there are guys having tens of VPS's with 8 cores and VM capability, raping every new coin, or simply mining YAC.
imagine all of those installing 50VM's with a client on every one of them. its easy and fast.
voting is beautiful , low-power idea. sadly, can't be done safetely opensource and decentralised.
to be secure, it has to be ripple-like closed and centralised, and thats no crypto currency, thats company issued credit.
Topic: TrustCoin - follow blocks in blockchain that are approved by known signatures (Read 1454 times)
May 31, 2013, 05:56:09 PM
May 31, 2013, 05:15:39 PM
Instead of proof-of-work, we use proof-of-origin. Basically, all miners have to prove that they got into the system through the approved channels (ie. by meeting and gaining approval of other miners)
afaik, the Ripple implementation at ripple.com works like that with their Validator concept.
May 31, 2013, 02:28:51 AM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
Ya. I started this thread at the same time the idea came to me, so I have not yet had much time to think about how to overcome such obstacles. I'm sure there must be a way..
I suppose you could do it socially...ie, only known friends can join the club. But that kind of like centralization in and of itself.
May 31, 2013, 02:04:33 AM
timeofmind, I have a system that is much further along in the ideating process linked in my signature. You might find it interesting.
can you link to it ?
May 31, 2013, 12:04:26 AM
timeofmind, I have a system that is much further along in the ideating process linked in my signature. You might find it interesting.
Brilliant! You've solved the problem of being able to mint coins in a "proof-of-stake" only system. That is great news.
May 30, 2013, 11:45:06 PM
timeofmind, I have a system that is much further along in the ideating process linked in my signature. You might find it interesting.
May 30, 2013, 05:08:59 PM
Why would I trust a network run by some private/elite group of miners who only allow their buddies to join the system?
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Well, idea is to build this "elitist" group to a large enough volume that it represents a large diversity of individuals and leads to a reliable system of transactions. Why does it matter who is verifying the transactions as long as you have guarantees that this group will do it in a fair manner? That is what this system would try to achieve.
Like I stated before, the primary goal of this concept is to create a network of "individuals". All that really matters is that every participant is a genuine individual... of course, I suppose this is sort of like "proof-of-stake", where the people who are most heavily invested in the system are equal members of this group.
The problem with proof-of-work, is that it is difficult to ensure that work is spread out evenly over the widest number of individuals possible, rather than concentrated. That is what this model attempts to solve.
May 30, 2013, 05:07:58 PM
Why would I trust a network run by some private/elite group of miners who only allow their buddies to join the system?
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Well, idea is to build this "elitist" group to a large enough volume that it represents a large diversity of individuals and leads to a reliable system of transactions. Why does it matter who is verifying the transactions as long as you have guarantees that this group will do it in a fair manner? That is what this system would try to achieve.
Like I stated before, the primary goal of this concept is to create a network of "individuals". All that really matters is that every participant is a genuine individual... of course, I suppose this is sort of like "proof-of-stake", where the people who are most heavily invested in the system are equal members of this group.
May 30, 2013, 05:05:47 PM
Why would I trust a network run by some private/elite group of miners who only allow their buddies to join the system?
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Well, idea is to build this "elitist" group to a large enough volume that it represents a large diversity of individuals and leads to a reliable system of transactions. Why does it matter who is verifying the transactions as long as you have guarantees that this group will do it in a fair manner? That is what this system would try to achieve.
May 30, 2013, 04:54:22 PM
Why would I trust a network run by some private/elite group of miners who only allow their buddies to join the system?
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
Bitcoin is great because it is fair and democratic. Anyone with adequate hash power can jump in and start mining
No approval required
May 30, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
Realize that the original idea posted here already achieves that to a great extent because how does corporation X build enough trust by the network to actually get any of its blocks approved? Remember, unless corporation X has its signature in the list of the majority of "miners" it will not be able to get any blocks into the chain.
You have to develop a substantial amount of trust among a large network of paranoids before you can even get your first block approved...
Corporation X would have enough difficulty getting itself approved, very well a whole network of 25,000 individuals! I think the biggest issue to overcome is how to actually build the network of "miners" up to a large volume.
May 30, 2013, 04:34:40 PM
Heh, I chuckled when I saw this, as I just posted about our currency that takes a similar approach to this.
From what we have tested so far with our algos, is that this kinda collaborative approach to peer verification is pretty solid indeed!
From what we have tested so far with our algos, is that this kinda collaborative approach to peer verification is pretty solid indeed!
Pleas give me a link to your post! I am very interested!
Here you go
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-emunie-emu-not-a-bitcoin-forkclone-call-for-beta-testers-220530
May 30, 2013, 04:30:39 PM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
Realize that the original idea posted here already achieves that to a great extent because how does corporation X build enough trust by the network to actually get any of its blocks approved? Remember, unless corporation X has its signature in the list of the majority of "miners" it will not be able to get any blocks into the chain.
You have to develop a substantial amount of trust among a large network of paranoids before you can even get your first block approved...
May 30, 2013, 04:29:06 PM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
Realize that the original idea posted here already achieves that to a great extent because how does corporation X build enough trust by the network to actually get any of its blocks approved? Remember, unless corporation X has its signature in the list of the majority of "miners" it will not be able to get any blocks into the chain.
May 30, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
Ya. I started this thread at the same time the idea came to me, so I have not yet had much time to think about how to overcome such obstacles. I'm sure there must be a way..
May 30, 2013, 04:12:46 PM
Of course, another benefit of this system is that nobody needs to waste CPU power looking for random strings of data...
May 30, 2013, 04:12:18 PM
How do you validate new users/miners? Consensus is what occurs after you decide on validation parameters...what stops Corporation X from hiring 25,000 stooges?
May 30, 2013, 04:10:58 PM
you still have to prevent people from creating / controlling many signatures, this seems hard to me.
maybe feasible, maybe not ... especially as long as you want to stay fully decentralized.
maybe feasible, maybe not ... especially as long as you want to stay fully decentralized.
May 30, 2013, 04:09:28 PM
Heh, I chuckled when I saw this, as I just posted about our currency that takes a similar approach to this.
From what we have tested so far with our algos, is that this kinda collaborative approach to peer verification is pretty solid indeed!
From what we have tested so far with our algos, is that this kinda collaborative approach to peer verification is pretty solid indeed!
Pleas give me a link to your post! I am very interested!
May 30, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
Bitcoin and all subsequent alts were built on the idea that you in fact can't trust individuals ...
A trusted miner can be hacked or turn evil without notice.
Someone could create many miners by slowly making them go through your "acceptance channel" and then make them all act synchronously to disrupt / cheat the system.
Proof-of-work is a huge waste of energy, but has the advantage to not require trust in any particular individual.
(you kind of trust the network as a whole though)
A trusted miner can be hacked or turn evil without notice.
Someone could create many miners by slowly making them go through your "acceptance channel" and then make them all act synchronously to disrupt / cheat the system.
Proof-of-work is a huge waste of energy, but has the advantage to not require trust in any particular individual.
(you kind of trust the network as a whole though)
The problem with proof-of-work, is that the "proof-of-work" can be potentially owned by few entities. This model is to ensure that doesn't happen. Yes, someone could *try* to build up a network of many accepted signatures... my idea is to conceive of a system for adding signatures that would make that extremely difficult to accomplish. Right now, the centralization of proof-of-work is a major concern of many.
Jump to: