 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
|
Pleased to announce PoC1: https://youtu.be/vmLV00uaRC0This video demonstrates how proof of personhood is going to work on encointer. The PoC is based on parity substrate and an android app. |
|
|
|
Six years after the OP it's quite interesting to revisit the argument: The OP still holds IMO. Empirical facts have proven the theory. So I suggest we face the inconvenient truth: - PoW Mining serves the sole purpose of decentralization
- Bitcoin isn't decentralized! See the Hashrate distribution among pools and recognize that (at least) BTC.com and AntPool are owned by one company: bitmain. I'd say that's more of a consortium than of decentralization.
- PoW therefore has failed its promise.
So why are we wasting 70TWh/y today? |
|
|
|
A quick update on what is happening: My team is currently working on substraTEE, an off-chain worker running in a trusted execution environment, namely Intel SGX. This project will hugely benefit the development of encointer as it basically solves the confidentiality and scalability part of the encointer idea. We'd like to thank the web3 foundation for supporting this development with a grant. On the other hand, we've built a first PoC of a mobile phone app to take out ceremony meetups for Proof-of-Personhood. Thanks to Noa for writing his thesis on encointer. I can't promise anything, but the plan is to have a first alpha-testnet ready by the end of the year. stay tuned! |
|
|
|
As this is also described as an identity system I don't see at first glance how identity is going to be done with just this coin. There are a lot of problems for digital identity. How will you solve this?
The main problem that encointer solves is ensuring that every person can get exactly one id, none more. Physical attendance to regular key-signing events with randomized groups of people is required in order to maintain one's id. Privacy measures are discussed in the whitepaper as well. Of course there are other aspects to an id system, not discussed in the whitepaper. What would you like to know more about? |
|
|
|
Your website is powered by WordPress. Are you going to have a more safe and secure framework in the future?
This homepage is a quick and dirty solution. I think it's fine for now. I'd rather focus on our first PoC testnet right now. But thanks for the hint. We'll look into this. |
|
|
|
Is there any plans for this to have something like ecommerce integration where we can use it in purchasing of goods and services?
There will have to be everyday usability for NCTR for it to serve its purpose. As it is not designed as a speculative asset, hodling won't be very attractive. Scaling to everyday purchases will not be possible onchain. As NCTR will be based on TEEs, second layer scaling is expected to be easier to do than i.e bitcoin lightning. See for example Teechan. Also, approaches like liquidity.network would benefit from TEEs and fit well to encointer. But first things first.... |
|
|
|
The biggest concern with projects such as this, is funding and how committed the team or yourself is to fulfilling every fundamental in building a framework. Egalitarian is a trigger word for me, as i've been around since the NEM days, the philosophy behind this all is really dear to my heart.
We are in an age, where coins such as this, will never be enormous due to the entry-barrier, in thousands/tens even hundreds of thousands in private investments are needed to successfully launch and grow a crypto.
I think encointer needs a proof of concept running code before looking for funding. That will take some time. |
|
|
|
Hi, do we have a discord channel to talk and share about development? Looking forward to contribute once have a better understand.
I've added a discord invite link to the OP. Looking forward to sharing ideas |
|
|
|
Encointer
An Ecological, Egalitarian and Private
Cryptocurrency and Self-Sovereign Identity System encointer proposes a new blockchain based cryptocurrency with an ecological consensus mechanism using trusted execution environments and an egalitarian money supply policy. Money issuance is done through a universal basic income subject to a proof-of-personhood. Individuals attending randomized pseudonym key signing events obtain such proofs. encointer also features scalable private transactions and trustless off-chain smart contracts.Links:Quick Facts:| consensus | | democratic, unpermissioned proof-of-elapsed-time (dPoET). One person (max) one vote | | democratic? | | proof-of-personhood (PoP) by means of randomized pseudonym key signing events | | ecological? | | no PoW mining | | egalitarian? | | uncapped issuance of universal basic income of one NCTR for each PoP. Money supply follows adoption. No early-adopter bonus. no premine. no ICO | | native token | | encointer [NCTR] | | tx fees | | 0.1% of tx value, enabling microtransactions | | privacy | | guaranteed by trusted execution environments (TEEs) | | smart contracts | | yes, off-chain in TEEs | | original publishing date | | Nov. 18th, 2018, concept whitepaper | | governance | | to be lead by not-for-profit cooperative under Swiss law. Community referendums with 2/3 majority against cooperative decisions |
Development Status:A first mobile phone app PoC has been developed to take out meetups. Also, confidential transactions are implemented with substraTEE based on substrate blockchain technology. Testnets: - Gesell: Launched on April 9th 2020
- Cantillon: (adding privacy enhancements with substraTEE) to launch mid 2020
Mainnet: No dates promised. Not before go-live of Polkadot |
|
|
|
|
I don't think government intervention will change anything. There will always be some government somewhere that won't restrict PoW mining.
4 years after the OP, we're still at the same point. The problem has maybe gained a wider awareness, but solutions are either not very popular (PPC, NXT...) or need yet to be proven (Ethereum's Casper PoS, Cardano's Ouroboros PoS)
edit: there's not only PoS solutions. IOTA could be an ecological alternative too.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting question. Especially when ethereum moves to PoS. If the market capitalization of token A (or all ETH tokens together) exceeds that of ETH by far, then the network is secured by much less capital than it carries. Not sure this is a stable situation.
This might result in a similar situation as for a bank with too little own capital ratio / too high leverage ratio.
|
|
|
|
I have a technical question: The whitepaper isn't very specific about how the encryption works. What Opus uses is a lightweight public-private key-encryption model to restrict access to
only the “owners” of the song As I understand it: - each tune is encrypted with a single symmetric key by AES256 and the encrypted tune is stored on IPFS
- this symmetric key is distributed to each purchaser in end-to-end encrypted fashion via Ethereum smart contract, whereas the symmetric key is encrypted with the purchaser's public key for each purchaser individually
This means: - whoever knows the key and the IPFS hash can listen to the tune
- whoever purchased the tune knows the key and can potentially share it publicly
- moreover, encrypting the same key with millions of public keys will reduce the strength of the encryption (the whitepaper doesn't state if RSA or ECC key pairs will be used or how many bits they plan to use, so it's hard to quantify this flaw. 'lightweight' might mean few bits.
One way around this problem would be to end-to-end encrypt the tune for each purchaser individually. But this would mean that there is one file per purchaser that has to be stored (and one IPFS hash per tune and purchaser that has to be stored on the Ethereum blockchain). I doubt that such an amount of data can be stored economically, even with filecoin-like incentives. Another question is: who knows the tune's symmetric key and is able to encrypt it for new purchasers? Will the publisher have to run a node that does this for new customers? |
|
|
|
Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...
Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...
Efficiency of mining hardware has no effect on energy consumption of the network. It only drives difficulty. |
|
|
|
I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.
There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching. Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs. PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changesPoS would simply make Bitcoin almost centralized since so few control so high of a percentage of all the coins I have the same concern with PoW mining, so I don't see the difference |
|
|
|
I think one way to slow the growth is reduce the block reward from 25 coins to just 1 coin per block, there is no way the BTC price will jump 25 fold to compensate as more then half the coins are already mined so there is no shortage of supply, and no reason for that much fiat to enter the market.
According to this formula: [...]
GlobalEnergyConsumptionForMining ~= (MiningReward + TransactionFees) * bitcoinValueInUSD / EnergyCostInUSDperkWh[/i]
your suggestion might make things 25x better. But there would be a shortage of liquidity on the exchanges driving BTC price. So it's not 25x. And it only works if people do not pay more transaction fees. |
|
|
|
[...] The only solution I can see is : - when there are no longer possible improvements in ASIC technologies, - ASICs are sold at marginal cost of production (a few cents per chip), - Difficulty is so high that a mining operation is only marginally profitable ($100 of electricity mining between $99 and $101 of bitcoins) Then what may happen is : - Large mining farms contract with electricity producers and accept to modulate their usage on "orders" given by the grid - This way they would pay the real-time spot price of electricity (positive or negative) - At night, or when there is too much wind  , the farm could even be paid to burn electricity ! Your scenario is not very likely to happen. And good luck with network security if mining power is fluctuating heavily. Of course, if miners would be distributed equally around the globe, electricity spot prices would even out quite well and so would actual hashpower. But a heavy centralization of mining in the countries with lowest electricity prices is much more probable in your scenario. I don't see how your suggestions could make things better. The only way out I see is a hard fork to PoS. With today's market cap that should be pretty secure. Or all of us support energy-sufficient altcoins by holding more value in a PoS altcoin than in Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
[...]
Mining uses a miniscule amount of energy compared to all the wasteful use of electricity in the United States alone.
How come the electricity consumption per capita is more than 2.5* that of Germany?
If everyone of the 318m US citizens would reduce power consumption by only 10% (easily achieved by switching lightbulbs...), it would save 25 700 MW of generation capacity alone.
You can do all the bitcoin mining of your hearts´content with that, and then some.
This statement is just very shortsighted. Minuscule is only bitcoin's market cap compared to the world's whole economy. [...] = 4.3128 GW World power production from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generationis about 2311.4 GW. So Bitcoin would use about 0.1866 % of world electrical output in this maximum build out scenario. BTW in the above scenario the difficulty would be 753,000,000,000 That is today, at 600$/BTC. Let's assume 6000$/BTC and you'll already be using 1.866% of the world's elecricity use but still be a minuscule economy. (directly following from the calculation above) This by the way also means hidden cost of the bitcoin network paid by everybody because of increasing electricity prices due to increased demand. |
|
|
|
|
