Topic: Qubic - Quorum-Based Coin - page 5. (Read 25283 times)

Thank u for ur attempt to help.

To know what to place instead of "myprovider.com" u need to know IP address that allows to connect to ur computer from the outside. Go to http://www.whatismyip.com/ and watch ur IP. Let's assume it's "111.222.333.444". Replace the asterisks with "https://111.222.333.444/provider". That's it.

As its a jetty app will people be able to put it into their I2P "eepsite" so it runs over I2P? This saves them all the problems of having a known IP address, opening a port in their router and so on, plus of course provides anonymity...

-MarkM-

ok i downloaded the zip files... unpacked them all,

then went to change the 10* and replaced them with "https://myprovider.com/provider"

Is this wrong?? should i put my own website?? or what do i put here??

I then ran CMD and invoked the command      "java -jar start.jar"

Output I get is then:

2012-09-27 16:16:44.542:INFO:oejs.Server:jetty-8.1.7.v20120910
2012-09-27 16:16:44.589:INFO:oejdp.ScanningAppProvider:Deployment monitor C:\Doc
uments and Settings\ME\My Documents\Downloads\qubic\jetty\webapps at in
terval 0
2012-09-27 16:16:44.589:INFO:oejd.DeploymentManager:Deployable added: C:\Documen
ts and Settings\ME\My Documents\Downloads\qubic\jetty\webapps\root
2012-09-27 16:16:44.792:INFO:oejw.StandardDescriptorProcessor:NO JSP Support for
 /, did not find org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet
2012-09-27 16:16:44.839:INFO:oejsh.ContextHandler:started o.e.j.w.WebAppContext{
/,file:/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ME/My%20Documents/Downloads/qubic
/jetty/webapps/root/},C:\Documents and Settings\ME\My Documents\Downloa
ds\qubic\jetty\webapps\root
2012-09-27 16:16:44.839:INFO:oejsh.ContextHandler:started o.e.j.w.WebAppContext{
/,file:/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ME/My%20Documents/Downloads/qubic
/jetty/webapps/root/},C:\Documents and Settings\ME\My Documents\Downloa
ds\qubic\jetty\webapps\root
2012-09-27 16:16:46.135:INFO:oejus.SslContextFactory:Enabled Protocols [SSLv2Hel
lo, SSLv3, TLSv1, TLSv1.1, TLSv1.2] of [SSLv2Hello, SSLv3, TLSv1, TLSv1.1, TLSv1
.2]
2012-09-27 16:16:46.276:INFO:oejs.AbstractConnector:Started SslSelectChannelConn
[email protected].0:443


I take it i am being stupid on the URI of my provider... but was wanting to help u test so give me a shout and point me in the right direction and I should be able to have this running for u on a stand alone server i have spare

I've published my implementation of Qubic with its source code. Not a complete one, right now i'm testing how providers find each other on the Internet. More info on http://qubic.boards.net/index.cgi?board=technicalbase&action=display&thread=2. If u could help to test that would be great.

U can monitor activity of my own provider here - https://78.47.168.188/provider?123.

It's nice to see someone trying something really different from Bitcoin. I think the idea of getting votes from peers has some merit. It'll be interesting to see how well it works.

I've seen a lot of similar papers on the Internet and have not met any mathematically strong proof that such a system can't work. There is a way to find the solution by proving its in practice. I can fail, but I can succeed.

It's where Statistics works. U don't need to ask all providers coz even part of them will have almost the same percentage. Everyone decides themselves how many providers they wish to ask. And I'm talking about global consensus. A single provider receives reward as described here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1219095. The rate of new qubics is set by the Qubic network, the same as prices set by the market.

I don't know how it will exactly work. I have no ready answer. That's why I asked for help. I'm developing an implementation of the concept and I'm planning to change algorithms of the implementation until I get a working system.

There is no real proof-of-work. I used a term that is understandable by this community. I could say "Qubic is mined by network cards". "Weighted trust" idea looks like network-bound proof-of-work but I'm not sure it's correct to call it so.

1. Why "Quorum" is a loaded word:
     (Anonymous Global Quorum) The most important quality of Bitcoin is that it gets global consensus while being anonymous in the sense that it does not try to identify individuals among "the miners." Any public system that uses identifiers (e.g., an IP address, or self-reported public keys) is vulnerable to a sybil attack. Bitcoin's central innovation is using a proof-of-work competition to coordinate consensus without needing to distinguish between the participants.

      (Global Quorum with Identifiers) Ben Laurie described a quorum system where a network of globally 'trusted' providers performs a consensus voting protocol. http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf The "Greek democracy" scheme also works this way, just with a large number of identities. The mapping of identifiers to nodes has to be decided ahead of time, which usually implies a central administration (e.g., to assign IP addresses, voter IDs, or to certify public keys). This is the "traditional" way to do distributed consensus, but it's at least partially centralized, which is dissatisfying.

     Now I think you're getting confusing - is the "quorum" considered 51% of the entire network, or just among the 100 providers that a single individual asks? If Alice in the US talks to 100 providers, and Bob in China talks to a different 100, will they get different answers than the other 800/1000? How does a single provider among all the providers receive rewards? I get the idea that you are no longer talking about "global" consensus at all. If that's true, then this might resemble Ripple http://ripple-project.org/paymentrouting.pdf which is a p2p currency system about local currencies (for example each individual issues their own notes). On the other hand, there's no expectation that your credits are valuable to a random other person on the other side network though (who has no reason to trust the issuer). It's not "money" though because it's not universal. I'm interested because you said that the rate of new coins is set by some mechanism other than developer-fiat. If it's set by a quorum, then is it by a global quorum, or some local kind (i.e., you ask 100 providers what the rate of new coins is?)

    I think you're being very vague about how the quorum is defined, what its boundaries are, and how individuals observe its responses. If you try to make a clear statement of the assumptions and objectives for the technical components of your system, then we can probably get to the bottom of how it works.

2. "Network-bound proof-of-work instead of CPU-bound one is used"
    I'm interested in this, can you give more details about the network-bound proof-of-work scheme?

Qubic can deflate too. Depends on the quorum.

I don't really care of inflation/deflation, I wish to create money without disadvantages of Bitcoin, some extra advantages would be good bonus also.

Meh.  If inflation was a desirable property, one of the many, many attempts to create inflateacoin would have taken off.  None have.  Not exactly QED, but highly suggestive.

Good point of view. But some hoarders r still not happy with new coins appearing around.

No, no.  We welcome competitors.  If not for the corpses of the dead alternate coin systems covering the field, how would we have any way to tell how great bitcoin is?

Weighted trust built on history. Longer a provider stays (and send correct responses) on the network - more weight it has. Every provider has its own IP address which identifies it. Most of zombie computers popup and disappear on the Internet, so they r unable to earn noticeable weight.

OK so what implementation details will you be including in order to ensure that being out-numbered by botnet nodes will not be a problem?

-MarkM-

Thx. I was waiting for a reply like urs. To just to make statement that I understand that there are a lot of bitcoiners and litecoiners who are against any possible competitor of their lovely Coin. So I'll ignore all replies which r non-constructive ones.

We should distinguish a concept and its implementation. Depending on an implementation number of bots required to overtake legit providers could vary from 1 to 1000000000.

Perhaps u will laugh but I design this system to make the world better. U shouldn't trust me of coz. I'll publish source code, so anyone can audit it. Or make his own implementation.

How many bots does a botnet tend to have? Maybe only a few hundred thousand for a not particularly huge/notable botnet?

So botnets should be easily able to "51% attack" you until you have a few million "good" nodes, presumably?

Maybe you are yourself in control of one of the several million bots botnets, thus expect to easily defeat a few smaller (few hundred thousand nodes) botnets yourself to secure this coin? (Why else would you design a system explicitly ensuring botnets a massive advantage over normal folk?)

-MarkM-

Maintaining a lot of providers doing a lot of work during long period of time is expensive too. U can't just launch 100500 providers and say "I have 1000000000 QBC".

If number of "good" providers is higher than number of "evil" ones then I see no problem. When a qubic is destroyed "good" providers erase its data and won't say "it still exists". If u ask 100 providers then 51+ will say "it doesn't exist". Every provider keeps records about existing qubics itself. We (users of Qubic) need to ask providers only to get recent info to avoid double-spending.
Perhaps I can't get ur question, could u paraphrase it?

No, we don't have a lot of problems with anyone 51% attacking bitcoin because it costs a lot of money. IP addresses do not.


:sigh: Bitcoin does not ignore byzantine fault tolerance. It's part of that whole distributed-consensus block chain thingy you might have heard of.
"If u asked 100 providers and more than 50 said "yes", than u should consider it's legit qubic. If u r not satisfied with numbers than just ask 1000 providers and keep asking as long as u wish." - This reeks of byzantine failure. I am not familiar with Paxos, but by a brief overview it looks like it is made for a centralized service with distributed fault tolerance, not a distributed network protocol.

Faster u send transactions - more qubics will be rewarded to u.

Etlase indeed has good points regarding Sybil attack. This kind of attack can't be completely avoided without a central authority, but Bitcoin has similar issue (51% attack) and still works fine. If we grow in numbers the attack won't bother us.

Regarding inflation model... It depends on quorum of providers.

It's enough to defend. Sybil attack is like 51% attack in Bitcoin world. Do we have a lot of problems with anyone 51%-attacking Bitcoin?

No need. Bitcoin ignore such an issue and works perfectly (I'm talking about bitcoin clients that retransmit transactions, who makes them doing this correctly?). If at some step this becomes a problem, than Paxos will be added to implementations.

Thx. I've seen this long time ago. It's quite different.