any idea about IOTA chaos?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iota-unmoderated-thread-1354220
Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 5. (Read 12632 times)
something wrong on the website?
the ELC amount is not popping out
the ELC amount is not popping out
This message was too old and has been purged
but seems even you complete it, you can only solve EP problems, it's more like seti@home project?
What is EP?
This message was too old and has been purged
Ive always wanted a cluster. The world needs more clusters
this project need a lot lot of work..but if you can turn this come true, it will rock..
but seems even you complete it, you can only solve EP problems, it's more like seti@home project?
but seems even you complete it, you can only solve EP problems, it's more like seti@home project?
This message was too old and has been purged
This message was too old and has been purged
Final remark before I go to bed. With all the mental energy we've put into user-supplied PoW, we've hardly even began to think about proof-of-correctness. I have, however, been thinking about it somewhat. My main conclusion is that it's complicated.
Well if we can agree on a scheme with many different transaction types (as described above to handle the decentralized computation power market) and a PoS backed blockchain-security (in whatever form, depending on pure PoS or PoW proportionate) we could theoretically set the ball rolling and begin with a development into that direction.
Users would see the progress and soon have something they can play with, and the itty-gritty details of the scheme can be still decided on in this thread
Users would see the progress and soon have something they can play with, and the itty-gritty details of the scheme can be still decided on in this thread
Another advantage to dumping user-supplied PoW. The project naturally splits into two subprojects - a cryptocurrency, and the distributed market for computer processing. As far as the cryptocurrency is concerned, we could maybe start by finding the existing one that best suits our purposes, and fork it.
Bitshares has something similar.
"Your ideas are both original and good. Unfortunately your good ideas are not original, and your original ideas are not good." -- Paraphrased from somewhere I don't recall.
Dazza, what do you think about the "submitting PoW transactions increase your chances to find a PoS block" approach?
Do you think we can used that as some sort of basis?
Do you think we can used that as some sort of basis?
PoS can be used in conjunction with PoW to mitigate problems with the latter. You could also just alternate between PoW and PoS (This was an early idea of mine which I never posted, my brain runs much faster than my typing fingers.)
My preference at this stage remains for pure PoS. User supplied PoW is going to be such a headache and incur so much computational overhead, to so little benefit, that I think we should just abandon the idea.
What does that leave us? A distributed market for computer processing, supported by a computationally inexpensive cryptocurrency. I think that is a worthy project, and more than enough work for us to be going on with.
This message was too old and has been purged
Random idea that I got on the way home.
What about this scheme:
1. PoW functions are submitted to the network and stay in a "pool" until their "gas" has been entirely used.
What about this scheme:
1. PoW functions are submitted to the network and stay in a "pool" until their "gas" has been entirely used.
By "gas" do you just mean ELC? Or do you envisage a second spendable commodity?
Quote
2. There are two types of transactions: the send-ELC transaction and the submit-work transaction.
OK. Eventually I think we will end up with many different types of transaction.
Quote
The latter is used by the "miners" to submit their proof-of-works and their bounty-solvings.
The submit-work transactions in this context spend the "gas" to the miner's address and at the same time provide the PoW proof which is verified as part of the transaction verification.
The submit-work transactions in this context spend the "gas" to the miner's address and at the same time provide the PoW proof which is verified as part of the transaction verification.
We need to distinguish between proof-of-work and proof-of-correctness. Blockchain security requires PoW. It doesn't care whether the worker is submitting correct results, so long as he has appropriately spun his wheels. The buyer, on the other hand, wants to be sure that the results are correct, including negative results. While he has the same interest in blockchain security as every other honest user, n this context, the buyer doesn't really care how the worker obtained the results. A faster algorithm just means that he gets his results faster. (This does not mean that the FAA is benign to the buyer, since in many attack scenarios the buyer gets incorrect results.)
Quote
Proof of work is measured in the same way as discussed: With the FAA attackable SHA256 scheme. However, in this context it makes no sense for the attacker to mine his own blocks and so earn his own money.
I don't see how. If PoW (rather than some other scheme) is still being used to secure the blockchain, then an attacker might use the FAA to control the consensus.
Quote
3. This is not a consensus yet. We still need to define when a "block" is found and the chance to find it must be proportional to the work that has been done so far (so, to the number of submit-work transactions)
Here, I suggest using a "proof of stake" scheme which goes like this (and that is the trick here): The likelihood of finding a block does not increase with the ELC one holds (as in a traditional proof of stake) but with the number of submit-work transactions one has contributed to the current block.
Here, I suggest using a "proof of stake" scheme which goes like this (and that is the trick here): The likelihood of finding a block does not increase with the ELC one holds (as in a traditional proof of stake) but with the number of submit-work transactions one has contributed to the current block.
I have an even simpler idea. Why not just have pure proof-of-stake but with no reward at all (or pehaps just the tiny transaction fees) for the PoS miner.
Without a reward, the perverse incentives criticised in the white paper and the website are eliminated. But the work will still be done. Coinholders have a strong interest in maintaining the blockchain - their coin is worthless if they don't. Additionally many coinholders will also be participants in the market, and so have an additional interest in its smooth operation.
With pure PoS, the FAA is mostly dead. My gut feel is that it will rear its ugly head again in proof-of-correctness, but even then, in the greatly attenuated form of DoS attacks. As far as blockchain security is concerned, it's dead.
This message was too old and has been purged
This message was too old and has been purged
Cryptonite looks good.
This is interesting though I don't see how it can help merchants. The very limits that prevent an account from being emptied too fast will prevent it from paying the merchant.
What I can see it being useful for, is account security. Suppose the user has generated a key, call it the primary key The user uses it to sign a secondary key. The user can then store the primary key in a safe place offline, and use the secondary key to authorise spends and to set, or lower a spending limit. Only the primary key can be used to remove or raise a spending limit, or to revoke a secondary key. (Edit: a secondary key could be used to revoke itself.) This way, if the secondary key is compromised the true owner can regain control of the account before the attacker has time to loot it entirely.
This could also be a way for someone to use an online wallet without entirely handing over the keys to the kingdom.
This is interesting though I don't see how it can help merchants. The very limits that prevent an account from being emptied too fast will prevent it from paying the merchant.
What I can see it being useful for, is account security. Suppose the user has generated a key, call it the primary key The user uses it to sign a secondary key. The user can then store the primary key in a safe place offline, and use the secondary key to authorise spends and to set, or lower a spending limit. Only the primary key can be used to remove or raise a spending limit, or to revoke a secondary key. (Edit: a secondary key could be used to revoke itself.) This way, if the secondary key is compromised the true owner can regain control of the account before the attacker has time to loot it entirely.
This could also be a way for someone to use an online wallet without entirely handing over the keys to the kingdom.
It might be a good investment of time to check Mini-Blockchain scheme which Cryptonite is using. It offers superb syncing from scratch (under 20 minutes to fully sync with few years of data) and much lighter blockchain because all transactions where previously unspent input was spent are discarded after a while (I think it is one week), it is not keeping all transactions at blockchain.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxcn-cryptonite-1st-mini-blockchain-coin-m7-pow-no-premine-713538
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxcn-cryptonite-1st-mini-blockchain-coin-m7-pow-no-premine-713538
To be honest, your DAG model inspired be ;-)
But something is still missing here I think, it does not yet feel 100% rock-solid. Maybe we figure it out.
Glad I could be of some use
I'll be interested to see what Dazza makes of doing it this way.
This message was too old and has been purged
Jump to: