un-!@#$ing believable. try and use it to conduct commerce and they burn you at the stake. give it as an anonymous cash payment to a politician and you win an award. -bm |
|
|
|
"Pierce, a flamboyant former child actor"-bm
|
|
|
|
consider that, under the proposed model of ethereum,
Yes, when I first read their stuff I found it terrifying. Each address is like a little computer, with local state, exchanging messages with other addresses, all within the block-chain. Nice academically, but seeming like a horrendously inefficient way to do computation. It made me think of trying to compute with 1-dimensional finite state automata, or Conway's Game of Life. I get the appeal but I don't think it's practical. ya it does somewhat conjure up the Wolfram works doesn't it? the basic problem is this: entropy(σ-state) = O(∞). where σ-state is Ethereum's expanded UTXO concept. in english: the application state has infinite information in it. In addition they lack a useful economic model that offers an incentive for nodes to either store, manage and compute sigma. They've got their wires crossed concerning PoW concepts and the work it takes to compute σ. In bitcoin entropy(σ-state) = O(num accounts) (just eyeballing that). Although gmaxwell has made some progress in understanding how this works: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas -bm |
|
|
|
These sorts of schemes still erode the decentralization, but they are a step forward from the status quo. I can't figure out how that was supposed to be an improvement to the "status quo" (presumably in Bitcoin). Truly decentralized mining works fine today though its not currently very popular, that text is talking about a world where it isn't economically possible. Moreover, even accepting the motivation the solution sounds like a handwave in other ways as well: Pooling allows work delegation because of the huge ratio of work for solving vs verifying. Script work is all verification, barring complex and insanely expensive things like proofs of computation the best I think you can do there is farm the work out to N miners and ask for the hash of the execution transcript, and if there are disagreements verify for yourself... but even that fails if the N miners are sibyls and it has N fold overhead. What am I missing here? they do employ something like a 'hash of the execution transcript', the whitepaper mentions the hashing of the global state. The simple fact is they don't have any of these things worked out, and either they've got people excited about a quasi-p2p contract engine or those people are just 'paid picketer' types(I suspect some of that is going on). most of the meat of this thing is going to be figuring out how to somehow involve and incentivize this massive distributed computation. They act as though this problem is solved, and perhaps it is- but not in a p2p way. I can't even see how on earth people are going to want to maintain this massive block chain on their own PCs. It's simply not clear at all how they make it feasible and attractive for people to download this chain and verify blocks, it's quite a different economic function from Bitcoin because in Bitcoin, the work is the hashing. Here the work is the actual transaction verification itself(presumably in addition to the SHA256). They simultaneously talk about how great and powerful these features are while trivializing the huge distributed computation problems they imply. -bm |
|
|
|
an example of the sort of 'solutions' to the problem Ethereum ideas pose: I think ultimately what you will see is more pooling. You can sign up to a pool where you simply contribute CPU shares for portions of the work that get farmed to you, which is not the entire work of the block, but just the execution of say 10 contract messages in that block. Or you contribute storage, which is not ALL the storage, but a subset which the pool operator can request from you as they need it. These sorts of schemes still erode the decentralization, but they are a step forward from the status quo. again some of these suppositions do not account for all the issues of processing this absolutely enormous 'global state' (like a UTXO but much more frightening). If we do need to distribute this over many machines, absolutely at this point in time not only do we lack the software for doing so- we lack the THEORY for managing this task. These guys are just in outer space here. -bm |
|
|
|
But we really need is McDonald's to be affiliated with bitcoin, you know how many people buy fast food. If we get all the fast food chains to buy with bitcoin than it would get a lot of attention
McDonalds! Let's get Monsanto while we're at it, and go for that big pharma dollar too! Seriously though. There is nothing good to be said about Monsanto. McDonalds recently introduced a huge plan to transition to using only sustainable providers for most everything they purchase. Now when kids get brainwashed to love McD's at least they will not hurt the environment as much.  that's really great news.  -bm |
|
|
|
btw- someone just sent me this, it's the NXT Transaction Engine Spec: http://ciyam.org/nxt/nxt_auto.htmlnote: rumor has it the author of this document has 'gone rouge' and is not involved with NXT anymore. Is he working for Ethereum? -bm |
|
|
|
I wrote a number of papers about p2p financial contracts before Ethereum or related projects ever even came out. Fact is, we can do this fairly simply with something like NXT. I think NXT is very compelling because it's a complete rewrite and the code is CLEAN java. Innovations will happen fairly quickly in NXT(amof they ARE happening). So we can support complex contracts simply by making the kernel modular, having a TYPE field in the TXs and the TX is processed by the module according to type. They already have a namecoin clone and bitmessage clone in there. No need for complex turing complete support. Most importantly the system remains SIMPLE, PEER TO PEER, and accessible to the community. That's a relatively centralised approach, though, in that the NXT core developers have to agree what the TYPE field means, and approve the code that goes in to support it. I imagine a goal of Ethereum is to allow permissionless innovation. They don't want arbitrary limits on scripts and they don't want application developers to have to get permission from anyone before they deploy. It's similar to the Bitcoin vision where you don't have to get permission from a credit card company before accepting payments. true points, but consider that the TYPE could itself be very flexible while we still have the ability to support more simplistic contracts without all this dross. We have the ability to install a scripting engine. consider that, under the proposed model of ethereum, 1) every node will have to process every single transaction and event of every DAC, currency ledger, decentralized wikipedia article, or what have you. Just consider what this ledger actually looks like in their vision. 2) every transaction could take up any amount of processing power according to the amount of Gas spent. Now keep in mind the economic model makes no sense, I pay to have my big transaction live on the network, but me- mr. Node admin dont necessarily get paid to validate that huge transaction. They've changed the economic model by introducing limitless scripts(quasi turing complete) but they still have not found a model in which this makes sense. It might appear nifty at the outset, but eventually this ledger will get bigger and bigger and most nodes will just go SPV, and this event wouldnt necessarily pose any problems for Ethereum Inc., actually it's better for them. TL; DR Ethereum can't be P2P. 3) all these transactions are PUBLIC. Now who would want that?  ? see my last comment. -bm |
|
|
|
it's really much more than just a money system. There's people on the forums making all sorts of suggestions: "Lets make a Distributed Wikipedia!".
That one amuses me, one of biggest reason for my interest and eventual involvement in Bitcoin is that almost a decade ago some people argued that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't be formed because Wikipedia should just be decentralized, not only claiming it was possible but that it could be trivially implemented. I wrote one of my trademark rants on the physical impossibility of true decenteralized consensus, as consensus is a necessary component of replicating the functionality of a singular resource as opposed to a grab-bag of assorted repositories. Bitcoin challenged that view but didn't change was was possible— my views weren't overtly wrong, Bitcoin just works under different assumptions which I hadn't considered at the time... primarily the ability to use hashcash and in-system compensation to create an incentive alignment and to force participants to make exclusive choices. It's far from clear, and— in fact, now seems unlikely— that these different assumptions are anywhere near as strong as they are for other applications as they are for Bitcoin, and the verdict is even still out on if Bitcoin's properties are even good enough for Bitcoin in the long run. A lot of the things I've heard that crowd talk about don't make a lot of sense to me... e.g. implementing a freestanding rent extractor which does nothing you couldn't just do locally— which is a pretty common event because in that execution environment the agent can't keep any secrets from the public. It's the sort of argument that sounds good until someone not seeped in the excitement steps up and says "The Russians used a pencil." that certainly reflects my feeling about it. Have you ever seen the episode of South Park about San Francisco? I get the feeling that's what's going on here. . Some of it would require the network to perform IO which you can't safely do in a consensus environment (except via trusted parties— and in which case you could just have them compute for you too, and thus keep your program private), and even the things which aren't impossible run into the pointlessness problems that some of the verifiable computing stuff does: e.g. you can ask something else to compute for you, but with millionfold overhead and a loss of privacy that makes it pretty pointless to do in almost any conceivable circumstance.
absolutely. Consider that the BTC block chain size is thought to be problematic going forward, can you imagine what this thing is going to look like? And they contend that it will be manageable, but something tells me they assume it will not and of course, who are you going to buy a 'solution' to this problem from? Of course it will need all sorts of expensive management units and dedicated hardware and what not, and wait... this is peer-to-peer? They have already admitted that most nodes will not be computing the entire chain. I would guess only a small fraction of heavily built out nodes could possibly manage this computation. Though I'm still glad people are excited about some novel ideas. I hope that excitement lasts once people realize that that they're not going to make it rich off of them … I hope that making the world a freer, safer, and more interesting place is enough of a motivation to retain some of that excitement. Although 15 year long winter of the cipherpunks movement suggests that some cynicism here is justified.
and when did that winter begin? precisely with the advent of Wired magazine(who featured the Cypherpunks on one of their early issues) and the Silicon Valley VC Tech Complex who discovered that they can do the job of our spying agencies by selling us neato tracking devices that have Flappy Bird on them. It's fairly obvious this crowd is behind Ethereum. Of course no one seems to know where the money is coming from and the thing is populated with the typical fresh faced tech kiddies whom you would never suspect are doing anything but improving the world for the greater good. Is all the new interest because people hadn't been exposed to these ideas— they'd never stumbled into tools like rpow or mixmaster years ago— or is it mostly because they think it's something they can cash in on? Not that I begrudge people making money, and a few will— no doubt— make a bunch, but most will not, and if its a primarily a profit motive sustaining this interest then I expect we'll have a return to the low level of progress that other tools in this space have had since the excitement in the early 90s.
I think it's a combination of opportunism and naiveté. Sometimes I think they generate this excitement precisely to distract from those who are doing important work- and they Cypherpunks WERE important, they ARE important... but the allure of material gain seems to take precedence over idealism. -bm |
|
|
|
|
"Real programmers can write assembly code in any language."
-Larry Wall
|
|
|
|
cool. what would be great is if you could have one codebase for the local JS client and web wallet. -bm |
|
|
|
|
It's not unlike the Bitmessage mentality. Bitmessage doesn't really give you much(or any) security over that of PGP, Enigmail and Anonymizers... but the devs don't want to hear it. It's like when people discover how a block chain works they want to use it for everything, and the fact is we've got tools for secure messaging and they've been around for a while.
There's a old saying in tech circles: "when you learn how to use a hammer, everything becomes a nail.".
-bm
|
|
|
|
Well I'm not sure Ethereum should have such a complex VM either :-)
As an example, JVM bytecodes are extremely verbose because it maps one class to one file and then uses strings to link them together. Dalvik solves that. Also JVM bytecode is for a stack machine that then has to be compiled down to register allocation on the fly at huge cost and complexity. You could do register allocation up front for a bunch of different register counts and simply the VM considerably. Dalvik also does this.
it's really much more than just a money system. There's people on the forums making all sorts of suggestions: "Lets make a Distributed Wikipedia!". I think it's really just an impractical use of this basic concept of a block chain. I think they're getting carried away. They seem to ignore the fact that in order for this to be truly p2p, every single node must execute that script and perhaps millions(or billions of them). Of course this isn't a problem if you plan to sell the high end gear that makes this possible. I remember for instance when color coins was at the peak of public interest there was an IBM guy hovering around, presumably he saw a market for IBM hardware there. -bm |
|
|
|
here's an example of an Ethereum script: if !contract.storage[1000]:
contract.storage[1000] = msg.sender
contract.storage[1002] = msg.value
contract.storage[1003] = msg.data[0]
contract.storage[1004] = msg.data[1]
return(1)
elif !contract.storage[1001]:
ethvalue = contract.storage[1002]
if msg.value >= ethvalue:
contract.storage[1001] = msg.sender
datasource = contract.storage[1003]
dataindex = contract.storage[1004]
othervalue = ethvalue * msg(datasource,0,tx.gas-100,[dataindex],1)
contract.storage[1005] = othervalue
contract.storage[1006] = block.timestamp + 86400
return([2,othervalue],2)
else:
datasource = contract.storage[1003]
dataindex = contract.storage[1004]
othervalue = contract.storage[1005]
ethvalue = othervalue / msg(dataindex,0,tx.gas-100,[datasource],1)
if ethvalue >= contract.balance:
send(contract.storage[1000],contract.balance,tx.gas-100)
return(3)
elif block.timestamp > contract.storage[1006]:
send(contract.storage[1001],contract.balance - ethvalue,tx.gas-100)
send(contract.storage[1000],ethvalue,tx.gas-100)
return(4)
else:
return(5)
so basically you need to compute this script on the current 'global state' and hash it to verify the transactions(as I understand it). It's certainly coming close to Java in it's complexity. I imagine that it's optimized for object-code size and perhaps some other features. Again what I think they might be ignoring is what it's going to take to support this and community acceptance. Ripple had some good, 'correct' ideas but the community didn't like it. -bm |
|
|
|
|
have you looked at Ethereum? It's certainly not as complex as Java, but it's coming close and certainly as things progress there it will get more complex. People have made specialize byte-code compilers before. It would be interesting if someone could do a comparison of EVM opcodes and JVM opcodes. Again the goal here is - how can we get this cheap?
I do somewhat agree, we don't need all this- but a new VM execution environment? that just seems like a problem that was invented specifically so someone could solve it and make money with it.
-bm
|
|
|
|
|
Well to clarify, Java might be USED for a specific purpose today, but the original intention was to have little bits of executable code flying around the internet that are dynamically dispatched and executed. This vision never really seemed to happen and instead we got a enhanced C("write once run anywhere") vision.
the fact is that Java bytecodes are very similar to what Ethereum has. It's officially a "C like language" ... sound familiar? Perhaps we could use a subset of the bytecodes? I'm just trying to think of ways to get this functionality for cheap. You can already see the ivory tower being constructed over at Ethereum.
So you could create a custom compilation environment that prohibits access to most of the System classes, and instead you get a very small feature set of functions(store value, check balance, etc.). And then you get what Ethereum gives you, plus it's supported already on millions of devices and just about every computer. They've got a couple of other things in there that would also need to be added- some complex of crypto functions on the opcodes. I also suspect they've patented some of these ideas.
-bm
|
|
|
|
|
can someone send me a message to test this feature out? 11274042109288826540
-bm
|
|
|
|
Nigel Farange fan detected.Sorry for the title - Been watching too much Game of Thrones  I remember when the EUR was introduced, at the time sparked many debates here in the UK about whether we should change our GBP to EUR, along with gradual acceptance from France, Spain, Northern Ireland to name but a few. But who (which group) actually gave the go-ahead to change their fiat currency to EUR? Certainly wasn't put to public vote. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state for her sovereignty, known as the Commonwealth realm. I think this includes 16 Countries and her face is printed on something like 20+ different fiat currencies. So my point is, if we get her in a room and make her watch The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin, will she have the power to make BTC the currency of the Commonwealth?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
