please delete | Bitcointalksearch.org

SapphireSpire

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 38

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 28, 2017, 02:11:45 AM

Yes, but you propose to *increase* the amount of work thrown away, because of the redundant data inside the sub-chains, compared to bitcoin.

Moreover, you are making an incorrect assumption about higher transaction throughput always resulting in more redundant data; this is necessarily true for a pure blockchain, but if you use a different LCR scoring rule, and include orphans in the weighting, you don't throw work away.

Read more here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/teto-trustless-total-order-for-transactions-in-a-dag-based-cryptocurrency-1992827

In Bitcoin, all but one of the blocks produced at the same time are redundant. When a block is solved, the work done on all other blocks gets thrown away and any transactions not included in the solved block have to be re-worked into later blocks. If there are 100 blocks at a time, 99% of the work is wasted. If there are 1000 blocks at a time, 99.9% of the work is wasted. Thus the amount of wasted work is always proportional to the transaction volume.

In my proposal, none of the blocks or chains in the superblockchain are thrown away so none of the work is wasted.

SapphireSpire

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 38

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 26, 2017, 11:29:10 AM

In any mining scheme where you throw away work, the more work you throw away, the less secure the whole system. As far as I see it, your proposal reduces overall chain security because of the increase in redundant work.

Well you're wrong. All mining schemes throw away redundant work (e.g. orphaned blocks). The higher the transaction volume, the more work has to be done and the more redundant work has to be thrown out. The numbers increase but the proportions say the same. None of it has a negative impact on security.

SapphireSpire

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 38

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 26, 2017, 12:59:49 AM

Quote from: SapphireSpire on July 25, 2017, 06:27:04 PM

Miners will create duplicate superblocks (not subblocks) because they are working competitively, not because the difficulty is low. The blockchains in the subblocks aren't forks because they aren't linked. They exist in parallel rather than in series. You can think of them as different but equally valid versions of the same transaction history. In any case, the elimination of duplicate transactions is part of the mining process at every level.

That's functionally the same as a fork.

No, a fork is when a main chain branches off into multiple chains that compete to become the main chain. Subblock chains don't branch from anything and they don't compete. If anything they reinforce each other. Duplicate transactions represent multiple confirmations.

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 26, 2017, 12:59:49 AM

Forks are parallel, redundant work.

In addition, there *will* be an increase in the amount of duplicate work (call that forking, or whatever) when you lower the difficulty, and this duplication reduces the security of the system as whole because you discard all but one set of duplicates.

An increase in duplicate work but not forking. A cooperative mining scheme, like a mining pool, would eliminate duplicate work and be more energy efficient but it would also give a majority attacker total control over the mining process. Competitive mining is more secure and redundant work is unavoidable. A lower hash difficulty would be less secure in a single-level mining scheme but not in a multilevel mining scheme where the additional levels of mining work to secure the first.

SapphireSpire

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 38

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 25, 2017, 02:37:35 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Each level 1 superblock, created by a level 2 miner, is just a short blockchain- a chain of regular blocks.
Each level 2 superblock, created by a level 3 miner, is a chain of level 1 superblocks and is therefore a blockchain of blockchains.
The subblocks of each superblock are different blockchains but they are not forks.

But multiple miners will create duplicate sets of subblocks because of the lower difficulty, and I can't see how this is different from forking. How do you arbitrate between them?

Miners will create duplicate superblocks (not subblocks) because they are working competitively, not because the difficulty is low. The blockchains in the subblocks aren't forks because they aren't linked. They exist in parallel rather than in series. You can think of them as different but equally valid versions of the same transaction history. In any case, the elimination of duplicate transactions is part of the mining process at every level.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: SapphireSpire on July 29, 2017, 12:21:33 PM

In my proposal, none of the blocks or chains in the superblockchain are thrown away so none of the work is wasted.

Quote

Miners will create duplicate superblocks (not subblocks) because they are working competitively, not because the difficulty is low. The blockchains in the subblocks aren't forks because they aren't linked. They exist in parallel rather than in series. You can think of them as different but equally valid versions of the same transaction history

Quote

Each level 1 superblock, created by a level 2 miner, is just a short blockchain- a chain of regular blocks.

Quote

2nd level mining
Level 1 blocks are ordered and processed into blockchains to create level 1 superblocks and duplicate transactions are deleted so that only one instance can be spent. The hash is a little more difficult and the mining reward is a little better.

Seems from these quotes that:

A) Difficulty is much lower in level 2
B) Miners will create duplicate level 2 chains
C) All but one duplicate is discarded

Explain why no extra PoW is thrown away compared to bitcoin?

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: SapphireSpire on July 27, 2017, 03:40:47 PM

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 26, 2017, 11:29:10 AM

In any mining scheme where you throw away work, the more work you throw away, the less secure the whole system. As far as I see it, your proposal reduces overall chain security because of the increase in redundant work.

Well you're wrong. All mining schemes throw away redundant work (e.g. orphaned blocks). The higher the transaction volume, the more work has to be done and the more redundant work has to be thrown out. The numbers increase but the proportions say the same. None of it has a negative impact on security.

Yes, but you propose to *increase* the amount of work thrown away, because of the redundant data inside the sub-chains, compared to bitcoin.

Moreover, you are making an incorrect assumption about higher transaction throughput always resulting in more redundant data; this is necessarily true for a pure blockchain, but if you use a different LCR scoring rule, and include orphans in the weighting, you don't throw work away.

Read more here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/teto-trustless-total-order-for-transactions-in-a-dag-based-cryptocurrency-1992827

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: SapphireSpire on July 26, 2017, 10:36:09 AM

An increase in duplicate work but not forking. A cooperative mining scheme, like a mining pool, would eliminate duplicate work and be more energy efficient but it would also give a majority attacker total control over the mining process. Competitive mining is more secure and redundant work is unavoidable. A lower hash difficulty would be less secure in a single-level mining scheme but not in a multilevel mining scheme where the additional levels of mining work to secure the first.

In any mining scheme where you throw away work, the more work you throw away, the less secure the whole system. As far as I see it, your proposal reduces overall chain security because of the increase in redundant work.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: SapphireSpire on July 25, 2017, 06:27:04 PM

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 25, 2017, 02:37:35 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Each level 1 superblock, created by a level 2 miner, is just a short blockchain- a chain of regular blocks.
Each level 2 superblock, created by a level 3 miner, is a chain of level 1 superblocks and is therefore a blockchain of blockchains.
The subblocks of each superblock are different blockchains but they are not forks.

But multiple miners will create duplicate sets of subblocks because of the lower difficulty, and I can't see how this is different from forking. How do you arbitrate between them?

Miners will create duplicate superblocks (not subblocks) because they are working competitively, not because the difficulty is low. The blockchains in the subblocks aren't forks because they aren't linked. They exist in parallel rather than in series. You can think of them as different but equally valid versions of the same transaction history. In any case, the elimination of duplicate transactions is part of the mining process at every level.

That's functionally the same as a fork. Forks are parallel, redundant work. In addition, there *will* be an increase in the amount of duplicate work (call that forking, or whatever) when you lower the difficulty, and this duplication reduces the security of the system as whole because you discard all but one set of duplicates.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Each level 1 superblock, created by a level 2 miner, is just a short blockchain- a chain of regular blocks.
Each level 2 superblock, created by a level 3 miner, is a chain of level 1 superblocks and is therefore a blockchain of blockchains.
The subblocks of each superblock are different blockchains but they are not forks.

But multiple miners will create duplicate sets of subblocks because of the lower difficulty, and I can't see how this is different from forking. How do you arbitrate between them?

macedoniantable

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

I think China have already come up with their solution to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 24, 2017, 08:44:25 AM

Assuming you can prune transactions and still end up with a valid sorting order - how do you address the increasing in forking resulting from the lower difficulty of stage 2 compared to bitcoin?

Forking doesn't happen until the last and most difficult level of mining, when the final level of superblocks are competing for inclusion on the superblockchain. Multiple chains of similar length may be competing and Bitcoin can handle it the same way it does now- by mining on the longest chain.

What prevents forking of level 2 blocks?

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 24, 2017, 01:16:02 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

It's not possible to avoid duplicates in your example but any two of the three blocks will include all three transactions so I can exclude one of the three blocks and quarantine the second instance of any duplicate transaction in a table entry that points back to the first instance of that transaction.

For instance, if I exclude block 2, I get duplicate A transactions in blocks 1 and 3 so, I quarantine the 2nd transaction of block 3.
([b3, t2] -> [b1, t1])

But what if A spends C's outputs? Stage 2's block chaining then fails, producing an invalid overall ordering?

Well then you didn't sort them right, not my fault. Roll Eyes

You ask excellent questions though, I love your face. Cheesy

Assuming you can prune transactions and still end up with a valid sorting order - how do you address the increasing in forking resulting from the lower difficulty of stage 2 compared to bitcoin?

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

It's not possible to avoid duplicates in your example but any two of the three blocks will include all three transactions so I can exclude one of the three blocks and quarantine the second instance of any duplicate transaction in a table entry that points back to the first instance of that transaction.

For instance, if I exclude block 2, I get duplicate A transactions in blocks 1 and 3 so, I quarantine the 2nd transaction of block 3.
([b3, t2] -> [b1, t1])

But what if A spends C's outputs? Stage 2's block chaining then fails, producing an invalid overall ordering?

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

This would be better developed in an altcoin or testnet other than into Bitcoin itself in my honest opinion. I believe that Bitcoin has reached far enough as is for there to be such fundamental changes.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Not exclude, quarantine. Starting with the 2nd level, all but one instance of every transaction in a superblock will have to be quarantined so that only one instance can be spent.

Is there not the pathological case where this is physically impossible?

level 1 blocks, containing transactions A,B,C:
[A, B]
[B, C]
[C, A]

Chose the subset which doesn't duplicate transactions.

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: monsterer2 on July 23, 2017, 12:42:19 PM

How do you deal with individual transactions getting included in multiple separate blocks in the 1st stage of mining?

In the proceeding levels, how do you deal with the inevitable increase in forking due to the lower difficulty?

Part of each stage of mining is the exclusion of elements that contain the same transaction data.

Detail is everything. Exclusion how?

monsterer2

full member

Activity: 351

Merit: 134

How do you deal with individual transactions getting included in multiple separate blocks in the 1st stage of mining?

In the proceeding levels, how do you deal with the inevitable increase in forking due to the lower difficulty?

SapphireSpire

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 38

nothing to see

Topic: please delete (Read 1990 times)