Bitcoin Forum
September 20, 2021, 04:14:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks  (Read 70643 times)
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2015, 11:10:14 PM
Last edit: September 12, 2015, 02:56:09 AM by Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Merited by ETFbitcoin (7), ebliever (5), Financisto (1)
 #1

DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks

Back in 2012 I thought a lot on a new cryptocurrency that could merge the concepts of transaction and block. Each transaction would carry a proof-of-work and reference one or more previous transactions. The resulting authenticated data structure would be a Direct Acyclic Graph (DAG) of transactions where each transaction “confirms” one or more previous transactions. The confirmation security of a transaction would be measured in accumulated amount of proof-of-work referencing (or confirming) the transaction. This structure is well suited for a cryptocurrency without subsidy (such as a side-chain). On the past years I’ve read a couple of similar proposals on bitcointalk (although I cannot find the references now). When the GHOST paper was published, I perceived it as a reinforcement of my idea that a tree could give more security than a chain in case of high rate of transactions.

My open problems…

The problem that I could not solve in 2012 is how to limit the maximum cut of the generated DAG or, in other words, how to prevent all new transactions from referencing the same set of parent transactions. How to create the incentive to “move forward”? The DAG must not increase in “width”, and it should look more like a DAG-chain. Also one must prevent users from choosing old transactions to extend the DAG. I tried several monetary incentive structures to force users to choose newer transactions, but with no result. To know the last “ledger state” there must be a way to consolidate branches. Merging branches should be good, but not too good such that everyone starts merging the same branches over and over. The problem of spam was also less important, as no transaction would be able to get a “free ride” in a block, as each transaction carries PoW. Ultimately the owners of a computer that is being part of a spamming botnet would realize their computers have been hijacked based on the amount of CPU consumed. For instance, if a transaction requires a proof-of-work that takes 1 second in a standard PC, and each transaction is 400 bytes in size, then a botnet consisting in 10K computers may create transaction reaching 3 Mbytes/second. This high network bandwidth usage itself is not a problem, since it can disrupt the network only as long as the attack is active. However, there must be a way to prevent the DAG-chain from growing at that pace. It turns out that the election of an optimal data structure allows the DAG-chain to be compressed, but it requires us to change how we think about double-spends, and how we conceive the “ledger state”.

A Radical Change

The leap of faith required to find an out-of-the-box solution is to think about double-spends not as a boolean attribute, but as a probabilistic attribute, based on comparing the confirmation work on competing transactions. An the security of a transaction, as the confirmation work compared to the the work expected that an adversary may use. Also it requires to forget about the concept of a “global ledger state”. In Bitcoin there is a global ledger state. Chain reorganizations can always rollback the state, but the state is globally consistent. There is a certain probability of the last block rolling back, but the probability is the same for every transaction in that block. In this proposal, the ledger state is just the overlap of all possible transactions, each with its own confirmation probability, and there is no consistent global state.

Design Premise: “The cryptocurrency network benefits from creating a DAG growing as “thin” as possible.

In other words, having the average maximal cut as low as possible. It seems that referencing many previous transactions (high out degree) can make the DAG thinner only if the following transactions reference the transaction with high out degree, but are themselves of low out degree. So we want high out degree some times, but low out degree another times.

I designed a DAG that tries to fulfill that premise, and an associated incentive structure such that:

 There is a benefit for users to reference as many previous transactions as possible
 Referencing many previous transactions is incentivized only when there are many previous transactions unreferenced.
 There is no competition between users to reference a previous transaction.

Here is the paper draft  –> DagCoin-v4 https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

This same article can be found in my blog: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/dagcoin/
1632111271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632111271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632111271
Reply with quote  #2

1632111271
Report to moderator
1632111271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632111271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632111271
Reply with quote  #2

1632111271
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1632111271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632111271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632111271
Reply with quote  #2

1632111271
Report to moderator
1632111271
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1632111271

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1632111271
Reply with quote  #2

1632111271
Report to moderator
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 11, 2015, 11:50:52 PM
 #2

Very interesting. I'm coding a very similar system right now. 80% is already done.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 12:02:13 AM
Last edit: September 12, 2015, 02:05:48 AM by tromp
 #3

I would feel more convinced of the well behaviour of this DAG if every transaction
can be viewed as the end point of a totally ordered valid sequence of transactions.

That would prevent the situation you describe where two ancestor transactions are in conflict.
I think that should make the joint descendant transaction invalid.

For a transaction referencing k parents tx_1..tx_k, we would like to define its total
order in terms of those of its parents. Let TX be the last transaction in their
intersection. Then all these histories agree up to TX and we need to define
a valid merge of the k sequence suffixes. Some merges will have conflicts, which
is something to be avoided. The problem reduces to the question of
which of the next available transactions (whose number is between 2 and k)
should extend the total order defined so far.

Have you considered whether this approach to well-ordering is feasible?

Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 01:53:29 AM
 #4

Very interesting. I'm coding a very similar system right now. 80% is already done.

Is it the quorum based Qubic?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 07:43:21 AM
 #5

Is it the quorum based Qubic?

No.
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 12, 2015, 10:16:08 AM
 #6


Woho, another one. Tell us more.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 10:22:45 AM
 #7

Woho, another one. Tell us more.

Just read the OP. That description suits on 90%.
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 11:19:22 AM
 #8


Does it have anything to do with jl777's Crypto777? I remember you sold some technology to jl777.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 11:38:29 AM
 #9

Does it have anything to do with jl777's Crypto777? I remember you sold some technology to jl777.

That tech was about pegging.
patmast3r
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1001


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 12:02:24 PM
 #10

This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 12, 2015, 12:15:42 PM
 #11

This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.

It only works if there is a backlog of transactions.

The magic behind any new cryptocurrency token is that since you can create money, you can set an incentive to confirm old transactions. So you can bootstrap your cryptocurrency.

When Bitcoin has no or very low subsidy, it will need a backlog of transactions to go forward. So the problem with DagCoin is bootstrapping. If you have an application where you can keep a flow of transactions going, you can make it work. Also you can add a subsidy to each transaction that has a very high PoW, and create an inflationary cryptocurrency whose price varies with electricity cost and inflates with Moore's law.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 12, 2015, 12:23:27 PM
 #12

I would feel more convinced of the well behaviour of this DAG if every transaction
can be viewed as the end point of a totally ordered valid sequence of transactions.


This is true for DagCoin. If a transaction references two parents having conflicting transactions, only one of them becomes valid, and that is the one with more PoW. If both have the same PoW, then the first one is the valid one. Never a transaction validates two conflicting recursively referenced txs.

The only drawback is that which one is the valid one is not immediate obvious: you need the appropriate data structure and the whole transaction tree (up to a checkpoint) to find which one is the valid one.

I think one of the new ideas about DagCoin is that the number of parents you can reference is not chosen by the user, but by the PoW found: the lower the hash, the higher the number of parents you must reference.



tsoPANos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500

In math we trust.


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 12:54:31 PM
 #13

It sounds to me quite interesting.
Actually, I had similar ideas over time, but I didn't bother messing with them.
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 01:45:18 PM
 #14

Comparing to Bitcoin, what are the advantages and disadvantages of Dagcoin?
mcelrath
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 01:49:13 PM
 #15

Sergio, why are you worried about the "width" of the DAG?  I would think that every miner is incentivized to extend the "tips" of the DAG.  It really comes down to the metric for "work".  Bitcoin's measure of work is extremely simplistic because of its linear structure.  With a DAG you're looking at the "work" in the set of transactions upstream of the current transaction.  If miners "widen" the DAG, they are not contributing work...all the transactions have the same amount of work -- that of themselves plus their parent.  So this seems easy to solve by computing "work" in a smarter way.

I have a couple of preliminary formulas for calculating work in a DAG under certain constant-target assumptions that eliminate your concern, I think, but I feel there's still a better solution I haven't found yet.  I also want to get rid of the target difficulty and simply combine whatever hashes show up.  (This then frees "difficulty" to be a node-specific quantity that can be used for bandwidth control and DDoS protection)

In case you haven't seen it, I propose the same thing (DAG-chain) here:

http://blog.sldx.com/three-challenges-for-scaling-bitcoin/

I have a longer draft with a lot more specifics on the DAG/braid concept that I'm not ready to publish just yet.  Only as of last week am I paid to work on bitcoin, so can actually bring it to fruition.  We should see if we can collaborate, feel free to contact me privately.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 12, 2015, 09:44:04 PM
 #16

So this seems easy to solve by computing "work" in a smarter way.

This smarter way may open the system to Sybil attacks if it removes "linearity", splitting/merging/recombination of transactions may give adversary an advantage in this case.


I also want to get rid of the target difficulty and simply combine whatever hashes show up.

Without difficulty you don't know if someone did a lot of work or just was superlucky (and got a lot of leading zeros).
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 13, 2015, 12:38:55 PM
Last edit: September 13, 2015, 01:06:56 PM by Sergio_Demian_Lerner
 #17

Sergio, why are you worried about the "width" of the DAG?  I would think that every miner is incentivized to extend the "tips" of the DAG.  

As I didn't run simulations, I was worried about how would the width vary for different loads on the network. I want users to be able to reference many parent transactions if the braid is getting "thick", and reference only one if the braid is a chain. What would be the rule for the client wallet to decide ? As processing a transaction having many parents has a cost to the network, then this amount must be linked with the transaction PoW somehow.

I read your post and some other posts about this same matter the last months, so I decided to publish my old draft paper, so that others can use those ideas. But I'm not actively working on it.
 

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2591



View Profile
September 13, 2015, 02:35:06 PM
 #18

I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved  Wink.

This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  Smiley

Vires in numeris
ashour
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 13, 2015, 06:12:13 PM
 #19

Really Interesting idea, a coin without blocks can solve many problems that bitcoin is having.
crazyearner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 14, 2015, 02:17:41 AM
 #20

Nice ideas and innovation of a future coin. Hope you succeed in making it happen as need something different that stands out from the rest of them. Without blocks will be different but how is this going to be controlled or being accessed. How will the distribution be provided without blocks? Am guessing going to be using a different name or distribution service to provide miners if going to be mineable or another ICO? If this becomes ICO then CMO. Stuck on my watch list for the future to see how this turns out.

=
  R E B E L L I O U S 
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  R E B E L L I O U S
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 14, 2015, 03:45:48 PM
 #21

The transaction links point to related transactions, such as inputs and outputs in bitcoin, or completely unrelated?
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 14, 2015, 03:51:10 PM
 #22

The transaction links point to related transactions, such as inputs and outputs in bitcoin, or completely unrelated?

Outputs consumed by the tx are already linked to.

These are unrelated and should be recent tips of the DAG.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 14, 2015, 05:34:12 PM
 #23

Outputs consumed by the tx are already linked to.

These are unrelated and should be recent tips of the DAG.

You could imagine a DAG where the only connections between transactions are the inputs and outputs - the tips are the unspent outputs. I take it this design is not that?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
September 14, 2015, 07:50:33 PM
 #24

I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved  Wink.

This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  Smiley

no need of coin initial distribution in the case it is operated as a sidechain, right?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2591



View Profile
September 14, 2015, 09:37:10 PM
 #25

I was just thinking to myself, "but how will the initial distribution be handled under this coin?"... and then I suddenly realised the problem is already solved  Wink.

This, or similar such ideas, sound like a potential solution to the possible problems when bitcoin hits the zero block reward stage. To be exploring that area so early is an optimistic sign  Smiley

no need of coin initial distribution in the case it is operated as a sidechain, right?

Well, I was thinking more about replacing the main chain with a chain like this: one that does not depend on 3rd party mining, i.e. directly peer to peer.

I think it's fair to say that it's still an open question as to whether the zero block reward situation can be sustained on fees alone. If differentiation of nodes from miners could be made redundant by a DAG chain design  (or some other tree type chain that enables the same), then why keep that? Such a change would obviously have an ideal decentralising effect on how the hashrate is distributed, it sounds like a big design win to me.

Vires in numeris
Remember remember the 5th of November
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1003

Reverse engineer from time to time


View Profile
September 14, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
 #26

I think we're getting to a point where it's sort of a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" type of situation where more and more cryptos are churned out and not one is being solely focused on to further it.

BTC:1AiCRMxgf1ptVQwx6hDuKMu4f7F27QmJC2
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
 #27

I think we're getting to a point where it's sort of a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" type of situation where more and more cryptos are churned out and not one is being solely focused on to further it.

But all of the cryptos are furthering crypto. gmaxwell said it himself in that elements video - its become difficult (or near impossible) to experiment with the primary blockchain; hence, sidechains. And indeed, other cryptos test things beyond the primary technology - for instance, one interpretation of Monero's apparent staying power is that people have trusted cryptocurrency enough to not even need to see their transaction on the blockchain with their own eyes. I ponder what types of tangential aspects the DAG-type protocol would test.  

sorry for the off topic, those comments confuse me.

Interesting proposal - I thought I came up with something crazy yesterday and then was pointed to this post. My initial confound was the distribution, but as you mentioned, having this function as a sidechain is an interesting solution or just in general having it deployed on an extant blockchain.

IMO, one of the interesting aspects of this concept is that it furthers decentralization. Though one concern I haven't worked through is whether a nefarious actor could control the "blockchain" if they just continued to transact, being willing to part with some % of their money in fees in exchange. But these thoughts could be nascent... need to read more.

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2591



View Profile
September 15, 2015, 06:18:29 PM
 #28

IMO, one of the interesting aspects of this concept is that it furthers decentralization. Though one concern I haven't worked through is whether a nefarious actor could control the "blockchain" if they just continued to transact, being willing to part with some % of their money in fees in exchange.

I think it could be done entirely without fees, just using valid proof of work as the means for verification.

Fees lose their structural role when the verification is done 100% p2p, because the incentive for the participants to donate proof of work is so that they can use their money the same as all others. And DAG fits the real world usage model; provide the proof of work when it is needed, i.e when the participant wishes to make a transaction. It almost sounds to good to be true though, so I share your cautious optimism, which is why it needs examining. The idea is deserving of it.


Vires in numeris
P-Funk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 361
Merit: 250

Token


View Profile
September 15, 2015, 06:21:05 PM
 #29

Really cool to know people are working on viable cryptocurrency beyond the Bitcoin model.  I have a suggestion for you if your vision is to see your creation become a successful proof of concept like Bitcoin is. Please choose a good name! DagCoin doesn't particularly stand out, or roll off the tongue well in my personal opinion.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 15, 2015, 06:24:42 PM
 #30

A key epiphany is that POW = coins. So you can replace transaction fees with solving a POW to send a transaction. The only real problem with that is the difficulty factor, difficulty must not be so high that sending a transaction is impossible on a home computer, but yet be high enough that the network doesn't start suffering sybil attack as bitcoin's is.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 15, 2015, 07:14:48 PM
 #31

A key epiphany is that POW = coins. So you can replace transaction fees with solving a POW to send a transaction. The only real problem with that is the difficulty factor, difficulty must not be so high that sending a transaction is impossible on a home computer, but yet be high enough that the network doesn't start suffering sybil attack as bitcoin's is.

Or you could pay money to someone to find a PoW nonce for you.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2591



View Profile
September 15, 2015, 07:46:09 PM
 #32

I'm reminded of Tier Nolan's helical chains proposal. The idea there was to create a minimum of 4 main chains, as a way of decreasing the (average) block interval by the same factor. This had the secondary advantage that the mining market would experience a decentralising effect, as a lower practical block interval lowers the barriers to entry (finding blocks), but all without compromising the orphan rate. Possibly important to propagation in the world of >1MB blocks.

Be interesting if this could be applied to the main chain as a staged transition; sympathising with the block halving schedule, firstly introducing something like the helical chains idea, with the provision that the helical codebase could be then be ported to the pure p2p of a DAG style system as block reward hits zero.

Vires in numeris
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2015, 07:47:10 PM
 #33

IMO, one of the interesting aspects of this concept is that it furthers decentralization. Though one concern I haven't worked through is whether a nefarious actor could control the "blockchain" if they just continued to transact, being willing to part with some % of their money in fees in exchange.

I think it could be done entirely without fees, just using valid proof of work as the means for verification.

Fees lose their structural role when the verification is done 100% p2p, because the incentive for the participants to donate proof of work is so that they can use their money the same as all others. And DAG fits the real world usage model; provide the proof of work when it is needed, i.e when the participant wishes to make a transaction. It almost sounds to good to be true though, so I share your cautious optimism, which is why it needs examining. The idea is deserving of it.



Hrm - this means I haven't fully digested the research done in the OP. In my imagining of this, the verification is still "crowdsourced" and not directly p2p. I.e., when you make a transaction, you're also making a block candidate, with your transaction "on top". If you're POW fails to meet difficulty, your transaction/block candidate hybrid joins a pool of other failed block candidates. (or one can imagine a temporary failchain, but this might be similar to the DAG). Once a successful POW is obtained, that block candidate is accepted into the blockchain, and the other failed candidates are cleared (or if they are linked on a failchain, they naturally clear). In this version, you prevent spamming the work-space (like is currently done with bitcoin) by forcing every POW to include a novel transaction.

I know there are holes in the above. So I should go back to trying to understand this DAG thing.

But indeed, as you say, if you remove the fees (or the any blatant incentive for supporting the network), then there's no incentive to spam the workspace.

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2591



View Profile
September 16, 2015, 12:14:25 AM
 #34

But indeed, as you say, if you remove the fees (or the any blatant incentive for supporting the network), then there's no incentive to spam the workspace.

Right, because you have to expend the work for every transaction, so it's not really free, you pay a non-monetary fee. So a cryptographic/work proof fee instead, not unlike the incentive aspect of the original hashcash.

Vires in numeris
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 16, 2015, 07:06:00 AM
 #35

Or you could pay money to someone to find a PoW nonce for you.

Having a p2p market for hashes opens all kinds of doors
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 16, 2015, 11:13:08 AM
 #36

I ponder how full node maintenance is incentivized in this architecture, if at all.

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 16, 2015, 10:01:23 PM
 #37

I ponder how full node maintenance is incentivized in this architecture, if at all.
Same as in Bitcoin. Miners are no longer the full nodes maintainers. Only pools and users are.

To incentivize users mining on top of your transaction, you could add a fee to be taken by the confirmating tx. But to prevent orphaning wars, the maximum fee should be limited. DECOR+ is too expensive in terms of additional overhead to implement as per-transaction basis. And if tx fees are shared, txs would need to specify an additional payout address for accumulation of fees. That is not good for a txout-based ledger, because it generates too many spamming utxos. I can work for an account-based ledger. For example, if tx1 attach a fee of F, then the fist confirmation tx gets F*0.4, the next one gets F*0.3, next 0.2, last 0.1.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 17, 2015, 05:04:22 AM
 #38

I'm sorry that this topic is a little above my head.  I'm posting here mainly to monitor it in the future. 
 
That being said, my concerns is that this sounds a lot like the "torrent" based blockchain I was thinking about the other day.... not every node needs to carry the full blockchain; just portions of it.  That way anyone who wanted to verify the entire 7XB blockchain could do so (though laboriously) by assembling all the pieces of the "torrent". 
 
My only concern with a crypto with just nodes would be ELI5 solutions to the obvious problems like double-spending, Sybil attacks, accidentally incentivizing centralization, etc. 
 
The beautiful thing about Bitcoin (and Cryptonote) is that its possible to simplify them down to analogies that even a 'grandmother' can understand.  Let's hope this DAG-concept is capable of the same.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
JeWay
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
 #39

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! Shocked
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 11:14:35 AM
 #40

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! Shocked

This idea naturally follows from blockchain if you do few simple steps:

1. Get rid of the coinbase transaction
2. Allow only one transaction per block
3. Allow to reference several previous blocks at the arbitrary height

As all obvious things this didn't attract much attention, of course.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 01:05:32 PM
 #41

2. Allow only one transaction per block

4. Argue whether the transaction should be limited to 1M or 8MB or ...

Sorry; couldn't resist:-)
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 01:11:13 PM
 #42

4. Argue whether the transaction should be limited to 1M or 8MB or ...

Sorry; couldn't resist:-)

 Grin

All transactions can have the same size and chain together to form bigger transactions. So this issue can be solved once and forever.
loncryp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 01:17:36 PM
 #43

I completely support this idea, hope this is successful would be interested in how things develop!
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 02:08:38 PM
 #44

Very interesting. I'm coding a very similar system right now. 80% is already done.

What is the name of your system or coin?
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 03:05:45 PM
Last edit: September 17, 2015, 03:20:27 PM by DumbFruit
 #45

One could look at this as a one transaction per block blockchain with no difficulty adjustments. If this algorithm were used in a highly decentralized environment it would be extremely difficult for separate clients to reach consensus about a transaction history.
What would end up happening, because it would render the most consistent transaction history, is transactions would be sent to a node or maybe a handful of centralized nodes that would process the transaction.

You reference this problem here, emphasis mine;
Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
One of the problems with the DAG approach is how to limit the maximum cut of the generated DAG
or, in other words, how to prevent all new transactions from referencing the same set of parent
transactions, and degenerating the DAG into a star graph. The DAG must not increase in “width”,
and it must “look” more like a yarn under microscope. I will call this structure a DAG-chain.

And then you say you address it with the following incentive structure;
Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
DagCoin tries to fulfill that premise, using an incentive structure such that:
- There is a benefit for users to reference as many previous transactions as possible
- Referencing many previous transactions is incentivized only when there are many previous
transactions unreferenced.
- There is no competition between users to reference a previous transaction.
The first incentive is what is creating the problem. A node wants to get as many transactions as it can, and those transactions should reference themselves as much as possible.

The second, requiring that many transactions be unreferenced, is putting the cart before the horse. Nodes can't agree on what transactions are unreferenced before already having consensus about the current state of the network, which is what you're trying to solve to begin with.
Even if it wasn't putting the cart before the horse, only the most centralized nodes would have the most information about unreferenced transactions.

The third is irrelevant. Nodes can't compete to reference the same transaction because that would require they have the same information, which again, is the problem we're trying to solve in the first place; Consensus about the data.

So I don't see how this protocol addresses the problem of "degenerating the DAG into a star graph" as you put it, or being subject to extreme centralization pressures, as I would put it.

https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 04:07:12 PM
 #46

What is the name of your system or coin?

Classified till the announcement.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 04:21:22 PM
 #47

What is the name of your system or coin?

Classified till the announcement.

I'm guessing... Coin-From-Beyond
Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 04:23:23 PM
 #48

Classified till the announcement.

Any ETA for the announcement?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 17, 2015, 04:39:44 PM
 #49

Any ETA for the announcement?

End of this month if the whitepaper is ready in time.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 17, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
 #50


What is the name of your system or coin?


Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
vaporware asset wizard
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 162
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 18, 2015, 09:34:04 AM
 #51

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! Shocked

This idea naturally follows from blockchain if you do few simple steps:

1. Get rid of the coinbase transaction
2. Allow only one transaction per block
3. Allow to reference several previous blocks at the arbitrary height

As all obvious things this didn't attract much attention, of course.

is this tech similar to what Fuserleer is doing with emunie? afaik emunie uses balances now without any blocks
patmast3r
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1001


View Profile
September 18, 2015, 12:04:11 PM
 #52

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! Shocked

This idea naturally follows from blockchain if you do few simple steps:

1. Get rid of the coinbase transaction
2. Allow only one transaction per block
3. Allow to reference several previous blocks at the arbitrary height

As all obvious things this didn't attract much attention, of course.

is this tech similar to what Fuserleer is doing with emunie? afaik emunie uses balances now without any blocks

I think emunie uses a trust score now and I also think balance doesn't influence that score but I could be wrong on that.

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
September 18, 2015, 05:48:01 PM
 #53

how do 51% attacks apply in this dag scheme?

Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 763
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 19, 2015, 01:25:23 AM
 #54

What is the name of your system or coin?
Classified till the announcement.

I wonder if you have heard this Bitcoin-NG - next generation of Bitcoin - https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/presentations/Day1/8-Ittay-eyal-testbed-for-bitcoin-scaling.pdf

http://www.coindesk.com/cornell-research-blockchain-problems-bitcoin-ng/

Any comments on it?
crazyearner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 19, 2015, 04:09:04 AM
 #55

Will be interesting to see how this coin develops and becomes a next generation coin without blocks. Will be following this one close for updates and developments. Will sure solve a lot of problems that a lot of the current cryptos face with blockchains.

=
  R E B E L L I O U S 
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  R E B E L L I O U S
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 19, 2015, 07:42:23 AM
 #56


I don't like their design because it leads to a heterogenous system which is harder to analyse and implement. Also it looks like a half-measure.

We were forced to go in another direction because our coin targets micropayment and IoT markets and must be friendly to devices with very limited processing power and storage. The goal was achieved by creating strong incentive to behave honestly in cases when "blockchain" data are split among thousands devices. The splitting allows to use different techniques (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce) and seems to ease the scalability problem.
Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
September 19, 2015, 08:38:33 AM
 #57

I never even think that this thing exist, this is a brilliant idea!!! Shocked

This idea naturally follows from blockchain if you do few simple steps:

1. Get rid of the coinbase transaction
2. Allow only one transaction per block
3. Allow to reference several previous blocks at the arbitrary height

As all obvious things this didn't attract much attention, of course.

is this tech similar to what Fuserleer is doing with emunie? afaik emunie uses balances now without any blocks

Its similar in some principles, very different in others.  We don't use blocks at all and just push individual transactions around as a kind of ordered soup.  No chain, but instead use transaction channels of which there can be millions, and we track balances not inputs/outputs.

All radically different and lots of hoops to jump through (balances are a lot harder to deal with than you might think) but allows a lot of benefits.  I'm writing some docs on our ledger stuff at the moment to go along with the consensus info I posted a couple weeks ago, hopefully be done with it this coming week.

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 19, 2015, 12:21:24 PM
 #58

Is this thread an altcoin discussion?  OP is well respected.



▄▄                                  ▄▄
 ███▄                            ▄███
  ██████                      ██████
   ███████                  ███████
    ███████                ███████
     ███████              ███████
      ███████            ███████
       ███████▄▄      ▄▄███████
        ██████████████████████
         ████████████████████
          ██████████████████
           ████████████████
            ██████████████
             ███████████
              █████████
               ███████
                █████
                 ██
                  █
veil|     PRIVACY    
     WITHOUT COMPROMISE.      
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
|   NO ICO. NO PREMINE. 
   X16RT GPU Mining. Fair distribution.  
|      The first Zerocoin-based Cryptocurrency      
   WITH ALWAYS-ON PRIVACY.  
|



                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌




   ▄███████
   ████████
   ███▀
   ███
██████████
██████████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███




     ▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄
   ▐██▄▄██████████████▄▄██▌
   ████████████████████████
  ▐████████████████████████▌
  ███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
 ▐██████     ████     ██████▌
 ███████     ████     ███████
▐████████▄▄▄██████▄▄▄████████▌
▐████████████████████████████▌
 █████▄▄▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▄▄█████
  ▀▀██████          ██████▀▀
      ▀▀▀            ▀▀▀
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 19, 2015, 12:26:50 PM
 #59

Is this thread an altcoin discussion?  OP is well respected.

We discuss an idea and its implementations, where have you come from?

Maybe from Beyond...
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
September 20, 2015, 01:26:30 PM
 #60

Is this thread an altcoin discussion?  OP is well respected.

We discuss an idea and its implementations, where have you come from?

Maybe from Beyond...

One thing is an altcoin: a copy of Bitcoin with minor modifications and nothing interesting. Another thing is a new cryptocurrency design.

This forum has aways been 100% open to discuss any possible cryptocurrency research direction.

Anyway, I'm not planning to implement DagCoin: it's just an idea. But I support all attempts to create new interesting cryptocurrencies. If they work, Bitcoin may use the new technologies using side-chains (and that's why I support side-chains 100%)

Bitcoin benefits from all cryptocurrency research (academic or amateur), because it gives us insight into what are the limits of the technology. As times passes cryptocurrency research is turning more academic, and "new ideas" posted in some blog/forum may become less common.
 
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 376
Merit: 300


View Profile
September 20, 2015, 08:03:17 PM
 #61

I ponder how full node maintenance is incentivized in this architecture, if at all.
To incentivize users mining on top of your transaction, you could add a fee to be taken by the confirmating tx. But to prevent orphaning wars, the maximum fee should be limited. DECOR+ is too expensive in terms of additional overhead to implement as per-transaction basis. And if tx fees are shared, txs would need to specify an additional payout address for accumulation of fees. That is not good for a txout-based ledger, because it generates too many spamming utxos. I can work for an account-based ledger. For example, if tx1 attach a fee of F, then the first confirmation tx gets F*0.4, the next one gets F*0.3, next 0.2, last 0.1.
How does the network achieve consensus, on who was the first, who was the second, etc.?
dothebeats
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1267


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 01:57:27 AM
 #62

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

████  ███████  ███
██████████
███      ███████
███      ███████████
██████████████████
████████
███   ████  ███████████
███ ███████████████
█████████
█████████████████
███  ███████
██████████████
███        ████████
███████████▀▀███▀▀███████████
██████▀▀     ███     ▀▀██████
████▀   ▄▄█████████▄▄   ▀████
████▄▄▄███▀  ▀█▀  ▀███▄▄▄████
██▀▀▀██▀      ▀      ▀██▀▀▀██
█▀  ▄██               ██▄  ▀█
█   ████▄▄         ▄▄████   █
█▄  ▀██▀             ▀██▀  ▄█
██▄▄▄██▄             ▄██▄▄▄██
████▀▀▀███▄ ▄█ █▄ ▄███▀▀▀████
████▄   ▀▀███▄█████▀▀   ▄████
███████▄     ███     ▄███████
███████████▄▄███▄▄███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
..PLAY NOW..
███  ███████  ████
██████████
███████      ███
███████████      ███
██████████████████
████████
███████████  ████   ███
███████████████ ███
█████████
█████████████████
███████  ███
██████████████
████████        ███
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2015, 02:07:27 AM
 #63

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

I think, theoretically, you would still be able to check transactions... they're just not necessarily in blocks - they are in this ever growing DAG "chain". But, as OP pointed out, some of the fundamental conceptual hurdles are "what do we mean by consensus" and "the current state of the ledger".

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
dothebeats
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1267


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 02:28:30 AM
 #64

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

I think, theoretically, you would still be able to check transactions... they're just not necessarily in blocks - they are in this ever growing DAG "chain". But, as OP pointed out, some of the fundamental conceptual hurdles are "what do we mean by consensus" and "the current state of the ledger".

So there will be an available transaction parser, and we could actually check our transactions (though they are not included in blocks of data, which I was used to). I'm still puzzled on how would this thing work. First time to hear such a 'block-less' chain and cryptocurrency.

████  ███████  ███
██████████
███      ███████
███      ███████████
██████████████████
████████
███   ████  ███████████
███ ███████████████
█████████
█████████████████
███  ███████
██████████████
███        ████████
███████████▀▀███▀▀███████████
██████▀▀     ███     ▀▀██████
████▀   ▄▄█████████▄▄   ▀████
████▄▄▄███▀  ▀█▀  ▀███▄▄▄████
██▀▀▀██▀      ▀      ▀██▀▀▀██
█▀  ▄██               ██▄  ▀█
█   ████▄▄         ▄▄████   █
█▄  ▀██▀             ▀██▀  ▄█
██▄▄▄██▄             ▄██▄▄▄██
████▀▀▀███▄ ▄█ █▄ ▄███▀▀▀████
████▄   ▀▀███▄█████▀▀   ▄████
███████▄     ███     ▄███████
███████████▄▄███▄▄███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
..PLAY NOW..
███  ███████  ████
██████████
███████      ███
███████████      ███
██████████████████
████████
███████████  ████   ███
███████████████ ███
█████████
█████████████████
███████  ███
██████████████
████████        ███
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2015, 02:58:12 AM
 #65

Interesting. I wonder how would I check transactions myself if blocks aren't available. Just read the whole thing and it actually caught my attention. First time for me to hear a cryptocurrency without having to rely on blocks (which was the common feature that almost all cryptocoins have).

I think, theoretically, you would still be able to check transactions... they're just not necessarily in blocks - they are in this ever growing DAG "chain". But, as OP pointed out, some of the fundamental conceptual hurdles are "what do we mean by consensus" and "the current state of the ledger".

So there will be an available transaction parser, and we could actually check our transactions (though they are not included in blocks of data, which I was used to). I'm still puzzled on how would this thing work. First time to hear such a 'block-less' chain and cryptocurrency.

For me, the thing that helped me put it all together was this document which explains directed acyclic graph:

http://ericsink.com/vcbe/html/directed_acyclic_graphs.html

this explains it in terms of version control... but version control is essentially cryptocurrency to some degree. I don't exactly know how the pure DAG approach would deal with double spends (i.e., I sign a transaction on my local PC, the transaction begins propagating the network... 20 ms later I log into some machine on the other side of the world using the same output but sending somewhere else)... now you have the same output in two different branches in the DAG, and from what was presented, I didn't pick up a mechanism to 100% say "this is the right one". I mean, perhaps a timestamp could be used.

What I brought to the table I think was slightly different but similar... where there are still blocks, but a solution can only be found for a block if the worker puts a transaction in the block... and each transaction is an attempt to find a block. Hrm, there'd be psych-economical factors here though.... i may diagram this out...

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1095


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2015, 03:13:27 AM
 #66

the block is a wrapper that helps to synchronize the global state, but it isnt actually required and creates a set of problems that a pure txnet wouldnt have.

it just takes more work to make a transaction explorer vs block explorer and of course to achieve consensus in reasonable time.

but a properly designed consensus system should achieve similar "eventual consensus" that blocks achieve

James

http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 21, 2015, 03:25:59 AM
 #67

I don't exactly know how the pure DAG approach would deal with double spends (i.e., I sign a transaction on my local PC, the transaction begins propagating the network... 20 ms later I log into some machine on the other side of the world using the same output but sending somewhere else)... now you have the same output in two different branches in the DAG, and from what was presented, I didn't pick up a mechanism to 100% say "this is the right one". I mean, perhaps a timestamp could be used.
 
  
This.  
  
I need to hear a bulletproof ELI5 explanation for how a node-based currency will work and prevent double spends and Sybil attacks before I can even begin to consider it as a real thing.  
  
It almost feels like this is the crypto equivilant of the Five Room House Puzzle.  At first glance you think that a solution might be difficult, but possible -- but in fact it is a completely impossible mathematical task.  
  

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1095


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2015, 03:46:40 AM
 #68

I don't exactly know how the pure DAG approach would deal with double spends (i.e., I sign a transaction on my local PC, the transaction begins propagating the network... 20 ms later I log into some machine on the other side of the world using the same output but sending somewhere else)... now you have the same output in two different branches in the DAG, and from what was presented, I didn't pick up a mechanism to 100% say "this is the right one". I mean, perhaps a timestamp could be used.
 
  
This.  
  
I need to hear a bulletproof ELI5 explanation for how a node-based currency will work and prevent double spends and Sybil attacks before I can even begin to consider it as a real thing.  
  
It almost feels like this is the crypto equivilant of the Five Room House Puzzle.  At first glance you think that a solution might be difficult, but possible -- but in fact it is a completely impossible mathematical task.  
  

what if we changed blocks to have a one tx limit? would that make the blockchain impossible?

just like with a blockchain having forks and reorgs, a txnet will also have the same property. The answer is to wait more than 20 milliseconds before accepting a transaction. Without blocks doesnt mean without confirmations. As time passes, the txnet reaches eventual consensus, just like the blockchain that has more than one tx per block.

there are more overall reorgs needed as the txnet propagates each transaction instead of a block of them, but this is nothing fundamentally different in a qualitative sense. One big problem is that there wont be anyway to debate about blocksizes when there are no blocks

James

I dont see how  a one tx block vs normal blocks has any significant difference as far as sybil resistance goes. each tx will be signed by the one spending the output and in a txnet once that is broadcast to the network, then it will eventually propagate. it decentralizes the block

http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
dothebeats
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1267


www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 04:20:11 AM
 #69

The idea presented on to this post is enough for me to research further on a 'block-less' cryptocurrency. Everything is new to me, including the "Five Room House Puzzle" linked here by americanpegasus. Though some of the words here presented are unfamiliar to me, I'm grasping some pretty interesting ideas.

Thanks to all who posted after me and gave some explanations regarding the matter. Will watch this thread to see how it progresses. Smiley

████  ███████  ███
██████████
███      ███████
███      ███████████
██████████████████
████████
███   ████  ███████████
███ ███████████████
█████████
█████████████████
███  ███████
██████████████
███        ████████
███████████▀▀███▀▀███████████
██████▀▀     ███     ▀▀██████
████▀   ▄▄█████████▄▄   ▀████
████▄▄▄███▀  ▀█▀  ▀███▄▄▄████
██▀▀▀██▀      ▀      ▀██▀▀▀██
█▀  ▄██               ██▄  ▀█
█   ████▄▄         ▄▄████   █
█▄  ▀██▀             ▀██▀  ▄█
██▄▄▄██▄             ▄██▄▄▄██
████▀▀▀███▄ ▄█ █▄ ▄███▀▀▀████
████▄   ▀▀███▄█████▀▀   ▄████
███████▄     ███     ▄███████
███████████▄▄███▄▄███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
..PLAY NOW..
███  ███████  ████
██████████
███████      ███
███████████      ███
██████████████████
████████
███████████  ████   ███
███████████████ ███
█████████
█████████████████
███████  ███
██████████████
████████        ███
Smokeasy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 10

Decentralized Block-chain Voting


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2015, 04:58:04 AM
 #70

The idea presented on to this post is enough for me to research further on a 'block-less' cryptocurrency. Everything is new to me, including the "Five Room House Puzzle" linked here by americanpegasus. Though some of the words here presented are unfamiliar to me, I'm grasping some pretty interesting ideas.

Thanks to all who posted after me and gave some explanations regarding the matter. Will watch this thread to see how it progresses. Smiley

Same here.

CryptoVoter
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 11:59:21 AM
 #71

 
I need to hear a bulletproof ELI5 explanation for how a node-based currency will work and prevent double spends and Sybil attacks before I can even begin to consider it as a real thing.  

I will try to do it later, for now I'll leave a bold claim just to make your brain to analyse this in the background:

It is possible to do payments to a hash without specifying the output amount(s) which will be revealed only upon spending.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1216



View Profile
September 21, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
 #72

Following.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 03:39:07 PM
 #73

You mean upon spending by the recipient?   Huh

If yes...   I wonder how balances are determined in the meantime...   :curiositykilledthecat:

I mean that it's possible to implement the following:

Alice (10 DAG), Bob (40 DAG) and Charlie (50 DAG) pay to David (30 DAG), Eve (30 DAG) and Frank (40 DAG).

Alice, Bob and Charlie create 3 separate transactions that spend outputs of previous payment(s) and specify HASH(HASH(David=30), HASH(Eve=30), HASH(Frank=40)) as the beneficiary.

The system verifies that Alice, Bob and Charlie spent legit outputs, it knows only beneficiaryHash and can't guess even the number of the recipients.

David, Eve and Frank know only their own "publicKey=amount", about other recipients they know only that their total amount doesn't exceed 10+40+50-amount, none of the recipients know how many parties is actually involved (depends on the protocol used during beneficiaryHash calculation, number of parties may be known).

After a while (say, 3 years) Eve may want to spend her 30 DAG, in this case she has to reveal "Eve=30", "HASH(David=30)" and "HASH(Frank=40)". I wrote "HASH(Frank=40)" but actually it can be "HASH(HASH(Joe=20), HASH(Ian=15), HASH(Hillary=5))", we don't know until Frank or Joe, Ian and Hillary try to spend the coins.

At this point the system knows only that 3 years ago Eve got 30 DAG from Alice, Bob and/or Charlie.


PS: Pay attention that beneficiaryHash may correspond to "Eve=500000000", in this case her transaction will be rejected. Also, Eve can't do "Eve=100" to claim all the coins because there is a protocol that allows to verify that total of outputs doesn't exceed total of inputs.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 04:00:09 PM
 #74

doesnt this have similarities to how the lightening network is supposed to work as far
as transactions will have dependencies on other transactions?

americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 21, 2015, 11:19:57 PM
Last edit: September 21, 2015, 11:50:29 PM by americanpegasus
 #75

...  to verify that total of outputs doesn't exceed total of inputs.
 

Edit: Come From Beyond says in the next message that all this was wrong, so it's italicized so you don't waste your time.  


  
OK, I'm going to simplify some of your statements.  If my simplifications are inacurate, please feel free to correct me.  I am not an expert programmer or cryptographer.  Have you heard of the rubber duck approach to programming?  Consider me the rubber duck -  if it makes sense to me, you can rest assured the proposal is bullet proof.  
  
- Your system proposes to use a node based system vs. a decentralized one.  This way the system isn't just decentralized; it's self healing.  Even if you did significant damage to the network, the best you could achieve would be to fork it, not destroy it.... Vs a decentralized system which could have significant damage done to it if you took out the most important 10% of users.  
  
- Your propose a currency without blocks.  This means that instead of incorporating all new transactions into a new hash which will form the basis of a new block for all members of the network, you *instead* propose to have members broadcast transactions out to the 'system' (comprised of all other nodes).  
  
- The system works in such a way that nodes know their own balance, but do not reveal that balance to 'the system' until the choose to transact.  
  
- When they choose to transact, the system doesn't necessarily prioritize the amount the spent.  It prioritizes the person (node) they sent a transaction to.  
  
I am talking through this myself, so forgive me if anything I said was incorrect.  
  
I can only assume that without blocks, the method will have to somehow create a "living local understanding" of the system which incorporates transactions as it encounters them.  The method by which nodes secure the network is still based on cryptographic work, right?  Also, with the method you are proposing, if Node A broadcasts "I am sending outputs of 30 DAG to Node Z", Node Z (which is very distant to Node A on the network) can rely on that transaction being "confirmed" and respendable the moment it encounters it?  
  
Ok, let me take a break and re-read this thread and see if I can make more sense of what you are saying.  
  

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 21, 2015, 11:39:55 PM
 #76

Ok, let me take a break and re-read this thread and see if I can make more sense of what you are saying.   

It's completely wrong. There is no nodes, there is no even time (transactions don't have timestamps), there is only work measured in hashes and conflicts are resolved by prioritizing variants having more PoW.
crazyearner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 22, 2015, 06:36:38 AM
 #77

So hows the paper coming along on this? is their any news regarding this? Also hows the future looking for this project any news on current development at looking at a early alpha wallet and progression made into this becoming a reality?

=
  R E B E L L I O U S 
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  R E B E L L I O U S
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 08:21:28 AM
 #78

It's completely wrong. There is no nodes, there is no even time (transactions don't have timestamps), there is only work measured in hashes and conflicts are resolved by prioritizing variants having more PoW.

There is no actual 'time' in any cryptocurrency, and any things you might find in blocks called 'time stamps' are not to be trusted because in a p2p environment, nodes lie. This is what satoshi solved in his paper - a time stamping algorithm called POW.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1216



View Profile
September 22, 2015, 01:20:20 PM
 #79

Ok, let me take a break and re-read this thread and see if I can make more sense of what you are saying.  

It's completely wrong. There is no nodes, there is no even time (transactions don't have timestamps), there is only work measured in hashes and conflicts are resolved by prioritizing variants having more PoW.

There have to be nodes. There have to be people listening for and forwarding transactions. Maintaining an internal model of the state of the network and forwarding its observations to those who request it.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 01:24:49 PM
 #80

There is no actual 'time' in any cryptocurrency, and any things you might find in blocks called 'time stamps' are not to be trusted because in a p2p environment, nodes lie. This is what satoshi solved in his paper - a time stamping algorithm called POW.

Wrong; blocks need timestamps in order to retarget the PoW difficulty.
Quoting from

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty

"The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks based on the time it took to find the previous 2016 blocks"

Blocks can lie only a little about their timestamp; if too far out of whack, the block
is not relayed.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 01:35:03 PM
 #81

Wrong; blocks need timestamps in order to retarget the PoW difficulty.
Quoting from

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty

"The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks based on the time it took to find the previous 2016 blocks"

Blocks can lie only a little about their timestamp; if too far out of whack, the block
is not relayed.

Notice how the interval is large enough to make the massive errors in timestamp values insignificant? There is something like a 22 minute window of validity for timestamps in bitcoin. They're basically useless, except when dealing with them over a massive interval, such as in the retargeting.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 02:47:00 PM
 #82

There have to be nodes. There have to be people listening for and forwarding transactions. Maintaining an internal model of the state of the network and forwarding its observations to those who request it.

Right, but consensus model doesn't require to assume anything about nodes.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 02:49:39 PM
 #83

Wrong; blocks need timestamps in order to retarget the PoW difficulty.

Only if you need supply inflation schedule tied to the outer world timeline, like 150 BTC per hour goal.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 03:26:13 PM
 #84

but whats the advantage of not having blocks?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 22, 2015, 03:31:40 PM
 #85

but whats the advantage of not having blocks?

To name a few:

No mining centralization
No block limit drama
No hard TPS limit
Relaxed requirement for bandwidth
True micropayments
crazyearner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 23, 2015, 06:16:42 AM
 #86

but whats the advantage of not having blocks?

To name a few:

No mining centralization
No block limit drama
No hard TPS limit
Relaxed requirement for bandwidth
True micropayments

Nice few advantages their and can see a lot more coming from this in the future. No doubt will lead the way for crypto and indeed maybe change how future crypto coins are created.

=
  R E B E L L I O U S 
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄                           ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄
▄▀        █▄▄                     ▄▄█        ▀▄
█            █████████████████████            █
█▄          ██       ██ ██       ██          ▄█
█        █            █            █        █
  █    █               █               █    █
   █ ██               █ █               ██ █
    █ █               █ █               █ █
    █ ███▄  █████▄   ██ ██   ▄█████  ▄███ █
    █     ███     █         █     ███     █
     █   █   ▀███ █  █   █  █ ███▀   █   █
     █   █      █ █  █   █  █ █      █   █
     █   █      ██  █     █  ██      █   █
      █  █     ██  █       █  ██     █  █
      █  █    ██  █ ███████ █  ██    █  █
      █ ███   ██  █         █  ██   ███ █
       █   ▀███      █   █      ███▀   █
        █     ██       █       ██     █
         █      █   ▄▄███▄▄   █      █
          ███   ███▀       ▀███   ███
             █████           █████
                  ███████████
  R E B E L L I O U S
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
September 23, 2015, 07:00:49 AM
Last edit: September 23, 2015, 11:15:52 AM by smooth
 #87

Wrong; blocks need timestamps in order to retarget the PoW difficulty.
Quoting from

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty

"The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks based on the time it took to find the previous 2016 blocks"

Blocks can lie only a little about their timestamp; if too far out of whack, the block
is not relayed.

Notice how the interval is large enough to make the massive errors in timestamp values insignificant? There is something like a 22 minute window of validity for timestamps in bitcoin. They're basically useless, except when dealing with them over a massive interval, such as in the retargeting.

The window of validity is quite a bit wider than that, arguably infinitely wide (at least up to the limit of the timestamp data type). By consensus, the timestamp has to be later than the median of the last 11 blocks, which typically is close to an hour in the past. It can be up to two hours in the future (relative to a node's view of "current time") for relay purposes, but the consensus has no maximum timestamp at all.

In normal usage the window of validity is small compared to the retargeting window, but edge cases can be important too.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 12:27:21 PM
 #88

Could someone explain how this;

No mining centralization
No block limit drama

is compatible with this;

No hard TPS limit

Thanks..

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1095


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
 #89

Could someone explain how this;

No mining centralization
No block limit drama

is compatible with this;

No hard TPS limit

Thanks..
the total transaction capacity scales with the total number of nodes.


http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
 #90

Could someone explain how this;

No mining centralization
No block limit drama

is compatible with this;

No hard TPS limit

Thanks..
the total transaction capacity scales with the total number of nodes.


Every "node" could be in the same location, even the same machine.

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
At a certain frequency the software chooses a transaction that references
a high number of parent nodes.

Of course, not every past transaction could be reachable, as users may decide to never reference
certain published transaction. However, the parent selection, with average out-degree 2, and low network
latency, can guarantee that there will be frequent checkpoints referencing almost all previous
transactions.

After a checkpoint is found, the software updates all nodes reachable from the checkpoint with a
forward pointer to this checkpoint. A checkpoint has its own score counter, initially set to zero. When
the update algorithm reaches a checkpoint node, it increments the counter and stops propagating
backward. The score of a transaction is computed as the last stored score in the transaction plus the
score of the pointed checkpoint. Checkpoints are considered as nodes on the DAG, so the same checkpoint
finding algorithm can make checkpoints that refer to other forward checkpoints.

https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1095


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2015, 02:55:19 PM
 #91

Could someone explain how this;

No mining centralization
No block limit drama

is compatible with this;

No hard TPS limit

Thanks..
the total transaction capacity scales with the total number of nodes.


Every "node" could be in the same location, even the same machine.

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
At a certain frequency the software chooses a transaction that references
a high number of parent nodes.

Of course, not every past transaction could be reachable, as users may decide to never reference
certain published transaction. However, the parent selection, with average out-degree 2, and low network
latency, can guarantee that there will be frequent checkpoints referencing almost all previous
transactions.

After a checkpoint is found, the software updates all nodes reachable from the checkpoint with a
forward pointer to this checkpoint. A checkpoint has its own score counter, initially set to zero. When
the update algorithm reaches a checkpoint node, it increments the counter and stops propagating
backward. The score of a transaction is computed as the last stored score in the transaction plus the
score of the pointed checkpoint. Checkpoints are considered as nodes on the DAG, so the same checkpoint
finding algorithm can make checkpoints that refer to other forward checkpoints.

https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf
are you disagreeing with the statement that the more nodes there are (whatever you call them, wherever they are) the more transactions can be processed?

PoW protects from all nodes being in one location

http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 03:08:34 PM
 #92

are you disagreeing with the statement that the more nodes there are (whatever you call them, wherever they are) the more transactions can be processed?

PoW protects from all nodes being in one location
Since "nodes"/checkpoints are based on transactions, that's kind of like saying, "are you disagreeing that more transactions means that more transactions can be processed?" Well no, I'm not disagreeing with that.

PoW only protects from all nodes being in one location (centralization) when it is simultaneously coupled with a limit to transactions per second, otherwise one physical location would out-compete others.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1095


View Profile WWW
September 23, 2015, 03:23:29 PM
 #93

are you disagreeing with the statement that the more nodes there are (whatever you call them, wherever they are) the more transactions can be processed?

PoW protects from all nodes being in one location
Since "nodes"/checkpoints are based on transactions, that's kind of like saying, "are you disagreeing that more transactions means that more transactions can be processed?" Well no, I'm not disagreeing with that.

PoW only protects from all nodes being in one location (centralization) when it is simultaneously coupled with a limit to transactions per second, otherwise one physical location would out-compete others.
I dont understand...

Can you explain how one physical location can out-compete the others, when they are all merged into the single txnet?

The cost to check a tx is much less than to do the PoW, so there can be "islands" pumping out lots of tx, but what prevents them from propagating and merging into a single set of transactions?

why does there have to be any limits to transactions per second?


http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 753
Merit: 617


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 03:27:42 PM
 #94

why does there have to be any limits to transactions per second?

To allow full nodes to operate with limited bandwidth, i.e. to allow decentralization.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 03:31:45 PM
 #95

Could someone explain how this;

No mining centralization
No block limit drama

is compatible with this;

No hard TPS limit

Thanks..

We used to think that bigger blocks increase rate of orphaned blocks and hence it's more profitable to put all miners into a single location (i.e. centralize). For blockless blockchain it's not a case because it's allowable to "mine" on top of old transactions.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 03:39:52 PM
 #96

To allow full nodes to operate with limited bandwidth, i.e. to allow decentralization.

DAG makes it much easier to handle intensive data flow because of multicast. A single transaction easily fits into MTU and if it's not received by few of the endpoints it's not a problem. Even more, TPS bursts are automatically smoothed, a full node needs majority of the transactions only if it sends or receives money, in all other cases it needs only to verify PoW and rebroadcast transactions to its neighbors (if multicasting is disabled).
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 04:38:23 PM
 #97

We used to think that bigger blocks increase rate of orphaned blocks and hence it's more profitable to put all miners into a single location (i.e. centralize). For blockless blockchain it's not a case because it's allowable to "mine" on top of old transactions.
We already mine on top of old transactions, that's certainly not novel.

To allow full nodes to operate with limited bandwidth, i.e. to allow decentralization.
Yes.

To allow full nodes to operate with limited bandwidth, i.e. to allow decentralization.

DAG makes it much easier to handle intensive data flow because of multicast. A single transaction easily fits into MTU and if it's not received by few of the endpoints it's not a problem. Even more, TPS bursts are automatically smoothed, a full node needs majority of the transactions only if it sends or receives money, in all other cases it needs only to verify PoW and rebroadcast transactions to its neighbors (if multicasting is disabled).
The full node is the heart of the issue. If there are only a handful of full nodes, and thousands of thin clients, then this protocol isn't decentralized, which is the claim in the whitepaper.

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
DagCoin is a cryptocurrency design that attempts to be highly decentralized by merging the concepts of transactions and blocks and making each user that transact a miner.
Emphasis mine.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 04:44:36 PM
 #98

We already mine on top of old transactions

No. We mine on top of recent transactions.


The full node is the heart of the issue. If there are only a handful of full nodes, and thousands of thin clients, then this protocol isn't decentralized, which is the claim in the whitepaper.

Can't comment on that whitepaper.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 04:48:01 PM
 #99

We already mine on top of old transactions
No. We mine on top of recent transactions.

I was being a little facetious.
I don't see how this protocol avoids the tradeoff between transactions per second and decentralization, and just repeating the claim isn't helping me understand. You mine on old transaction, ok, so what? How does that help us any more than mining on top of recent transactions in regards to centralization?

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 05:18:27 PM
 #100

I was being a little facetious.
I don't see how this protocol avoids the tradeoff between transactions per second and decentralization, and just repeating the claim isn't helping me understand. You mine on old transaction, ok, so what? How does that help us any more than mining on top of recent transactions in regards to centralization?

100 Mbps allows 12'000 TPS for 1 KiB transactions. There is no an incentive to centralize with conventional hardware. VISA peak TPS is reported to be 56'000 TPS (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). Average is 2'000 TPS.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 06:52:49 PM
 #101

I was being a little facetious.
I don't see how this protocol avoids the tradeoff between transactions per second and decentralization, and just repeating the claim isn't helping me understand. You mine on old transaction, ok, so what? How does that help us any more than mining on top of recent transactions in regards to centralization?

100 Mbps allows 12'000 TPS for 1 KiB transactions. There is no an incentive to centralize with conventional hardware. VISA peak TPS is reported to be 56'000 TPS (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). Average is 2'000 TPS.
If I'm trying to transact in Dagcoin, it doesn't matter to me that maybe 100,000 nodes could potentially have my parent transaction, the only thing that matters to me is finding the node which does have it, and that's where my new transaction is going to go. The next transaction, which relies upon mine, is similarly going to go to that node, and so on. No one wants their transactions left out on a loose strand.
On the flipside, nodes want to get as many transactions as they possibly can because that's presumably where they'll get their revenue in Dagcoin.
So there definitely is an incentive on both sides to centralize the network.

Separately, the amount of bandwidth necessary to store a transaction at VISA is orders of magnitude less than what it costs to propagate a transaction across a network. So if we were looking at your example, and say doing 2000KB/s for an average of 2000TPS, we would need at least 7000 times that bandwidth to propagate over 7000 nodes or 218.75MB/s (1750Mb/s).

Note: I'm using "node" here in the usual sense of the word; a geographically separated mining entity.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 07:11:39 PM
 #102

If I'm trying to transact in Dagcoin, it doesn't matter to me that maybe 100,000 nodes could potentially have my parent transaction, the only thing that matters to me is finding the node which does have it, and that's where my new transaction is going to go. The next transaction, which relies upon mine, is similarly going to go to that node, and so on. No one wants their transactions left out on a loose strand.
On the flipside, nodes want to get as many transactions as they possibly can because that's presumably where they'll get their revenue in Dagcoin.
So there definitely is an incentive on both sides to centralize the network.

Separately, the amount of bandwidth necessary to store a transaction at VISA is orders of magnitude less than what it costs to propagate a transaction across a network. So if we were looking at you're example, and say doing 2000KB/s for an average of 2000TPS, we would need at least 7000 times that bandwidth to comfortably propagate over 7000 nodes or 218.75MB/s (1750Mb/s).

Looks like we are talking about different DAG-coins. My version of DAG doesn't care about network topology.


Separately, the amount of bandwidth necessary to store a transaction at VISA is orders of magnitude less than what it costs to propagate a transaction across a network. So if we were looking at you're example, and say doing 2000KB/s for an average of 2000TPS, we would need at least 7000 times that bandwidth to comfortably propagate over 7000 nodes or 218.75MB/s (1750Mb/s).

Let's check your numbers. IP header size = 40 bytes, UDP header size = 8 bytes, transaction size = 1024 bytes. 40 + 8 + 1024 = 1072. Small world topology with 3 neighbors (this is enough to effectively propagate data) requires to send 3 times of that, which is 25'728 bits. For 100 Mbps we get 3'886 TPS. And this is without multicast enabled on routers between nodes.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 07:26:07 PM
 #103

Looks like we are talking about different DAG-coins. My version of DAG doesn't care about network topology.

Start a different thread, this is for DagCoin the whitepaper.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 09:14:46 PM
 #104

Looks like we are talking about different DAG-coins. My version of DAG doesn't care about network topology.
We're definitely on different pages here. I don't know anything about this thing of yours.

Small world topology with 3 neighbors (this is enough to effectively propagate data) requires to send 3 times of that...
You're not going to be able to "effectively" propagate that transaction in 1 second to 7000 nodes with 3 neighbors. You would never have distributed consensus among those nodes. If user's can't get distributed consensus, then they will gravitate toward the subset of node(s) which has(have) the closest thing to it.
I don't see how DagCoin avoids this issue, and I stress that I'm talking about the DagCoin in this thread and not "a DAG coin" in general. Though I'm skeptical of the latter as well..

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 23, 2015, 09:25:23 PM
 #105

You're not going to be able to "effectively" propagate that transaction in 1 second to 7000 nodes with 3 neighbors. You would never have distributed consensus among those nodes. If user's can't get distributed consensus, then they will gravitate toward the subset of node(s) which has(have) the closest thing to it.

Why 1 sec, not 1 min?
Consensus among nodes is not required, it's perpendicular to consensus about ledger state.
I can't comment on the gravitation thing without knowing what reference strategy is being used in your scenario, I know at least one strategy that doesn't lead to fragmentation.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 02:55:00 AM
 #106

You're not going to be able to "effectively" propagate that transaction in 1 second to 7000 nodes with 3 neighbors. You would never have distributed consensus among those nodes. If user's can't get distributed consensus, then they will gravitate toward the subset of node(s) which has(have) the closest thing to it.

Why 1 sec, not 1 min?
Consensus among nodes is not required, it's perpendicular to consensus about ledger state.
I can't comment on the gravitation thing without knowing what reference strategy is being used in your scenario, I know at least one strategy that doesn't lead to fragmentation.
I assume you mean "why not 2000 transactions per minute?" Sergio says himself that it's only limited by the hardware deployed.

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
As there are no free-rides for transactions, the transaction/rate is limited by existent deployed computing power and electricity cost.

He then goes on to talk about the problems with increasing difficulty on transactions in this system;

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner
By time-stamping every transaction, one could dynamically adapt the difficulty of the proof-of-work to achieve more fixed rate. But if the difficulty of a transactions depends on the difficulty of the parent transactions, then there may be incentives to choose old parent transactions instead of new ones to reduce the PoW required, if the current rate is over the fixed rate. Just to be sure Moore's law does [sic] permit spamming in the future, one could embed a re-targeting rule such that every 18 months the difficulty is doubled. It seems preferable that the last M transactions (such as M=10K) of a certain transaction vote on an increase or decrease of the difficulty of the following transactions (with small step changes). Then users could vote more freely on how the network should work without having any immediate benefit to bias voting. This is a similar problem as the current Bitcoin block-chain increase problem: only miners can vote, because user votes are prone to Sybil attacks. In DagCoin, every user can vote, as long as it transact.

I'd like to point out that in DagCoin, it is still only miners that vote. If you're a user that applies work on a transaction and broadcasts it, then you're a miner.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.

That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 05:02:16 AM
 #107

Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.

If miners == users then I suggest to use a digital signature algorithm which security depends on PoW tied to the transaction. Those who generate little PoW may see their coins double-spent by others.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 07:05:58 AM
 #108

If miners == users then I suggest to use a digital signature algorithm which security depends on PoW tied to the transaction. Those who generate little PoW may see their coins double-spent by others.

And so users with slow computers will simply stop using the platform, creating a centralisation of its own form - this is especially bad if difficulty is out of the control of the users, which in this paper it appears to be.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 08:35:35 AM
 #109

And so users with slow computers will simply stop using the platform, creating a centralisation of its own form - this is especially bad if difficulty is out of the control of the users, which in this paper it appears to be.

Low security transactions are secured once they are included into the graph, doublespending becomes hard after that point. It's a CPU vs bandwidth tradeoff. Users with very slow computers and very slow Internet will indeed be unable to use the platform unless they cooperate with each other (via multisignatures).
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 08:50:37 AM
 #110

Low security transactions are secured once they are included into the graph, doublespending becomes hard after that point. It's a CPU vs bandwidth tradeoff. Users with very slow computers and very slow Internet will indeed be unable to use the platform unless they cooperate with each other (via multisignatures).

A discriminatory protocol is worse than mining centralisation IMO because you exclude use in countries which would stand to gain the most.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 08:53:24 AM
 #111

A discriminatory protocol is worse than mining centralisation IMO because you exclude use in countries which would stand to gain the most.

Agree, luckily for us our design solves this issue in a sidechain-like manner.
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 24, 2015, 08:56:30 AM
 #112

i must admit i dont understand how this TxNet may work in detail but it sounds interesting.

i have one question though (this also assumes no further tx-obfuscation):
if tx's are mined like blocks with multiple ancestors is it possible to blacklist certain transactions in different jurisdictions and still have the rest working?

only transactions which uses that outputs would be unusable in that country.

any thoughts?

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 09:08:10 AM
 #113

Those who generate little PoW may see their coins double-spent by others.

To clarify, you're talking about being a lower part of a chain which gets orphaned here, not weak cryptographic security?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 09:19:07 AM
 #114

To clarify, you're talking about being a lower part of a chain which gets orphaned here, not weak cryptographic security?

I'm talking about weaker cryptographic security. More PoW done -> stronger the signature is (harder to find another message to sign).
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 09:25:54 AM
 #115

I'm talking about weaker cryptographic security. More PoW done -> stronger the signature is (harder to find another message to sign).

More POW = stronger block hash, but you should never be able to forge a signature.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 11:34:15 AM
 #116

you should never be able to forge a signature.

Why?
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 01:37:43 PM
 #117

you should never be able to forge a signature.

Why?

If I sign a msg with my private key, the signature is a record that I signed the msg. If you can forge my signature, then you can send fake msgs from me.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 01:44:26 PM
 #118

If I sign a msg with my private key, the signature is a record that I signed the msg. If you can forge my signature, then you can send fake msgs from me.

This signing algorithm is supposed to be used in a PoW cryptocoin only. Every key can be used only once (every output can be spent only once).
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 01:50:54 PM
 #119

This signing algorithm is supposed to be used in a PoW cryptocoin only. Every key can be used only once (every output can be spent only once).

What signing algorithm? I feel this is so far off topic now, that you really should start your own thread about your own design.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 01:52:13 PM
 #120

What signing algorithm? I feel this is so far off topic now, that you really should start your own thread about your own design.

I wasn't going to discuss that algorithm at all, but you were asking about it Smiley
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 24, 2015, 02:00:55 PM
 #121

I wasn't going to discuss that algorithm at all, but you were asking about it Smiley

It isn't clear what you were talking about from the thread; it was ambiguous.
rychallenge
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 26, 2015, 01:50:42 AM
 #122

it sounds like just a currency turned into a payment processing type structure....

Just like PayPal
How will coins be distributed without mining?
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2015, 06:29:12 PM
 #123

it sounds like just a currency turned into a payment processing type structure....

Just like PayPal
How will coins be distributed without mining?

that hasn't been explicitly stated, but I believe it would work as a phase 2 of a cryptocurrency. I.e., once the emission is complete, this kicks in, similar to how some PoS systems work.

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
chennan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 03, 2015, 04:38:10 AM
 #124

So, this is a really neat idea for a new coin and sounds like a possible winner in the long run of things, if bitcoin hits a real snag and can't come up with a plan of attack to fix the block size problem.  But I was curious, so each "node" in the sense would have to be distributed geographically to be able to adequately send transactions in any part of the world?  I'm just having trouble understanding how this could work without the blockchain system, and can't seem to grasp the idea that if say, no nodes where on the continent of Australia... then it would be very hard to transact to anyone that would want a transaction sent to them if they didn't run a "node themselves" ...

I was trying to read a majority of the thread, but honestly, I'm not in the mood for diving into reading a whole thread right now.

Also, has this coin been implemented yet? Or is there a specific release date?

Pab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1012


View Profile
October 06, 2015, 11:47:14 PM
 #125

 Does your coin is open source,i know currency half second transaction fast,running from one year

But not open source,.There is not possible to find exchange becouse not open source and not blockchain technology

Now 12 october beta test of yet another is starting,it will be exchangable to fiat.Proof of Time,supply will be through searching internet,currency will be backed by products

if  anybody is intersted in ,feel free to pm me

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 07, 2015, 10:47:09 AM
 #126

I'm evidently not as mathematically gifted as some of you in this thread and am having trouble wrapping my head around what is being proposed. 
 
If anyone ever has any spare time, some Alice and Bob graphics to help clarify how exactly this network would work could help immensely.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 07, 2015, 11:26:43 AM
 #127



                              (((((((((o)))))))))
                        ((((                           )))
[ ALICE ]        ((       Vaporware Cloud      )))          [ BOB ]
     |                  ((((                              ))                  |
     |                        ((((((((((((o)))))))))                     |
     |                                                                          |
     |___________ Magical Blockless TXs ____________|


Sorry, could not resist. I do hope that one day we get to see an actual implementation and the expectations turn out to be properly set.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 07, 2015, 12:35:29 PM
 #128



                              (((((((((o)))))))))
                        ((((                           )))
[ ALICE ]        ((       Vaporware Cloud      )))          [ BOB ]
     |                  ((((                              ))                  |
     |                        ((((((((((((o)))))))))                     |
     |                                                                          |
     |___________ Magical Blockless TXs ____________|


Sorry, could not resist. I do hope that one day we get to see an actual implementation and the expectations turn out to be properly set.

Here is a more informative picture (arrows show references, they are directed opposite to the timeline):
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 549
Merit: 553


View Profile WWW
October 07, 2015, 07:22:21 PM
 #129

Here is a more informative picture (arrows show references, they are directed opposite to the timeline):


+1

No block-chain representation will ever be nicer than that DAG-chain.
Delek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


Salí para ver


View Profile WWW
October 07, 2015, 08:07:56 PM
 #130

If we can't build a Blockchain system without Bitcoin, why will be possible to build a Bitcoin without a Blockchain?
It is interesting, because having a working proof of DagCoin will definitely separate the concepts of Blockchain and Crypto-Currency.

Looking forward to the 0.1 version release.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
-> delek.net <-
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 08, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
 #131

Ethereum uses DAG aswell, any comparisons that can be made?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 08, 2015, 08:35:42 PM
 #132

Ethereum uses DAG aswell, any comparisons that can be made?

DAG != DAG, we can say that Bitcoin uses DAG as well.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 08, 2015, 08:44:36 PM
 #133

Ethereum uses DAG aswell, any comparisons that can be made?

DAG != DAG, we can say that Bitcoin uses DAG as well.

Ahh i guess its the way it is used then... 
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 16, 2015, 02:54:10 PM
 #134

I've been thinking about this on and off for a bit... How is difficulty handled in this system? The paper doesn't go into much detail, but it does hint at some kind of deterministic difficulty computation?

Unless the difficulty of producing a new block is at maximum network difficulty, the system could be subject to sybil attack?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 16, 2015, 02:58:37 PM
 #135

Unless the difficulty of producing a new block is at maximum network difficulty, the system could be subject to sybil attack?

Why?
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 16, 2015, 03:03:55 PM
 #136

Unless the difficulty of producing a new block is at maximum network difficulty, the system could be subject to sybil attack?

Why?

By 'maximum network difficulty' I refer to a difficulty adjusted to cope with participation as in bitcoin. Given that, if you have differing sets of difficulty depending on where you put your new block in a DAG, it means that you can produce different numbers of blocks depending on placement for the same CPU power, hence this opens the system up to sybil attack.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 16, 2015, 04:21:00 PM
 #137

By 'maximum network difficulty' I refer to a difficulty adjusted to cope with participation as in bitcoin. Given that, if you have differing sets of difficulty depending on where you put your new block in a DAG, it means that you can produce different numbers of blocks depending on placement for the same CPU power, hence this opens the system up to sybil attack.

If you count weight of blocks depending on difficulty you don't have problems with sybil attack. 10 blocks with difficlty 2 and 1 block with difficulty 20 are the same.
myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 16, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
 #138

This is a lot of block-talk for a cryptocurrency without blocks.   Roll Eyes

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 16, 2015, 10:24:57 PM
 #139

If you count weight of blocks depending on difficulty you don't have problems with sybil attack. 10 blocks with difficlty 2 and 1 block with difficulty 20 are the same.

This is true, but if you don't have a continuously adjusting difficulty, how can you tell what the amount of work is required to 'confirm' a transaction?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 17, 2015, 07:50:54 AM
 #140

This is true, but if you don't have a continuously adjusting difficulty, how can you tell what the amount of work is required to 'confirm' a transaction?

After some adaptation period when a transaction is included into most of tips you need to wait constant time without paying attention to difficulty. A similar thing exists in blockchain-based PoW coins - it's passed time that matters, not number of blocks (if waiting time >> block time, which is necessary to reduce effect of variation).
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 17, 2015, 09:55:59 AM
 #141

After some adaptation period when a transaction is included into most of tips you need to wait constant time without paying attention to difficulty. A similar thing exists in blockchain-based PoW coins - it's passed time that matters, not number of blocks (if waiting time >> block time, which is necessary to reduce effect of variation).

I don't think transactions in DagCoin go into more than one tip, do they? Not unless we're talking about double spends anyway.

In any case, surely the only actual evidence of passed time *is* the number of blocks, or rather accumulated work? That's why 0 confirmation transactions are not safe in bitcoin - there is no evidence of work done.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 17, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
 #142

I don't think transactions in DagCoin go into more than one tip, do they? Not unless we're talking about double spends anyway.

If every transaction goes into only one tip then you get a tree, not a DAG.


In any case, surely the only actual evidence of passed time *is* the number of blocks, or rather accumulated work? That's why 0 confirmation transactions are not safe in bitcoin - there is no evidence of work done.

If that my condition is true (waiting time >> block time) then there is no difference between number of blocks, passed time and accumulated work.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 17, 2015, 01:59:46 PM
 #143

If that my condition is true (waiting time >> block time) then there is no difference between number of blocks, passed time and accumulated work.

I disagree with this assessment - by that logic simply waiting for 10 minutes in bitcoin for a 0 confirmation transaction would be as good as waiting for a block, but this is obviously false.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 17, 2015, 04:46:26 PM
 #144

I disagree with this assessment - by that logic simply waiting for 10 minutes in bitcoin for a 0 confirmation transaction would be as good as waiting for a block, but this is obviously false.

Because
Code:
waiting time >> block time
condition is not true.

PS: ">>" sign means "much greater than".
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 18, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
 #145

that hasn't been explicitly stated, but I believe it would work as a phase 2 of a cryptocurrency. I.e., once the emission is complete, this kicks in, similar to how some PoS systems work.

Not many options there, you either don't allow to create new coins or have to live with very low security caused by miners attempting to invalidate each other's work and creating a superwide DAG.
stdset
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 572
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 20, 2015, 11:37:11 AM
 #146

A question to Sergio.

I'm reading the whitepaper, trying to understand the concept. Fig.1 confuses me.
There is a transaction "5" in fig. 1a, in 1b another transaction 5 arrives. Is it a typo?
Why transactions 6, 7 and 8 need to increase confirmation score of 3? Wouldn't it be better if they follow policy of their parent transaction 5 (the newer one)?
Why confirmation score of 3 suddenly drops to 1 when 9 and 10 arrive? 6, 7 and 8 no longer confirm 3, since their descendant 9 has chosen to confirm another doublespend? At the same time 6,7 and 8 still confirm 2?

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 21, 2015, 06:05:54 PM
 #147

Here is the announcement thread of a token based on DAG tech.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 06:45:16 PM
 #148


Presale fail.  
  
How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)?  
  
In any n-person pirate game, where pirate #1 literally makes up his own magic token and decides to keep a portion for himself, passing the remaining portion to the next.... how can pirate #1 (and any subsequent pirates) ensure that as many people value the token and use it as possible?  Remember that the token carries no initial value, and any value will come through adoption and usage of the token.  
  
I am confident that one losing strategy for such a game is to draw a line in the sand of "haves" vs. "have-nots" where after a certain point in time you are clearly buying into a line that was drawn before you got there.  A pre-sale functions as one such line.  It's not ultimately the distribution that matters, but the fairness of the distribution and the perception that any player could have gotten "in" at any time for a non-fixed cost that rose organically from zero. 
  
As I have always said, if you have a powerful enough technology then simply developing and understanding that tech will eventually make you very wealthy.  There is no need for a pre-sale.  

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 06:50:01 PM
 #149


Presale fail.  
  
How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)?  

Look at coinmarketcap, there a bunch of presale funded coins in the top 10 - it makes no difference to performance at all.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 06:52:14 PM
 #150

Presale fail.  
  
How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)?  
  
In any n-person pirate game, where pirate #1 literally makes up his own magic token and decides to keep a portion for himself, passing the remaining portion to the next.... how can pirate #1 (and any subsequent pirates) ensure that as many people value the token and use it as possible?  Remember that the token carries no initial value, and any value will come through adoption and usage of the token.  
  
I am confident that one losing strategy for such a game is to draw a line in the sand of "haves" vs. "have-nots" where after a certain point in time you are clearly buying into a line that was drawn before you got there.  A pre-sale functions as one such line.  It's not ultimately the distribution that matters, but the fairness of the distribution and the perception that any player could have gotten "in" at any time for a non-fixed cost that rose organically from zero.  
  
As I have always said, if you have a powerful enough technology then simply developing and understanding that tech will eventually make you very wealthy.  There is no need for a pre-sale.  

You seem to be a smart guy. Here is a challenge for you - design such a system based on DAG that allows to issue coins a-la Bitcoin (we start with 0 supply) without weakening the security of the system. I think 1 week is enough for you. Do you accept the challenge? These links may be helpful:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 07:13:33 PM
 #151


Presale fail
 
How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)? 

Look at coinmarketcap, there a bunch of presale funded coins in the top 10 - it makes no difference to performance at all.

None of them have become the world standard of value and using market cap as a metric is suspect due to the "sell one coin to a friend" problem especially in anonymous ICOs where no one can really tell whether they have ever been distributed by an effective market process.

Whether such a coin can in fact become a world standard of value in the future is unclear, so I'm not quite as negative as AP. All those coins in the top 10 are nowhere close to Bitcoin's value though (which in turn is nowhere close to any existing world standard of value). So it seems fairly doubtful at this juncture. In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient?

But as CfB says if there technically isn't a way to distribute over time then it needs to be done another way. That much is certainly true.

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 07:35:44 PM
 #152

In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient?

Sure. You should probably leave bitcoin and litecoin out of it, since they have the first mover(s) advantage.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
 #153

In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient?

Sure. You should probably leave bitcoin and litecoin out of it, since they have the first mover(s) advantage.

That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters.

Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what?

So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up.

myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 07:44:38 PM
 #154

I always felt that the CLAMS distribution model was rather interesting (even tough I didn't get any  Cry)
Maybe some similar scheme could be devised, perhaps even incorporating a % via presale also.

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
 #155

That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters.

Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what?

So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up.

I stand by that. Arguing that bitcoin and it's clone have the biggest market caps *because* of their distribution model is crazy; for a long time there were no alternatives, that is why they have found such a following.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 08:51:34 PM
 #156

That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters.

Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what?

So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up.

I stand by that. Arguing that bitcoin and it's clone have the biggest market caps *because* of their distribution model is crazy; for a long time there were no alternatives, that is why they have found such a following.

I didn't argue anything. I pointed out that your statement isn't supportable by any clear evidence. That doesn't even make it incorrect, but unsupported.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:10:22 PM
 #157



I stand by that. Arguing that bitcoin and it's clone have the biggest market caps *because* of their distribution model is crazy; for a long time there were no alternatives, that is why they have found such a following.
 
 
So you believe that if bitcoin had a presale it wouldn't have a.) faced much more hostile attitudes and regulation and b.) failed to gain the critical momentum necessary for mass adoption? 
 
I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers.  It is a damn fool waste to take what may be valid technology and piss it away on a concept that might endanger the entire implementation at the benefit of padding the creator's pockets a little.  Premines and shadow mines are the same thing. 
 
If Ethereum is crumbling due to it's presale and the attitude of its creators that "we can't do it all, you guys help build it" what do you think will eventually happen to Iota? 
 
Perhaps a solution is not easy to launch a DAG implementation without a presale or premine (and honestly I'm not even 100% sure what this means still despite my best efforts to understand - somehow a lack of blocks and distributed network is supposed to create an infinitely scalable network at the cost that people don't know where money came from until they spent it... or something like that), but that doesn't mean you should take shortcuts. 
 
Worst case scenario?  Don't sell the initial tokens at all.  Allow anyone who is interested to sign up and receive free tokens to seed the initial amount.  Make a topic on the Altcoin ANN section and make an announcement on the cryptographic mailing lists so no one can claim you didn't try to let as many people as possible know.  Let those who received the free tokens then assign their own monetary value to them and let the network's value grow organically afterwards. 
 

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:15:21 PM
 #158

Worst case scenario?  Don't sell the initial tokens at all.  Allow anyone who is interested to sign up and receive free tokens to seed the initial amount.  Make a topic on the Altcoin ANN section and make an announcement on the cryptographic mailing lists so no one can claim you didn't try to let as many people as possible know.  Let those who received the free tokens then assign their own monetary value to them and let the network's value grow organically afterwards. 

Already have seen how it ended for Stellar, NEM and few others.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:21:23 PM
 #159

I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers. 

Crowdfunding works. Look at kickstarter. Cryptocurrencies are fantastically complicated projects, that take years to develop - how do you propose the developers live while working full time on one of these projects?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:24:42 PM
 #160

I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers.

Crowdfunding works. Look at kickstarter. Cryptocurrencies are fantastically complicated projects, that take years to develop - how do you propose the developers live while working full time on one of these projects?

That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market.

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:31:13 PM
 #161

That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market.

Evidence?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 09:46:50 PM
 #162

That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market.

Evidence?

It is self evident.
GingerAle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1008


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2015, 10:00:02 PM
 #163

why not just use an initial POW phase and a standard blockchain that feeds into the DAG? I.e., the POW chain serves no other purpose than to distribute coins that can then be used in the tangle. Once max coins have been emitted (over X years), the chain dies - theres no need for it. Hell, a chain longer than n blocks isn't needed, because the only purpose of the chain's history is to record the current difficulty (i.e., demand) for the currency.

"why not just sell? people will spend money on electricity to create coins, why not just spend money on coins?" Mainly due to the time elongation of the distribution phase. The bootstrap model in bitcoin is... well, just great.

< Track your bitcoins! > < Track them again! > <<< [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/] What is fungibility? >>> 46P88uZ4edEgsk7iKQUGu2FUDYcdHm2HtLFiGLp1inG4e4f9PTb4mbHWYWFZGYUeQidJ8hFym2WUmWc p34X8HHmFS2LXJkf <<< Free subdomains at moneroworld.com!! >>> <<< If you don't want to run your own node, point your wallet to node.moneroworld.com, and get connected to a random node! @@@@ FUCK ALL THE PROFITEERS! PROOF OF WORK OR ITS A SCAM !!! @@@@
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 10:37:04 PM
 #164

The bootstrap model in bitcoin is... well, just great.

Was it the only option - yes.
Is it great - arguable.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 10:37:42 PM
 #165

Cryptocurrency is a lot like a religion in that it is free to create, but only has value once a large amount of people "buy-in".  Let's look at two wildly successful religions: Islam and Christianity.  Whether you believe them or not, you can't argue they have been wildly successful in establishing a powerful network that has stood the test of time.  
  
What did both have in common?  A fair launch and distribution.  No line was drawn in the sand between the "haves" and the "have-nots".  At no point did any new member feel they were second-class to previous members (at least by official status or decree).  New members were told there was no barrier to entry for any man - if you wanted in, you got in.  They were then empowered to not only experience this new social network, but also to spread it to others.  It turns out that there was eventual financial value in being an early-adopter once enough people recognized the religion, but the benefits weren't clear at first.  Also it should be noted that this 'value' may not have manifested itself in direct financial compensation, but possibly in other forms such as increased influence, protection, and access to resources.  
  
Now, let's look at an example of a religion that is doomed to failure, as so many in the past have: Scientology.  In this religion there is a clear line of haves vs. have-nots.  New members may be dazzled by the initial presentation and organization but without being empowered by a perpetual feeling of "being on the inside of something great" there is little reason for them to spread their enthusiasm to others.  Eventually the hard lines in the sand which divide the new members from those with status defeat any enthusiasm and exponential network effect.  
  
This is the danger of a presale.  
  
It is not easy to fairly launch a new social network, whether that is a language, currency, government, or religion.  It is very difficult to invent a concept unique and popular enough to merit the creation of such a new network, and once accomplished like you said: people gotta eat.  
  
But as smooth said, the free market doesn't respect "gotta eat".  
  
As I have said, it's not impossible to launch a successful currency with a presale, but you immediately catastrophically damage your chances with such shenanigans.  
  
I am sure if you are brilliant enough to invent something worth a new blockchain, determining a fair and non-monetized launch shouldn't be too difficult of a feat.
  

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
 #166

@AP, I didn't read your entire post, it's an offtopic as I got from the beginning, create a new thread if you want to continue, please.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 10:49:42 PM
 #167

@AP, I didn't read your entire post, it's an offtopic as I got from the beginning, create a new thread if you want to continue, please.

It's clearly off topic for the Bitcoin section. The original post on this thread talked about being used on a sidechain (where there is no distribution issue), so I guess on topic. But the rest of the discussion is Alt for sure.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 10:58:05 PM
 #168

@AP, I didn't read your entire post, it's an offtopic as I got from the beginning, create a new thread if you want to continue, please.

Fine, invalidate your own hard work with presale implementations and arrogant ostrich tactics. 
 
Successful strategy only begins with a good product - it also requires broad understanding of psychology and game theory to actually succeed. 

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
October 22, 2015, 11:10:10 PM
 #169

Fine, invalidate your own hard work with presale implementations and arrogant ostrich tactics.  
  
Successful strategy only begins with a good product - it also requires broad understanding of psychology and game theory to actually succeed.  

It's not the ostrich tactics, I just have respect to the topic creator. Create a new thread, PM me with the link and we will continue the discussion.
americanpegasus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 22, 2015, 11:18:34 PM
 #170


It's not the ostrich tactics, I just have respect to the topic creator. Create a new thread, PM me with the link and we will continue the discussion.

Conceded, you've done so much explaining I forgot you weren't TC.

Account is back under control of the real AmericanPegasus.
illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 09:15:56 AM
 #171

As I have always said, if you have a powerful enough technology then simply developing and understanding that tech will eventually make you very wealthy.  There is no need for a pre-sale.  

Yes, that's a big if. Even if a technology seems powerful enough at the launch, it may be obsolete/proven faulty in a year. Having a presale removes that risk from the developer(s).
sdp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461
Merit: 252



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2015, 07:40:58 PM
 #172

If say someone who sent me a bitcoin years ago decides to do a double spend, he can create a transaction and that transaction will be ignored because bitcoin has blocks.  It seems to me, dagcoin would be vulnerable to double spends this way.

sdp

Coinsbank: Left money in their costodial wallet for my signature.  Then they kept the money.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1167



View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:36:35 PM
 #173

If say someone who sent me a bitcoin years ago decides to do a double spend, he can create a transaction and that transaction will be ignored because bitcoin has blocks.  It seems to me, dagcoin would be vulnerable to double spends this way.

In dagcoin as I understand it the second spend would be ignored because the first one would have much more work endorsing it.
tzpardi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 04:28:41 PM
 #174

Thank you for sharing this very innovative solution.
alicex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 07, 2015, 11:33:57 PM
 #175

If say someone who sent me a bitcoin years ago decides to do a double spend, he can create a transaction and that transaction will be ignored because bitcoin has blocks.  It seems to me, dagcoin would be vulnerable to double spends this way.

In dagcoin as I understand it the second spend would be ignored because the first one would have much more work endorsing it.

and then.......what will  happened next.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
November 07, 2015, 11:41:22 PM
 #176

and then.......what will  happened next.

On the next step the double-spending may get a higher share of approvals and eventually become the legit one. So it's dangerous to include double-spendings even if you ignore them.
Xdragon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 543
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 09:41:29 PM
 #177

Is this project still alive?
watashi-kokoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 258



View Profile
January 29, 2016, 10:54:04 PM
 #178

Is this project still alive?

No. It could be a part of altcoin
Decoded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1024


give me your cryptos


View Profile
January 30, 2016, 12:23:23 AM
 #179

Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself. Github link plz Cheesy

looking for a signature campaign, dm me for that
wizzardTim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000


Reality is stranger than fiction


View Profile
March 30, 2017, 09:24:55 PM
 #180

Is the project open source? I'd love to take a look at it and maybe contribute myself. Github link plz Cheesy

For the Github you can check these links:

https://github.com/iotaledger/wallet/releases
https://github.com/iotaledger

also, relevant links:

https://learn.iota.org
http://iota.org
https://forum.iotatoken.com
http://iotasupport.com
http://www.tangleblog.com

Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.

- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 04:28:33 PM
Last edit: April 04, 2017, 04:40:35 PM by DumbFruit
 #181

I wish they'd stop referring to DAG as "decentralized", especially when years later there is no cryptocurrency in sight that relies on DAG that is also significantly decentralized, for exactly the reasons I explained... More than a year and a half ago.

I'd like to point out that in DagCoin, it is still only miners that vote. If you're a user that applies work on a transaction and broadcasts it, then you're a miner.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.

That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.

http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2

IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 05:25:48 PM
 #182

http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2

IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.

I wasn't sure if you are troll or not, but then I looked at your nickname and decided to explain an obvious thing:

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things which looks as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking... Um, probably too complex for you, I'll try ELI3 instead of ELI5...

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things where a device broadcasts packets to the neighbors in vicinity only. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet with routers and other nasty things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone... Arghh, still too complex...

Imagine that we want to check how IOTA would work on Internet-of-Things. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet. Luckily ISPs already block global multicasting, but if we enable automatic peer-discovery then anyone can interfere with our battle-testing. This is why we use manual tethering. In the past we tested automatic peer discovery and it worked bad (which didn't surprise me at all).

Quote
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does.
These words reminded me of http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/Get_Schwifty, you are like that dude who interpreted inapprehensible events to his own benefit and became the main priest of the new cult. You are very very wrong, my friend. I hope in few years you'll get it...
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 05:42:25 PM
 #183

You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 06:54:38 PM
 #184

You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.

I would save the effort if I saw "Bitcoin Maximalist" stamp on your head earlier...
Andre_Goldman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 251

Property1of1OU


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 07:12:03 PM
 #185

DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks

Back in 2012 I thought a lot on a new cryptocurrency that could merge the concepts of transaction and block. Each transaction would carry a proof-of-work and reference one or more previous transactions.


I'm reading the paper ... I maybe get it wrong... but the first analogy that came on the top of my head was ... "dissemination networking"and ICN - Information-centric networking. On these type of communication protocol the data package itself already have all information needed regards source/destination, cryptographic signatures, etc, data is named, so you don't need to armor the pipes ...



Just to clarify .. I do an analogy of each 'tx' acting as an 'ICN data package'.

An interesting project. Thanks for sharing .

Patent1number: ****-****
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 08:16:29 PM
 #186

You could have just saved yourself the effort and said, "Ya you're right, DAG doesn't work as a distributed consensus mechanism.", but whatever floats your boat.

I would save the effort if I saw "Bitcoin Maximalist" stamp on your head earlier...

I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Bitcoin has many flaws, but Bitcoin achieves decentralized trustless consensus which IOTA/DAG can not achieve because the DAG architecture fundamentally breaks the mechanism that allows consensus to form in a decentralized manner.

It's all well and good to use this wherever it's useful, but don't go around pretending that DAG is a magical drop-in replacement for the Bitcoin blockchain which allows "massive scalability" while maintaining anywhere near the same security guarantees and network topology.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 09:21:36 PM
 #187

I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...

Let's continue then?

This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?
Andre_Goldman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 251

Property1of1OU


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 11:33:23 PM
 #188

I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...

Let's continue then?

This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?

is it about random function ?

because somehow I'm often stuck on it ...

diceware;

I remember reading Nicolas Dorier book years ago ...

Quote
When you call new Key(), under the hood, you are using a PRNG (Pseudo-Random-NumberGenerator) to generate your private key. On windows, it uses the RNGCryptoServiceProvider of
Windows.
On Android, I use the SecureRandom, and in fact, you can use your own implementation with
RandomUtils.Random.

Patent1number: ****-****
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 253


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 11:40:47 PM
 #189

I am not a "Bitcoin Maximalist"...

Let's continue then?

This is how consensus works - https://forum.iotatoken.com/t/iota-consensus-masterclass/1193. Any flaws?

What do you mean by "flaws"? I'm sure it works as written, but the design drives the network topology towards highly centralized nodes.

In other words; The "Green Squares" are on centralized servers and not on a broad distributed system, which is why I object to people that refer to DAG as some kind of alternative to the blockchain when it simply doesn't work in that use-case (A highly distributed trustless consensus).

For example when you answer questions like this;
Quote
Pascal L:
Lets say there are 100k TPS...won't that require a really strong server?

Come-from-Beyond:
Yes, or 100 weak ones.

No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed. It doesn't work equivalently well between 1 "really strong [node]" or "100 weak ones".

On the flipside, Bitcoin's blocks, through POW and the block size limit, allow all transactions to be transferred to literally anyone that wants to run a full node. It's this rate limitation over time (made possible by POW on discrete limited capacity blocks) which allows this synchronization to happen, which is explicitly destroyed in the DAG protocol.

That doesn't mean DAG is "flawed", it just means that it doesn't work as a method to come to decentralized trustless consensus. That's why DAG/IOTA should be separated from the words "Distributed" and "Decentralized" with several paragraphs of clarification.


By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 11:56:45 PM
 #190

No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed.

Interesting claim, we observed the opposite on the testnet and in simulations... No need to continue the discussion, I think.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:56:44 AM
 #191

No it's not "or 100 weak ones". The answer is that DAG works better the more centralized it is. That's the way it's designed.

Interesting claim, we observed the opposite on the testnet and in simulations... No need to continue the discussion, I think.
Are those observations and  simulations documented somewhere?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 09:30:53 AM
 #192

Are those observations and  simulations documented somewhere?

Testnet can be observed by anyone helping to test. Feel free to use http://slack.iota.org to join and see. Simulations cover much more than just making sure that it all works as whitepaper says, the results will be published when the simulations are finished.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 03, 2017, 08:59:47 PM
 #193

I wish they'd stop referring to DAG as "decentralized", especially when years later there is no cryptocurrency in sight that relies on DAG that is also significantly decentralized, for exactly the reasons I explained... More than a year and a half ago.

I'd like to point out that in DagCoin, it is still only miners that vote. If you're a user that applies work on a transaction and broadcasts it, then you're a miner.
Work is a waste from the perspective of the miners. There is no incentive, or even a method to incentivize miners to do work on transactions in DagCoin. Competition would atrophy hashpower on the network in order to drive up transaction speeds, which is the product that the miner provides, users enjoy, and the only method of remuneration. Mining is just a cost that the miner wants to minimize.
This is just like if we removed the block size limit from Bitcoin and removed the subsidy.

That problem, the lack of funding for difficulty increases in order to slow down transaction speeds, isn't referenced in the white paper unless I missed it. So ultimately to get back to answering your original question "Why 1 sec, not 1 min?" the answer is I don't see any decentralized throttling mechanism that could actually work in DagCoin.

http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2

IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.
Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?

It chose to be decentralized but not trust-less, and let the witnesses take the fees.

By the way, IOTA as claimed is for "Internet of Things", and they use Proof-of-Work.

Let me remind you, as someone who actually works on micro controllers at a big enterprise on IoT producst:

Most IoT chips are supposed to be run on batteries
, on 3.3V down to 6mAh. Yes, that is right, the latest BLE chips actually use a full 6mAh when radio is on full power and CPU on hard work mode.

Can you imagine how much "Proof-of-Work" such a device can accomplish? Yes, NONE, nada, zilch. It struggles to maintain an TLS connection. DTLS is what people use as https is too heavy. And why? Because you cant ask your customers go around replacing your batteries every year.

And these guys come in here with their IOTAcoin and claim, the stupid devices will somehow magically perform a Proof-of-Working / wasting electricity, in order to transact?! What the fuck.

So in short, iotacoin is not for IoT. Proof-of-Work does not mix with devices which try to do no work!

The only good coin for IoT is Byteball
- the cost of sending a transaction/receiving/subscribing to an address - is similar to cost of doing TLS.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 03, 2017, 09:01:46 PM
 #194

http://forum.iota.org/t/discussion-removing-peer-discovery/939/2

IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does. It removed Bitcoin's throttling mechanism and now they want to figure out how to prevent these out-of-control blocks in this "blockless" blockchain. Sometimes the real world really is stranger than fiction.

I wasn't sure if you are troll or not, but then I looked at your nickname and decided to explain an obvious thing:

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things which looks as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking... Um, probably too complex for you, I'll try ELI3 instead of ELI5...

IOTA is for Internet-of-Things. Real Internet-of-Things where a device broadcasts packets to the neighbors in vicinity only. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet with routers and other nasty things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone... Arghh, still too complex...

Imagine that we want to check how IOTA would work on Internet-of-Things. We deployed IOTA to classical Internet. Luckily ISPs already block global multicasting, but if we enable automatic peer-discovery then anyone can interfere with our battle-testing. This is why we use manual tethering. In the past we tested automatic peer discovery and it worked bad (which didn't surprise me at all).

Quote
IOTA requires that you manually assign peers because running on it's own it implodes from the bandwidth, because of course it does.
These words reminded me of http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/Get_Schwifty, you are like that dude who interpreted inapprehensible events to his own benefit and became the main priest of the new cult. You are very very wrong, my friend. I hope in few years you'll get it...
Sounds like bullshit, you didnt even know what IoT is. You thought a raspbery pi was an IoT device.  Cheesy
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 03, 2017, 11:02:59 PM
 #195

Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?

Yes, would be interesting to get an opinion because...

...I'm still not convinced that Byteball is a pure DAG coin, to prove my position I would need to generate a lot of transactions on Byteball network to show that in certain conditions (related to DAG topology) TPS growth is negatively impacted by necessity to pick the main chain. If you compared Ethereum (which calls itself blockchain) and Byteball you would see that they don't differ much:

If you looked at IOTA you would see this:

SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 04, 2017, 09:53:32 PM
 #196

Have you looked at https://byteball.org what is your opinion on that?

Yes, would be interesting to get an opinion because...

...I'm still not convinced that Byteball is a pure DAG coin, to prove my position I would need to generate a lot of transactions on Byteball network to show that in certain conditions (related to DAG topology) TPS growth is negatively impacted by necessity to pick the main chain. If you compared Ethereum (which calls itself blockchain) and Byteball you would see that they don't differ much:

You keep spamming that image.

The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.


Byteball is the first DAG-coin, the first! The first IoT coin, and the first on exchanges and actual use in livenet.
LiQio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1181
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 05, 2017, 04:14:21 AM
 #197

^ Still unsure whether you "picked the right library" or not?  Cheesy
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 05, 2017, 06:11:45 AM
 #198

The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.

Ethereum blockchain looks as a DAG too. Does this mean that Ethereum is actually the first DAG coin?
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 05, 2017, 10:19:19 PM
 #199

The best image of Byteball is this, an actual DAG.

Ethereum blockchain looks as a DAG too. Does this mean that Ethereum is actually the first DAG coin?
No, as described in this threads paper, ethereum has nothing to do with a DAGcoin, while Byteball is the First functional DAG coin.

Your argumentation by pictures, brings you to wrong conclusions.

I see in the IOTA thread your scam has born fruit to you, people are saying the "iota tokens" they bought from you are not actually "valid" anymore because they didnt "claim" them.

You do not have the first DAG coin, but you are running one of many scam coins.
LiQio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1181
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 06, 2017, 06:26:57 AM
 #200

^
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 06, 2017, 08:40:52 AM
 #201

No, as described in this threads paper, ethereum has nothing to do with a DAGcoin, while Byteball is the First functional DAG coin.

What do you mean by "in this threads paper"? Give us the direct link, please.
kusyai
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
 #202

This is very interesting.
I'm wondering though how this could ever be rolled out as it literally needs the network to be active (or not ?). If I wanna transact I need someone else to transact as well and confirm my tx with his tx. I guess I could also send some more tx myself but that's not really going to fly.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 02:14:12 PM
 #203

^
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?
Let me see, it is May, the fifth month, of 2017. Can a person trade iotatokens on exchanges and is the consensus of Iota decided by its consensus-algorithm and not "milestone" databases posted by its developers?

Byteball is on bittrex, changelly, bitsquare to name a few.

I am truly sorry you have invested too much into Iotatoken to not be willing to see/comprehend the inherent incompatibility and oyxmoron of "proof-of-work" designed for devices, devices which are optimized to do as little work as possible.

Iota is as spectacular and big as its promises and failure to deliver anything of value.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 03:05:27 PM
 #204

is the consensus of Iota decided by its consensus-algorithm and not "milestone" databases posted by its developers?

Milestones are used as a countermeasure against 34% attack while hashpower backing IOTA is not large enough. Also, last time I checked Byteball description that coin wasn't decentralized, so it's unclear why Byteball is mentioned in this thread at all.
LiQio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1181
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 07, 2017, 05:21:32 PM
 #205

^
Still unsure if you picked the right library?
Boss already nagging?
Fear of losing your internship?
Let me see, it is May, the