Evil-Knievel
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
|
 |
October 05, 2016, 06:44:01 PM |
|
@ttookk: Right now its the other way around: - A work has requested exactly 10 bounty submissions - Only 10 bounty announcements (hash only) are allowed in total (no matter if revealed or not) - All bounty announcements (hash only) have to be revealed with the full solution not earlier than the next block, and not later than 15 minutes after the work closes - Since announcements without revealed submission constitute a DOS of the authors work, the author gets compensated if that happens (since he paid out PoW payments without the chance of ever getting his full 10 bounties) - Therefore, all announcements have a ridiculously high deposit tax which the miners forfeit if they do not reveal their bounty solutions on time. So: - Miners are discouraged to DOS work by submitting announcements without the full solution - If it happens nonetheless, the work author gets compensated generously Mitigates: - Due the fact that bounties can only be submitted when there was a hash announcement at least 1 block before, and because there can only be 10 announcements at a time, the work author cannot outrun the miner using a sybil attack and a vast amount of his own bounties. 1 hash announcement guarantees payment when the solution is revealed in time! If the hash announcement itself gets outrun by a sybil attack, no solution is revealed! Trapdooring the verify function makes no sense therefore. Open for discussion: - In this scheme the bounty tax is fixed ... it might be wise to let the work author decide this tax himself within preconfigured bounds, so if he wants to avoid being DOSsed at all cost, he must bump the tax to the maximum This is at least the scheme as it is implemented now! Totally and 100% open for discussion  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gfwdown
Member
Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
|
|
October 05, 2016, 06:45:17 PM |
|
Very diligent and talent dev, when will launch? TY
|
|
|
|
|
ImI
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 05, 2016, 06:47:09 PM |
|
Very diligent and talent dev, when will launch? TY
EK, you should put something in your signature like: "Launch not earlier then xxxx. Thank you."  |
|
|
|
|
gfwdown
Member
Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
|
|
October 05, 2016, 06:49:50 PM |
|
Very diligent and talent dev, when will launch? TY
EK, you should put something in your signature like: "Launch not earlier then xxxx. Thank you."  I can wait, i am a patient person. But very curious about the date. |
|
|
|
|
ImI
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 05, 2016, 06:56:55 PM |
|
Very diligent and talent dev, when will launch? TY
EK, you should put something in your signature like: "Launch not earlier then xxxx. Thank you." I can wait, i am a patient person. But very curious about the date. Rough estimate: 2 months from now. |
|
|
|
|
|
ttookk
|
|
October 05, 2016, 07:01:30 PM |
|
@ttookk: Right now its the other way around: - A work has requested exactly 10 bounty submissions - Only 10 bounty announcements (hash only) are allowed in total (no matter if revealed or not) - All bounty announcements (hash only) have to be revealed with the full solution not earlier than the next block, and not later than 15 minutes after the work closes - Since announcements without revealed submission constitute a DOS of the authors work, the author gets compensated if that happens (since he paid out PoW payments without the chance of ever getting his full 10 bounties) - Therefore, all announcements have a ridiculously high deposit tax which the miners forfeit if they do not reveal their bounty solutions on time. So: - Miners are discouraged to DOS work by submitting announcements without the full solution - If it happens nonetheless, the work author gets compensated generously Mitigates: - Due the fact that bounties can only be submitted when there was a hash announcement at least 1 block before, and because there can only be 10 announcements at a time, the work author cannot outrun the miner using a sybil attack and a vast amount of his own bounties. 1 hash announcement guarantees payment when the solution is revealed in time! If the hash announcement itself gets outrun by a sybil attack, no solution is revealed! Trapdooring the verify function makes no sense therefore. Open for discussion: - In this scheme the bounty tax is fixed ... it might be wise to let the work author decide this tax himself within preconfigured bounds, so if he wants to avoid being DOSsed at all cost, he must bump the tax to the maximum This is at least the scheme as it is implemented now! Totally and 100% open for discussion Sounds fine, then. I guess I misunderstood it before. I sometimes think, I should just shut up and let you work  I could make more shiny pictures instead… I'm not sure about the fixed amount of the bounty deposit. I think, letting the work author set it is fine? Otherwise, I'd go with a percentual amount of the bounty to be earned. |
|
|
|
|
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
|
|
October 05, 2016, 07:13:58 PM |
|
Sounds fine, then. I guess I misunderstood it before. I sometimes think, I should just shut up and let you work I could make more shiny pictures instead… I'm not sure about the fixed amount of the bounty deposit. I think, letting the work author set it is fine? Otherwise, I'd go with a percentual amount of the bounty to be earned. Naah!  Without all these productive discussions with you, we would still have the old flawed system. Not even sure if the current one isn't flawed, so further discussions are appreciated. I may have some experience coding, but my 2 eyes cannot see everything. That's why we need your 2 eyes (and any other spare eyes) as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
ttookk
|
|
October 05, 2016, 07:42:53 PM
Last edit: October 05, 2016, 10:24:35 PM by ttookk |
|
Sounds fine, then. I guess I misunderstood it before. I sometimes think, I should just shut up and let you work I could make more shiny pictures instead… I'm not sure about the fixed amount of the bounty deposit. I think, letting the work author set it is fine? Otherwise, I'd go with a percentual amount of the bounty to be earned. Naah! Without all these productive discussions with you, we would still have the old flawed system. Not even sure if the current one isn't flawed, so further discussions are appreciated. I may have some experience coding, but my 2 eyes cannot see everything. That's why we need your 2 eyes (and any other spare eyes) as well. Aww, you flatter me, sir I think we have to come to terms with the fact, that there is no such thing as a system that isn't flawed. All we can do is to fix as much of the flaws up front as possible. I like the approach I read in some Monero thread, about having mandatory hardforks at fixed points in time. I think the best we can do is keep the system as changeable as possible and roll with the punches. There is only so much you can find out on the testnet; in the end, you'll need guys with malicious intent to find abusive potential. In the very, very, very worst case, job authors could either create or download a whitelist of approved miners (a blacklist wouldn't work for obvious reasons), or otherwise implement a reputation system, which prioritises approved miners or something like that. I'd call it plan z, but I think it would still be better than having no Elastic at all. Don't take the following thoughts too serious, but I find them interesting nevertheless: If you spin the whitelist idea even further, you could create a licence for miners: to be able to mine jobs, you have to pay a rather hefty one time fee to register as a miner. You, as a miner, are known on the system and can be blocked, not by the system as a whole, but by job authors. "plan Z" holds abusive potential of its own, since things like black- or whitelists run the risk of being effectively centralized due to their nature. Another step further would be something like the DPoS system Lisk uses, where the network as a whole votes on delegates. This idea sounds interesting, actually, so let's go down this road for a second: instead of the 101 delegates, you'd have an open number of miners. To be allowed to mine on the network, you'd need votes by a considerable amount of XEL holders, let's say, for the sake of having a number, 1% of all tokens. To get people to vote for you, you can share earnings with them(this would happen anyway, so it could just be implemented from the beginning. That way, at least nobody gets screwed over.). Since the more computing power you have, the more you earn, more people will vote for you, so the more computing power, the more reliably you get voted in. What this does on the other hand, is, that miners who try to abuse the network are either voted out by XEL holders, since they endanger the value of their holdings, or they need to buy enough XEL to vote themselves in, but the amount needed is probably multitudes bigger than what you'd need to make some fake deposits. Another difference to Lisk would be that instead of checking your votes every block(or every few blocks, I don't remember), once you have 1%, you are good to go for at least a few days, maybe even a few weeks. Otherwise, you'd lose a lot of miners due to the insecurity. Obviously, these ideas would mean, that regular joe can't easily rent out his idle computing power when he is not killing goblins or whatever. Btw., there are too few people writing in here. If I am able to voice my shitty opinion, everybody else can, too. And where is Lannister, we need to talk about this horrific first post |
|
|
|
|
jeffthebaker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1034
|
|
October 06, 2016, 12:54:47 AM |
|
What's been going on with Elastic? I threw some BTC in it near the beginning. Website is now down? What gives?
Also, donation warnings were implemented after my payment, that seems to not be a good sign.
devs are very activ working on it, just read some of the last pages and you will see that there is alot going on Why is the website on the announcement down? That's really not the least bit encouraging. |
|
|
|
|
e1ghtSpace
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
|
|
October 06, 2016, 08:58:38 AM |
|
What's been going on with Elastic? I threw some BTC in it near the beginning. Website is now down? What gives?
Also, donation warnings were implemented after my payment, that seems to not be a good sign.
devs are very activ working on it, just read some of the last pages and you will see that there is alot going on Why is the website on the announcement down? That's really not the least bit encouraging. I want to donate but since the website is down, I can't see the details of donating or anything. This is real dissapointing. I already mentioned it two weeks ago, and it is still down. http://www.elastic.pro/The website seems to be down... For me it "took too long to respond." Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site or is it just me? Does anyone know if it will be up soon? |
|
|
|
|
|
hagie
|
|
October 06, 2016, 09:00:27 AM |
|
What's been going on with Elastic? I threw some BTC in it near the beginning. Website is now down? What gives?
Also, donation warnings were implemented after my payment, that seems to not be a good sign.
devs are very activ working on it, just read some of the last pages and you will see that there is alot going on Why is the website on the announcement down? That's really not the least bit encouraging. I want to donate but since the website is down, I can't see the details of donating or anything. This is real dissapointing. I already mentioned it two weeks ago, and it is still down. http://www.elastic.pro/The website seems to be down... For me it "took too long to respond." Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site or is it just me? The Donation phase is over since end of August. regards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
moodcrawler
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
October 06, 2016, 09:07:05 AM |
|
Hi I am new to this thread. How would you compare Elastic to the gridcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Derp
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
|
|
October 06, 2016, 11:32:29 AM |
|
Hi I am new to this thread. How would you compare Elastic to the gridcoin?
I too would like to know about the differences. Is anything not possible with gridcoin that is possible with Elasticcoin? |
|
|
|
|
xxxgoodgirls
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 06, 2016, 12:05:41 PM |
|
Between 500 and 650 BTC if I remember correctly. |
|
|
|
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
|
|
October 06, 2016, 12:19:01 PM |
|
Hi I am new to this thread. How would you compare Elastic to the gridcoin?
Gridcoin is centralized, it uses a third party service named BOINC and the distribution of "Gridcoins" is made by some generous "authority" (after checking how much you worked for their BOINC Team) which you eventually have to trust. We don't want such schemes here |
|
|
|
|
jeffthebaker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1034
|
|
October 06, 2016, 02:50:31 PM |
|
What's been going on with Elastic? I threw some BTC in it near the beginning. Website is now down? What gives?
Also, donation warnings were implemented after my payment, that seems to not be a good sign.
devs are very activ working on it, just read some of the last pages and you will see that there is alot going on Why is the website on the announcement down? That's really not the least bit encouraging. I want to donate but since the website is down, I can't see the details of donating or anything. This is real dissapointing. I already mentioned it two weeks ago, and it is still down. http://www.elastic.pro/The website seems to be down... For me it "took too long to respond." Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site or is it just me? The Donation phase is over since end of August. regards When will coins be distributed? |
|
|
|
|
|
ttookk
|
|
October 06, 2016, 03:43:44 PM |
|
Nice to see Lannister being active Lannister, if you need some shiny pictures for the ANN, hit me up (although I have no idea how to answer, if you send me a PM…). @Evil-Knievel (and the rest), what do you think about the possibility to implement a whitelist for miners, meaning, a job author can decide who is or isn't allowed to work on their job? Obviously, this list is not meant to be mandatory, but job authors can decide to use one or not and who is on their list. I know this has implications, but maybe this should be a consideration nonetheless. As pointed out above, this may be a (albeit cruel) solution to possible attacks. @jeffthebaker: tokens are distributed when mainnet starts. When it starts depends on when testnet has proven to be stable and (relatively) bugfree. |
|
|
|
|
|
tomkat
|
|
October 06, 2016, 05:45:11 PM |
|
Between 500 and 650 BTC if I remember correctly. It was more than 700 - listed somewhere here https://www.ico-list.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
ttookk
|
|
October 06, 2016, 06:02:48 PM
Last edit: October 06, 2016, 07:01:23 PM by ttookk |
|
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a non-mandatory whitelist and reputation system.
The scenario could look like this:
- Under normal circumstances, job authors don't use the reputation system, because they would obviously want to have as many miners working on their job as possible.
- If the system is under attack, job authors can choose to activate the reputation system. This system consists of two parts:
- They can either decide to only let certain miners work on their job. They can create a list of miners, or use the list of another trusted entity.
- They can also set a certain "minimum of approval" threshold. This means, that only miners with the set minimum of approval or more are allowed to work on the job.
- To earn approval, the XEL network can vote for miners. To get people to vote for you, you can share earnings with them (since they hold XEL and are interested in XELs financial well-being, they are interested to vote in legit miners and withdraw approval if a miners shows malicious activity). This system would work similar to Lisks DPoS system, but without a fixed number of Delegates/miners obviously. Miners with zero reputation can mine on the network, but run the risk of getting blacklisted. A miner could still vote for themselves, but ideally, the needed amount would be very high.
I have to admit, that I smell abusive potential, but I can't point my finger at it. The worst I see at the moment is a scenario in which most job authors use the list to whitelist only certain miners, keeping the majority of miners outside of it, but I don't see that as likely…
EDIT: This is a bit out there, but you could also use the whitelist system to chop jobs, so that the risk of a single miner mining the majority of your blocks is reduced. Let's say, you have sensitive data, that you don't want to have in one hand. You could divide them up into different jobs and whitelist different miners for each of those jobs. Obviously, the nodes would be weak links in this scenario…
|
|
|
|
|
|
