New coin ideia - reveal the private key - Democracycoin?

soldate

member

Activity: 237

Merit: 14

yeah you are right.. i think "my ideia" is actually a "permissioned blockchain".

in fact 100% real decentralization is impossible, its always be more or less decentralization.

bitcoin has a fame of being descentralized, but its in fact very few decentralized. few developers can really understand the code, few miners (very big miners)..

people should keep looking for solutions, but i guess greed has already ended this search

Quote from: d5000 on September 24, 2024, 09:23:54 PM

This does already exist, in many variants. It's called a "permissioned blockchain". One example is the Bitcoin "sidechain" Liquid. As all nodes are known, if one node misbehaves, he can be excluded from the list.

A slightly more decentralized variant is DPoS or delegated Proof of Stake, where stakers (coin owners) vote a subset of validators.

However, 50% for a "vote" has been proven too low for these algorithms. Most use two thirds (66%), which is also the threshold for PBFT, the technical base of Ethereum since the Merge.

Double spending is also not fixed by "revealing a private key". Normally in double spends two subsets of nodes are tricked, one (with the victim(s) amoung them) into believing that a transaction is valid, the other that it never existed or that it was invalid.

In a permissioned blockchain however this is normally not possible. But all nodes have to trust each other. So I see no advantage of your "reveal private key" approach to the traditional Bitcoin transaction format, where you don't reveal a private key but sign a transaction.

icalical

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 268

Fully Regulated Crypto Casino

I don't know whether OP is joking or actually want a serious discussion, but I will response seriously. So, OP has an interesting idea, but then it runs into a number of problems, especially in comparison to more established systems such as Bitcoin's PoW. One of the core decentralization properties required for cryptocurrencies is that no single entity ends up in control of more than a certain percentage of the network. The fixed list of nodes is pretty vulnerable to that.

Centralization and Sybil attacks are among the major risks here. For instance, if an attacker controls a large number of those fixed nodes, one may even manipulate the results of the transactions. That's why PoW design avoids this-the shifting of computing power rather than a fixed set of nodes so as to be more resistant against such kind of attacks.

Also, in PoW, there is a way to solve the problem of double spending since miners would need actually to spend a lot for the validation of the transactions. Furthermore, the proposed system of sending the private key directly can be vulnerable if some nodes are compromised. While simplification is always tempting, it is the balance of security and decentralization in systems like Bitcoin that explains why big parts have worked until today.

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3164

Merit: 937

Quote

the owner of the coin (public key) wants to send it to someone else.

it signs a transaction with the coin id and the public key of the new owner and notifies all the urls in the list.

then it counts the 'ok' answers.

If it gets 50% + 1 'oks', it sends the private key to the nodes.

Transaction complete. That coin has a new owner.

This doesn't sound very user-friendly, if you ask me. How does the user "notify all the URLs in the list"? Automatically or manually? Grin

Anyway, you should move this forum thread to the Altcoin Discussion forum or the Project Development forum(if you are really planning to launch such altcoin).
What would be the transaction fees in such "blockchain"? I can assume that the transactions with a bigger fee will get more OKs from the nodes. Grin

Every coin having a unique ID also seems quite confusing. How many coins will be in circulation? 1 million? 100 million? 10 billion?
Can you imagine 100 billion coins and each and every coin having a unique ID?

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

This does already exist, in many variants. It's called a "permissioned blockchain". One example is the Bitcoin "sidechain" Liquid. As all nodes are known, if one node misbehaves, he can be excluded from the list.

A slightly more decentralized variant is DPoS or delegated Proof of Stake, where stakers (coin owners) vote a subset of validators.

However, 50% for a "vote" has been proven too low for these algorithms. Most use two thirds (66%), which is also the threshold for PBFT, the technical base of Ethereum since the Merge.

Double spending is also not fixed by "revealing a private key". Normally in double spends two subsets of nodes are tricked, one (with the victim(s) amoung them) into believing that a transaction is valid, the other that it never existed or that it was invalid.

In a permissioned blockchain however this is normally not possible. But all nodes have to trust each other. So I see no advantage of your "reveal private key" approach to the traditional Bitcoin transaction format, where you don't reveal a private key but sign a transaction.

soldate

member

Activity: 237

Merit: 14

Quote from: Stalker22 on September 24, 2024, 02:25:07 PM

I think maybe you are oversimplifying this a little too much. The system you described seems to have some big holes that could make it pretty easy to hack. For instance, having a set list of nodes that everything runs through leaves a pretty obvious weak spot. If someone managed to mess with enough of those nodes, they could maybe bring the whole system down and or make fake nodes to rig the voting system.

Whats to stop someone from creating hundreds or thousands of fake nodes even on a single computer?

the urls/nodes will be written in the source code. more nodes, more decentralized.

Stalker22

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1359

I think maybe you are oversimplifying this a little too much. The system you described seems to have some big holes that could make it pretty easy to hack. For instance, having a set list of nodes that everything runs through leaves a pretty obvious weak spot. If someone managed to mess with enough of those nodes, they could maybe bring the whole system down and or make fake nodes to rig the voting system.

Whats to stop someone from creating hundreds or thousands of fake nodes even on a single computer?

soldate

member

Activity: 237

Merit: 14

Suppose:

a huge (100? 1000? 10k?) list of urls/nodes in the source code

many coins, each coin with a different id and owner (public key).

the owner of the coin (public key) wants to send it to someone else.

it signs a transaction with the coin id and the public key of the new owner and notifies all the urls in the list.

then it counts the 'ok' answers.

If it gets 50% + 1 'oks', it sends the private key to the nodes.

Transaction complete. That coin has a new owner.

Since the private key has been revealed, there is no way to double spend.

If the transaction/coin does not receive 50% + 1 of the votes, in pratice it will be "burned" (nobody will not be able to spend it).

While the majority of the nodes/ips are honest, the coin is safe.

"The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains." - Satoshi Nakamoto

We just need a FIXED long list of nodes/urls.

If we choose 300 nodes, we already has a propaganda for the coin Grin

Topic: New coin ideia - reveal the private key - Democracycoin? (Read 92 times)