Bitcoin Forum
August 15, 2018, 03:26:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 »
1041  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: StakeCoin Bounty on: August 02, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about proof-of-stake that includes everyone who pulls an equal amount of weight. There's no difference between premining and early adopters building bunkers. One versus a few still leaves many in a second class category. If you think you can push special tier privileges and expect ppl to go along with it, you're delusional. If you think there's nobody who can repeat the success of bitcoin, you're blind.

I'm not sure why you have your panties in such a bunch over proof of stake. The bitcoin protocol and ergo litecoin are not very friendly to decentralization on a massive scale. The design is to already make the many in a second-class category. The moneylenders and the debtors. It will be the same scenario all over again.

Define "pulls an equal amount of weight".
If a coin release schedule is fair, then everyone will have ample time to contemplate, design and debate it before it's released. So no unfair "early adopters".

LOL @ "coin release schedule"

"I will let you have coins when I SAY you can have coins!"

A closed monetary system is such a joke.
1042  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: StakeCoin Bounty on: August 01, 2012, 11:47:49 PM
Gotta love people who quote the wiki written by and for bitcoin sycophants is used to make an argument.
1043  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: August 01, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
Whatever dude, be intentionally dense.
1044  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: August 01, 2012, 12:08:59 PM
If you'd be so kind, please answer the basic question: do you have a suggestion regarding how to cement a checkpoint block (that cannot be reversed by 51% attack) in a way that doesn't require proof-of-stake?

With LDD WBC, there is no need for a specific checkpoint block, every block becomes a checkpoint after it is buried deep enough.

Say we use the last 5,000 blocks as our LDD metric. The average LDD in each block is say, 1,000.
You, an exchange, are interested in a transaction in block 2,001.
Block 2,002 comes along with 1,050 LDD.
Block 2,003 comes along with 800 LDD.
Block 2,004 comes along with 1,500 LDD.
Block 2,005 comes along with 1,110 LDD.
Block 2,006 comes along with 900 LDD.
Block 2,007 comes along with 1,200 LDD.
Block 2,008 comes along with 1,500 LDD.
Block 2,009 comes along with 1,300 LDD.
Block 2,001 becomes cemented because there are 6 blocks that follow that meet or beat the average LDD. This is a client-side operation and the software must notify the user if a competing chain attempts to reverse block 2,001, but it will NOT automatically replace it. In reality, litecoin would probably use 20-30 blocks before cementing since its block time is 2.5 minutes instead of 10. An hour should be more than enough time for that block to have propagated the network. If you're extra paranoid, you could wait until block 2,009 is cemented.

If you do not have faith that blocks will be properly passed around to achieve this, then you can't possibly have faith that the proof of stake signatures will be immune to the same problem. If you're worried about some miraculous chain of events that might cause a significant, temporary fork, then use more blocks to be safe. You have suggested 100 blocks to be a checkpoint for PoS, the same number could be used for the LDD WBC. But I think it's overkill considering, AFAIK, bitcoin has never gotten past 1 orphan block. I do not know about LTC, but it would be interesting to see since it's 4 times faster. Is 1 block still the biggest orphan?

Quote
If your ideas are orthogonal and try to solve/improve other properties of the Bitcoin protocol, what are the (supposed) deficiencies of Bitcoin that you're trying to improve? Is it waste of energy of PoW, or other deficiencies?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91183.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0

Days destroyed weighted block-chain advantages:

* Clients have a say in the matter. Every client. Miners are forced to include every transaction possible because if someone else comes along and does them one better, their block may be invalidated. Even if only a single miner is doing the right thing, the clients will be using his chain over a malicious one. So as long as one miner is honest, the honest network wins.
* Clients have the power to choose which block-chain is the correct one, not basing it off of hashing power. This is the ultimate blow to any 51% attack. Want to create a monopoly? Oh well someone else came along and is offering cheaper tx fees, goodbye.
* Absolutely no additional data is added to the block-chain. Nothing to keep track of except mini-forks which may be slightly more likely depending on how the final algorithm works.
* Money is given no more power than it already has. There is a veritable check and balance system between clients, miners, and the wealthy.
* Difficulty CAN GO DOWN without opening the network to attack. This means transaction fees can go down. And stakeholders don't have to be paid to cancel out this effect.
1045  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: August 01, 2012, 10:07:59 AM
are you suggesting that each node will simply cement after seeing 6 consecutive blocks?

No, but the proof of stake wiki is. But then it turns around and says it's all up for grabs depending on what the stake holders do.

Quote
That would cause the blockchain to fork into many branches that will never reunite.

No it wouldn't. Has bitcoin ever even had an orphan chain go 2 blocks deep? If, as I alluded to in another post, there is a problem with the internet to the point that entire sections of the network are cut off from each other, there are bigger problems than which chain is the right one. The situation is going to cause chaos no matter what. Proof of stake proposes to let a select few determine who wins. This is not at all ideal because it has very, very bad implications in any situation other than a network split. And, as I mentioned, proof of stake can get locked just the same with multiple chains.

Quote
I'm asking about the basic concept, please avoid the added complexities of cementing 6 consecutive blocks and consider the proof-of-stake cementing of the 100th signatures block. With proof-of-stake, we can cement the (say) 100th block with signatures that cannot be faked by an attacker with 51% hashpower, so everyone can protect themselves from a double-spending attack by waiting past the checkpoint signatures block in order to be sure that the relevant transactions couldn't be reversed.

"rah rah rah my idea is better and I won't read what you've written throughout the thread or attempt to understand because clashes in the face of what I think is right so I will therefore treat you like an idiot"

Quote
Do you claim that it's possible to cement a checkpoint block (with this desirable property of protecting from an attacker with 51% hashpower) without proof-of-stake? How?
What is LDD? Litecoin Days Destroyed? How is it relevant?

it was the next post after the one you responded to...

I agree that proof of stake will likely add a lot of bloat to the blockchain and possibly add a lot of strain to the network to propage all those signatures. Etlase2, I am also thinking about your days destroyed solution. It seems like a good solution, but can you think of how it can help solve the problem of an attacker forking the chain for 10 blocks so that he can do a double spend on the exchange?

This would have to be part of the design algorithm. Something that first needs to be designed, tested, and fine-tuned.

I think a good place to start is for each client to follow the block-chain back a couple thousand blocks or so and see what the typical Litecoin Days Destroyed is for each block, and use that as a base line. If 6 blocks in a row meet or beat the average LDD, the 6th block (in bitcoin terms, perhaps this would be 20 or so in litecoin, but 6 may still be fine, needs testing) in the past could be cemented in stone and can only be replaced if the user agrees to it. If the LDD is say, between 20-40% below normal, it will take perhaps 4x the 6 or 20 blocks before this block will be cemented unless 6 or 20 blocks come after that meet or beat LDD avg. If it's 40-60% below normal, then 8x, and so on.

Something along those lines. An exchange could wait a few extra blocks to be fairly sure that everyone has the block it is interested in cemented.

The *only* theoretical problem that PoS solves that LDD WBC doesn't is a huge network split. And PoS does not completely solve it because signing is optional. With the LDD WBC individual clients will have to choose which chain they want to use. This will probably be apparent in the closest potential real-world scenario such as an individual country cutting off its people from the internet at large. It will be obvious for those users when and if they reconnect that they must use the chain that the world is using and not their split. In the case of a split like this, because mining would also be heavily reduced, blocks will come in much slower and the LDD will be much lower so they will not even likely cement any blocks unless the split is for a very significant period of time.
1046  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: August 01, 2012, 07:49:44 AM
* Cementing is a node's reluctance to do a blockchain reorganization. A node will reject any new block found if it contradicts a 6-block deep branch it is already aware of and currently considers valid. That is, once a node receives 6 confirmations for a block, it will not accept a competing block even if it is part of a longer branch.
This does not require any form of proof of stake and can be implemented on its own. It is inherent in the design of a proper algorithm for a days destroyed weighted block-chain.

How do you cement a checkpoint block without proof-of-stake?

It's written right there in the wiki quote for proof of stake. The stake is not required to cement a block, it is up to the client. A "dumb" way to do it is to just to cement 6 blocks in the past, but this leaves everyone open to the sustained 51% attack still, though it does prevent private in parallel mining to rewrite history. A smarter way to do it is base it around LDD so that an attacker can't sustain a 51% denial of service attack.

There is the potential with proof of stake that there exist two forks and both have less than 50% stake signing it. The only penalty for abstaining from a stake signing is that you lose reputation. That is not a sufficient penalty. In this scenario, the forks can stay completely unresolved. Regardless, a competitor may offer lower tx fees but the stakeholders refuse to sign and so on. It takes power away from the people.

Using the LDD model and user intervention, the people get to decide which fork they want to use. Monopolies can be prevented. Selective transaction approval can be prevented. Sustained 51% attack can be prevented. Proof of stake does not prevent monopolies, it does not prevent selective transaction approval, and its 51% attack prevention is only as good as whatever automated code selects the correct chain for the stake signers. And if stake signers manually choose, then you may as well give that ability to everyone so that everyone can determine what is in their best interest, not a select few. Aren't we all about overthrowing the establishment and such around here? Why is anyone looking to hard-code that in?
1047  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: StakeCoin Bounty on: August 01, 2012, 04:22:54 AM
NO FEDERAL RESERVE (trusted nodes) IN THE CRYPTOCOIN WORLD!

You kind of sound like an OWS protestor.

Quote
The rich are rich because of their connections and backroom deals not because of their holdings.

Well, one could make the argument that most of the plutocracy in place today has root in the Rothschilds/gold moneylending industry that eventually turned into central banking. That happened because a super scarce resource (gold) was easily controlled.

Who knows how different the world could be today if money was honest. Bitcoin is not honest money and would likely follow the same path as gold were it to become a significant force in the world.

Quote
The dumbest theory I ever saw: Trust the rich to protect the network.

If you have honest money, the wealth of the world will be distributed far more equally than it is today. Perhaps we will lose some of our pettiness if that ever becomes the case.
1048  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 01:40:03 PM
and also, the community needs to seriously consider whether we want to be "artificially" tougher against 51% and maybe throw the entire thing out of balance or if we should consider 51% "attacks" a feature/characteristic of sorts of the currency. any modification to the design might make it inherently unsafer. security is the lack of functionality, and complexity (even if sometimes introduced to bring in "additional security") more often than not, due to various factors leads to insecurity.

As the Ben Laurie hyperbole originally put it, bitcoin is not secure unless 51% of the universe's computing power is securing the network. So I don't think it is possible to come up with anything worse. 51% attacks are most certainly not a feature and saying it is is like agreeing that 640K should be enough for anybody.
1049  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 10:21:46 AM
Why are you whining? what the heck does it matter? There is a valid discussion regardless if it has strayed slightly off-topic.
1050  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 10:10:44 AM
Wouldn't Coin-Day-Destroyed allow me to trigger a reorg by simply stocking up on old coins and sending them to myself without broadcasting (I'm a miner, remember) just to "increase weight" of my blocks ?

Assuming a thriving network, you would have to control some not insignificant portion of the network's GDP and the hashing power for this to matter.

Quote
Wouldn't that make Finneys and other such small doublespend-reorgs easier to make (you just need a big stash of old coins in the right time) ?

A big stash of old coins to pull off tiny heists, plus significant enough hashing power to create your own blocks. In the standard bitcoin and litecoin model, you only need significant hashing power.

Quote
Wouldn't it also make "deep" reorgs (and big doublespends "eating" 5 confirms or more) easier for a 51 attacker with a big stash of old coins (just increase the "weight" of your chain by stuffing your own old-coin spending tx-es into them) ?

No, because you prevent deep-reorgs without user intervention. The only time a deep reorg could ever possibly happen is in one of two scenarios: 1) the network is unhealthy and has split, 2) someone is attacking the network. 1) means there are already other massive issues, 2) means the network is being attacked and it's probably an idiotic idea to reorg but bitcoin will do it anyway for the sake of unity.
1051  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 09:05:17 AM
Proof of stake was designed without any real thought behind it. It won't work on any reasonable scale.
1052  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
I agree that proof of stake will likely add a lot of bloat to the blockchain and possibly add a lot of strain to the network to propage all those signatures. Etlase2, I am also thinking about your days destroyed solution. It seems like a good solution, but can you think of how it can help solve the problem of an attacker forking the chain for 10 blocks so that he can do a double spend on the exchange?

This would have to be part of the design algorithm. Something that first needs to be designed, tested, and fine-tuned.

I think a good place to start is for each client to follow the block-chain back a couple thousand blocks or so and see what the typical Litecoin Days Destroyed is for each block, and use that as a base line. If 6 blocks in a row meet or beat the average LDD, the 6th block (in bitcoin terms, perhaps this would be 20 or so in litecoin, but 6 may still be fine, needs testing) in the past could be cemented in stone and can only be replaced if the user agrees to it. If the LDD is say, between 20-40% below normal, it will take perhaps 4x the 6 or 20 blocks before this block will be cemented unless 6 or 20 blocks come after that meet or beat LDD avg. If it's 40-60% below normal, then 8x, and so on.

Something along those lines. An exchange could wait a few extra blocks to be fairly sure that everyone has the block it is interested in cemented.
1053  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 31, 2012, 08:05:18 AM
I am going to point out some the clear differences and advantages I see in using a days destroyed weighted block chain over proof of stake. I am going to go by some of the things I see written in the wiki as reference to PoS.

Proof of stake problems:

* Monopoly is still possible under proof-of-stake. ... [A] proof-of-stake monopolist is more likely to behave benevolently exactly because of his stake in Bitcoin.
The idea can already be written off as a joke.
* stakeholders (people who have bitcoins) are expected to sign it by using a private key associated with their address which contains coins to sign the block hash.
So everybody who owns a bitcoin is supposed to sign? Are there any minimums on this? This is just left wide open. How many thousands of extra transactions and signature verifications will this take? This may be an extreme imposition on the entire network.
* The signatures are broadcast on the network and included in a future block.
Or not. A miner has no incentive to put signatures in a block. Verifying them is work, they add lots of data to the miner's payload, and if the signatures are signing a block-chain different from the one he's working on, he will simply drop them. This is a problem because nodes may never see these signatures.
* Cementing is a node's reluctance to do a blockchain reorganization. A node will reject any new block found if it contradicts a 6-block deep branch it is already aware of and currently considers valid. That is, once a node receives 6 confirmations for a block, it will not accept a competing block even if it is part of a longer branch.
This does not require any form of proof of stake and can be implemented on its own. It is inherent in the design of a proper algorithm for a days destroyed weighted block-chain.
* In a pure PoW system this is problematic to do because a node could be stuck on "the wrong version" - if an attacker isolates the node and feeds him bogus data, it will not embrace the true, longer chain when he learns of it. However, using PoS to have the final say in such situations makes this possible.
PoS only has the final say when? When 51% of all coins in existence have signed one chain or another? This is insanity.
* If an address signs two conflicting blocks, its weight is reset to 0. This is to limit the power of malicious stakeholders.
Where exactly is all of this information going to be stored? How much immense amounts of data will this add to the block-chain? Denials of service attacks will be everywhere.

Days destroyed weighted block-chain advantages:

* Clients have a say in the matter. Every client. Miners are forced to include every transaction possible because if someone else comes along and does them one better, their block may be invalidated. Even if only a single miner is doing the right thing, the clients will be using his chain over a malicious one. So as long as one miner is honest, the honest network wins.
* Clients have the power to choose which block-chain is the correct one, not basing it off of hashing power. This is the ultimate blow to any 51% attack. Want to create a monopoly? Oh well someone else came along and is offering cheaper tx fees, goodbye.
* Absolutely no additional data is added to the block-chain. Nothing to keep track of except mini-forks which may be slightly more likely depending on how the final algorithm works.
* Money is given no more power than it already has. There is a veritable check and balance system between clients, miners, and the wealthy.
* Difficulty CAN GO DOWN without opening the network to attack. This means transaction fees can go down. And stakeholders don't have to be paid to cancel out this effect.


Proof of stake is a waste of time in a bitcoin-like block-chain. Completely.
1054  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 30, 2012, 11:33:41 PM
What is "at the exact same time"? Bitcoin is, in fact, a timestamping service, so it's important to be specific about this.

If a 500 LTC block is released at time X, and 10-60 seconds afterwards a competing block with 700 LTC is released, that claims it was actually released at the same time. Does the 700 LTC block win? But miners have already started to work on the continuation to the 500 LTC block...

The exact same time is whatever the block acceptance rules says it is. I didn't go that far into processing this idea because I'm not using it, but the greater the days destroyed in the block that came second, the longer it has to replace, with a maximum amount of time (and blocks) before notifying the user that there is a competitor but not replacing the block.

It actually won't be fork free, but it will be impossible to fool honest users connected to the network. New users could be temporarily fooled, but once the days destroyed ran out, the real chain would eventually get a greater weight of LTC days destroyed and win out.

Sounds interesting. I can see how this makes it hard to do a sustained 51% attack. But it's still not hard to do a one time 51% attack. Let's say the attacker just needs to do 51% for about 10 blocks in order to do a double spend at the exchange. He just needs destroy enough coins to match the network for those 10 blocks.

Proof of stake does nothing to fix this either. Both solutions prevent the network from being destroyed, one solution is much simpler and compatible with existing clients.
1055  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 30, 2012, 02:49:24 PM
Then why not just read the quote and the paragraph in context? I had to come up with a way to make sure that a bitcoin-based block chain where difficulty would be intentionally lowered but still be safe against attacks. For that proposal. The idea still applies and would be useful for bitcoin or litecoin. It is a much less dramatic step than proof of stake, yet I believe it can still be extremely effective when fine-tuned.
1056  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? on: July 30, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
Instead of a potentially complex and fork-inducing proof of stake change, why not make a fork-free smart-chain?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0

Quote
All clients agree that competing blocks will have priority weight based on number of transactions, average age of coins in transactions, and other factors.

Really comes down to using a "bitcoin days destroyed" metric.

Say two blocks were created at the exact same time, but one had 500LTC days destroyed, one had 200LTC days destroyed, so the 500LDD wins and becomes the next block. Not only does it reduce the likelihood of the miner that ignores transactions scenario, but it also effectively prevents a sustained 51% attack. Anyone attacking the network will need lots of old coins and must destroy those days each block they create. It will also probably be more difficult to pull off a finney double spend attack because a pre-mined block will likely have less days destroyed than a legitimate one.

As long as no one actually attacks the network, this change could be made over time and be completely compatible with old clients. If someone does attack the network, old clients would be fooled and a fork may be created. Additionally, if there is some large change that happens due to an attack or a network split or some other big event, instead of (stupidly) picking longest chain wins, the user will be notified that there are multiple chains, beware, find out what's going on, etc.

All you have to do is create some slightly complex algorithms to determine block acceptance rules and a smarter interface.
1057  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: One last thing on the 51% attack on: July 30, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
The problem with this analogy is that there isn't a 'bartender' in Bitcoin. This is why Solidcoin used trusted nodes. The argument is how do we implement a bartender with the least centralization possible?

Perhaps something like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91183.0
1058  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: fuck this shit, I want my own blockchain! on: July 29, 2012, 01:25:18 PM
So my current plan is to start developing relatively tame features in an established blockchain, and make a new one with radical features later, when/if I'll get a coherent vision.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'd like to hear your input on decrits/encoin. I have clear pseudo-code for a lot of it written in my head, but actually taking it to task is a whole nother story.

Quote
But I need to evaluate feasibility of reviving of an old blockchain...

Not in any way worth it, imo. Everyone will have to download new software if you break the chain, so why not just release a new coin.
1059  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: fuck this shit, I want my own blockchain! on: July 29, 2012, 08:05:40 AM
Why do you think that there are significantly fewer account values then there are unspent transactions?

Because, at least with bitcoin, you are encouraged to use a different address for every transaction. And even if you don't, each transaction still creates a transaction in the ledger with unspent outputs. If one person doesn't care as much about anonymity, they can receive 50 transactions and thus have 50 pieces of data in the log whereas an account ledger would still have 1. And when he goes to spend all that money, 50 transactions worth of outputs will need to be combined. Then those outputs could be pruned, but the intervening bandwidth usage is still heavy.

Quote
What prevents person from starting a new account each time he receives money?

Why wouldn't he do that if that improves privacy?

You can introduce some account-creation fee, of course, thus encouraging people to reuse them, but it won't be like Bitcoin at all. It's a very radical, fundamental change.

People have varying needs for privacy but bitcoin forces a square peg into a round hole, basically. An account creation fee is exactly the answer and it does not have to be expensive at all, just enough to say hey, if you want better privacy, you will have to pay a small premium. You are demanding to use more network resources, so it only makes sense. In the future when bitcoin mining rewards are low, combining transactions is going to be expensive, and you are not going to have a choice in the matter.

Quote
If you're willing to do that, you can instead force txn defrag by making only outputs in last N blocks spendable. I.e. people will be forced to send money to themselves to save it. (It has numerous advantages: it fixes "grandfather's wallet problem", prevents deflation and subsidizes fees, thus encouraging miners.)

Yeah good luck convincing bitcoin users who believe that the smallest transaction must be stored on thousands or tens of thousands of computers for all time because money is sacred and everyone should share the burden. Huh

I believe that the right solution is 'divide and conquer', i.e. instead of having a huge-ass list of all transactions or list of all accounts we should split it into manageable parts and store on different servers. Like in a DHT, e.g. Kademlia. (Used in p2p file sharing, for example.)

With the account ledger system, assuming elliptic curve DSAs, you're looking at 100-150 bytes per account. A terabyte could hold the world's accounting.

PS - I forgot to mention that individual coins cannot be traced using an account ledger, so complex coin mixers are not required to "clean" coins.
1060  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: fuck this shit, I want my own blockchain! on: July 29, 2012, 07:28:10 AM
Account based leads to a whole bunch of vulnerabilities.

Care to elaborate?

Quote
Transaction based is inherently resistant to common problems in the physical world.

Uhh cryptocurrencies are digital, fyi. Tongue And I don't see anything inherent.

Quote
What should be done is to store a compressed version of the last 1024 blocks in a new block and don't download intervening blocks.

This is similar to what an account based ledger would do, except you'd have to store all of the unspent transactions instead of account values.
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!