[EMUNIE] THE fastest crypto-currency

[tokeweed]

THE fastest crypto-currency is BitShares 2.0 over 100 000 transactions per second scalability (1 second block)
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability

Will be launched October 13 with 3 seconds block (30 000 transactions per second)

Arguable.  Emunie doesn't have the delegates system you have, but is truly and fully decentralized.

It's depends from that you mean under fully decentralized, Bitcoin also was designed to be fully decentralized but today you have 3 pools which have more that 50% hashing power.


Today BitShares has 101 block signers (delegates) in 2.0 it's will be configurable without hard fork, so if shareholders will decide to have more decentralization they can vote to 1001 delegate.
Bitcoin has 3+ block signers, Ripple has 7, BitShares has 101, Nxt has 700+, eMunie - potentially unlimited like Bitcoin?

I guess fuserleer meant as in fully decentralized, like when Bitcoin was still at the CPU mining stage of its development.  But let's wait for him to drop by and explain.

[Fuserleer]

THE fastest crypto-currency is BitShares 2.0 over 100 000 transactions per second scalability (1 second block)
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability

Will be launched October 13 with 3 seconds block (30 000 transactions per second)

Arguable.  Emunie doesn't have the delegates system you have, but is truly and fully decentralized.

It's depends from that you mean under fully decentralized, Bitcoin also was designed to be fully decentralized but today you have 3 pools which have more that 50% hashing power.


Today BitShares has 101 block signers (delegates) in 2.0 it's will be configurable without hard fork, so if shareholders will decide to have more decentralization they can vote to 1001 delegate.
Bitcoin has 3+ block signers, Ripple has 7, BitShares has 101, Nxt has 700+, eMunie - potentially unlimited like Bitcoin?

I guess fuserleer meant as in fully decentralized, like when Bitcoin was still at the CPU mining stage of its development.  But let's wait for him to drop by and explain.

Correct, there are no super-nodes, delegates or anything of the sort and never will be.  There are no blocks and there is no mining so supply distribution is 100% fair.  Consensus is achieved via a different algorithm which I posted about here a while ago.

Bitshares doesn't count, as its not a fully decentralized transactional system by design, and even if it was I doubt those claims are anywhere near possible in the real world.

In these videos that everyone keeps posting he says "to keep everything in memory".  How much memory do you think you need to keep pace with a days worth of 100,000 transactions per second in there?

He claims that the minimum tx size is something like 120 bytes so thats 120*100000*86400 bytes of transactional data per day, if you are keeping that in memory then it's near as damn it 1TB of RAM.

Now you probably dont need *that* much, but if you are order matching, then you need to have at least a large portion of recent transactions, a couple of hours worth maybe so that you can successfully match old buys/sells that haven't been matched yet to new ones.

What happens if you need to go to disc for a few 100,000 that arent in RAM......dead......that 100,000 tps turns into 1000 tps as soon as you start hitting discs.

In another video he says they made a 1M tx ledger, loaded it to RAM and processed it in 10 secs.  I could load a 1M eMunie ledger to RAM and re-process it in rapid time too.  The problem is constantly getting it into RAM and getting it back out again.

Whats the best write speed on PCI SSDs atm, about a gig per sec? so it takes 1000 seconds to get a days worth of data that might be in RAM to/from disc best case.  If you do it on demand then that 100,000 tps disappears.

What about ACID compliance too, if everything is in RAM what if that machine suddenly crashes, or has a power outage?  What if it was the only machine in the delegate list that had some of the very most recent transactions and hadn't forwarded them yet?

Furthermore I am suspicious that this 100,000 tps only applies to its order matching and not general transactions.  How can 120 bytes store TXID, sender/receiver, signature, value, asset type and the inputs, it doesn't fit.

For the record I'm not well versed in how Bitshares works, nor am I going to spend the precious time to learn its innards, I'm just going on what I've casually read here and common sense.

[testz]

THE fastest crypto-currency is BitShares 2.0 over 100 000 transactions per second scalability (1 second block)
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability

Will be launched October 13 with 3 seconds block (30 000 transactions per second)

Arguable.  Emunie doesn't have the delegates system you have, but is truly and fully decentralized.

It's depends from that you mean under fully decentralized, Bitcoin also was designed to be fully decentralized but today you have 3 pools which have more that 50% hashing power.


Today BitShares has 101 block signers (delegates) in 2.0 it's will be configurable without hard fork, so if shareholders will decide to have more decentralization they can vote to 1001 delegate.
Bitcoin has 3+ block signers, Ripple has 7, BitShares has 101, Nxt has 700+, eMunie - potentially unlimited like Bitcoin?

I guess fuserleer meant as in fully decentralized, like when Bitcoin was still at the CPU mining stage of its development.  But let's wait for him to drop by and explain.

Correct, there are no super-nodes, delegates or anything of the sort and never will be.  There are no blocks and there is no mining so supply distribution is 100% fair.  Consensus is achieved via a different algorithm which I posted about here a while ago.

I found eMunie consensus algorithm description here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.0
Looks interesting, let's see how this will work in test or real network.

You make calculation for BitShares based at your excellent hardware knowledge even without understanding how BitShares exactly works. 

But anyway it's will be launched 13 of October and everybody will get chance to try. If someone interesting to try how BitShares 2.0 can handle load in test network, all info can be found here: https://bitsharestalk.org
BitShares 2.0 online wallet (test network): https://graphene.bitshares.org

Where/when eMunie test network will be launched?

[bitcoinrocks]

Is it possible to invest in this project?

[Fuserleer]

I found eMunie consensus algorithm description here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.0
Looks interesting, let's see how this will work in test or real network.

You make calculation for BitShares based at your excellent hardware knowledge even without understanding how BitShares exactly works.  

But anyway it's will be launched 13 of October and everybody will get chance to try. If someone interesting to try how BitShares 2.0 can handle load in test network, all info can be found here: https://bitsharestalk.org
BitShares 2.0 online wallet (test network): https://graphene.bitshares.org

Where/when eMunie test network will be launched?

I don't need to know how Bitshares works in detail to apply general computer science theory to the claims made.

Perhaps when its launched everyone should get together on its testnet, and spam it to 100,000 tps and see if it holds up.

The test network is available now if you are a registered beta tester on the eMunie forums, I drop versions there from time to time for beta testers to get to work on.  The latest consensus has had many rounds of testing since it was implemented in Feb.

[Fuserleer]

Is it possible to invest in this project?

Not yet, its not launched and there is no public fundraiser scheduled atm.

[r0ach]

Bitshares doesn't count, as its not a fully decentralized transactional system by design

The statement above is ironic to me because if you consider DPoS not decentralized, that would mean you also consider PoW and PoS not decentralized, meaning Emunie would be the only decentralized system.  Why do I say this?  All you need to do is compare the three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS (Bitshares)

For standard proof of stake, the end game stake scenario results in people having to pool or lease their stake, otherwise there's no point to stake at all.  They're delegating their vote power to determine the longest chain to the pool owner.  The act of doing so results in two things.  First, you've recreated the centralization of PoW pool mining, where most of the blocks are being validated by a handful of people and one out of million being done by some random guy.  Secondly, you've also recreated DPoS, just a less efficient, less decentralized way of doing so.  Most blocks being signed by a few pools vs larger number of block validators in DPoS.

For PoW it's obviously the same thing, delegating your mining power to a pool owner, then like 3 pool guys sign all blocks.  I tend to agree with the following PDF, that actual decentralized currency systems you upload and they run like a virus forever without intervention or attendance aren't possible:

Decentralised Currencies Are Probably Impossible But Let’s At Least Make Them Efficient

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf

Due to this, I'm very skeptical of the Fuserleer system functioning without black swan events that just blow it up with no way to recover.  It doesn't seem like you can get rid of the human element, whether that involves switching pools to avoid bad actors, or voting, or whatever.  These acts are fault recovery methods.  What is Emunie's fault recovery method?  Fuserleer changing name and skipping town if it crashes?  The act of software updating a partitioned system also seems sketchy to me.

[tokeweed]

^ It's all arguable and no one is right or wrong.  And one implementation doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the other one. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Bitshares doesn't count, as its not a fully decentralized transactional system by design

The statement above is ironic to me because if you consider DPoS not decentralized, that would mean you also consider PoW and PoS not decentralized, meaning Emunie would be the only decentralized system.  Why do I say this?  All you need to do is compare the three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS (Bitshares)

I remember Bytemaster making statement that Bitshares is not decentralized. Has anything changed?

[tokeweed]

Bitshares doesn't count, as its not a fully decentralized transactional system by design

The statement above is ironic to me because if you consider DPoS not decentralized, that would mean you also consider PoW and PoS not decentralized, meaning Emunie would be the only decentralized system.  Why do I say this?  All you need to do is compare the three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS (Bitshares)

I remember Bytemaster making statement that Bitshares is not decentralized. Has anything changed?

This is true.  I think he mentioned it at Let's Talk Bitcoin or something...

[r0ach]

Bitshares doesn't count, as its not a fully decentralized transactional system by design

The statement above is ironic to me because if you consider DPoS not decentralized, that would mean you also consider PoW and PoS not decentralized, meaning Emunie would be the only decentralized system.  Why do I say this?  All you need to do is compare the three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS (Bitshares)

I remember Bytemaster making statement that Bitshares is not decentralized. Has anything changed?

How exactly do you quantify the word "decentralized"?  He refers to Bitshares DPoS as a distributed autonomous company, but if you read my post above and disect the real workings of PoW vs PoS vs DPoS, all three are using delegation.  Lots of people like to claim anything that uses delegation can't be decentralized, but Anonymint and I have made many points to show that's false.  He even went as far as stating he's delegating his transfer of packets to his ISP.  What's next?  Anyone using an ISP isn't decentralized no matter what the coin is?

Delegation is all about economy of scale.  Systems that use it are achieving higher performance or less waste and will outperform systems not using it in the free market.

Fuserleer claims to not be doing this to achieve his performance.  In reality, he's basically created a big video game with lots of arbitrary variables and some rudimentary AI (challenge system) to try and automatically grade the players.  Will it work?  Nobody knows.  Game theory approach vs video game approach, battle of the century.

[testz]

I found eMunie consensus algorithm description here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.0
Looks interesting, let's see how this will work in test or real network.

You make calculation for BitShares based at your excellent hardware knowledge even without understanding how BitShares exactly works.  

But anyway it's will be launched 13 of October and everybody will get chance to try. If someone interesting to try how BitShares 2.0 can handle load in test network, all info can be found here: https://bitsharestalk.org
BitShares 2.0 online wallet (test network): https://graphene.bitshares.org

Where/when eMunie test network will be launched?

I don't need to know how Bitshares works in detail to apply general computer science theory to the claims made.

Perhaps when its launched everyone should get together on its testnet, and spam it to 100,000 tps and see if it holds up.

The test network is available now if you are a registered beta tester on the eMunie forums, I drop versions there from time to time for beta testers to get to work on.  The latest consensus has had many rounds of testing since it was implemented in Feb.

Even general computer science theory doesn't help if you made wrong assumption what BitShares store in memory.
Thanks for testnet info, I will wait for public beta.

[wingspan]

...
Fuserleer changing name and skipping town if it crashes?
...

Dan Hughes is a real person with real family, friends, and business associates.  He won't run and hide nor have a reason to do it.  He has poured years into this project...and stands to make a lot of money continuing to help the eMunie ecosystem thrive...by way of honest occupations (e.g., book writing, speaking engagements, movie roles, and further coding).  If, by chance, eMunie does fail, it will be due to some bug/flaw that not one honest code reviewer found.  In a few years, it will possibly become the most reviewed software in the world -- since it could very well become the safest "bank" for individuals to keep control of their wealth.

[testz]

I don't need to know how Bitshares works in detail to apply general computer science theory to the claims made.
...ell seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..."  how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?

Just for the record, cross post from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196533.msg12575441#msg12575441

I want to address the MAJOR misconception and that is that we keep all transactions in RAM and that we need access to the full transaction history to process new transactions.

The default wallet has all transactions expiring just 15 seconds after they are signed which means that the network only has to consider 1,500,000 * 20 byte (trx id) => 3 MB of memory to protect against replay attacks of the same transaction.

The vast majority of all transactions simply modify EXISTING data structures (balances, orders, etc).   The only type of transaction that increases memory use permanently are account creation, asset creation, witness/worker/committee member creation. These particular operations COST much more than operations that modify existing data.  Their cost is derived from the need to keep them in memory for ever.  

So the system needs the ability to STREAM 11 MB per second of data to disk and over the network (assuming all transactions were 120 bytes).  

If there were 6 billion accounts and the average account had 1KB of data associated with it then the system would require 6000 GB or 6 TB of RAM... considering you can already buy motherboards supporting 2TB of ram and probably more if you look in the right places (http://www.eteknix.com/intels-new-serverboard-supports-dual-cpu-2tb-ram/)  I don't think it is unreasonable to require 1 TB per BILLION accounts.  

[Bisha]

Can't we enjoy both technologies without turning it into a pissing contest?

[Fuserleer]

I don't need to know how Bitshares works in detail to apply general computer science theory to the claims made.
...ell seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..."  how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?

Just for the record, cross post from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196533.msg12575441#msg12575441

I want to address the MAJOR misconception and that is that we keep all transactions in RAM and that we need access to the full transaction history to process new transactions.

The default wallet has all transactions expiring just 15 seconds after they are signed which means that the network only has to consider 1,500,000 * 20 byte (trx id) => 3 MB of memory to protect against replay attacks of the same transaction.

The vast majority of all transactions simply modify EXISTING data structures (balances, orders, etc).   The only type of transaction that increases memory use permanently are account creation, asset creation, witness/worker/committee member creation. These particular operations COST much more than operations that modify existing data.  Their cost is derived from the need to keep them in memory for ever.  

So the system needs the ability to STREAM 11 MB per second of data to disk and over the network (assuming all transactions were 120 bytes).  

If there were 6 billion accounts and the average account had 1KB of data associated with it then the system would require 6000 GB or 6 TB of RAM... considering you can already buy motherboards supporting 2TB of ram and probably more if you look in the right places (http://www.eteknix.com/intels-new-serverboard-supports-dual-cpu-2tb-ram/)  I don't think it is unreasonable to require 1 TB per BILLION accounts.  

Ok that clears that up, maybe he should be a bit more clear in future about what exactly "...keep everything in RAM..." means.

It still leaves a lot of questions unanswered regarding that claim though, specifically the IO related ones.

Streaming 11MB from disc doesn't sound like its too hard, but it depends on a number of factors.  Reading one large consecutive 11MB chunk per second is of course childs play, but if you are reading 11MB in many small reads (or worse still if its a mechanical platter drive and is fragmented) then that simple task becomes not so simple.

Also, network IO seems to have some potential issues.  11MB/s down stream isn't too much of a problem, a 100Mbit downstream line will just about suffice, but what about upstream?  I'm assuming (so correct me if Im wrong), that these machines will have numerous connections to other machines, and will have to relay that information to other nodes.  Even if each node only has a few connections (10-20), but has to relay a large portion of those 100,000 tps to each of them, upstream bandwidth requirements for that node quickly approach multiple gigabits in the worst case.

Further more, lets assume that Bitshares is a huge success, is processing just 10,000 tps sustained and that none of these issues exist other than storage.  As Bitshares relies on vertical scaling, and we've already determined that 100,000 tps = ~1TB of data a day, 10,000 tps = 100 GB daily.  Operators of these machines are going to be spending a lot of dollar on fast drive space and have to employ sophisticated storage solutions in order to keep pace.  This becomes quite insane at the 100,000 tps level (365TB per year), perhaps Bitshares has some chain pruning or mechanisms to keep this down?  (I hope so!)

Finally back to RAM requirements, what are the measures or mechanisms in place to prevent someone from creating 1Billion or more empty accounts, and causing RAM requirements to shot upwards as this information is kept in RAM?  A few machines could easily do this over the course of a couple of weeks if there are no other costs associated with it, I assume there is some filtering to only keep accounts with activity in RAM as otherwise this will be a major issue.

Eitherway, this is just another example how vertically scaled systems are not viable, should Bitshares grow to the level where it is processing 100,000s of transactions per second and has even a few 100M accounts, you need a machine with 100s of GB of RAM, 100s of TB of storage, and internet connections in the multiple GB speeds.....not really accessible to the man on the street.

Perhaps the cost of participating at that level just isn't an issue, as Bitshares has always had a semi-centralized element to it anyway, and most supporters of it don't seem to mind it.  For me though, relying on ever increasing hardware performance and sacrificing core principles which brought us all here in the first place is a cop out.

[tokeweed]

Can't we enjoy both technologies without turning it into a pissing contest?

I'd prefer that they do.  It's good that they push the tech forward.

[testz]

Can't we enjoy both technologies without turning it into a pissing contest?

It's nothing about "pissing contest", it's technical discussion which can make both systems better.
PS: I wish eMunie only success

[Come-from-Beyond]

Are there reorgs in BTS ledger? If yes - how fast does it do transactions reprocessing? If no - how does it behave after partitioning?
The same questions about EMUNIE.

[skywave]

EMUNIE

Can I just politely ask the audience to use the correct way to write the brand: eMunie

Thank you