[EMUNIE] One small step for transactions, one giant leap for crypto

[lovely89]

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://www.blog.emunie.com/

Let's say a state actor or rogue ISP decides to shape traffic to fragment the network for an extended period of time.  I remember Dan talking about some arbitrary time limit built into the system that was rather short to cover network latency that was not covered by this.  If the network becomes fragmented into several different pieces this way, let's say three similar sized groups, what was the reference point governing the "longest chain" so to speak?  Is it the group with the highest reputation?  And is that reputation derived from averaging the entire group, or can you have just one guy with extremely high reputation making it a consensus of only...one person.

Fork consensus was not discussed enough at all when it's probably the most important part of any platform.  Dan kind of brushed it off like forks aren't going to be a problem when they definitely can be, especially with ISP traffic shaping and port blocking out the wazoo nowadays.


Comcast Doesn't Give A F*ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.msg12242079#msg12242079

Pretty sure you already read this. Wait for technical paper if you want more detail. Let's not go in circles.

[1713454128]

1713454128

[1713454128]

1713454128

[1713454128]

1713454128

[1713454128]

1713454128

[r0ach]

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://www.blog.emunie.com/

Let's say a state actor or rogue ISP decides to shape traffic to fragment the network for an extended period of time.  I remember Dan talking about some arbitrary time limit built into the system that was rather short to cover network latency that was not covered by this.  If the network becomes fragmented into several different pieces this way, let's say three similar sized groups, what was the reference point governing the "longest chain" so to speak?  Is it the group with the highest reputation?  And is that reputation derived from averaging the entire group, or can you have just one guy with extremely high reputation making it a consensus of only...one person.

Fork consensus was not discussed enough at all when it's probably the most important part of any platform.  Dan kind of brushed it off like forks aren't going to be a problem when they definitely can be, especially with ISP traffic shaping and port blocking out the wazoo nowadays.


Comcast Doesn't Give A F*ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.msg12242079#msg12242079

Pretty sure you already read this. Wait for technical paper if you want more detail. Let's not go in circles.

I remember that post now but wasn't thinking about state actor attacks at the time:  (n/3)-1.

Emunie seems trivial for a state actor to destroy completely compared to PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  If the state actor comes for PoW, you're just screwed temporarily.  If they come for PoS, you're screwed permanently, but they will probably make you rich in the process before it goes down.  If they go for DPoS, you won't see it coming, then it just implodes (unless all nodes are non-anonymous NGO or something like Tim Swanson says).  If they come for Emunie, the state actor attack doesn't even cost them anything since they already own or indirectly have control over all the infrastructure, then you just get a BSOD screen and it never works again.

[theprofileth]

And if your outlandish claims even were true wouldn't you just be damning all of crypto? And furthermore what if you are wrong? What if you are actually just blowing smoke up our ass like every other crackpot conspirator we have had to deal with? I think that may be you should wait until we have more details revealed before you slather on all the doom and gloom you can or maybe it was a mistake to even try to reason with you in the first place. But who knows maybe you will be right after all (though probably not) either way we are not going to simply lie down and give up when so much of the future of economic independence is at stake.
Also my bad before I messed up the link to the blog http://blog.emunie.com

[JBC]

The interest and processing payments are (last I heard) in equal portions meaning they each qualify for 45% of all new emu generated. Furthermore this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available. This means that while some will probably attempt to short their interest or payments, those who hold will actually be building capital proportional to their holdings.

More precisely the reason why, if this coin does launch, it won't go anywhere.  Go all the way back to March 2013 and people then were saying it was a crackpot mechanism.

We can look at the some-300 inflationary coins since 2013, since most copied inflationary PoW or induced a high PoS with an unlimited supply, and they all got drop like a hot potato.  Inflation is theft.

No one cares what fancy words you use.  At the end of the day eMunie is net inflationary and buyers will stay away once they realize Dan is putting his hand in their pockets.

All this fixation about "supply" and "price" just shows you to be an idiot savant and we already have coins like that out there.  NuBits is one but there's been others.  I should point out they're approaching the garbage bin capitalization and/or been de-listed from exchanges.

[Fuserleer]

The interest and processing payments are (last I heard) in equal portions meaning they each qualify for 45% of all new emu generated. Furthermore this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available. This means that while some will probably attempt to short their interest or payments, those who hold will actually be building capital proportional to their holdings.

More precisely the reason why, if this coin does launch, it won't go anywhere.  Go all the way back to March 2013 and people then were saying it was a crackpot mechanism.

We can look at the some-300 inflationary coins since 2013, since most copied inflationary PoW or induced a high PoS with an unlimited supply, and they all got drop like a hot potato.  Inflation is theft.

No one cares what fancy words you use.  At the end of the day eMunie is net inflationary and buyers will stay away once they realize Dan is putting his hand in their pockets.

All this fixation about "supply" and "price" just shows you to be an idiot savant and we already have coins like that out there.  NuBits is one but there's been others.  I should point out they're approaching the garbage bin capitalization and/or been de-listed from exchanges.

Thats a complete misunderstanding of, well, pretty much everything right there.  You have inflationary supply and inflationary value totally mixed up.

Bitcoin itself is inflationary, with regard to the supply, at least until 2140, its the price that is supposed to be deflationary (look how well that has worked for the past 18 months!)

An inflationary supply isn't theft so long as its not taking value from the existing currency in circulation.

If the price of an EMU is $1, and there are 1M in existence, but there is demand for 1M more, if the system does nothing, then the value of an EMU will double.  If the system creates 1M more EMU, then the price remains at $1...the currency is then neither inflationary or deflationary with regard to prices, so please explain how that is theft when everyones EMU still has the exact same purchasing power?

[Fuserleer]

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://www.blog.emunie.com/

Let's say a state actor or rogue ISP decides to shape traffic to fragment the network for an extended period of time.  I remember Dan talking about some arbitrary time limit built into the system that was rather short to cover network latency that was not covered by this.  If the network becomes fragmented into several different pieces this way, let's say three similar sized groups, what was the reference point governing the "longest chain" so to speak?  Is it the group with the highest reputation?  And is that reputation derived from averaging the entire group, or can you have just one guy with extremely high reputation making it a consensus of only...one person.

Fork consensus was not discussed enough at all when it's probably the most important part of any platform.  Dan kind of brushed it off like forks aren't going to be a problem when they definitely can be, especially with ISP traffic shaping and port blocking out the wazoo nowadays.


Comcast Doesn't Give A F*ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.msg12242079#msg12242079

Pretty sure you already read this. Wait for technical paper if you want more detail. Let's not go in circles.

I remember that post now but wasn't thinking about state actor attacks at the time:  (n/3)-1.

Emunie seems trivial for a state actor to destroy completely compared to PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  If the state actor comes for PoW, you're just screwed temporarily.  If they come for PoS, you're screwed permanently, but they will probably make you rich in the process before it goes down.  If they go for DPoS, you won't see it coming, then it just implodes (unless all nodes are non-anonymous NGO or something like Tim Swanson says).  If they come for Emunie, the state actor attack doesn't even cost them anything since they already own or indirectly have control over all the infrastructure, then you just get a BSOD screen and it never works again.

The point of reference is (as stated previously) the past endorsements that transaction producers have made, a sub-set of these are the nodes that are allowed to vote on future transactions.

In your scenario, imagine there are 99 nodes in the network, and they are all receiving endorsements constantly so they are all eligible to vote all of the time.

If the network suddenly splits into 3 sets of 33, then no future transaction can gain a majority, as 33 votes is always less than the 50 required, thus the ledger in all 3 groups is never appended to.  Those transactions time out and no forks results.

I cant explain it in any simpler terms than this, and if you still believe that there will be forks, well, I dont know what else to write.

[r3wt2]

I'm glad to see that you have stuck with this project. Haven't kept up with recent events around crypto. Can anyone give me a recap on the progress of eMunie? Last i was around it was a java program available in an early beta.

[Fuserleer]

I'm glad to see that you have stuck with this project. Haven't kept up with recent events around crypto. Can anyone give me a recap on the progress of eMunie? Last i was around it was a java program available in an early beta.

Pretty much the same, java, in beta lol

Lots of technological improvements though, speed, scalability, efficiency etc.. which enable a long term roadmap and a fulfillment of many goals that are still outstanding with crypto in general.

[monsterer]

If the network suddenly splits into 3 sets of 33, then no future transaction can gain a majority, as 33 votes is always less than the 50 required, thus the ledger in all 3 groups is never appended to.  Those transactions time out and no forks results.

I cant explain it in any simpler terms than this, and if you still believe that there will be forks, well, I dont know what else to write.

What about long range attacks? Is the evidence of past voting history difficult to forge?

[Fuserleer]

If the network suddenly splits into 3 sets of 33, then no future transaction can gain a majority, as 33 votes is always less than the 50 required, thus the ledger in all 3 groups is never appended to.  Those transactions time out and no forks results.

I cant explain it in any simpler terms than this, and if you still believe that there will be forks, well, I dont know what else to write.

What about long range attacks? Is the evidence of past voting history difficult to forge?

Endorsement information is included in transaction data, which is signed by the transaction creator.  They are not malleable in any way.

[monsterer]

Endorsement information is included in transaction data, which is signed by the transaction creator.  They are not malleable in any way.

Malleability isn't the problem - if I am a node which is syncing with the network and I'm presented with two different forks of the chain, how do I select between them?

[Fuserleer]

Endorsement information is included in transaction data, which is signed by the transaction creator.  They are not malleable in any way.

Malleability isn't the problem - if I am a node which is syncing with the network and I'm presented with two different forks of the chain, how do I select between them?

Aren't we just going full circle again here? 

The endorsements guard against forks, because future transactions reference them so as to confirm. 

If someone changes some/all the endorsements in a copy of the ledger (its not a chain), in an attempt to present a "fork", those modified transactions wont validate because the hashes of the transactions will not verify against the signature.

The "fork" is junk, because no one can validate it, the ledgers of nodes trying to sync to it wont add a single transaction from it, so there is no choice to make.

A fork is only possible if you can change history, which is what you are suggesting here.  However, ledger history can not be changed due to the deterministic nature of who gets to vote, and the difficulty in modifying past endorsements which govern that.

[monsterer]

If someone changes some/all the endorsements in a copy of the ledger (its not a chain), in an attempt to present a "fork", those modified transactions wont validate because the hashes of the transactions will not verify against the signature.

Ahhhh, right. Ok, so there is no chain (or history) at all, just the current state? And said state is only valid if the majority of the current N node endorse it?

[Fuserleer]

If someone changes some/all the endorsements in a copy of the ledger (its not a chain), in an attempt to present a "fork", those modified transactions wont validate because the hashes of the transactions will not verify against the signature.

Ahhhh, right. Ok, so there is no chain (or history) at all, just the current state? And said state is only valid if the majority of the current N node endorse it?

Close enough yes.

There is a history of states for syncing & auditing purposes, but only the current state of the ledger is referenced when appending/voting on new transactions.

If you are syncing from a historic point, say if you were offline, then your node would request the state actions you are missing, and action them to get to the same state as everyone else.  

Every historic action results in a new local current state of the ledger, then you apply the next one.  The actions have to be applied in sequence for you to successfully sync to the same state as everyone else because of the determinism.

If any of the presented actions cant be applied, because they were tampered with for example, your sync stops at that point until you have a state that you can apply and continue.

[monsterer]

There is a history of states for syncing & auditing purposes, but only the current state of the ledger is referenced when appending/voting on new transactions.

If you are syncing from a historic point, say if you were offline, then your node would request the state actions you are missing, and action them to get to the same state as everyone else.  

So there is a chain of history? Which is it, I'm confused?

Ok, so assuming there is a chain, and I am a syncing node just joining the network for the first time AND I am presented with two different chain histories, how do I know which one to pick?

[Fuserleer]

There is a history of states for syncing & auditing purposes, but only the current state of the ledger is referenced when appending/voting on new transactions.

If you are syncing from a historic point, say if you were offline, then your node would request the state actions you are missing, and action them to get to the same state as everyone else.  

So there is a chain of history? Which is it, I'm confused?

Ok, so assuming there is a chain, and I am a syncing node just joining the network for the first time AND I am presented with two different chain histories, how do I know which one to pick?

There is a ledger, not a single chain.  The ledger is of n channels, which contain past transactions for that channel arranged as a tree.

IF you were to join and be presented with a 2 ledgers to sync from the genesis transaction, only one would be valid.  That would be the ledger where the first transactions are voted for by the bootstrap nodes.

So you can't have 2 ledgers to start with, unless all operators of the bootstrap nodes have signed the first transactions in both (which they wont)

[monsterer]

There is a ledger, not a single chain.  The ledger is of n channels, which contain past transactions for that channel arranged as a tree.

IF you were to join and be presented with a 2 ledgers to sync from the genesis transaction, only one would be valid.  That would be the ledger where the first transactions are voted for by the bootstrap nodes.

So you can't have 2 ledgers to start with, unless all operators of the bootstrap nodes have signed the first transactions in both (which they wont)

So, these bootstrap nodes, where do they come from, are they a fixed set?

[nextgencoin]

The interest and processing payments are (last I heard) in equal portions meaning they each qualify for 45% of all new emu generated. Furthermore this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available. This means that while some will probably attempt to short their interest or payments, those who hold will actually be building capital proportional to their holdings.

More precisely the reason why, if this coin does launch, it won't go anywhere.  Go all the way back to March 2013 and people then were saying it was a crackpot mechanism.

We can look at the some-300 inflationary coins since 2013, since most copied inflationary PoW or induced a high PoS with an unlimited supply, and they all got drop like a hot potato.  Inflation is theft.

No one cares what fancy words you use.  At the end of the day eMunie is net inflationary and buyers will stay away once they realize Dan is putting his hand in their pockets.

All this fixation about "supply" and "price" just shows you to be an idiot savant and we already have coins like that out there.  NuBits is one but there's been others.  I should point out they're approaching the garbage bin capitalization and/or been de-listed from exchanges.

Thats a complete misunderstanding of, well, pretty much everything right there.  You have inflationary supply and inflationary value totally mixed up.

Bitcoin itself is inflationary, with regard to the supply, at least until 2140, its the price that is supposed to be deflationary (look how well that has worked for the past 18 months!)

An inflationary supply isn't theft so long as its not taking value from the existing currency in circulation.

If the price of an EMU is $1, and there are 1M in existence, but there is demand for 1M more, if the system does nothing, then the value of an EMU will double.  If the system creates 1M more EMU, then the price remains at $1...the currency is then neither inflationary or deflationary with regard to prices, so please explain how that is theft when everyones EMU still has the exact same purchasing power?

I don't care if you are fucking Satoshi. Coming out with lines like inflationary supply isn't theft....a inflationary supply is fucking the definition of theft. Inflation by definition is theft and inflation by definition is increasing the money supply...If we want this system we can use fiat and the FED...dick.


People love to sound smart and say Bitcoin is inflationary but that's a BS argument. Bitcoin has a limited supply.....just like Gold has a limited supply, that's the point. the fact it is in the process of distributing that fixed supply is NOT the point.

[Macemu]

There's nothing like a reasoned argument...and that is certainly nothing like one!

[nextgencoin]

There's nothing like a reasoned argument...and that is certainly nothing like one!

There is nothing like a developer using sockpuppet accounts to push their agenda to inspire trust. Lol



Don't even try to deny it.....