Я, кстати, помню, что ты мне давал уже этот хинт. Также помню, что он мне чем-то сильно не понравился. Но уже не помню, чем конкретно.
Я думаю, он не понравился тебе нелинейностью. F(A+B) <> F(A) + F(B). Понятное дело, но только из этого должно было следовать что-то плохое про безопасность. Напомни, кстати, сумма квадратов чего? |
|
|
|
Похоже, kushti единственный, кто проводит изыскания в направлении PoS. Эдак мы только через 5 лет увидим следующий прорыв. PS: Я периодически даю хинт, что стоило бы проанализировать гипотетическую PoS-монету, в которой для выбора ветки используется сумма квадратов вместо простой суммы. Надеюсь, кто-нибудь когда-нибудь это сделает... Интересно, почитаем. Я, кстати, помню, что ты мне давал уже этот хинт. Также помню, что он мне чем-то сильно не понравился. Но уже не помню, чем конкретно. |
|
|
|
Будем надеется, что время между блоками будет в районе заявленной минуты.
Пока не будет. Только начиная с блока 621000 (когда хардфорк). |
|
|
|
|
Можно и "коса", так мы сей объект тоже называли.
|
|
|
|
Он у нас CEO, а не просто пиарщик  |
|
|
|
изначально идею DAG-обощённого блокчйна предложил некстер mthcl ещё в июне 2014 года: Да я не думаю, что mthcl прям был первый. Точно не помню, но, вроде, ChuckOne ему об этом рассказал; Серхио Лейрнер тоже писал, что давно об этом думает, etc. Скорее всего, заменить блокчейн на DAG - это из тех идей, которые, как говорится, are flying around. |
|
|
|
|
Ой, слушайте, не надо "халу" (она вкусная, но коротковата, всё-таки), да и "плетение" как-то не комильфо. Когда мы с CfB обсуждали это дело, то юзали "канат". А "tangle" - это уже далеко потом придумалось. Красивое слово, а также tangle - triangle (для тех, кто в теме).
|
|
|
|
Does mthcl mean Math Call?  no |
|
|
|
It is nice to put a face to the name. I thought that you would be older  I'm old, 43 already... |
|
|
|
Sergue, have you ever worked on engineering bio-weapons?
No, that's another guy with the same name. If you continue searching, you'll find a famous violinist as well - that's not me. |
|
|
|
Sim, realmente, vale a pena |
|
|
|
|
19.3 here, 23.9 on a better comp at work
|
|
|
|
For reader's convenience: the updated version of the picture from the above link:  |
|
|
|
|
P.S. Probably, that means that the cumulative weights shouldn't be used to decide which tx is legit (at least for "not very old" transactions). Instead, just run the tip selection algorithm and see which of the two tx's it approves.
P.P.S. Sure, I should have moved the red tx to the beginning of the parasite chain, but, anyhow, that probably changes nothing due to the reasons exposed above.
|
|
|
|
Here: http://docdro.id/CXDq93aUpd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid. Thanks for the update. You described an interesting tip selection algorithm. Probably it makes a lot of sense. It makes lazy tips (nice term btw) less likely to be confirmed. However those lazy tips can still be connected to the recent part of the DAG by interested parties. I'm not sure though, that we are considering exactly the same scenario. The first question. On fig. 1 you placed the second doublespending transaction not to the root of the parasitic subtangle but significantly higher. So the question is: is there a reason why the attacker would want to accumulate PoW not above but below the second doublespending transaction? The second question. When the attacker reveals his parasitic subtangle, the resulting united tangle contains two contradicting transactions (the doublespends). And the second doublespend (included in the parasitic subtangle) has much more PoW confirming it. So is it just a matter of tip selection? Or should the first doublespend and all transactions depending on it be excluded from the DAG at this point? P.S. "Excluded from the DAG" isn't the right phrase. I meant shouldn't they be excluded from candidates for confirmation, because they confirm the less confirmed doublespend? I think there is no way to prevent the attacker to publish a parasite chain that contains a double-spend that, at the moment, has more PoW in it than the legit tx. The idea is that the nodes won't select the attacker's tips, so his double-spend will eventually fall to limbo (and the legit tx will continue to gain weight), even if it had initially more cumulative weight. For that exact reason, the nodes won't use the rule "confirm the more confirmed double-spend", it's rather "the tip that I found first has the priority". Hope that answers all questions |
|
|
|
Here: http://docdro.id/CXDq93aUpd.: in (1), there should be exp in the sum as well (so that the transition probabilities sum to 1). Already uploaded the corrected version to docdroid. |
|
|
|
So that's what I asked. Is there a fix already?
Yes, the fix is done, we were just discussing another issue weren't we? That is the same issue, which I beleive, mthcl and you admitted to exist. If it's fixed, may we see an updated whitepaer? I'll post the new tip selection algorithm later today. |
|
|
|
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19534.msg251719.html#msg251719I have just skimmed the paper and must say that it has some very innovative ideas that are very similar to some a white paper I am writing. I reference your paper by mine.
I think there is potential for IOTA and CNX to work together on providing the best possible technology for micro-transactions. As I mentioned on Mumble today, our internal project codenamed Plasma is aiming to make transactions free and instant and thus perfect for micro transactions.
There are just a few nuggets of inspiration missing from IOTA that when fused by Plasma will amplify your system.
Once I complete the white paper I think you will be very excited to work with us on standardization.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
