Archived Content

[Dazza]

Also the attacker can DDoS the system by submitting a verification algorithm that is orders-of-magnitude slower than the attacker's proving algorithm.

It's worse than that.  An attacker might be able to win PoW blocks by manipulating the buffer in ways that maintain its integrity (by which I mean, it would pass a "re-run" test), and recomputing (and re-recomputing) its SHA-256 hash.  Moreover, he will be able to do this, even with an innocent and legitimate program.  So this will be no mere DOS attack, the attacker will be able to win an innocent buyer's money without doing legitimate work for that client.  I cannot (yet) see how to avoid this, which is frustrating, because the buffer thing was my idea, and I really thought it would work.

This entire concept is insoluble and flawed and any fool who invests in this shit deserves to lose their money.

While I wouldn't have put it quite like that, this is more or less the position I took in response to the original whitepaper.

I'm no longer so negative about the project.  I think it is possible that we will find solutions to these problems.  It is possible that we could end up with something that does the job, or which fails in ways that are tolerable, rather than fatal, even if these solutions are not what the whitepaper currently envisages.  And it might take a lot longer than the current plan allows for.

So I would not now say to anyone "invest" or "don't invest".  What I would say, is that if you do invest, do so on the basis of what I said in that last paragraph, and to treat it as a punt.

But then, what altcoin isn't?

To be more specific, I think the scheme outlined in section 2.4 of the whitepaper is still vulnerable to a form of the FAA.  It doesn't affect blockchain security, but it could allow a malicious miner to claim all the rewards (but not the bounties) without doing the (honest) buyers work.  I don't think this dooms the project.  I do think that we will have to address the issue of veifiability in a fundamentally different way.

I have a busy day ahead of me, but I will try to find time this weekend to do a thorough critique of the current iteration of the whitepaper.

[1714685085]

1714685085

[1714685085]

1714685085

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Pkzone]

Hmm, good job. It seems awesome.

[Dazza]

Lionel is not involved in any form.

I thought as much, yet, by giving us the barest minimum answer to the question, after ignoring it for so long, you still look cagey.  How did this happen?  Did you, for example, pay him to hand over everything and go away?  Did you get the crowdfunds off him before he left, or did he run off with the money, which you are making good out of your own funds?

This is speculation of course, and wild speculation at that, but by being less-than-forthcoming, you invite such.

I understand that it is frustrating for you to have deal with such issues, when all you want to do is get on and develop.  But I really do wish you would make a full disclosure on this.

It's also not clear who are the "3 developers and theoretical computer scientists and one designer around in this thread" are.  If they've participated in the thread, you should be able to give their user names.  Presumably two of the developers are yourself and Lannister.  Who is the third?  Does Lannister code?  the "theoretiical computer scientist" is presumably me, though I dispute the characterisation.  Who is the designer?

[Dazza]

All those who are writing papers here on a regular basis knows how many iterations a paper sometimes requires until it reaches a form that everyone is happy with. Thanks.

I have to go now, but briefly, could you please include a version number on each iteration.

[Dink]

With all the unanswered questions it is sad that we have been reduced to ...  Cagey

[Mrboot]

Can anyone tell me the block time and block reward ?

For aswell pow as pos please ?

[Mrboot]

Oke im in cant resist, tonight i buy some into the ICO and hope to support this project.

[poornamelessme]

Dink, I am really sorry to hear that you find the project "Cagey".

The problem, as I have mentioned to you, is that there are unanswered questions. When people ask them, you either answer in a vague, blunt manner, or just ignore them completely. Then you go off on a technical tangent regarding the coin. Yet we are all still sitting here, wondering who the dev team is, who has access to the funds,  and wondering why you ignored our questions. So that is why people think there may be some issues.

I'll assume Lionel was paid off. Although I still wonder what his original plan was, if he had devs onboard who simply transferred to you, etc.

I get this is supposed to be a loose collection of crypto enthusiasts working on the coin, but there is loose, and then there is 'so loose that we have no idea who anybody is, or who is in charge'. Even the latter could work (but is hardly ideal), if you weren't taking money for the project.

There needs to be one lead developer regardless, and at least one good coder. Everyone else can be that 'loose collection of devs'. Lannister supposedly is in charge, but he's not the one replying to people here. In fact, does he even read this thread at all? What is his background? Does he have coding skills? Who has access to the donated funds? Will you list how these funds are used, as you use them? Basic stuff.

[Dazza]

I have another meeting in a few minutes, so I will confine myself to brief remarks

Dink, I am really sorry to hear that you find the project "Cagey".

I'm sorry that I find it cagey too.

Anyway, we got to move on with the development and I am really looking forward to Dazza's feedback on the current iteration of the whitepaper. I think there are still one or two minor issues with the "verifiable computation" but I am very confident that we have resolved them pretty soon.

I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.

Once the theory reaches "rock solid" stage, the coding itself is not that sophisticated.

I don't think the coding will be that sophisticated.  I think there could be an awful lot more of it than you anticipate.

@MrBoot the block time is not yet specified. These are the parameters that have to be calibrated once the theory and the implementation is there.

In my opinion the block reward should be negligable or zero, but as it will be PoS, the computational effort will be minimal too.  The incentive to coinholders to do this work is inherent - if they don't, the currency collapses and their stake becomes worthless. The real rewards will come from running the buyers' programs.  These rewards will be determined by the market.

The reason for the low or zero block reward is that, because the total coin will be fixed, rewards can only come from transaction fees which I'd like to be as low as possible.  I think this could be a significant factor encouraging the adoption of our coin for general purposes, i.e., beyond the distributed computing market.

[Cryptorials]

I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.

If the user submitted work is not used for securing the blockchain then what relevance does the FAA still have? Would people not just be either earning their own payments back? Or is this just shorthand for an attack in which somebody fakes having done somebody else's work but actually does nothing useful at all?

Conversely, if you can find a solution to FAA for verification then why can't it be used for PoW?

[illodin]

I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.

I think one of the issues is collecting funds while not even knowing whether the system can ever work.

What if there is a problem that can't be overcome, will the non-spent funds be returned?

[Mrboot]

I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.

I think one of the issues is collecting funds while not even knowing whether the system can ever work.

What if there is a problem that can't be overcome, will the non-spent funds be returned?

This worries me now aswell i was about to buy some elastic coins, but if one dev says it are small things and another say fatal, then this makes no sense and worrieing a lot.

I believe this idea is great but its just so messy and unfollowble if your new, like team changes , who is in or who isnt , who is the actual dev or who isnt, who manage the funds or isnt, what if the total coin amount isnt reach will the coins be burned or distributed on the ico particepent and on what base.

And im just getting warm

Maybe a big meeting is needed in your organisation and sort some things

[Cryptorials]

I think one of the issues is collecting funds while not even knowing whether the system can ever work.

What if there is a problem that can't be overcome, will the non-spent funds be returned?

This worries me now aswell i was about to buy some elastic coins, but if one dev says it are small things and another say fatal, then this makes no sense and worrieing a lot.

I believe this idea is great but its just so messy and unfollowble if your new, like team changes , who is in or who isnt , who is the actual dev or who isnt, who manage the funds or isnt, what if the total coin amount isnt reach will the coins be burned or distributed on the ico particepent and on what base.

And im just getting warm

Maybe a big meeting is needed in your organisation and sort some things

I think its pretty safe to infer two things at this point:

• Since the funds are already being spent, they cannot under any circumstances be refunded.
  
  
• There is no 'organisation'.

[nihilnegativum]

In my opinion the block reward should be negligable or zero, but as it will be PoS, the computational effort will be minimal too.  The incentive to coinholders to do this work is inherent - if they don't, the currency collapses and their stake becomes worthless. The real rewards will come from running the buyers' programs.  These rewards will be determined by the market.

The reason for the low or zero block reward is that, because the total coin will be fixed, rewards can only come from transaction fees which I'd like to be as low as possible.  I think this could be a significant factor encouraging the adoption of our coin for general purposes, i.e., beyond the distributed computing market.

 By making it minimal, I think you could be inviting tragedy of the commons or at least some of its ill effects. Sure there is an incentive to protect your currency, but a very limited one. A user will either trust in the network, and think why bother staking, others are staking, or he will lack this trust in the network, and more likely than stake sell his elastic. If there are no stake rewards, miners will get them as payment and sell them (if its not profitable to hold them), so they only have the incentive while they are on the job, but while on the job, they haven't gotten the coins yet and can't stake them. If the network pays the miners, the network has to stake and it has to ensure that it stakes even if no miner does.

I get that block rewards should be negligable, but why make PoS rewards close to zero?


I'd make a very large money supply with not too large inflation, make a significant premine and donate it all to specific noncomerical project that require computation (seti, folding, einstein, prime, etc.) or something like that...

[Dazza]

I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.

I think one of the issues is collecting funds while not even knowing whether the system can ever work.

What if there is a problem that can't be overcome, will the non-spent funds be returned?

Since I don't control the funds, I can't answer that.

This worries me now aswell i was about to buy some elastic coins, but if one dev says it are small things and another say fatal, then this makes no sense and worrieing a lot.

Three comments:

First, I said fatal to the current approach to verifiability, by which I meant the one described in the current revision (04) of the whitepaper.  I did not say fatal to the project as a whole.  It just means that we will have to adopt a different approach.  I don't believe that tweaking the current approach.will work.  I also said that I had some ideas about what that different approach could be.

Second, am I a dev?  On the one hand, I find myself writing "we" a lot of the time, as in "we could do this, we shouldn't do that", so I guess that means that at some psychological level I think of myself as part of the project.  On the other, I'm not writing any code, which ultimately is the only thing which needs to be developed.  I'm just a guy on the internet with some ideas about what could work, and what won't.

Third, if you're worrying, then don't invest, in this altcoin or any other start-up.  None of them come with any guarantee of success.  Even the established coins including BTC come with no guarantee that they will be worth anything in a year's time.

In my opinion - and you are welcome to disagree - ELC is as good a bet as any other start-up coin out there, and better than most.  And I say that, fully cognizant of all the concerns and doubts that have been raised, including concerns and doubts that I have raised myself.  My stake in this is 3.5 BTC worth at the start of the crowdfunding, amounting to 28,000 ELC.  I've never paid any BTC myself, as I don't have any.  Instead EK promised me half his own investment at the time (I don't know if he has invested more since then) to keep me on board.  I trust him to honour that pledge.

And right now, I am not sitting here thinking, I'd rather have the 3.5 BTC.  I'm very happy with my ELC stake.  If anything, I wish I had more.  I think it is possible, though unlikely, that ELC will be so wildly successful that in a few years time my 28,000 could be worth $millions, which would be wonderful.  Far more likely is that it will be modestly successful and my stake worth $thousands.  Or it could end up worthless, in which case c'est la vie.

It's a punt, a gamble.  But I'm not worrying about it.

[Dazza]

In my opinion the block reward should be negligable or zero, but as it will be PoS, the computational effort will be minimal too.  The incentive to coinholders to do this work is inherent - if they don't, the currency collapses and their stake becomes worthless. The real rewards will come from running the buyers' programs.  These rewards will be determined by the market.

The reason for the low or zero block reward is that, because the total coin will be fixed, rewards can only come from transaction fees which I'd like to be as low as possible.  I think this could be a significant factor encouraging the adoption of our coin for general purposes, i.e., beyond the distributed computing market.

By making it minimal, I think you could be inviting tragedy of the commons or at least some of its ill effects. Sure there is an incentive to protect your currency, but a very limited one. A user will either trust in the network, and think why bother staking,...

Why bother not staking, given that the activity is essentially cost-free to the user?

We could build staking into the reference wallet - active by default - and encourage any third-party wallet developers to do the same, also the mining package, which would have to have access to a wallet (or have wallet functions built in) to be able to collect the fees, could stake by default.

I get that block rewards should be negligable, but why make PoS rewards close to zero?

I assume that by block rewards, you mean rewards for successfully winning 10ms segments.  I see nothing else that could reasonably be described as a block reward other than PoS rewards.

Under the "different approach" I have alluded to, there will be no such rewards because there will be no such blocks.

As for why they PoS rewards should be negligible:  First, part of the original crowdfunding covenant was that the total number of coin would be fixed, and entirely distributed to the crowdfunders.  This was not EK's idea originally; it's what he inherited when he took over the project, and he has ruled out changing it.  This means that the only source of coin available to fund PoS rewards would be transaction fees, and I want those to be as low as possible (consistent with the need to suppress transaction spam), because high transaction fees act as a disincentive to trade.   Similarly high staking fees would be an incentive to hoard, hence a disincentive to trade.

Why am I so keen to incentivise trade?  Let me ask another (rhetorical) question:  What is the intrinsic value in a coin?  If the answer is "nothing", then we have a problem, because a commodity with a high and increasing price but no little to no intrinsic value is tulip mania.

I don't know how to value a coin, or a real-world currency for that matter, but I do believe that it does have an intrinsic value, which will be a function of the size of the trade economy it supports.  One of the things that attracts me to this coin is that, if we are successful, then it will come with a trade economy built in.  Bitcoin doesn't have that.  Few altcoins do.  But I'm not content with just the built-in economy.  I want our coin to be used to trade other things, and I want to make it as attractive and useful for that purpose as I possibly can, hence low transaction fees.  (I also want escrow built into the blockchain, for exactly the same reason.)

I'd make a very large money supply with not too large inflation, make a significant premine and donate it all to specific noncomerical project that require computation (seti, folding, einstein, prime, etc.) or something like that...

That would require altering the crowdfunding covenant, which EK ruled out when he took over.  I didn't agree with the decision at the time, but it was the decision, and we have to live with it.  There's nothing to stop individual crowdfunders from donating a portion of their holdings to these projects

[Cryptorials]

Under the "different approach" I have alluded to, there will be no such rewards because there will be no such blocks.

Now we're really going down the rabbit hole...

No blocks? So something other than a blockchain then. Interesting.

I think my question to you before got buried - you mentioned the FAA earlier saying there was a devastating version you'd thought of, but I don't understand why its an issue at all if the work being done isn't for securing the blockchain?

Do you mean the worker pretending to do useful work but actually faking it entirely? If so I think that needs a new name because its not entirely the same as the faster algorithm attack discussed earlier.

[pyrofade]

My observations so far (my 0.00000002BTC):

Interesting idea. Cagey practices. Seems like a total gamble (and the house always wins).

Looking at the git repo, not much action yet for something that's 'working fine'. I'm also wildly guessing that Lannister is currently running 's/NovaCoin/ElasticCoin/g' on the elasticd repo.

The video states "elastic is currently in an advanced beta stage". How is that possible with no code, no wallet, and devs barely starting to work on the project?

On the bright side two people possessing higher than average intelligence are at least somewhat involved in the project.

To gamble or not to gamble. That is the question.