Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2017, 09:08:23 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 404 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IOTA  (Read 591379 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:27:07 PM
 #381

But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.
On your picture it has 1 confirmation only?..
I can draw more pictures. But I don't think it's necessary. Imagine that the attacker started preparing for the attack a month ago. He spent the whole month to accumulate PoW on top of the second doublespend. He published no transactions during the month. Then he publishes the first doublespending transaction, provides the first confirmation, thus attaching it to recent part of the tangle, waits for the merchant to send him his puchase. Then publishes his secret subtangle and attaches in to the legit subtangle. The first doublespending transaction now is rejected by the network, the second doublespend has more weight.
He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.
... there is also a complication that the current height calculation algorithm is not very computationally efficient. We'll have to modify it in any case, and there are already several good candidates.
1490778503
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490778503

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490778503
Reply with quote  #2

1490778503
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1490778503
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490778503

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490778503
Reply with quote  #2

1490778503
Report to moderator
1490778503
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490778503

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490778503
Reply with quote  #2

1490778503
Report to moderator
1490778503
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1490778503

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1490778503
Reply with quote  #2

1490778503
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:27:54 PM
 #382

The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.

That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)

For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments.

Agreed it could. Paypal often withholds funds, especially if there is a sudden surge of payment volume.  Selling via BTC is much easier.

But it is possible to verify an account with Paypal (or Amazon payments) without taking payment via Paypal (or only take a small payment), then take the rest from that person via BTC. So then you don't care what Paypal does.

mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:29:40 PM
 #383

He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper   Smiley    Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.
stdset
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 507



View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:30:46 PM
 #384

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.

1327SP2iBPGK8AJDhwGoSyL6PTc1WEfXKm
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:34:47 PM
 #385

Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.

Now you know why Ethereum's sale was so large yet they ran out of money so fast. They were buying their own coins recycling the same money over and over. And suckering investors into thinking they needed to rush before the priced moved higher on the next pre-timed price increment.

mthcl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:36:59 PM
 #386

Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo.
Еxactly  Smiley    Just wait a bit until we finish our internal discussion...
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1526

Newbie


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:37:22 PM
 #387

Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper   Smiley    Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.

It's still worth discussing my algo publicly even if we don't adopt it.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:37:30 PM
 #388

If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1526

Newbie


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:40:16 PM
 #389

Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1526

Newbie


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:41:02 PM
 #390

Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)

This magically moves Nash equilibrium towards superwide DAG.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:45:21 PM
 #391

Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.

There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

I shouldn't be giving away ideas for free, but any way you all have shared a lot for free and you'd eventually figure this out.

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1526

Newbie


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:47:15 PM
 #392

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:49:16 PM
 #393

Now you know why ... They were ... And ...

Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.

Where there is smoke there is fire. No insults intended, just being realistic. Feel free to delete my posts if you want.

Edit: I admire your strict (and level-headed) adherence to sensing versus intuition. I am EN?P (nearly balanced between F and T). I am like 81% N. So I rely a lot on intuition and don't wait to have every fact sensed with full verification. I admire those who are ISTP (but not so much ISTJ). I have to learn to appreciate the virtues of that and yet maintain respect/balance where my intuitions helps me.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 28, 2015, 11:51:43 PM
 #394

You can have an orthogonal block chain which records a consensus on the state of the tree (hash). Voila checkpoints and debasement. Since the trees are the objective reality, then the block chain can't lie with a 51% attack. The block chain could be PoW or PoS.

Then why not use blockchain? It won't scale anyway because orthogonal blockchain will be a bottleneck here.

Bottleneck to what? It is only recording checkpoints. It is not slowing down the forward advance of the DAG. It is orthogonal, except for the coinbases which can be spent into the DAG (after sufficient # of blocks to be probabilistically sure of coinbases not being reverted by an orphaned chain).

The downside is a 51% attack could revert the coinbases, but again the DAG is the objective truth, so I assume the minority block chain can ignore the 51% attack. Would need to think this out a bit. DAGs are voting on which chain of the block chain is valid. Any way if the attacker has 51% PoW, he can attack the DAG also.

Tobo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 705


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 12:03:27 AM
 #395

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.
Sebastien256
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 677


http://nxt.org/demo/ TEST NXT!! NO DOWNLOADS!!!


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 12:12:06 AM
 #396

I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.

No need for the buy limit. Sales like Ether and Augur worked very well without any limit to buy. It is important to raise as much as you can in the fundraising becasue the success and sustainable development of this project will largely depends on the funds. It will be lose-lose if the project can not succeed becasue of lack of funds. So the more the better. It does not matter who and how much one person will own the coins. The exchanges will take care that eventually. It is about how much a person will believe in this project.

Aye, I do not share your opinion, sorry. The question is to garanty (almost) the avoidvance of the dilution of the initial investors fund. Otherwise, it only stand on promise. Imo, thing need to be clear from the start of the project.

Nxt official forum at: https://nxtforum.org/
myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 29, 2015, 01:40:52 AM
 #397

Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':

Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)

This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).

Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...

Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
[...]

I disagree.
A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful.

Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

hashtag101
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 234


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 02:03:55 AM
 #398

IT and Cfb.

Do you really see anyone here trying to be malicious?

Don't get frustrated to the point that you miss the important examples of what people in general could have as concerns.

This is good feedback you're getting.

"Insults" and "don't buy then" arent constructive. Right?
hashtag101
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 234


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 02:10:05 AM
 #399

Im impressed by the way.

Kinda hard to keep up at times as this is deep!

But I'm learning A LOT from everyone.

So many of you are as sharp as a razor. Damn Cool
hashtag101
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 234


View Profile
October 29, 2015, 02:31:30 AM
 #400



Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.

I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.

And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 404 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!