Topic: Why isn't Proof-of-Bandwidth a bigger deal? (Read 319 times)

Indeed. This would make the internet more free and less communists authoritarian. That's the whole point and goal.

It's not what makes it secure. What makes it secure is its size. The size of the network makes it too costly to hijack the with the 51% attack, but PoW is the reason why it's susceptible to the 51% attack in the first place. Everything else about Bitcoin has already been done very much better in other projects. Specially in the privacy and security area. I don't understand why the money would flow to Microsoft, Amazon and Google in a Proof-of-Bandwidth Mesh Network. The network nodes produce their own bandwidth and instead of you paying the operator for a connection and bandwidth the network pays you a reward for relaying the bandwidth while you use it. That's the point

You're wrong on many points. PoW is what makes Bitcoin very secure and very expensive to attack.
Just like bandwidth, electricity is also in high demand. And the available bandwidth is increased when there's more demand, just like electricity production.
I have no doubt that a real valuable PoB-coin will lead to the creation of companies that buy bandwidth for only this purpose. It won't be something consumers can run from their unused ADSL bandwidth.

The current "mining cost" is a continuous flow of money out of the crypto economy and into the pockets of hardware manufacturers and power plants. That won't change if the money flows to Microsoft, Amazon and Google instead.

My bold and radial claim in this space is that Proof-of-Work algorithm is actually proven worthless. If you take the network as a whole, it absolutely costs more than it makes. This PoW based validation algorithm serves only itself and there is no real external demand for it from the general population. This is why the value have to be constantly supported with outside capital. Bandwidth on other hand is in constant high demand by everyone each single moment. A Proof-of-Bandwidth would not require outside capital to maintain its value.

Bandwidth is much easier to buy abroad than mining equipment.
If we switch from wasting electricity through wasting diskspace to wasting bandwidth, I'd love to join the madness before it breaks the internet. Unlike any other application that uses bandwidth, this won't have an upper limit to how much it can consume.
The cheapest VPS I've seen gives 500 GB bandwidth per month for $1 per year. That translates to 18 Mbit/s for $1 per month. I doubt it's scalable at that price. At home, I pay a lot more, but I don't max out my bandwidth. If there'd be a financial incentive to do so, "unlimited bandwidth" would probably be replaced by a fair use policy.
All in all I think it's a bad idea, but it would be interesting to see what happens if someone is crazy enough to build (and hype) this.

Yeah, they are called validator nodes. Theta token works like this. They use Google data centers as trusted nodes and rest of the user relays are "guardian nodes". Theta token as two tokens. Theta token itself and this worthless shitcoin named TFuel for the user rewards. It could definitely be done better somehow. So that it's decentralized.

The authors of this paper don't really try to convert the bandwidth reported by nodes into a network consensus. Rather they need trusted nodes as central authority.

They write "by using a starting vector that contains a small set of trusted nodes" and "if all the trusted nodes are honest, the consensus vector will put limited weight on the malicious nodes.". Then perform “liar detection.” Nothing is said about incentives for acknowledging that peers did in fact report their measurements and so on. The implementation would be just a network for some purpose where the nodes get, by the owners of trusted nodes, rewarded for bandwidth, but it wouldn't be a cryptocurrency.

So a practical implementation would be similar to a file sharing or data sharing Peer-to-Peer network, with the difference that you share a portion of your bandwidth and then get rewarded for that with some kind of token?

Would this not favor first world countries with good infrastructure and massive backbones? We already see centralization with Bitcoin, because China monopolized ASIC manufacturing and low cost mining farms. 

That was a much better link. This research dates back to 2014. The concept in itself is solid though the assignment servers seem an obvious central entity. Then again, they don't seem much different from the seed servers that bitcoin client connects to for initialization. The basic use-case seems to be to improve state of TOR network or any other bandwidth sharing network. Seeing that such research was at one point being sponsored by DARPA is interesting. What could the Navy be benefiting by sponsoring for something like this?

The authors haven't pointed to an actual implementation of the protocol and their own is probably closed source. The reason someone hasn't used this idea to actually implement and improve TOR network maybe because TOR is essentially a network of "willful conspirators". They don't need additional motivation. Yet, something like this can definitely be an incentive for lot of people to become TOR servers themselves. If someone starts an Alt-coin project using this idea, it would be a much better use of time than plenty other Proof-of-"Something" ideas. In fact, if the incentive currency is simply bitcoin mili-Sats with integration of LN on such a network, that would be a brilliant project by itself.

How much of it is feasible is for better minds than mine to comment on.

Proof-of-Something is the validation mechanism for which the computing process validates the algorithm as a currency with x value. Mining is the process of someone performing this task and earning a reward for it. Here's the concept of Proof-of-Bandwidth. (compensating relays). I guess you could use any crypto as payment for compensating the relays. You just need the set the currency for the relays network router.

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/chacs/sites/edit-www.nrl.navy.mil.itd.chacs/files/pdfs/14-1231-1559.pdf

I went through that link trying to understand what i could without going into details of PCA or Eigenvector (which honestly sounds amazing but would need more effort to actually understand). From what the paper says, this method allows peers to identify each others' actual available bandwidth in a trustworthy manner. Self-reporting and the possibility of reporting false bandwidth in peer-to-peer systems like Napster or bit-torrent is thus avoided.

Now, This admittedly is a P2P concept but nowhere have the authors proposed to either call it Proof-of-Bandwidth or gave any sort of analogy to Proof-of-Work, which by the way is a trustless solution to Byzantine general's problem. How does this particular paper or calling it "Proof of Bandwidth" solves the Byzantine problem??

You need to elucidate this more than linking "streaming economy" rewards based on bandwidth. That is a completely different thing compared to currency issuance or maintaining of a ledger. Bitcoin's PoW and cryptography solves multiple problems to be called a "PROOF". Maybe I haven't looked into this as much, yet why people keep insisting on declaring every new "Proof of so and so" as the next PoW is beyond me.

So you will be using the bandwidth to mine/generate the coins ?
With the introduction of 5G, this would not be a problem but I doubt that proof of bandwidth to be a success. People would not use the bandwidth for this purpose as the cost is high for most of the users.

The point is that bandwidth is a commodity in constant high demand by every internet user. The PoW algorithm is only in demand of that particular cryptos own network. This is the reason why they have such difficulties sustaining value without cash pumps. They simply don't produce anything that's in high demand. It will not make bandwidth more expensive. It will make bandwidth cheaper because there is more supply when people "mine" bandwidth.

Assuming that proof of bandwidth is theoretically secure, what's the point of using it when we have PoW? Proof of bandwidth would have a lot of drawback, if it got big enough, it would slow down the Internet as a whole. We already saw how when the quarantine started, videostreaming services had to lower the quality because it was affecting the whole network. Now imagine the effect of Bitcoin going from PoW to this PoB. It would also make bandwidth more expensive for regular users, just like it happened with GPUs when they started to get used for mining.

Sure but in this context we are talking about validating it as a currency.

My guess is that proof of bandwidth isn’t a bigger deal because bandwidth is already fairly easy to prove.

What exactly do you mean by that? It exists already. It rewards relays for contributing bandwidth to the network. Theta token uses it but it's rigged so that the node reward is just  peanuts. They have this separate toke for rewards which is much weaker in value than their primary token which is for staking. This could be done is a way much profitable way for the contributor where the network has just one more scarce token for both staking and rewards.

Most likely such protocol will turn into a cat and mouse game.

I've been currently detecting that there's a small streaming protocol boom going on. It's labeled under the term "content economy". Bandwidth seem to be becoming the ultimate internet commodity that people value most and a Proof-Bandwidth algorithm exists for compensating relays. So I'm wondering why Proof-of-Bandwidth isn't a bigger deal? I've read articles that it had some double spending issues too, but it was solved with this EigenSpeed bandwidth evaluations system. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/iptps09/tech/full_papers/snader/snader.pdf