i can always / later verifiably proove that this POW chain is better than that one. By summing the work.
What makes you think the same isn't true in some POS implementations Which POS are you criticising, an actual one or a straw man you invented? Pure POS. I'm not trying to debunk POS. I really like certain aspects of it. Just some points, as with POW, still seem unfinished \ problematic. This thread is about pure POS N@S resistance, and I have not seen an answer to that yet. Anywhere.. Can you refer me to \ explain a version of POS which can compare valid chains without any external 'number' to bootstrap the process? (I'm not talking short range attacks, but long-range-total-chain rewrites) Thanks. I find your criticism valid and it applies to all forms of POS that I know of. However I don't see it as problematic, as long as you have a way to get that "external 'number'" in a secure/trusted/decentralized enough way. |
|
|
|
...
2) If I get control of a private key that in the past had lots of coins that were not used for staking, then my coins are "clean" and I can rewrite history from that moment in time by creating a chain with more V(u).
...
... (2) is a misunderstanding. You could not use (2) for any form of attack as far as I am aware. The private key that had lost of old coins in the past must have signed an outgoing txn. If not, it would still own the coins. I mentioned in one of the previous posts that spending on one chain and signing on another is grounds for blacklisting, but I wasn't clear enough. ... ok, I didn't understand blacklisting worked this way. I'll have to think about it a little more, but this at least gives me a new way to blacklist coins in the "valid" chain, now I have two methods for making it's V(u) lower. For V(u) you should count accumulated work according to difficulty, not number of blocks. |
|
|
|
Pick whichever chain, u, has the highest value for V(u) as the valid chain. This is the chain that is the most strongly supported by 'clean inputs.'
I think it doesn't work. 1) If I get control of a private key that in the past had lots of coins that were used for staking, by creating a parallel chain I can make some inputs of the valid chain "unclean", effectively reducing its V(u). 2) If I get control of a private key that in the past had lots of coins that were not used for staking, then my coins are "clean" and I can rewrite history from that moment in time by creating a chain with more V(u). By combining 1 and 2, the nothing at stake problem is still a problem. I'm working on a variation of PoS that will help with this. Please wait for it, the whitepaper is still being reviewed. |
|
|
|
|
To clarify some discussions on this subject: making a phone app for this is possible. It's a lot of work of course, but it could be a light client that only needs the latest block's header in order to be playable. It's not incompatible with the concept of proof-of-play. How to control the thing (using the accelerometers?) would be a challenge, but it's certainly possible.
|
|
|
|
XPM is the first coin that I am aware of that actually solves real life problems with its mining algorithm
There's also RIC and GAP. |
|
|
|
What is a rough figure of the number of cpu cores mining right now?
Compared to an i5 notebook @1.7 GHz, it's about 33000 threads. Give or take 50%  |
|
|
|
|
oops... we did it again!
block #164880, 654 digits. Beat our own record by 11 digits.
6897020365326551866855810285038730054058743293632691539796220960143467850190887 0722030125604856836649860281196446765477467082009197246319420818647688269938608 2393716593309811371422836387527549653095824492750394092045532275098135652952423 0783564723796539089887138727590205662187634974598781067751832038576484139973812 5659854387769605649102189835360450023320379862940392357016563411956474253654958 4121471881689569379964364152289494693118199337926886001843460903637314310532482 3067985175361717113790987114806635722695350634076883776876239511969775829984491 2094035883027689732811948362001198471312585963160365223148534057011836468555378 2567043880668996080767
I'll write a new press release...
|
|
|
|
As the purpose of life is to live, the purpose of all the energy in the Universe is to be wasted.
Fighting for freedom with PoW might take a lot of energy, but the end result is worth every joule.
That's not the point. Of course it's worth it. But what if you didn't need to waste it in PoW? what if you could use it to aid your fight in other way? I say that would be better. |
|
|
|
So I haven't really had time to follow this at all, due to school and whatnot. Heck, I didn't really even know about the hard fork until after it happened (good idea & I like the implementation as well thus far btw).
But... why is it that if Riecoin has broken the 6-tuple record, that I don't find anything on the first 5 pages of Google about it? Was there some sort of press release prepared and sent out? I feel like this is the kind of thing that should have been fairly highly publicized - at least a few places would have picked it up, even if you did up a fairly simple release and just shotgunned it everywhere even remotely relevant.
Of course, it's possible I've missed something. In which case feel free to tell me to go back to lurking.
I can't help but agree. Now it's proven to work it would be great to see some news articles posting news about it and telling people how they can get involved in the next super block to break this current world record. When is the next superblock? You're right! The next super block is at block number 164880, and there will one per week (ie once every 4032 blocks). They are expected on mondays but this actually depends on the probabilistic behavior of the network, so it can happen anytime, but there is a zone of maximum probability around mondays. Now that the record has been independently verified and acknowledged, it would be really helpful if someone could point me to a list of sites that are "even remotely relevant". Thanks and regards, gatra |
|
|
|
Just wait until SPOW launches next year from the Uro team, then everybody can be happy Everybody can never be happy and you can bet your last dollar on that ) Of course. I won't be happy with that. POS creates new attack vectors but we accept it because it eliminates the need for massive power consumption. That hybrid thing has the attack vectors associated with POS and still uses computation intensive PoW. The worst of both worlds! |
|
|
|
Yeah, it should be something like: 633 digits, 18 Nov 2014, Pablo Carbajo Gatra, Riecoin Project. 17 Nov 2014, in fact. Perfect.  It's fixed now. It also includes other Top-10 numbers found by Riecoin. |
|
|
|
Next step: beat that block 160848!
we'll have the chance next week, in block 164880. It could be a new recorld, or maybe a second place... it depends on you, the miners! |
|
|
|
Hmm, I'm seeing 633 decimals actually, is that right?  Yes, 2101 * log10(2) = 632.46 2102 * log10(2) = 632.77 so it doesn't fit in 632 but it was guaranteed to fit in 633 decimal digits. The 630 was a quick approximation using 0.3 instead of log10(2) which is actually 0,3010299.... The hall of fame updated almost instantly, working great! |
|
|
|
|
and the winner issssss..... ypool.net, of course
Meet the base prime for the new record of largest 6-tuplet:
1457068806397536567372795219585396051508263715754375515983762574121985642000982 3668302447862153321218662283776494655355283683046078325412596512988830989183513 4016028148376391477335294028615544696350993458772877657622091279628567559666549 1294239840306621145892093057985048351291074105253300069541526304926658133192031 7492630063563318852682564644426662782037445701630356234114990357923983758438637 8392653903870221101124209687177595498779757674767712364306682147365388176296110 4687707451544385875532574944734558344147983135411134477704408334222893652785645 7750982262810026677906552255496590497117829353304033209588309572243558131038726 7
Calculated in 72 minutes, when the expected average calculation time was 69. I just love it when it works!
Thank you and congratulations to you all!
|
|
|
|
160848 coming soon  Current difficulty is 1437, so the superblock should have difficulty 2079 2101. That means 624 630 decimal digits, more than enough to beat the record. We are there, now we just have to wait for the lucky miner... |
|
|
|
Less than 6 hs now. We reached the forking block a couple of minutes ago: those with versions older than 0.10.2 are no longer in my chain.
your chain? since when is it your chain? Of course it's not my chain, this is an open project and the belogs to the community. I've only contributed a few blocks to the chain. You known what I mean: "my" chain is the chain downloaded by the riecoin clients installed in the computing devices that I control. |
|
|
|
this coin needs new fresh air now
fresh air in the form of world record, ETA in 40hs from now that sounds interesting  Less than 6 hs now. We reached the forking block a couple of minutes ago: those with versions older than 0.10.2 are no longer in my chain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
