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

[georgem]

To get a glimpse of how hardcore the solution of PoBN might look like, take a look at some posts of this mad scientist here:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/proof-of-local-blockchain-storage/

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/proof-of-unique-blockchain-storage-revised/

[1714869082]

1714869082

[stonehedge]

To get a glimpse of how hardcore the solution of PoBN might look like, take a look at some posts of this mad scientist here:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/proof-of-local-blockchain-storage/

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/proof-of-unique-blockchain-storage-revised/

Fairly hardcore.

I have a facetious question.  With all of this talk about it not being possible to prove the veracity of a bitcoin node, why should somebody trust bitcoin?

[georgem]

Fairly hardcore.

I have a facetious question.  With all of this talk about it not being possible to prove the veracity of a bitcoin node, why should somebody trust bitcoin?

Veracity?  

Veracity has been solved a long time ago by the decentralized P2P distribution of a PoW secured public ledger.

...why should somebody trust bitcoin?

It's a trustless system.

Listen, you can't keep moving the goal posts like that.
We were talking about uniqueness (and its many facets, like availability, connectivity and storage).

Why bring in veracity?

[stonehedge]

I'm not moving the goalposts.

All you had to do was point out that proving that a node has correct data is different to proving that a node is unique.

[stonehedge]

So, if somebody has 500 nodes running off one valid copy of the blockchain on appropriate hardware, is the impact on network resilience the only concern or are there other problems caused by this too?

Is somebody running 500 decently performing nodes from one blockchain copy better or worse than that person running no nodes at all?

[georgem]

I'm not moving the goalposts.

All you had to do was point out that proving that a node has correct data is different to proving that a node is unique.

Exactly, you just answered your own question.

With all of this talk about it not being possible to prove the veracity of a bitcoin node, why should somebody trust bitcoin?

That's what confused me, I thought we were obviously talking about uniqueness the whole time.

[stonehedge]

I'm not moving the goalposts.

All you had to do was point out that proving that a node has correct data is different to proving that a node is unique.

Exactly, you just answered your own question.

With all of this talk about it not being possible to prove the veracity of a bitcoin node, why should somebody trust bitcoin?

That's what confused me, I thought we were obviously talking about uniqueness the whole time.

I confused myself.  It has been a long day.

[georgem]

So, if somebody has 500 nodes running off one valid copy of the blockchain on appropriate hardware, is the impact on network resilience the only concern or are there other problems caused by this too?

It's a question of decentralization.

The effect of his blockchain having some kind of error (or being manipulated) will immediately affect 500 nodes.
This guy just restarting his server farm will be "felt" by the rest of the network. (and I mean spreadcoin network)

Is somebody running 500 decently performing nodes from one blockchain copy better or worse than that person running no nodes at all?

A person that doesn't run any node isn't part of the servicenode network anyway.
I expect that someone who runs such a large amount of servicenodes will run into many problems just from a micro-management point of view.
I'm looking forward to actually seeing someone try to run that many servicenodes in this "bot-net" like fashion and how he will keep hackers away who will see him as the easiest target available.

[stonehedge]

That person would still be providing the service of 500 bitcoin nodes.  That in my opinion seems better for Bitcoin than not running 500 nodes although the decentralisation issue is serious as you say.

[georgem]

That person would still be providing the service of 500 bitcoin nodes.  That in my opinion seems better for Bitcoin than not running 500 nodes although the decentralisation issue is serious as you say.

No he wouldn't. Well he would distribute those 500 fake bitcoin feeds to the spreadcoin network, so that they can be used within the blockexplorer.

But this single bitcoin node isn't mirrored 500 times to the rest of the bitcoin node network.

To the outside "bitcoin" world, this one bitcoin daemon is still just one bitcoin daemon.

Remember, we are not interfering with the bitcoin daemon in any way.
You are talking about someone who runs 500 Servicenodes that reuse that same single bitcoin node as data feed.
Servicenodes don't communicate with the bitcoin network.
We are our own network.

We are grabbing bitcoin data for our decentralized blockexplorer.

That's the first service.

[georgem]

That person would still be providing the service of 500 bitcoin nodes.  That in my opinion seems better for Bitcoin than not running 500 nodes although the decentralisation issue is serious as you say.

So, someone whose goal it is to reuse one bitcoin node (blockchain) for 500 servicenodes, so he can save costs,
is actually doing a disservice to both the bitcoin network (which requires as many distinct full nodes as possible)
and the servicenode network (whose services require high decentralization and the resiliance that follows from it).

Let's see how this goes.

For BreakThrough 1 I can't concern myself with solving this problem yet.

All I know is that this scenario you describe is a very artificial one anyway, and most distinct servicenode actors will run distinct servers with distinct full nodes anyway.

[stonehedge]

That person would still be providing the service of 500 bitcoin nodes.  That in my opinion seems better for Bitcoin than not running 500 nodes although the decentralisation issue is serious as you say.

So, someone whose goal it is to reuse one bitcoin node (blockchain) for 500 servicenodes, so he can save costs,
is actually doing a disservice to both the bitcoin network (which requires as many distinct full nodes as possible)
and the servicenode network (whose services require high decentralization and the resiliance that follows from it).

Let's see how this goes.

For BreakThrough 1 I can't concern myself with solving this problem yet.

All I know is that this scenario you describe is a very artificial one anyway, and most distinct servicenode actors will run distinct servers with distinct full nodes anyway.

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

[georgem]

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.  

[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

[coins101]

Challenge accepted

[coins101]

I'm liking the idea of a type of  PoW for block chain validation.

[coins101]

The Easiest Way to Run a Full Bitcoin Node: Bitcore Comes to the Microsoft Azure Cloud

25 JANUARY 2016 ENGINEERING

Earlier this month Microsoft announced our addition to their new blockchain as a service (BaaS) platform hosted on the cloud service Azure. Our open source Bitcoin full node and development platform Bitcore is the first Bitcoin service available for Azure users.

Run A Full Bitcoin Node in the Cloud

We built Bitcore to lower the barrier to entry to Bitcoin development. Whether you want to help build Bitcoin's peer to peer network or build better Bitcoin infrastructure for your company, running a full node is the best way to get started. Running Bitcore on the Azure cloud will make hosting a node even easier by getting rid of the need for local, dedicated machines.


https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcore-for-microsoft-azure/

If only there was a way to fund the hosting 

[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 ?

[Abou Talha]

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.

[coins101]

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 ?

See this announcement

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1045373.msg13481105#msg13481105

Should give you the info you need.  You'all need some weed to cointain the excitement you'll no doubt experience as you read through the update.