Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 49. (Read 95256 times)
November 07, 2015, 08:18:22 AM
I associate "credits" with debt creation, it does not appeal to me
November 07, 2015, 08:04:17 AM
Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.
While I appreciate your support, I would have to argue that "bitcoin" in 2008 was about as geeky as it gets. Aeon conveys a lot of things to me, a branding expert, notably something ethereal (digital money) but also exclusive and luxurious.
You know what I think of when I think of Aeon? (of course, I am investing heavily in it so my opinion should be regarded with a gallon of salt)
In fact, even making this post makes me wonder if we should start calling our sub-units 'credits' as well.
November 07, 2015, 07:44:41 AM
I like cyberjuice, unique 
November 07, 2015, 06:00:42 AM
More crazy currency name brainstorming:
cooljacks
cyberjuice
etastico
mobicash
mobit
mobie
mobyo
cybol
cybill
I think I like mobies. Mobi means mobile. Etasticos are neato.
Exactly that is the point.
Good point. Yeah we don't want 'cash' in the name of the juice that can drive the web. It should be something users generate for free from mining and web activity and don't even know it.
It is more akin to web inertia or ethos we are trying to capture in a name. As my grandma used to say, "use it or lose it" (she was speaking about time and her body, but same point applies).
cooljacks
cyberjuice
etastico
mobicash
mobit
mobie
mobyo
cybol
cybill
I think I like mobies. Mobi means mobile. Etasticos are neato.
Quote from: prvt msg
Advertising is something that people hate when they use web pages, and web site owners simply have to use them to keep the site operating and funded. Perhaps the netcodes could be used on web sites instead of ads by allowing people to pay with netcodes or giving a few seconds of cpu time mining codes for the site owner? Could be something people would gladly do instead of seeing ads if the user experience wouldn't suffer too much.
Exactly that is the point.
Quote from: prvt msg
And oh forgot to mention that if a page has a link that "costs" 10 netcodes, people will more likely pay or mine a few seconds for that, but if it costs 10 netcash, just because of the name they will associate it with money and people are reluctant to pay any money even how little if they think it should be free but they'll be fine generating "codes". 
Good point. Yeah we don't want 'cash' in the name of the juice that can drive the web. It should be something users generate for free from mining and web activity and don't even know it.
It is more akin to web inertia or ethos we are trying to capture in a name. As my grandma used to say, "use it or lose it" (she was speaking about time and her body, but same point applies).
November 07, 2015, 02:05:03 AM
I see that ion, ching, etc came from the ideas I had February 2014.
Thus another name for social money unit is:
moola
Note a copycat used that idea after I presented it, but it is already defunct.
The following sounds like "moo love it" (also from my 2014 ideas):
moolabit
Perhaps emoola or imoola is better than moolabit or bitmoola if trying to convert moola into a internet money, except it sounds like ebola.
Note ioney.net and ioney.io is still available should someone want to try to brand ions as money.
Thus another name for social money unit is:
moola
Note a copycat used that idea after I presented it, but it is already defunct.
The following sounds like "moo love it" (also from my 2014 ideas):
moolabit
Perhaps emoola or imoola is better than moolabit or bitmoola if trying to convert moola into a internet money, except it sounds like ebola.
Note ioney.net and ioney.io is still available should someone want to try to brand ions as money.
November 07, 2015, 01:09:05 AM
Bloqcash
blocoin or bloqoin
Sounds like blowcoin so cocaine.
P.S. In tagalog, the word for love and expensive are the same: mahal.
November 07, 2015, 01:03:47 AM
Alternative ideas to netcodes (: codes) that retain net prefix are:
neato
netangos: synergies
netarots: fortunes
netips: tips
netikis: collectibles, ornaments
nethrills: thrills
netokens: tokens
netroves: treasures
neato
netangos: synergies
netarots: fortunes
netips: tips
netikis: collectibles, ornaments
nethrills: thrills
netokens: tokens
netroves: treasures
November 07, 2015, 12:17:04 AM
Netcash is good to go.
I double dare you to delete this post.
I double dare you to delete this post.
Haha, no information has been deleted. Chillax.
Already registered:
netcash.click
netcash.me
Note I still think netcodes is the good risk to take on the social currency unit for reasons stated upthread, unless a better idea comes up. Any way if the market sells off netcodes and buys up netcash, then so be it (we won't lose either way). For the consensus block chain 2.0 network name I am still leaning to Netcode, but I haven't totally abandoned Sync or SyncNet.
Netcash is good to go.
+1It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...
Ion is donated to Aeon (but they haven't availed of the domain transfer yet).
Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.
Consider netcash.io as well. That .io [Indian Ocean] domain I am seeing more and more. Perhaps .gl as well (Google uses .gl [Greenland] at their equivalent of tinyurl.com: goo.gl). An example of goo.gl's URL-shortening service:
https://goo.gl/jiJcK7 (bearing sales 2012 - 2015, my avatar is the 11-IJ-111001 wheel bearing)
You may be able to lock up other domain names too, THAT would be a good investment IF NetCash takes off.
Also, contacting the owner(s) of netcash.com, .org, etc. RIGHT BEFORE you go live...
November 06, 2015, 11:47:43 PM
Netcash is good to go.
I double dare you to delete this post.
I double dare you to delete this post.
Haha, no information has been deleted. Chillax.
Already registered:
netcash.click
netcash.me
Note I still think netcodes is the good risk to take on the social currency unit for reasons stated upthread, unless a better idea comes up. Any way if the market sells off netcodes and buys up netcash, then so be it (we won't lose either way). For the consensus block chain 2.0 network name I am still leaning to Netcode, but I haven't totally abandoned Sync, SyncNet, or Syncnode.
Netcash is good to go.
+1It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...
Ion is donated to Aeon (but they haven't availed of the domain transfer yet).
Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.
November 06, 2015, 10:06:56 PM
Netcash is good to go.
+1It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...
November 06, 2015, 09:48:52 PM
Netcash is good to go.
I double dare you to delete this post.
I double dare you to delete this post.
November 06, 2015, 07:49:58 PM
'Netcash' is good.
This appears to not be used. If the community prefers this over netgold, then I will strongly consider using it as the non-social targeted currency unit.
Please feedback immediately on this name, because I am weary of registering domains we won't end up using.
I sort of like that because we can keep Netcode for the project and social currency unit, and then for those who concerned about the explicitness of money in the name have this non-debased ("hard money") currency unit to satiate their Bitcoin-envy.
Netcash is a good pick.
November 06, 2015, 07:28:59 PM
'Netcash' is good.
This appears to not be used. If the community prefers this over netgold, then I will strongly consider using it as the non-social targeted currency unit.
Please feedback immediately on this name, because I am weary of registering domains we won't end up using.
I sort of like that because we can keep Netcode for the project and social currency unit, and then for those who are concerned about the explicitness of money in the name have this non-debased ("hard money") currency unit to satiate their Bitcoin-envy.
November 06, 2015, 07:15:08 PM
Some posts about competing block chain scaling designs Bitshares, Iota, eMunie, and "block list":
What DB system do you use? MySQL? I use http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/MappedByteBuffer.html.
I have just recalled that Emunie does much more than just payments, in this case we cannot compare our solutions, because our cryptocurrency works with payments only and doesn't need to do sophisticated stuff like order matching.
MySQL and Derby for development, probably go with Derby or H2 for V1.0.
The data stores themselves are abstracted though, so any DB solution can sit behind them with minor work so long as they implement the basic interface.
That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck will mainly shift to network I imagine?
Both of these methods are horridly inefficient. Cripes disk space is not at a premium. Duh!
Network will become a bottleneck at 12'000 TPS (for 100 Mbps).
Yup, partitions my friend, that problem goes away
I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.
[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.
Why nonsense, it depends on linearity of the system. For a linear system order doesn't matter, for a non-linear one it does.
PS: We assume that multithreaded execution can't ensure a specific order of events, which is pretty reasonable for current architectures without placing a lot of memory barriers which would degrade the performance significantly.
Because (as indicated/implied by my prior post) it is more sane to design your system holistically such that ordering of transactions is an exceptional event, and not a routine one.
Conflation of "order book" with TX/s is a category error. It is not even clear if a decentralized "order book" can or should have a deterministic ordering, because determinism may allow the market to be gamed. In any case, it is not relevant to the issue of rate of processing TX/s for signed transactions. Separation-of-concerns is a fundamental principle of engineering.
I believe Availability will always be nine nines for any decentralized cryptocurrency and Consistency will always be eventual, so Partition tolerance is the only toy we all can play with.
I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:
It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.
Let's talk software engineering a bit...
That was like word for word what Bytemaster said in this youtube video heh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBlAVeVFWFM
Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense. Only if the inputs to a transaction fail to validate would one need to potentially check if some other transactions need to be ordered in front of it, or check if it is a double-spend. And he incorrectly implies that the only way to get high TX/s is to eliminate storing UXTO on disk, because presumably he hasn't conceived of using SSD and/or RAID and/or node partitioning. It is impossible to keep the entire world's UXTO in RAM given 36 bytes of storage for each 256-bit output address+value, given even 1 billion users and several addresses per user. He mentions using indices instead of hashes, but enforcing such determinism over a network makes it extremely brittle (numerous ways such can fail and having addresses assigned by the block chain violates user autonomy and the end-to-end principle) as well even 64-bit hashes are subject to collisions at billion-scale. Essentially he is making the error of optimizing at the low-level while breaking higher-level semantics, because he apparently hasn't gone about the way to really scale and solve the problem at the high-level semantically.
Edit: Fuseleer applies the term "vertical scaling" to describe Bitshare's optimization strategy.
Hmmm...Ive found that the major bottlenecks on lower end stuff is actually the IO DB writes/reads and not so much crypto related stuff. Sure it has a positive effect if you can speed it up, but a good 70%+ of optimizing I do is how to get data over the IO quicker and more efficiently.
That was like word for word what Bytemaster said in this youtube video heh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBlAVeVFWFM
Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense. Only if the inputs to a transaction fail to validate would one need to potentially check if some other transactions need to be ordered in front of it, or check if it is a double-spend. And he incorrectly implies that the only way to get high TX/s is to eliminate storing UXTO on disk, because presumably he hasn't conceived of using SSD and/or RAID and/or node partitioning. It is impossible to keep the entire world's UXTO in RAM given 36 bytes of storage for each 256-bit output address+value, given even 1 billion users and several addresses per user. He mentions using indices instead of hashes, but enforcing such determinism over a network makes it extremely brittle (numerous ways such can fail and having addresses assigned by the block chain violates user autonomy and the end-to-end principle) as well even 64-bit hashes are subject to collisions at billion-scale. Essentially he is making the error of optimizing at the low-level while breaking higher-level semantics, because he apparently hasn't gone about the way to really scale and solve the problem at the high-level semantically.
Edit: Fuseleer applies the term "vertical scaling" to describe Bitshare's optimization strategy.
Hmmm...Ive found that the major bottlenecks on lower end stuff is actually the IO DB writes/reads and not so much crypto related stuff. Sure it has a positive effect if you can speed it up, but a good 70%+ of optimizing I do is how to get data over the IO quicker and more efficiently.
What DB system do you use? MySQL? I use http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/MappedByteBuffer.html.
I have just recalled that Emunie does much more than just payments, in this case we cannot compare our solutions, because our cryptocurrency works with payments only and doesn't need to do sophisticated stuff like order matching.
MySQL and Derby for development, probably go with Derby or H2 for V1.0.
The data stores themselves are abstracted though, so any DB solution can sit behind them with minor work so long as they implement the basic interface.
That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck will mainly shift to network I imagine?
Both of these methods are horridly inefficient. Cripes disk space is not at a premium. Duh!
That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck with shift to network I imagine?
Network will become a bottleneck at 12'000 TPS (for 100 Mbps).
Yup, partitions my friend, that problem goes away
I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.
[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.
You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.
Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.
This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]
Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.
This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]
Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense.
Why nonsense, it depends on linearity of the system. For a linear system order doesn't matter, for a non-linear one it does.
PS: We assume that multithreaded execution can't ensure a specific order of events, which is pretty reasonable for current architectures without placing a lot of memory barriers which would degrade the performance significantly.
Because (as indicated/implied by my prior post) it is more sane to design your system holistically such that ordering of transactions is an exceptional event, and not a routine one.
Conflation of "order book" with TX/s is a category error. It is not even clear if a decentralized "order book" can or should have a deterministic ordering, because determinism may allow the market to be gamed. In any case, it is not relevant to the issue of rate of processing TX/s for signed transactions. Separation-of-concerns is a fundamental principle of engineering.
I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance.
I believe Availability will always be nine nines for any decentralized cryptocurrency and Consistency will always be eventual, so Partition tolerance is the only toy we all can play with.
I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:
- Confirmation is only every 10 minutes.
- Inclusion is in a block is dependent on the whims of the node which won the block, and on the maximum block size.
- One who has sufficient hashrate power, has higher availability.
- 51% of the network hashrate power can blacklist your Availability.
It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.
November 06, 2015, 06:43:07 PM
Bloqcash
'Netcash' is good.
'Netcash' is good.
November 06, 2015, 06:37:37 PM
Cybercash.
Already taken. That's why I thought of an alternative.
November 06, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
Cybercash.
November 06, 2015, 04:44:43 PM
Just throwing it out there AM... how about CipherCash/CypherCash? Anyways, looking forward to seeing your work.
November 06, 2015, 01:43:39 PM
...
TPTB evidently does not know that I "outed myself" as a new member of The Tinfoil Hat Brigade there at Zero Hedge the day they purportedly killed bin Laden and put him into the Indian Ocean without ANY evidence for us to see.
That day I lost all confidence in our government (and I mean ALL), so I signed up. Under the direction of Senior Zero Hedge Contributor "Cognitive Dissonance" I joined the Lunatic Fringe Battalion (instead of the possibly more glamorous Space Cadet Battalion). I am now at the rank of Junior Corporal. Promotion is slow with the Lunatics, it is also noisy and chaotic around here...
Now that you know some history, I will just mention that I would be getting lost in the tall weeds by further commenting on a new crypto.
I guess for me, I will wait until you have your work done. Then you can explain it to our community, and we will take it from there.
TPTB evidently does not know that I "outed myself" as a new member of The Tinfoil Hat Brigade there at Zero Hedge the day they purportedly killed bin Laden and put him into the Indian Ocean without ANY evidence for us to see.
That day I lost all confidence in our government (and I mean ALL), so I signed up. Under the direction of Senior Zero Hedge Contributor "Cognitive Dissonance" I joined the Lunatic Fringe Battalion (instead of the possibly more glamorous Space Cadet Battalion). I am now at the rank of Junior Corporal. Promotion is slow with the Lunatics, it is also noisy and chaotic around here...
Now that you know some history, I will just mention that I would be getting lost in the tall weeds by further commenting on a new crypto.
I guess for me, I will wait until you have your work done. Then you can explain it to our community, and we will take it from there.
November 06, 2015, 04:26:45 AM
eMunie is still an enigma, thus no determinations can be made yet.
Is there a whitepaper available also is open sourced or is everything closed currently?
I'm here because I find different solutions interesting, so congrats for it.
Unfortunately Im spending much more time in development and testing than actually writing docs....I've got a few half finished that I really need to get to that explain the ledger, balance system, consensus, debit cards and more in detail, I just need the time to get around to it.
I did post a consensus primer a couple of weeks ago you can find at this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-world-of-trust-emunie-consensus-primer-1159624
Even that is a little out of date now and there are some things I need to revise within it.
Code is closed source while under development.
Ahem. You need to prove mathematically and holistically that is a random process and not subject to game theory. That is essentially the fundamental problem with PoS, its entropy is bounded unlike PoW where the entropy is external.
A very simplified state machine of the longest chain. The block solutions are nearly independent events which can be approximated by the Poisson distribution.
One exception is the selfish mining attack where in the longest chain rule is subjected to selfish hiding of the dominate hash power. Yet even this state machine is reasonably simple, just a few simple equations.
Whereas the state of your system is numerous agents and states. It is not yet clear to me this model can be modeled with some simplifying assumptions. Perhaps you can work with your academic researchers to see if they can.
Yet my design maintains the simple state machine of proof-of-work, while removing virtually all the bandwidth scaling restrictions. You say you can't do 100,000 transactions per second microtransactions. I can easily.
Is there a whitepaper available also is open sourced or is everything closed currently?
I'm here because I find different solutions interesting, so congrats for it.
Unfortunately Im spending much more time in development and testing than actually writing docs....I've got a few half finished that I really need to get to that explain the ledger, balance system, consensus, debit cards and more in detail, I just need the time to get around to it.
I did post a consensus primer a couple of weeks ago you can find at this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-world-of-trust-emunie-consensus-primer-1159624
Even that is a little out of date now and there are some things I need to revise within it.
Code is closed source while under development.
there is no way to predict which SN will get the next transaction as it is based on human behavior
Ahem. You need to prove mathematically and holistically that is a random process and not subject to game theory. That is essentially the fundamental problem with PoS, its entropy is bounded unlike PoW where the entropy is external.
Bitcoin's ledger is a state machine also
A very simplified state machine of the longest chain. The block solutions are nearly independent events which can be approximated by the Poisson distribution.
One exception is the selfish mining attack where in the longest chain rule is subjected to selfish hiding of the dominate hash power. Yet even this state machine is reasonably simple, just a few simple equations.
Whereas the state of your system is numerous agents and states. It is not yet clear to me this model can be modeled with some simplifying assumptions. Perhaps you can work with your academic researchers to see if they can.
Yet my design maintains the simple state machine of proof-of-work, while removing virtually all the bandwidth scaling restrictions. You say you can't do 100,000 transactions per second microtransactions. I can easily.
Indeed it appears his system needs to be modeled as a complex state machine.
You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.
Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.
This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]
Imagine this highly technical discussion comparing PoW and PoS can't happen in the Bitcoin Technical & Discussion forum, because the overlord Gregory Maxwell moves it to the Altcoin Discussion thread.
You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.
Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.
This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]
| [1] | https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12242278 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12227357 |
Imagine this highly technical discussion comparing PoW and PoS can't happen in the Bitcoin Technical & Discussion forum, because the overlord Gregory Maxwell moves it to the Altcoin Discussion thread.
Jump to: