Hello your project looks interesting  The music industry clearly needs a meteor to end their dinosaurus age  So your idea is to store elements of a tracks as nft to proove owernship from the author and allow other to compose from it to reward the original creator when a music track is sold using those elements from the original artists ? Midi is also great in that it doesn't use a lot of bandwidth and storage space compared to mp3 and make it easier to compose new music track from it, and make each part more easily reusable while preserving owership. Internet is also a great tool to make artists meet each others in a more decentralised way and work together to produce better music building on each other skills. How do you plan to attract artist to your platform ? What is your target audience ? The web music sequencer looks cool btw ! |
|
|
|
I will take example with turing machin and OO programing, maybe it will be clearer what i'm talking about =) As the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant with turing machine, and like this we know we are not talking about something mystical And i think it can interest also shelby because he is into this sort of problematics with language design lol The problem is this conceptions from metaphysics to organize the world based on fundemental 'objects' with properties, and 'entelechy' , which is abtracted with the OO semantic of having class of objects with properties and 'entelechy' through the alteration of its state by its methods. So far good, but then the problem is when you want to program interaction between all the different type of object that can be present in the world, with OO programming generally it become quickly a design problem. ... Either you do a visitor class for each pair of objects, and then each time you add a new type of object, you need to add visitor class for all the combination that the new object can interact with, but it's still bogus from metaphysical point of view because it mean the interaction between the object are not contained in the object themselves, but applied from the exterior through a visitor class that visit the two object in questions.... This whole design of hard typed object make emergent property very hard to program and conceptualize. ... I would agree that in Turing machines the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant. Most of the time it is entirely absent. Turing machines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machineIn his 1948 essay, "Intelligent Machinery", Turing wrote that his machine consisted of:
...an unlimited memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol, and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine. Any symbol on the tape may therefore eventually have an innings. (Turing 1948, p. 3[18]
The underlined portion is the key reason for both a lack of emergence and subsequently the lack of conceptual entropy in Turing machines. In a standard Turing machine the symbols on the tape do not ultimately change the nature of the machine (even if those symbols have been previously read). This is because the typical Turing machine draws from a finite table of instructions which are ultimately fixed and invariant. Thus the Turing machine with a fixed and finite table is a simple system regardless of how complex and long that table may be unless you allow the table of instructions to be dynamically and permanently altered based on the tape readings. As programming languages have a fixed set of basic code they are simple Turing machines. However computer programming language in general is something more and represents a complex system. The programmers using them are the equivalent of a tape that applies dynamic updates to the instruction table. Thus over time we have seen the progression from assembly language to C++ as discussed in your links above. I am not going to be helpful in a technical discussion of how to add emergence to a programmed system as I am not a programmer but I will address one of your points. You appear to arguing (in the bolded section above) that if the interaction between objects are not contained in the objects themselves but requite an external observer/visitor state then the system is not valid from metaphysical point of view. If I understand you correctly you are arguing that a programmed system must be complete to be metaphysically valid. Completeness is never possible. For a discussion on this point I would refer you to an excellent write up by Perry Marshall: The Limits of Science and Programming“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”
-Leibniz The example with turing machine is to show you can have non determinism without the concept of entropy Emergent property are example of non determinist algorithm who can run on turing machine. It's more that if you want to take a physic model to apply it with coding algorithm, and there is no algebric solution but only algorithmic ones, after it's hard to find the 'correct' model to represent the interaction to have still a minimum of consistency in the high level definition of the thing. Finally found the ultimate model to solve those question http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~walter/AlChemy/Statement/organization.html |
|
|
|
I added more function into the page creation tool, and also the function to bind objects to HTML elements in the graph made the video to show how to create the page, bind objects to HTML elements, and add new objects that are updated on the page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVTRCLR8aToThis is the link to show/edit the page graph shown in the video http://nodix.eu/nodix.site/createpage/3B3A041C72CF1D1C660B41BC03662A314CE14F77EE73C15D8C1F0580B4E1C0FEthis is the link to display the page http://nodix.eu/nodix.site/viewpage/3B3A041C72CF1D1C660B41BC03662A314CE14F77EE73C15D8C1F0580B4E1C0FEthis show the block containing the page graph can see it's only few kilobytes in size. http://nodix.eu/nodix.site/block/CC6356427BE7DCD6966A4A86AF0B86469ECEBE50581FC8693BFCB9A72667CD81The page graph is constructed in sort that the root node hash contain the hash of the children, which contain the hash of children down to the leaves, so each page graph correspond to a unique hash, and each hash correspond to a page graph, which can be verified by the client in the browser. The browser download the page graph from the root node, and can verify all the hash from the root node to the leaves, and check the transaction are valid and included in the blockchain. Each time some node or leaf data is changed, it recomputes the nodes from the leaf to the root, and the root hash will be updated with the changes. This system make in sort the whole page graph can be checked by the client browser from the root hash on a decentralized distributed system. Now most of the basic features are coded, i need to "tighten the screw" and little and catch the remaining bugs and i can launch the mainnet. I will check all the bugs and feature in the next week, maybe improve a bit the website and look and feel of different things, and then can put the mainnet on foot. |
|
|
|
First version of the application to create web pages and store them on the blockchain as a data graph. This a quick video demo to show how it works : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngAmeba2iFkthis is the demo page to create the page graph : http://nodix.eu/nodix.site/createpageIt's a very first shot 'proof of concept', i'm going to flesh it out with more features like menus, tabs, and dynamic elements. All the graph to construct the page can be represented as single line functional expression and loaded/executed in the browser based on blockchain references. It can uses files from applications as well. Next step is to add dynamic object and computation graph from the blockchain's applications, to have something that can integrate spreadsheet like computation based on applications data. After i'm done with that, i have all the feature i need for the mainnet. |
|
|
|
|
The planning for now is already fleshing out a bit the application to store web pages construction graph on the blockchain, and putting the mainnet in place. However there is no specific buisness model for it, so it will more like a test bed for hosting different kind of decentralized applications. So there will not be really an ICO/IEO or anything for it. Maybe very small pre mine, if i can put it on a free or cheap exchange.
The next step is releasing some app with a real buisness model, maybe based on dynamic website/CMS hosting, social media, card games, or other kind of games, digital content sharing/store, or having an app with economic interest that can use those feature, for which an ICO would make sense, because there will be an interest buying tokens within the app, eventually without going through exchange as the value will not be solely based on speculation or trading pairs.
Probably i'll make some quick tests like demo / proof of concept for some applications on the mainnet that will be on in the next weeks, to demonstrate the possibilities, as the basics already works pretty well. But would need some more funding and organisation at least for hosting, UX design, graphics and other things in order to launch a fully featured "production" app.
|
|
|
|
interesting. may i know POW which algo?
I still didn't decide this, i'm looking at all the options, i'll go for something ASIC resistant and cpu based if i can, or even better if it can works on mobiles, i'll probably go for the randomX algorithm from monero. The testned is with scrypt, but i will probably pick another one for the mainnet. |
|
|
|
I almost finished the new white paper an advanced the application to edit and store dynamic page structure on chain, i will put the new white paper online in a few days, then add some more flesh to the page hosting app. My cat has been sick and died of FIP in past days, unrelated but FIP is really an horrible terminal disease which require lot of care, plus the end year didn't have much time to advance past week. But i'm getting back to it take care dev! thanks ! i'm still mourning my cat, but it's a fatal disease, there is no vaccine, no cure, and almost all cats die within days or weeks. Actually there is an experimental cure, but it's not approved, there is mostly a facebook group with volunteer who manage to get the drug going, but it's horribly expansive, 1000$ to 5000$ depending on the drug and the cat's weight, that almost make me want to propose a solution based on blockchain, because it's such an hassle to identify supplier, do the fund rising, find the brands, the dose, the history of other cats, it's all very poorly organised and it looked such an hassle i didn't even really wanted to get into it. I will wait a bit but i believe it's an area that could benefit from blockchain because it's anonymous, the drug is still illegal even if it has 80% success rate in clinic trial, and when i see the despair and how poorly organised everything is for poor owner whose cat has this disease to get this drug and organize the funding even if many donate because it's horrible to loose a cat to this, and the drug can still work on many cats. There is almost no research because it's rare disease, and the anti viral drug they use is also in research for human use so they don't want to spoil the human cure by risking side effects on animal testing, so it's pretty much stuck with volunteer who manage it as they can on a facebook group. But yeah life goes on, i will give news in the next days |
|
|
|
I almost finished the new white paper an advanced the application to edit and store dynamic page structure on chain, i will put the new white paper online in a few days, then add some more flesh to the page hosting app. My cat has been sick and died of FIP in past days, unrelated but FIP is really an horrible terminal disease which require lot of care, plus the end year didn't have much time to advance past week. One hard drive also died, didn't loose much anything, but also had to rescue and reinstall everything. Plus i'm in the country at my parent's house and the internet decided to break, so i've been stuck with poor 3g connection for a week, still waiting technician. The year that start like charm lol  But i'm getting back to it |
|
|
|
|
You could have same address in two different wallets, in two different computers, in two different places, and if you make the two transactions at the same time, it can take some time for them to be propagated on the network, and two differents versions of the chain can exist at the same time, the version that has the more confirmations will be selected by nodes and the others removed after a few blocks. Its up To each miner which transaction it will include in the block, but each node can recieve the two transactions in different orders, chronology is often difficult to establish in open distributed system, so each miner can have its own policy when choosing which version it will include in the block.
|
|
|
|
|
For me the only possible legal outcome is banning of crypto, because there is no way to enforce regulation in any case, there is no legally checked entity owning crypto, and fund cannot be frozen, and its almost impossible to have international coordination on internet/digital matter, some international crack down happenned into the "copyright infrigment" sector, and even this happenned only few times , mostly in Europe and usa, and bitcoin put another level in anonymity / decentralisation, i really dont see what They could do anyway, other than banning crypto all together, or forcing some warning on website like the cookie thing.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining pools are centralized. What you posted are not real solutions for a decentralized blockchain.
In the current state of things, its already the case that mining is mostly pooled, but this system would at least give a chance for small miners without expansive specialized equipment and limit the electricity bills. So in itself that would still make it less centralized than current situation. But even the purely decentralized bitcoin solo mining would still fail with 51% of bad nodes anyway. This system would probably be less expansive to game, but the huge power cost of bitcoin is the number one argument against bitcoin and crypto, if a solution can be found it still worth a try. Even if the model is different and doesnt have same characteristics and requirement, need to see the pro and cons and the bigger picture of the economic implied to see if it can keep consistency across all nodes, which is what interest me, im not extremely concerned with privacy. |
|
|
|
bitcoin solo mining that is used by 0.1% of bitcoin miners today.
It's not just for solo mining. Different pools also need to reach consensus among themselves. Your argument would be valid only if 99.9% of bitcoin hashrate came from a single pool. Your protocol fails even in the very likely case that two pools mine two blocks with different merkle roots. I don't see why this would be more problematic than the bitcoin network with mining pools. Anyone can emit some work, as block header + work circuit, then miners decide on which work they want to mine, like they would choose a mining pool. If the work is invalid then the block is not going to be accepted by the network and they loose their work, so they need to have source for valid work with valid transactions and circuit that will match the protocol and will be accepted by other nodes. Bitcoin protocol doesn't rules this at all, in theory nothing would prevent to have hash rate evenly distributed between 1 millions pools and the blockchain being in constant conflict. Miner choose large trusted pool because it maximize their reward and decrease the risk, the same logic should apply with this system. It still require a form of miner id to distribute the work, and this miner distribution should be the same for the whole network, but then there can be different block headers proposition with different work circuit. As long as the final the proof contain enough information to confirm that the work is made and conform to the protocol, i don't see why this is more a problem than the current configuration with pooled mining. Miners should have some sort of work-seed that they agree to work on, and all miners can check that the transactions are valid and match the merkle root, and that the work circuit is conform to protocol specification. If the miner id is made with address/ip pairs, then ok one obvious problem is avoiding IP/address spamming. But if there is IP spamming, does all the IP lead to the same physical machine ? In that case that can be detected, and it doesn't even need a strong consensus because everyone can check this, and if IP are found to be clone of the same machine, they should be excluded from the miner pools. If it need a different physical machine or system for each, it's already not the same attack cost. And that would be the only garantee that the system give, you need to have a unique IP and address to be able to mine, and anyone who can provide that has equal chance to earn a reward, no matter how much cores or computational power it has. If the decentralization barrier become about spamming address and IP for 1$ the billion, it's still not worst than 10 000$ of mining equipment and an hydroelectric dam. The same principle still apply that even if miners provide an invalid block, proof of work, or that the circuit cannot be proved to fit with the protocol, then the block is rejected and miners wasted their work. I'm not saying there is no problem with this approach, but i don't see a "fatal flaw" with it either. You seem to have this stance that proof of work = bitcoin protocol, and if a solution doesn't follow the model then it's flawed, but that's what i would call dogmatism. Yes it's not the same model, it doesn't have the same characteristics and requirement, and it needs a good system to distribute the work, additionally to the pow, the proof for a valid block need to contain the miner circuit as well as the work itself, but is it really unsolvable , i don't know. I'm just doing surface study for the moment, maybe there is something i don't see and i just take the problems one by one, and see if there is a really a brick wall to them, or in the end how resistant to byzantine fault it is, knowing that decentralized distributed system cannot keep consistency with 51% of bad nodes. That's same for bitcoin and any decentralized distributed system. |
|
|
|
He Said after it solve the pow problem in itself with the properties he listed, which i already checked and they work.
There is no "pow problem". Proof of work is a solution to the problem of decentralized consensus. The PoW posted here doesn't solve it. he says he has other solution to solve work distribution.
I don't see any solution posted anywhere. It looks like he is using this argument to obtain funding, which everyone should be very sceptical about. Yes for the moment there is no full solution, but it doesnt mean one cannot be found. I didnt see a point you made that not solvable with similar characteristics to bitcoin mining pool. Wanting To obtain funding is not incompatible with having a working solution, what kind of logic is that lol it make you skeptical, doesnt mean everyone "should be" its ironical for someone advocating decentralisation to make so many argument of authority, maybe there is room for skepticism about your opinion as well |
|
|
|
nobody claimed this is a full solution to solve all problems of current blockchain protocols.
The claims made by OP are certainly strong:
What to do with it?
You can implement this algorithm in any cryptocurrency and it will be the best POW algorithm you have ever known.
I was just pointing out that this is not something usable at the moment and probably never will be. The things I mentioned above are not just minor issues but fundamental flaws. He Said after it solve the pow problem in itself with the properties he listed, which i already checked and they work. The pool part is the third part, where he says its not a full solution for all blockchain problems in the following posts. The problem you talk about has been issued also in the first posts, where he says he has other solution to solve work distribution. I didnt see any point you made that is not solvable, if you only have arguments of authority its not going to have a lot of impact on me. |
|
|
|
bitcoin solo mining that is used by 0.1% of bitcoin miners today.
It's not just for solo mining. Different pools also need to reach consensus among themselves. Your argument would be valid only if 99.9% of bitcoin hashrate came from a single pool. Your protocol fails even in the very likely case that two pools mine two blocks with different merkle roots. It's not my protocol lol I just find the principle interesting, and i think it can be made to work with certain advantages, i'm just studying the system If it can't work then too bad, i just discovered this few days ago like everyone else, but i'm really not so sure it can't be made to work. I read your arguments and i understand them, but i don't see much anything else than bold statement of authority, and no brick wall for this, if you can think outside of the box of bitcoin pow protocol, nobody claimed this is a full solution to solve all problems of current blockchain protocols. I'm just extrapolating possible solution path, would need to out think the whole things a bit more thoroughly, but also waiting for more informations from OP as he said he has a solution, so need to see his side as well. Would need to put all the problematic on paper flat down and seeing the properties and problems and how they can be solved or not. I wouldn't be so categorical so far. |
|
|
|
It could still be less centralized than pooled mining on certain aspect, like currently nothing prevent mining pool to cheat on the reward / share, and they already take a % of the benefits, here at least this aspect is more transparent.
So basically you want to fight ASIC mining centralization with even more centralization. The problem with different version of the blockchain is transposed to establishing the consensus on a "mining route" , that start with a merkle root, and break the work into different miners selected evenly in the pool.
And if two nodes have a different merkle root? It seems that you have missed the main point of proof of work and the Nakamoto consensus. The proof of work can prove that a certain number of nodes, ideally selected evenly in the pool, have agreed on the merkle root that they have mined. Pooled mining cannot provide more than this, all nodes needs to work on the same block. This protocol is different than bitcoin, i'm not saying it's the same consensus method or equivalent to bitcoin pow, it needs another mechanism added to it that is still not clearly defined to make it as decentralized as bitcoin solo mining that is used by 0.1% of bitcoin miners today. |
|
|
|
And modelling a decentralized network based on pooled mining is flawed since pooled mining is centralized.
It could still be less centralized than pooled mining on certain aspect, like currently nothing prevent mining pool to cheat on the reward / share, and they already take a % of the benefits, here at least this aspect is more transparent. The problem with different version of the blockchain is transposed to establishing the consensus on a "mining route" , that start with a merkle root, and break the work into different miners selected evenly in the pool. But pooled mining is necessary for this system to work, it cannot work if every node solo mine its own block. |
|
|
|
1. All nodes need to work on signature starting from a hash that contain the same merkle root, like pool mining.
Then what you are describing is not actually a consensus mechanism. You are saying that there is only one version of the truth and all nodes have to follow it. That's a centralized network. You may as well have a central bank to simplify everything. Pooled mining is also centralized. If you want a consensus protocol, you need a way to choose which version of the blockchain to follow (and all nodes must agree on that). Yes, the IP addresses of nodes are known but not linkable to their coin address. There was a recent attack on ZCash an Monero which allowed IP addresses to be linked with funds. It's already been fixed. Do you want to reintroduce this attack as a "feature"? Everyone can still check the transactions in the merkle root, the pow consensus show that all nodes agree on this merkle root. If not they will not mine the block. Enough node need to be honest like in any byzantine fault tolerant system. As far as i know, it's already like this on most mining pool even if in theory the stratum protocol allow for each miner to change the block, i don't think a lot of miner really even check the merkle root in a pool mining. In monero they take more care about privacy, but in itself bitcoin protocol doesn't specially protect again ip/address association. All nodes that receive a new mining block know the ip of the mining node and the address used for the reward. Mining pool already know your ip and your mining address and it wouldn't be really hard for an attack to connect the two. I'm not saying there are no problem with this system, but i'm not so categorical that they can't be fixed at all, keeping it in a sufficient byzantine fault tolerance range comparable to bitcoin pool mining. Maybe maybe not The OP also said he had full solution |
|
|
|
Ok let say on 10 minutes block you would create chunks of 10 sec of work, like first generating the total ring chain to be computed, then breaking it down to séries of sub ring chain, in sort that each sub chain need to hash its address or id with the previous work. Now let say this miner id is not just the address, but an ip/address pair. Each time a new node appear on the network it register itself on the network, and put on the global list of miners id, each time a new block arrive this address/Ip pair is hashed with the new block signature and miners id sorted on this hash, and the first 60 are selected for the next block. The Ip will be used to send the work to the miner and to send it to the next so Ip can checked in and out even if that wouldnt prevent 3 ips to collude to steal work. It could be made stronger if all nodes do traceroute on miners and a consensus can be reached on topography of ips, i tend to think its a problem that has a degree of byzantine fault tolerance as any node can check the traceroute of other nodes and deduce if the traceroute sent by another node is incohérent, i think its a classic problem of graph theory with a byzantine fault tolerance, similar to this Techniques for Detection of Malicious Packet Drops in Networks , taking in account that the topography doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but at least give sufficient probability that two nodes are not located too close to each others, and using some connectivity testing along path with a technique similar to the link. Some 'hard' consensus could be added if there is too much conflict above the byzantine fault tolerance of the system. Would be a long shot, but wouldnt this garantee a certain degree of decentralisation ? There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to start. 1. This scheme fails to provide the most important property: consensus. What happens if a node receives two different blocks, each with a correct set of 60 signatures? Which version of the blockchain is it going to choose? Note that this doesn't have to be malicious, it can be simply caused by a temporary network split. 2. You failed to explain what happens if one of the 60 selected miners doesn't respond, either maliciously or due to simply being offline. 3. Using IP addresses is a can of worms you don't want to open, trust me. Are you going to limit 1 unique address per IP address? Are you aware that sometimes thousands of people share the same external IP? Are you aware that network routing changes rapidly, sometimes several times per day? Do you know that a billion of IPv6 addresses can be rented for less than $1 per month? Have you thought about the privacy implications of linking coin addresses with physical network addresses? 1. All nodes need to work on signature starting from a hash that contain the same merkle root, like pool mining. 2. One solution to this could be have several possible miners for the same work, either spreading the reward, or selected depending on network latency or other method. 3. All miners should have unique IP. The technique for routing is not for detecting internet layer network routing, but an internal routing between blockchain nodes. A specific node routing could be selected for mining nodes. The network address is already known to all nodes or mining pool that you are connected to, and physical address are actually propagated to the whole network to increase the number of nodes that can connect to each other, so if you connect to an open P2P network like blockchain, you're IP already potentially shared on the whole network. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Network_address https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#addr, so in theory an attacker with a certain number of spying node can already do this. If you mine on a pool, this connection is already made. It inself bitcoin protocol doesn't really prevent ip/address association. For billion IPs harder to solve. Need to see if a distribution on ip range or location could mitigate this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
