The timely confirmation incentive in a system with no mining rewards

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:35:30 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 05:31:36 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:21:47 AM

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

Understood. Presumably you're compensating the miners for their difficulty PoW, though?

That is what I haven't decided upon yet (but in reality it is likely to be necessary to at least have some reward).

I like the idea of splitting up the POW as you suggest into a low and heavy one.
Would that mean that in general the wallets do the low one, but at very high speed by only collecting txs in some local range and form preBlocks. Than the havey ones Asic likes come in and collects + verifys the preBlocks into some final blocks, and all together low and heavy share some reward if all is done correct?

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 09:37:20 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 09:03:42 AM

It is certainly true that valuing the PoW expended by the miners is essential for knowing where the break even point for a double spending attacker is. I.e. the point at which what they gain from the double spend == their lost block reward from orphaning their original blocks.

If the reward is not in the form of a "coin" then I'm not really sure that "double spending" applies at all (as that is dependent upon there being a "coin" is it not?).

Let me suggest a hypothetical example where the "reward" is simply the ability to send an encrypted message (via the block chain) to another account.

Bitcoin uses the block reward partly to incentivise miners not to double spend, because they stand to lose their block reward attempting to orphan the best block. If you have a non coin based reward, I'm not sure the same can be said.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 10:14:52 AM

and mostly this forum is full of such idiots now

If you see the idiots who drive the opposite direction - may be it means that you are not in your band.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: amaclin on March 14, 2016, 10:13:28 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 10:09:22 AM

perhaps you fail to understand that "value" isn't a strict synonym for "money"

The 'has value' means 'can be traded to money'

No it doesn't - please use a dictionary to look up the word "value" and you'll find out that it is not what you think it is.

(actually I'm pretty sure you are just trolling me as you have done elsewhere so don't bother looking it up and keep on pretending - I'll just ignore your further posts)

@monsterer if you are interested to discuss this topic with me then please PM me (I think I'll be unwatching this topic now)

Idiots like @amaclin think that they can "get to me" but actually I just end up unwatching and ignoring them (and mostly this forum is full of such idiots now).

Perhaps their goal is simply to "stifle discussion" (and maybe they are paid to do so).

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 10:09:22 AM

perhaps you fail to understand that "value" isn't a strict synonym for "money"

The 'has value' means 'can be traded to money'

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: amaclin on March 14, 2016, 10:06:22 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 09:53:30 AM

something of value but not something that can be traded

Sorry. My English is too poor. I can not explain that the 'value' is equal to 'something what can be traded to another person on market'.
All things that can not be traded on market ( for example, stones from Pluto ) are not 'value' by the definition.

Then you should learn that "value" does not just mean something that you can sell.

As stated - I might "value" the ability to send an encrypted message from my account to another account but I can't "trade this value" because if I did then I would no longer be able to have a securely encrypted message (I would have had to trust another party doing that for me which would make it basically a "useless" service).

If you can't understand this point then it isn't to do with English sorry (perhaps you fail to understand that "value" isn't a strict synonym for "money").

To perhaps try and make it easier for you to understand it would be like having someone else do your Bitcoin transactions on your behalf (i.e. defeats the entire purpose of it just like when you trust exchanges to control your private keys).

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 09:53:30 AM

something of value but not something that can be traded

Sorry. My English is too poor. I can not explain that the 'value' is equal to 'something what can be traded to another person on market'.
All things that can not be traded on market ( for example, stones from Pluto ) are not 'value' by the definition.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: amaclin on March 14, 2016, 09:51:08 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 09:37:20 AM

Let me suggest a hypothetical example where the "reward" is simply the ability to
send an encrypted message (via the block chain) to another account.

The bitcoin is also the 'ability' to append some 'message' to a public file named 'blockchain'
Either you can trade this 'ability' to money or it is useless for you and everyone else.

I'm sorry but just because you say something is "useless" actually doesn't make it that (perhaps you have too high an opinion of your own opinions and if not then please stop making such unhelpful assertions about what is or is not useful to people other than yourself).

Some people may actually value the ability to send a private message to another person (and you can't actually trade that as you would be having to trust someone else with your private message then).

Thus the ability to send a secure message via a blockchain could very well be something of value but not something that can be traded (of course I'm sure you won't accept this reasoning as you are not reasonable but I think some others may be able to see the logic).

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 09:37:20 AM

Let me suggest a hypothetical example where the "reward" is simply the ability to
send an encrypted message (via the block chain) to another account.

The bitcoin is also the 'ability' to append some 'message' to a public file named 'blockchain'
Either you can trade this 'ability' to money or it is useless for you and everyone else.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 09:03:42 AM

It is certainly true that valuing the PoW expended by the miners is essential for knowing where the break even point for a double spending attacker is. I.e. the point at which what they gain from the double spend == their lost block reward from orphaning their original blocks.

If the reward is not in the form of a "coin" then I'm not really sure that "double spending" applies at all (as that is dependent upon there being a "coin" is it not?).

Let me suggest a hypothetical example where the "reward" is simply the ability to send an encrypted message (via the block chain) to another account.

How do you "double-spend" that?

(I don't believe you really *can* but if you aren't a minter then you also can't guarantee that your message will ever get into a block so if you want to send such messages you now have an incentive to do the POW that your account's effectiveness requires)

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: amaclin on March 14, 2016, 06:36:26 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:50:41 AM

I think it could be possible for the reward to be other than "coins".

There is no such thing as a "reward without money price [direct or indirect]". It is useless.

It might be useful to discuss why you think this is the case?

It is certainly true that valuing the PoW expended by the miners is essential for knowing where the break even point for a double spending attacker is. I.e. the point at which what they gain from the double spend == their lost block reward from orphaning their original blocks.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: amaclin on March 14, 2016, 06:36:26 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:50:41 AM

I think it could be possible for the reward to be other than "coins".

There is no such thing as a "reward without money price [direct or indirect]". It is useless.

That's your opinion but that wouldn't be the opinion of many millions of people that exchange services, etc. (or if you are going to say that this is "indirect" then obviously that is what I meant).

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:50:41 AM

I think it could be possible for the reward to be other than "coins".

There is no such thing as a "reward without money price [direct or indirect]". It is useless.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 05:45:59 AM

IMO it is essential for a couple of reasons:

1. Without a competition to mine, the maximum hash rate of the network is unknown, which means confirmation cannot easily be bounded as adversaries may lie in wait instead of using their power 'for good'

2. With no incentive to behave in favour of the network as a whole, rational behaviour may cause divergence

I tend to think you are correct although I think it could be possible for the reward to be other than "coins".

One possibility that I'm thinking of is service level (e.g. a consensus rule might favour txs from minting accounts over non-minting ones).

This could make sense with the initial P2P application that I am currently working on (being a decentralised BTC/LTC exchange).

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:35:30 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 05:31:36 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:21:47 AM

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

Understood. Presumably you're compensating the miners for their difficulty PoW, though?

That is what I haven't decided upon yet (but in reality it is likely to be necessary to at least have some reward).

IMO it is essential for a couple of reasons:

1. Without a competition to mine, the maximum hash rate of the network is unknown, which means confirmation cannot easily be bounded as adversaries may lie in wait instead of using their power 'for good'

2. With no incentive to behave in favour of the network as a whole, rational behaviour may cause divergence

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 05:31:36 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:21:47 AM

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

Understood. Presumably you're compensating the miners for their difficulty PoW, though?

That is what I haven't decided upon yet (but in reality it is likely to be necessary to at least have some reward).

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:21:47 AM

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

Understood. Presumably you're compensating the miners for their difficulty PoW, though?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 05:16:09 AM

In my design, this was also true, but I realised it was exactly equivalent to buying stake in a PoS system; once you have your identity, you have a constant probability of producing a block, therefore a constant cost for attempting a double spend.

I was looking to design a system with equivalent security to a PoW chain but with improved confirmation times, so I stopped exploring at that point.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough - to create a new account requires POW but to maintain an existing account also requires POW (and this has to be done at the same time). The big difference with the approach to the normal POW approach is that the difficult work is not needed at every block (and nor can new accounts be created at every block).

This does provide an equivalent security in that the expense to mount a Sybil attack (in terms of POW) grows with every new account you add (so you'd need a lot of computing power to gain the majority of currently minting accounts).

If you look at the ideas of "weak blocks" (which are very likely to be added to Bitcoin next year) then you'll see that the approach I am taking is a bit more like that.

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: CIYAM on March 14, 2016, 05:09:43 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 04:56:49 AM

I concluded that this system has a similar security model to plain PoS, since identities never get 'consumed' like they would in a PoW chain. I'm not sure if this is similar to your design?

Although the design has not yet been completed (it's about half-way there) what I have envisioned doing with regards to accounts is to have a regular need to provide a difficult (and memory exhaustive) POW so that you can't create Sybils without incurring more and more POW.

In my design, this was also true, but I realised it was exactly equivalent to buying stake in a PoS system; once you have your identity, you have a constant probability of producing a block, therefore a constant cost for attempting a double spend.

I was looking to design a system with equivalent security to a PoW chain but with improved confirmation times, so I stopped exploring at that point.

spartacusrex

hero member

Activity: 718

Merit: 545

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 14, 2016, 04:23:12 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 14, 2016, 04:15:53 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 13, 2016, 02:02:38 PM

The question is whether there needs to be any "reward" at all (assuming that you don't require increasing costs of hardware and electricity in order to run a full node).

As I see it, unless there is a trust based model like PoS, rational participants do not act in the benefit of the chain as a whole because the timely confirmation incentive is ill defined in a system with no rewards.

What I believe monsterer is describing is that no miner has incentive to mine as quickly as possible onto the longest chain if they are not risking income by not doing so.

I am of course aware of this.

I will not comment about my design to which monsterer is referring to in the OP, until he properly credits me for being the one who proposed such a design.

I will not reward plagiarists who don't cite the prior art. Theft is not a paradigm for success.

Eh.. !?

You're such a dickhead TPTB.. 'moments of clarity drowning in an ocean of arrogant shit..' - That's you that is.

..

@monsterer - LOVING your in-depth attacks/analysis of POS frameworks, and your study of this new DAGcoin/IOTA direction for POW chains. Keep it up!

Topic: The timely confirmation incentive in a system with no mining rewards (Read 2901 times)