Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 09:59:54 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: The Ethereum Paradox  (Read 84474 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
May 21, 2016, 09:56:13 AM
 #1041

All I said is you can't criticize them for "using" PoS (which they claim will happen in the future) and at the same time criticize them for not being scalable

I don't know why you're pulling this Orwellian double speak.  We all know proof of stake is not a valid decentralized network and could only be considered a centralized company issuing shares at best.  This is the one thing Larimer is honest about compared to other people attempting to push proof of stake.  Vitalik does not share this honesty and continues to refer to it as a decentralized system, while Larimer said he was basically just trying to compete with companies like Paypal or single point of failure exchanges.

I never disagreed about PoS being useless and a bad move for Ethereum (i.e. I agree with Nick Szabo).

Ethereum is not currently a PoS system, so you can't criticize it for that, yet. You can criticize it for being totally non-scalable.

1513418394
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513418394

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513418394
Reply with quote  #2

1513418394
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513418394
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513418394

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513418394
Reply with quote  #2

1513418394
Report to moderator
1513418394
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513418394

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513418394
Reply with quote  #2

1513418394
Report to moderator
1513418394
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513418394

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513418394
Reply with quote  #2

1513418394
Report to moderator
btctube
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 616



View Profile
May 21, 2016, 12:25:36 PM
 #1042

Nice try r0ach. You can find users agreeing you but you'll never know what they exactly do with thier btc. A lot of them putrobably just bought Eth.


░░░░░░░░░░▄▄░░░░░░▄██▄
░░░░░░░░▄████▄░░░▀█████▄
░░░░░░▄████████▄░░░▀█████▄
░░░░▄█████▀▀█████▄░░░▀█████▄
░░▄█████▀░░░░▀█████▄░░░▀█████▄
█████▀░░░░░░░▀█████░░░░▀█████
████▀░░░░░██▄░░░░▀████░░░░░▀████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████░░░░░░████░░░░████░░░░░░████
████▄░░░░░████▄░░░░▀██░░░░░▄████
█████▄░░░░█████▄░░░░░░░▄█████
░░▀█████▄░░░▀█████▄░░░░▄█████▀
░░░░▀█████▄░░░▀█████▄▄█████▀
░░░░░░▀█████▄░░░▀████████▀
░░░░░░░░▀█████▄░░░▀████▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀██▀░░░░░░▀▀
CommerceBlock
.Creating Decentralised Financial Infrastructure.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   Whitepaper ▬  ANN Thread   ▬▬

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 12:47:33 PM
 #1043

Nice try r0ach. You can find users agreeing you but you'll never know what they exactly do with thier btc. A lot of them putrobably just bought Eth.

In the end it might be fine to buy any altcoin, as long as there is some use and youhave your risk under control.

It might work out that we will come to such a similarity like


Analog world :Gold  <-> fiat
Digital world : BTC   <-> alts

And finally all fiat converted to Crypto will seek store of value in BTC....

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
freshman777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2016, 02:02:55 PM
 #1044

In the end it might be fine to buy any altcoin, as long as there is some use and youhave your risk under control.

It might work out that we will come to such a similarity like


Analog world :Gold  <-> fiat
Digital world : BTC   <-> alts

And finally all fiat converted to Crypto will seek store of value in BTC....

This is silly thinking, nerd's fantasizing. No cryptocoin will ever come close to the security of gold.
Gold can't be destroyed. Chinese government can destroy Bitcoin in 15 minutes if they please, cutting power to 70% (soon 90%) of the Bitcoin hashing facilities. Meanwhile the local corrupt officials enjoy profits shared by miners, and you guys pamper yourselves in nerdish fantasy land. If block creation and validation can be concentrated in large physical facilities requiring huge electric power to operate as in the ASIC friendly POW of Bitcoin, it is not a secure design. It's an amazement to me how logical nerds completely turn their heads off and hope for the best when all evidence suggests the worst outcome.

ARDOR - Blockchain as a Service. Three birds with one stone. /// Do not hold NXT at exchanges, NXT wallets: core+lite, mobile Android
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 02:12:20 PM
 #1045

Chinese government can destroy Bitcoin in 15 minutes if they please

Completely false.  If the Chinese government tried anything, they could temporarily get a few double spends off, which would quickly be noticed, then there would be overwhelming consensus to change to a different CPU or GPU algorithm to make their actions useless.  This is why they would likely never attempt to do such a thing in the first place; it would be the equivalent of destroying your own country's gold reserves (large mining investments).  You would just be destroying your own capital.

......ATLANT......
..Real Estate Blockchain Platform..
                    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                    ████████████░
                  ▄██████████████░
                 ▒███████▄████████░
                ▒█████████░████████░
                ▀███████▀█████████
                  ██████████████
           ███████▐██▀████▐██▄████████░
          ▄████▄█████████▒████▌█████████░
         ███████▄█████████▀██████████████░
        █████████▌█████████▐█████▄████████░
        ▀█████████████████▐███████████████
          █████▀████████ ░███████████████
    ██████▐██████████▄████████████████████████░
  ▄████▄████████▐███████████████░▄▄▄▄░████████░
 ▄██████▄█████████▐█████▄█████████▀████▄█████████░
███████████████████▐█████▄█████████▐██████████████░
▀████████▀█████████▒██████████████▐█████▀█████████
  ████████████████ █████▀█████████████████████████
   ▀██▀██████████ ▐█████████████  ▀██▀██████████
    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀██████████

..INVEST  ●  RENT  ●  TRADE..
 ✓Assurance     ✓Price Discovery     ✓Liquidity     ✓Low Fees





███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

◣Whitepaper ◣ANN ThreadTelegram
◣ Facebook     ◣ Reddit          ◣ Slack


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███








Hero/Legendary members
freshman777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2016, 02:23:49 PM
 #1046

Chinese government can destroy Bitcoin in 15 minutes if they please

Completely false.  If the Chinese government tried anything, they could temporarily get a few double spends off, which would quickly be noticed, then there would be overwhelming consensus to change to a different CPU or GPU algorithm to make their actions useless.  This is why they would likely never attempt to do such a thing in the first place; it would be the equivalent of destroying your own country's gold reserves (large mining investments).  You would just be destroying your own capital.

What double spends. I am talking complete shut down of the hashing network if it somehow becomes a menace to the totalitarian power and control. You're so deep in your Bitcoin taking over the world fantasies that you actually think the Chinese gov cares about Bitcoin to be some kind of reserves? Wow, delusions have hit a new level of stupidity here. Change to a different algo, you imagine the damage to confidence in Bitcoin when it happens? How long to deploy this new software and what about perception of the network security when it's deployed, it will be as secure as any altcoin running on GPUs, price of Bitcoin/10 after launch. It's tiring to read these canned head-in-the-sand responses to legit concerns every single time somebody voices them.

ARDOR - Blockchain as a Service. Three birds with one stone. /// Do not hold NXT at exchanges, NXT wallets: core+lite, mobile Android
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 02:38:29 PM
 #1047

What double spends. I am talking complete shut down of the hashing network if it somehow becomes a menace to the totalitarian power and control.

You didn't read the post and are just babbling on about nonsense.  Everyone knows governments have the power to attack any cryptocurrency that exists.  Proof of stake coins have absolutely 0 fault or state recovery to resume from a successful govt attack, while PoW actually does.  If anything, your argument just makes PoS coins look weak.

......ATLANT......
..Real Estate Blockchain Platform..
                    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                    ████████████░
                  ▄██████████████░
                 ▒███████▄████████░
                ▒█████████░████████░
                ▀███████▀█████████
                  ██████████████
           ███████▐██▀████▐██▄████████░
          ▄████▄█████████▒████▌█████████░
         ███████▄█████████▀██████████████░
        █████████▌█████████▐█████▄████████░
        ▀█████████████████▐███████████████
          █████▀████████ ░███████████████
    ██████▐██████████▄████████████████████████░
  ▄████▄████████▐███████████████░▄▄▄▄░████████░
 ▄██████▄█████████▐█████▄█████████▀████▄█████████░
███████████████████▐█████▄█████████▐██████████████░
▀████████▀█████████▒██████████████▐█████▀█████████
  ████████████████ █████▀█████████████████████████
   ▀██▀██████████ ▐█████████████  ▀██▀██████████
    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀██████████

..INVEST  ●  RENT  ●  TRADE..
 ✓Assurance     ✓Price Discovery     ✓Liquidity     ✓Low Fees





███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

◣Whitepaper ◣ANN ThreadTelegram
◣ Facebook     ◣ Reddit          ◣ Slack


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███








Hero/Legendary members
freshman777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2016, 02:45:51 PM
 #1048

What double spends. I am talking complete shut down of the hashing network if it somehow becomes a menace to the totalitarian power and control.

You didn't read the post and are just babbling on about nonsense.  Everyone knows governments have the power to attack any cryptocurrency that exists.  Proof of stake coins have absolutely 0 fault or state recovery to resume from a successful govt attack, while PoW actually does.  If anything, your argument just makes PoS coins look weak.


The advantage of proof of stake coins and ASIC resistant proof of work coins is nonexistence of few large concentrated facilities operating with gov consent. ASIC friendly POW facilities is an easy target, so easy they actually allow Bitcoin to run and take their time to milk investors with full knowledge they can power it off at the time of their convenience.

ARDOR - Blockchain as a Service. Three birds with one stone. /// Do not hold NXT at exchanges, NXT wallets: core+lite, mobile Android
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
 #1049

You didn't read the post and are just babbling on about nonsense.  Everyone knows governments have the power to attack any cryptocurrency that exists.  Proof of stake coins have absolutely 0 fault or state recovery to resume from a successful govt attack, while PoW actually does.  If anything, your argument just makes PoS coins look weak.


The advantage of proof of stake coins and ASIC resistant proof of work coins is nonexistence of few large concentrated facilities operating with gov consent. ASIC friendly POW facilities is an easy target, so easy they actually allow Bitcoin to run and take their time to milk investors with full knowledge they can power it off at the time of their convenience.

All completely wrong.  You just shift the attack vector from miners or pools to exchanges and banks, which are even easier targets.  All that infrastructure is already under complete government control and regulation in the first place.  You're also on a brand new account that was likely created entirely to shill for IPO scamcoins, so what other types of answers could anyone expect from you.

......ATLANT......
..Real Estate Blockchain Platform..
                    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                    ████████████░
                  ▄██████████████░
                 ▒███████▄████████░
                ▒█████████░████████░
                ▀███████▀█████████
                  ██████████████
           ███████▐██▀████▐██▄████████░
          ▄████▄█████████▒████▌█████████░
         ███████▄█████████▀██████████████░
        █████████▌█████████▐█████▄████████░
        ▀█████████████████▐███████████████
          █████▀████████ ░███████████████
    ██████▐██████████▄████████████████████████░
  ▄████▄████████▐███████████████░▄▄▄▄░████████░
 ▄██████▄█████████▐█████▄█████████▀████▄█████████░
███████████████████▐█████▄█████████▐██████████████░
▀████████▀█████████▒██████████████▐█████▀█████████
  ████████████████ █████▀█████████████████████████
   ▀██▀██████████ ▐█████████████  ▀██▀██████████
    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀██████████

..INVEST  ●  RENT  ●  TRADE..
 ✓Assurance     ✓Price Discovery     ✓Liquidity     ✓Low Fees





███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

◣Whitepaper ◣ANN ThreadTelegram
◣ Facebook     ◣ Reddit          ◣ Slack


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███








Hero/Legendary members
freshman777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2016, 05:01:06 PM
 #1050

Ad hominem when you can't disprove legit concerns. So predictable.

ARDOR - Blockchain as a Service. Three birds with one stone. /// Do not hold NXT at exchanges, NXT wallets: core+lite, mobile Android
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 05:26:48 PM
 #1051

Ad hominem when you can't disprove legit concerns. So predictable.

Saying you're a "freshly created shill acccount from 2016" who is constantly posting false statements is not an "ad hominem", it's a fact.

......ATLANT......
..Real Estate Blockchain Platform..
                    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
                    ████████████░
                  ▄██████████████░
                 ▒███████▄████████░
                ▒█████████░████████░
                ▀███████▀█████████
                  ██████████████
           ███████▐██▀████▐██▄████████░
          ▄████▄█████████▒████▌█████████░
         ███████▄█████████▀██████████████░
        █████████▌█████████▐█████▄████████░
        ▀█████████████████▐███████████████
          █████▀████████ ░███████████████
    ██████▐██████████▄████████████████████████░
  ▄████▄████████▐███████████████░▄▄▄▄░████████░
 ▄██████▄█████████▐█████▄█████████▀████▄█████████░
███████████████████▐█████▄█████████▐██████████████░
▀████████▀█████████▒██████████████▐█████▀█████████
  ████████████████ █████▀█████████████████████████
   ▀██▀██████████ ▐█████████████  ▀██▀██████████
    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀█████████    ▀▀██████████

..INVEST  ●  RENT  ●  TRADE..
 ✓Assurance     ✓Price Discovery     ✓Liquidity     ✓Low Fees





███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

◣Whitepaper ◣ANN ThreadTelegram
◣ Facebook     ◣ Reddit          ◣ Slack


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███





███
███
███
███
███
███








Hero/Legendary members
mcplums
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 146


View Profile
May 25, 2016, 12:33:55 PM
 #1052

This thread is great. I do own quite a bit of ethereum and think it's great- but I am trying super hard to approach everything with an open mind, and leave my convictions at home. So I enjoy reading and learning the various (potential!) problems with Eth.

I think I am lucky in that I own approximately the same amount of both bitcoin and ethereum (as a proportion of total supply) so I am indifferent as to which one is ultimately victorious, if indeed only one of them is. This allows me to approach this from a more neutral perspective without becoming emotionally involved.
benthach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


--- I AM LEGEND --- i scam no one --- like ARK


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2016, 01:10:34 PM
 #1053

Ethereum is better than bitcoin.  End of story

Lisk is better than Ethocreampie(eth). End of story

Colonel Crouton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 345



View Profile
May 27, 2016, 07:03:25 AM
 #1054

This thread has a lot of promise but it is heavy on the blowhards.

Once you read the two sentences that describe the "paradox" you've gotten everything that this thread has to offer.

I wish someone could put that advisory in the OP so no one wastes their time.

I'd argue some points points too, but the exercise would amount to arguing with fools who are convinced of their own infallibility.

Ten-Hut!
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 07, 2016, 09:24:07 AM
 #1055

Regarding Dagger in retrospect, which was Vitalik's original proposed proof-of-work since before Ethereum was formed:

Thanks to Adam Back and Charles Hoskinson, for discussion and critique of earlier drafts of the protocol

Note Vitalik has apparently deleted that page from his website, but we still have his Twitter announcement confirming that Dagger was created in 2013.

Charles had asked AnonyMint in Skype about Vitalik's design in late 2013 or start of 2014 as Charles was considering joining with Vitalik to form what became Ethereum, and AnonyMint told him that Dagger could be trivially parallelized, thus was not sequentially memory hard. Charles already in the past posted a confirmation on BCT of that discussion. Feel free to dig for it.

This should exemplify that as of the end of 2013, Adam Back was not as expert as AnonyMint was on sequentially memory hard proof-of-work.

Because I presume within a short time after that, the following was published validating AnonyMint's analysis:

..the authors completely forgets another key property a PoW function must provide: it must be sequential-memory hard. This means that not only the function should require large amounts of RAM, but it must not allow easy parallelization. Dagger seems to provide almost the best possible scenario for parallelization.

However, Dagger was proven to be vulnerable to shared memory hardware acceleration by Sergio Lerner and was then dropped in favor of other avenues of research.

But Sergio did not state the much more relevant factor w.r.t. to mining economics, being that the electrical consumption could have been much more efficient on an ASIC implementation of Dagger, because Dagger is predominantly computation bound[1] and computation is more efficient with customized logic circuits, which btw is also the ASIC resistance Achilles heel of the Hasimoto proof-of-work (authored by Thaddeus Dryja, one of the creators of the highly flawed Lightning Networks clusterfuck in the making) which was the base for the Ethereum's Dagger-Hashimoto (later renamed Ethash with some modifications). Ethash inherited the computation bound problem, because the Ethereum developers didn't even realize it is an issue:

...can be mined very quickly by using a large amount of memory.  The intent of this is to force ASIC/FPGA designers to be bound by RAM access speeds, while still allowing for verification by thin clients.

IO saturation: The algorithm should consume nearly the entire available memory access bandwidth (this is a strategy toward achieving ASIC resistance, the argument being that commodity RAM, especially in GPUs, is much closer to the theoretical optimum than commodity computing capacity)

The difference between Dagger Hashimoto and Dagger is that, unlike in the original Dagger, the dataset used to query the block is semi-permanent, only being updated at occasional intervals (eg. once per week). This means that the portion of the effort that goes toward generating the dataset is close to zero, so Sergio Lerner's arguments regarding shared memory speedups become negligible.

Expect computation bound also to be the ASIC resistance Achilles heel of Monero's (ditto Zcash's) proof-of-work if Monero's or Zcash's mining economics ever become lucrative enough to motivate ASIC development. As well tromp's Cuckoo Cycle once the insecure use[2] of Siphash is restored to SHA256 as in tromp's earlier version. I also expect that given Cuckoo Cycle is parallelizable (i.e not sequentially memory hard) then (especially with smaller memory footprints necessary to make Cuckoo Cycle's proving time reasonable for instant transactions that) the memory latency (and thus alleged high electrical consumption proportion of RAM versus computation) can be masked by massive number of paused hardware threads (aka compute units) waiting to be synced (coalesced) on a memory page (aka row); thus rendering Cuckoo Cycle execution-time computation bound up to memory bandwidth bound and power consumption computation bound— thus not ASIC resistant.

*

* several forum members can vouch for that, although they'd probably prefer not to.

[1]It is possible on the ASIC the computation would have been sufficiently faster causing the algorithm to become memory bandwidth or latency bound on execution time, yet the power consumption would likely remain compute bound thus making the ASIC much more electrically efficient.
[2]Jean-Philippe Aumasson; Daniel J. Bernstein (2012). "SipHash: a fast short-input PRF". https://131002.net/siphash/#dl

"general-purpose cryptographic hash functions perform many extra computations for the goal of collision resistance on public inputs, while MACs have secret keys and do not need collision resistance"

"Note that the standard PRF and MAC security goals allow the attacker access to the output of SipHash on messages chosen adaptively by the attacker. However, they do not allow access to any “leaked” information such as bits of the key or the internal state."




Edit:
Quote from: anonymous
is memory bandwidth something that an ASIC can easily overcome?

You misunderstood. Try reading it again more carefully and slowly. The memory bandwidth only limits the speedup on an ASIC, not the electrical efficiency gains. I wrote a very complex statement. Try to grasp what I am saying about Cuckoo Cycle. AnonyMint/TPTB conjectured that with enough hardware threads, it loses the ability to amortize a single memory latency over 1 hash computation and instead up to 1024 (for 4KB page/row) hashes coalesced for 1 memory latency (row loading) power cycle. Thus computation bound and orders-of-magnitude more power efficient on the ASIC. John Tromp had argued that the probability of any one thread being coalesced was 2^-14 due to the ratio of the memory page (row) and bank sizes, but that is for any one h/w thread. And that was if the memory footprint of the Cuckoo table is greater than the memory bank size. His concept falls away when 1000s of hardware threads are run and/or smaller memory footprints are chosen. That is why TPTB_need_war urged tromp to buy a Kill-A-Watt meter and measure, but even that won't isolate to the metrics needed to estimate the advantage of ASIC. Need a more sophisticated bench test and probably some hardware simulation.

Quote from: anonymous
Still trying to grasp the second statement ("It loses the ability to amortize a single memory latency over 1 hash computation...")

tromp thinks that Cuckoo Cycle has very low computation relative to memory latency. But this depends on only one 32-bit bucket being read in each memory page/row. With massive number of h/w threads, can get them all synced up (or sorted) so that we read 1024 of 32-bit buckets in one memory latency cycle, thus we have 1024 times more computation of hashes amortized over only one memory latency power cycle (where the new row is read into the row buffer on the DRAM memory bank). Thus from a power consumption standpoint, it becomes computation bound and thus the ASIC can be orders-of-magnitude more efficient.

Quote from: John Tromp (2014-12-31). "Cuckoo Cycle: a memory bound graph-theoretic proof-of-work". https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/059.pdf#page=2
² Preferably less than the roughly 50 nanosecond row activation delay for switching rows on a memory bank.

Cuckoo spends only 1/3 of its time doing hash computations, which take little power compared to DRAM switching rows. So the possible gain by ASIC hashing is less than 33%.

I didn't measure that. I estimated that doing 90 64-bit operations (one siphash call) is cheaper than operating the (typically 16k) sense amplifiers to read a new bitline. But I could be wrong about that... I'm assuming a Cuckoo size much larger than 16k of course.



Edit#2: and here Vlad and the Ethereum team couldn't understand what AnonyMint had considered and quickly dismissed in 2014 because by-definition a random circuit has no structure and thus can't be relied upon to have any proof-of-work qualities. Duh!

Approaches that were tried between Dagger and Dagger Hashimoto but are currently not our primary focus include:

  • "Random circuit" - a proof of work function developed largely by Vlad Zamfir that involves generating a new program every 1000 nonces - essentially, choosing a new hash function each time, faster than even FPGAs can reconfigure. The approach was temporarily put aside because it was difficult to see what mechanism one can use to generate random programs that would be general enough so that specialization gains would be low; however, we see no fundamental reasons why the concept cannot be made to work.

Another idea AnonyMint did consider was cryptographically obscuring the proof-of-work algorithm, but this would mean that only the developers would be able to audit and thus no one would know if the developers had a secretly superior implementation. It would be analogous to the unverifiable trust required to setup the Zcash master key.




Edit#3:

How extensively is this specific NP problem studied?

The closest seems to be the study of tradeoffs in undirected graph traversal such as

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bor/Papers/time-space-tradeoffs-undirected-graph-traversal-graph-automata.pdf

which states:

Quote
Although it would be desirable to show a tradeoff for a general model of computation
such as a random access machine, obtaining such a tradeoff is beyond the
reach of current techniques. Thus it is natural to consider a ``structured'' model
(Borodin [16]), that is, one whose basic move is based on the adjacencies of the
graph, as opposed to one whose basic move is based on the bits in the graph's
encoding.

My model is rather odd in that you cannot easily figure out the neighbours of a node,
since edges are generated from nonces, and in the worst case you have to map over
all nonces to find the edges adjacent to a given node.

The paper establishes a quadratic lower bound on the
product of time and space for graph traversal, which I interpret
as good evidence for the edge trimming in my Cuckoo Cycle being optimal,
as it uses just 1 bit per edge.

They had an earlier paper as well:

http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~beame/papers/wag.pdf

I found it helpful to also read the abstract of these two:

http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~schoepp/Docs/formalcr.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397500000190

Your Cuckoo Cycle is a log n space representation which discards the local information on the bidirectionality of the edges (i.e. the undirected graphic) so as to assume it is a DAG. The undirected quality of the actual graph is hidden from your representation, except by global re-enumeration of the edges (via the "micro" nonces). For readers, tromp never explicitly defines this terminology but one can deduce he uses "macro nonce" to mean the nonce for the block. The "micro nonces" are the enumeration of the edges in graph.

You have not shown that Cuckoo Cycle can guarantee that a representation that stores the linear space of the graph won't have solutions which are more efficient, perhaps only on an ASIC and/or GPU within the log(mn) product of time and space lower bound tradeoff. For example, it may be more efficient to decrease traversal workspace and apply a probabilistic or non-deterministic JAG, because it may make it more efficient to get a fewer number threads to coalesce on page row latency, while any increased hash computations are relatively insignificant on the ASIC. Or the undirected graph may find more cycles, more efficiently.

The edge trimming from David Andersen appears to throw away information at the representation (storage of the edges) stage. The paper you cited is referring to compression of the traversal workspace of storing the state machine for visited the graph, i.e. the "pebbles" and "Q state" in the JAG model.

Also the traversal workspace in a Cuckoo Cycle finding proof-of-work in an undirected case is amortizing workspace over numerous cycles found, which is a different algorithm than the single-shot s-t reachability traversal considered by the research papers cited above.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
June 07, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
 #1056

Good reading. Thx

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
finitemaz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62


View Profile
June 07, 2016, 07:33:47 PM
 #1057

eth still scam?
Yes.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
June 07, 2016, 07:51:14 PM
 #1058

Good reading, well above my absorption rate these days. Sad

Why talk about yourself in third person?

BITSLER                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄            
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄      
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █  
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀              
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 07, 2016, 08:10:45 PM
 #1059

well above my absorption rate these days. Sad

Oregano oil very high dosed sublingually and via enteric coated capsules. Do not delay.

Why talk about yourself in third person?

Because the mods are the FUD trolls:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1502277.msg15118630#msg15118630

Some dumb monkey wants to feel important by kissing Theymos's butthole delusions. I remember before Lauda became "Staff", he stood out to me as one of the prominent dumb trolls. That he became a mod or staff is so befitting of the dumber than dumb of any collectivized endeavor. It is simply impossible to not have a large social grouping not end up as the least common denominator.

And who is talking about themselves in the third person?  Wink Next time I will be forced to "not come back" in a drag queen persona.

I am wasting time. Bye.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
June 07, 2016, 08:24:35 PM
 #1060

eth still scam?
Yes.

BTC is the experiment chasing the flawed central banks

ETH is the flawed experiment chasing THIS experiment

Iamnotback might argue THIS is already flawed and he might be right with some CORE.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  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!