[ANN] SpreadCoin | Decentralize Everything (decentralized blockexplorer coming)

[coins101]

I like the scoring approach because it makes use of a  unique set of circumstances we have access to: a second tier where you can introduce queries and additional checks to validate against fake nodes.

One of the things you can do, for example, is triangulate ping and query response rates. If I ping nodes in my immediate network I can record the ping times of my group of connected nodes.  If I ping and query, the query times should have some level of correlation, unless you are running a fake node. A fake node has to send a request to another node (hey, AnotherNode :-)) in order to get data to respond to the queries it is being asked for.  Do this enough times and you will be able to figure out who are the fake nodes, but even if they are not fake you can score them down.

If you add random ping and qurry rules into the equation, then you can avoid someone trying to game the ping and queries by running 5:2 bitcoin full nodes to fake nodes.

You could even throw a random transaction verification into the mix.

The UTXO database is an interesting angle.  Full nodes have to carry that data.

[1714053107]

1714053107

[1714053107]

1714053107

[Mrboot]

Are there anymore details out about the masternodes for spr ?

Im not new to crypto but im new to masternodes and server nodes , and there pretty confussing its almost the same like staking right
masternodes ?

How much coins will you need ofr one node ?

Oooh ! Mrboot who has sold 136k Quatloo, because he wasn't patient. Spread development is progressing nicely ; but, as a holder, you have to be more patient.

I am patient , if there is any development at all, qtl is a mess and the developer isnt really bothered by it. I see it as they pumped it and now there out again.

[defunctec]

I'm talking about somebody runnning 500 bitcoin daemons as full nodes from one copy of the blockchain with 500 service nodes.

Those would have to be special custom versions of bitcoin daemons, to be able to link with the same blockchain.
(only one would be writing, and the others would be in readmode, answering to external nodes. They would be mere mirroring/echoing nodes. They might alternate this assignment with one another.)
To the rest of the bitcoin network they would appear normal, except that they would have this unnatural synchronicity ( no time or height differential whatsoever)

Shouldn't be that hard to create even for an average dev.
He would have to remove any locking restrictions from the code, and remove any update/writing capabilities.
He would keep everything in there that is for listening and answering requests, like getheaders, getdata, getblocks, etc..)

If you have access to a server with 2 IPs and network storage maybe you can run a test and see what happens. (It won't work)
Maybe someone could create one of these mirroring/echoing-nodes until it indeed works?

That would be quite interesting to see.  

Thanks for the info.

Challenge accepted

Any results to report ?

[stonehedge]

I'm talking about somebody runnning 500 bitcoin daemons as full nodes from one copy of the blockchain with 500 service nodes.

Those would have to be special custom versions of bitcoin daemons, to be able to link with the same blockchain.
(only one would be writing, and the others would be in readmode, answering to external nodes. They would be mere mirroring/echoing nodes. They might alternate this assignment with one another.)
To the rest of the bitcoin network they would appear normal, except that they would have this unnatural synchronicity ( no time or height differential whatsoever)

Shouldn't be that hard to create even for an average dev.
He would have to remove any locking restrictions from the code, and remove any update/writing capabilities.
He would keep everything in there that is for listening and answering requests, like getheaders, getdata, getblocks, etc..)

If you have access to a server with 2 IPs and network storage maybe you can run a test and see what happens. (It won't work)
Maybe someone could create one of these mirroring/echoing-nodes until it indeed works?

That would be quite interesting to see.  

Thanks for the info.

Challenge accepted

Any results to report ?

Believe it or not, I haven't managed to sync the bitcoin blockchain since then. OK, my day job is taking up 90% of my time at the moment but 60gb is taking a long time to dl and index!

[defunctec]

I'm talking about somebody runnning 500 bitcoin daemons as full nodes from one copy of the blockchain with 500 service nodes.

Those would have to be special custom versions of bitcoin daemons, to be able to link with the same blockchain.
(only one would be writing, and the others would be in readmode, answering to external nodes. They would be mere mirroring/echoing nodes. They might alternate this assignment with one another.)
To the rest of the bitcoin network they would appear normal, except that they would have this unnatural synchronicity ( no time or height differential whatsoever)

Shouldn't be that hard to create even for an average dev.
He would have to remove any locking restrictions from the code, and remove any update/writing capabilities.
He would keep everything in there that is for listening and answering requests, like getheaders, getdata, getblocks, etc..)

If you have access to a server with 2 IPs and network storage maybe you can run a test and see what happens. (It won't work)
Maybe someone could create one of these mirroring/echoing-nodes until it indeed works?

That would be quite interesting to see.  

Thanks for the info.

Challenge accepted

Any results to report ?

Believe it or not, I haven't managed to sync the bitcoin blockchain since then. OK, my day job is taking up 90% of my time at the moment but 60gb is taking a long time to dl and index!

Fair enough, im eager to find what happens.

[spreadcoiner]

...

What a really interesting chart.  Its got the brain cells working away faster than normal. There is a mention of side chains with bitcoin in the PoBN white paper, but if Dash were to add support for side chains, then that opens up so many opportunities for every project. Great contribution, thanks.

Thank you, coins101. Coincidentally this idea is on topic today for DASH:

New interview with Andreas Antonopoulos talking about Dash as a sidechain of Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSq-58ElBzk&t=20m1s

Is this related to the budget about travel to Satoshi Roundtable Conference?

You can't make Dash into a side-chain, it's immune to that. The economic model won't function properly on a side chain and whole thing will be insecure. Who's paying the masternodes an incentive, where is that money coming from?

I understand what you're saying, but I think he was talking about sidechains connecting on either end to Dash (or other coin's chain) and Bitcoin, allowing for distributed exchanges.
http://imagize[Suspicious link removed]ageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/acaM8U.png

Where you buy, momentarily, into the side chain to switch from one coin to the other, and the "price of a side chain "coin" would be based on the exchange rate agreed to.  There would be no holding of this sidechain coin, it's only a unit of transfer.  I don't know if I'm making sense, but I think this is what he was talking about in part of what he said, though he also suggested new coins could be created off a sidechain of the Bitcoin Blockchain, thus inheriting Bitcoin's security.  Two different points.  Unless I understood him incorrectly??

[georgem]

Sorry for not being very active here right now.

big update coming soon.

 

[TrueAnon]

Sorry for not being very active here right now.

big update coming soon.

 

Commending you on your work here, keep it up, looks promising and non-scammish like 90% of the other coin action (hopefully I'm not wrong).

[georgem]

Sorry for not being very active here right now.

big update coming soon.

 

Commending you on your work here, keep it up, looks promising and non-scammish like 90% of the other coin action (hopefully I'm not wrong).

Thanks, I have the same opinion about the community here.

[MrZillion]

big update coming soon.

We are certainly anticipating your newest update.

Any hints of what will be included?

[MrZillion]

Commending you on your work here, keep it up, looks promising and non-scammish like 90% of the other coin action (hopefully I'm not wrong).

You're not wrong, we will see some serious innovation soon

[ivcelmik]

Commending you on your work here, keep it up, looks promising and non-scammish like 90% of the other coin action (hopefully I'm not wrong).

You're not wrong, we will see some serious innovation soon

For sure this coin will be epic with such team and dev

[defunctec]

Sorry for not being very active here right now.

big update coming soon.

 

As in a verbal update about current progress or a big update on the release of SN's in testnet?

'please the latter, please be the latter!'

[coins101]

Interesting article in Coindesk about running full nodes.

$10/month is the upper end people are willing to spend to run a node.

http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-save-bitcoins-node-network-from-centralization/

If you think adding some comments at the bottom of the article will be helpful, post away

[rhinomonkey]

Interesting article in Coindesk about running full nodes.

$10/month is the upper end people are willing to spend to run a node.

http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-save-bitcoins-node-network-from-centralization/

If you think adding some comments at the bottom of the article will be helpful, post away

Are there plans in place for PR as things develop further?

Whomever is in charge of the Spreadcoin Team twitter could tweet at him:

https://twitter.com/lopp

[coins101]

Seems as though services nodes running bitcoin nodes will have the infrastructure to run the bitcoin lightning network.

 

[innergy]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0

[defunctec]

Cool, got a reply from mr Lopp, hope he keeps an eye on Spreadcoin

[coins101]

A bitcoin node with over 800 GB of data transfer in Jan 2016



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43o74m/my_bitcoin_node_contributed_more_than_850_gb_of/

[coins101]

Very interesting proposal on proof of storage and why miners would need to pay nodes for information:

http://trilema.com/2016/the-necessary-prerequisite-for-any-change-to-the-bitcoin-protocol/

and in particular, this:

Exempli gratia : if the fourth block is added to a blockchain consisting of

60 bd e7 67 77 70 20 b2 e6 7c 46 c3 (12 bytes)
75 80 d2 b0 6e 6c 6d a9 5d 12 98 fe bf (13 bytes)
df fc 22 5f 2a 4d 50 d6 f3 fc c3 (11 bytes)

Then should that block use a nonce of 17, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(70 6e 50), whereas should that block use a nonce of 11, it must include a field equal to sha3-512(c3 fe df).

edit

Seems like an idea already raised, but here are some other interesting points:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas