not do any, some do well, some do very well
Factor in all those are left out of the equation, please.
I live in a very small flat. Even one graphic card makes a lot of noise which prevents me from sleeping. Now imagine 4-to-10. I have a passive computer for this very reason: I want to sleep at night.
Now, if you can get me powerful-yet-passive GPU, I'm all ears. I heard it exists.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
Not sure yet, but it'll be GPU mineable from the get go.
I find it a big concern that a coin requires an expensive graphic card to be mined. Sorry, but "democracy" and "you need to have expensive hardware" don't mix well together.

For me, everything that requires more than 25 dollars of hardware cannot be democratic. 25 dollars is the price of an Arduino, by the way.

Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists.  

If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples.

If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs.

Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better?  10:100 or 10:50,000
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
tacotime and others, you could be interested into this:

Context is NEM and PoS.
How the BitCoin network becomes centralized?

Google translate original russian post from Sasha PortMan : http://mmgp.ru/showpost.php?p=6543233&postcount=2136

The first stage - it was possible mining at home on videocards.
The second stage - it was possible mining at home on farms from ten videocards.
The third stage - mining it is possible was at home on tens farms from hundred videocards.
The fourth stage - the whole industrial pavilions, from hundred ASIC of mayner.
The fifth stage - tens mega constructions from thousands of ASIC of mayner.
The sixth stage - mega the corporations which are engaged in a mining which will have huge territories on the areas which will be specially adapted under a mining.

And the seventh stage, final - the strongest corporations from corporations will survive. They will be then not only to control the prices, but also to carry out all transactions. If the price of a coin is low, the network and any transaction will simply stop won't be carried out while the price doesn't become favorable to a mining. But it will be already in the most final phase when all mining one or two mega will control corporations on the mining, under control certainly to the government. Because probably you know if someone starts controlling that not in power was to control before to the governments within the corporation, the governments shortly will start controlling the one who controls the uncontrollable.

In general, I consider a mining - an error of decentralization. All computing capacities once will appear in hands of one mega corporations that conducts to centralization and control from the governments. Satoshi when I created it, I he think knew and guessed to what at the end everything leads it. Freedom is given only in the beginning when everyone can мaйнить at home on videocards, thereby forming the decentralized network. But here its complexity grows and grows that finally leads to centralization and to total control, up to even before network destruction if supervisory authorities of it want. And most likely they will want because yet time will find as someone sold for BitCoins drugs or sponsored terrorism, and so on. BitCoin for them at present as a splinter which just like that can't be pulled out. But Satoshi created it everything temporary, as a result a ball one will govern mega corporation and sure to appear over it will rule the governments. It will be the beginning of the end of a network BitCoin.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
Isn't this like phs?

No, different pos system.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
I was wondering when someone would come around and implement all of the cool features we are seeing in other alt-currencies at once, yet you seemed to have taken it another step further. How much of the code do you plan on borrowing directly from BTC using their stable base? Without trying to pick on an obvious influence for your current model, it's nice how your are already showing the inner working of the math involved within the original alpha white paper. Something that PPC is still lacking in my opinion.
Tacotime, now that you are big on cryptnote, why not using Cryptonote instead of bitcoin as a base? If you plan to take the best of all altcoin, cryptonote would fit in particularly well, don't you think?

The large transaction size for privacy is too cumbersome for my PoS system. Also, the btcd refactor is much more easy to code in (and I'm less likely to break things horribly if it's not C). Stealth addresses I could probably integrate.
Pages:
Jump to: