Bitcoin Forum
April 16, 2024, 12:04:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system  (Read 195081 times)
spoid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


bearded, drunk, fat, naked


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 06:12:54 PM
 #401

doesn't remind me of a swastika, just a double scythe / death / reaper Cheesy

with great beard comes great liver. Reputation Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195803.0
1713269073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713269073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713269073
Reply with quote  #2

1713269073
Report to moderator
1713269073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713269073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713269073
Reply with quote  #2

1713269073
Report to moderator
1713269073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713269073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713269073
Reply with quote  #2

1713269073
Report to moderator
I HATE TABLES I HATE TABLES I HA(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ TABLES I HATE TABLES I HATE TABLES
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1713269073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713269073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713269073
Reply with quote  #2

1713269073
Report to moderator
jimhsu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 264


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 07:02:02 PM
 #402





Tweaks to line thickness?

Another idea:


Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparé
FatMagic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 07:18:33 PM
 #403





Tweaks to line thickness?

Another idea:



Looks like an excellent start - like where it's going. Bring up the line thickness like you mentioned (on all designs) and lets see it.

tacotime (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 08:02:06 PM
Last edit: May 08, 2013, 03:14:52 AM by tacotime
 #404

Quote
Fault tolerance (it's not guaranteed that you will find exactly the same hash) and because if you reject blocks with only one Nay vote you may not invalidate any block you'd like to with only 20%.  10% stake means half the blocks, etc.  You also don't want to invalidate blocks based one one or two MIA signatories, as with 3 signatories the chain still works fine.

You also add a very easy attack vector by unanimous voting requirement, as you only need to DDoS one node per block to control the chain.
No. If you have 20% of tickets, then you will have one or more votes on 1-0.8^5 = 67% of blocks. You can make 2/3 of blocks empty, but the other 1/3 will go through. That is money burning fail, not a credible DDOS. Perhaps you meant something else?

Invalidation of draws that lack unanimity increases PoW attack resistance. By a lot. I will show you the math if it helps. As a comprimise, how about 4 yay's or more, instead of 3 or more? That would still help.

Alternatively, You can also strengthen the system by increasing the number of voters. Say 6 out of 10 instead of 3 out of 5. Again, I will show you the math if this helps. This would not be my first choice, but I think it would be fine.

Anyways, these are still parameter choices. Easily  forked. It is still the core algorithm that matters.  

I'm still not sure of your argument.  You can simulate a blockchain with this stakeholder signing agreement (and the assumption that 100% of stakeholders will vote) in the following python program:
Code:
import math, os, random

random.seed("wefkw34DfsQ3A75")

stake_percent = raw_input("Enter stake percent of attacker (0.0000-1.0000): ")
blocks = raw_input("Enter number of blocks for simulation: ")
stakeholder_pool = raw_input("Enter number of random stakeholders: ")
stake_requirement = raw_input("Enter stake requirement to invalidate block: ")

blocks_passed = 0
blocks_invalidated = 0

print("Calculating...")

for i in range(int(blocks)):
    vote_sum = 0 # The total number of attacker votes
    for j in range(int(stakeholder_pool)): # Run loop for all stakeholder tickets
        if float(stake_percent) > random.random(): # Calculate whether or not a ticket has been afforded to a malicious or non-malicious stakeholder
            vote_sum += 1 # If it has been given to an attacker, add +1 attacker votes towards invalidating the block
    if vote_sum < int(stake_requirement): # If we have don't enough attacker votes...
        blocks_passed += 1 # The block passes through the blockchain as valid
    else:
        blocks_invalidated += 1 # The block is invalidated by the attacker

final_percent = float(blocks_invalidated) / (float(blocks_passed) + float(blocks_invalidated))

print("Blocks passed: " + str(blocks_passed))
print("Blocks invalidated: " + str(blocks_invalidated))
print("Percentage of blocks invalidated: " + str(final_percent))

Now, if we run it for the round of 5 scenario you described with unanimous voting required,
Code:
Enter stake percent of attacker (0.0000-1.0000): 0.2000
Enter number of blocks for simulation: 100000
Enter number of random stakeholders: 5
Enter stake requirement to invalidate block: 1
Calculating...
Blocks passed: 32712
Blocks invalidated: 67288
Percentage of blocks invalidated: 0.67288

With majority voting required to invalidate:
Code:
Enter stake percent of attacker (0.0000-1.0000): 0.2000
Enter number of blocks for simulation: 100000
Enter number of random stakeholders: 5
Enter stake requirement to invalidate block: 3
Calculating...
Blocks passed: 94160
Blocks invalidated: 5840
Percentage of blocks invalidated: 0.0584

Now the attacker succeeds only 5.8% of the time.

What about if the stakeholder has 51% stake?
Code:
Enter stake percent of attacker (0.0000-1.0000): 0.5100
Enter number of blocks for simulation: 100000
Enter number of random stakeholders: 5
Enter stake requirement to invalidate block: 1
Calculating...
Blocks passed: 2855
Blocks invalidated: 97145
Percentage of blocks invalidated: 0.97145

Code:
Enter stake percent of attacker (0.0000-1.0000): 0.5100
Enter number of blocks for simulation: 100000
Enter number of random stakeholders: 5
Enter stake requirement to invalidate block: 3
Calculating...
Blocks passed: 47981
Blocks invalidated: 52019
Percentage of blocks invalidated: 0.52019

As expected, the malicious stakeholder gets about 51% (0.52019) in the scenario of a 3 of 5 requirement, but in a 1 of 5 requirement, the stakeholder now has 97% control of the blockchain.  It get worse quickly with increasing malicious stakeholder wealth with the unanimous system; at 30% we see 83% control of the chain, and at 40% we see 92% control of the chain.

This is a totally valid attack vector to consider, because it makes stakeholder-mining pool collusion extremely likely.  The mining pool uses the stakeholder to invalidate the blocks of all competing PoW miners on the network, gives a fraction of their earning to the stakeholder, and then themselves now gets 100% of the network income as opposed to only a fraction before.  Miners, unable to get any coins, drop off the network, difficulty goes down, and the malicious pool now gets even more coins.  The malicious pool and stakeholder wins, everyone else loses, and the system is effectively centralized.

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
jimhsu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 264


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
 #405

Img and 32px icons:









Incorporating both ideas (the resemblance to a certain symbol of finance is intentional):




Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparé
cleopatra
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 09:28:03 PM
 #406

Do we have a qt for the NTC yet?  When is this going to be released?
qiuness
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 09:36:19 PM
 #407

any ETA on the coin (at least estimate?)
saigo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 10:16:38 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2013, 10:39:45 PM by saigo
 #408

Reply to post 415

looks good but the black background too heavy I think, how about a white background, with the N and C gold and silver, try it with either letter either colour to see which is better, maybe the N should be gold though.

Saigō Takamori : ( 1828 – 1877) was one of the most influential samurai in Japanese history. He has been dubbed the last true samurai.
3Dfilament
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92
Merit: 10



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 10:19:41 PM
 #409



Bump ...  Grin
3Dfilament
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92
Merit: 10



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 10:29:16 PM
 #410

Img and 32px icons:

Incorporating both ideas (the resemblance to a certain symbol of finance is intentional):





I like where it is going, the rounded sides of the "N", but it might be best to avoid any resemblance to the bankster's symbols, although it is certainly worthy of exploration ...
glendall
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1018


Sugars.zone | DatingFi - Earn for Posting


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 10:39:27 PM
 #411

Looks promising. Can't wait 'til she's baked and ready for consumption.

.SUGAR.
██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██
▄▄████████████████████▄▄
▄████████████████████████▄
███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
█████▀██████▀▀██████▀█████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
█████████████████████▄████
██████████████████████████
████████▄████████▄████████
██████████████████████████
▀████████████████████████▀
▀▀████████████████████▀▀

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████               ██████
██████   ▄████▀      ██████
██████▄▄▄███▀   ▄█   ██████
██████████▀   ▄███   ██████
████████▀   ▄█████▄▄▄██████
██████▀   ▄███████▀▀▀██████
██████   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██████
██████               ██████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
.
Backed By
ZetaChain

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██

██   ██
▄▄████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████▀▀  ███████
█████████████▀▀      ███████
█████████▀▀   ▄▄     ███████
█████▀▀    ▄█▀▀     ████████
█████████ █▀        ████████
█████████ █ ▄███▄   ████████
██████████████████▄▄████████
██████████████████████████
▀▀████████████████████▀▀
▄▄████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████
██████ ▄▀██████████  ███████
███████▄▀▄▀██████  █████████
█████████▄▀▄▀██  ███████████
███████████▄▀▄ █████████████
███████████  ▄▀▄▀███████████
█████████  ████▄▀▄▀█████████
███████  ████████▄▀ ████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀▀████████████████████▀▀
FatMagic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 01:20:23 AM
 #412

Img and 32px icons:

Incorporating both ideas (the resemblance to a certain symbol of finance is intentional):





I like where it is going, the rounded sides of the "N", but it might be best to avoid any resemblance to the bankster's symbols, although it is certainly worthy of exploration ...

I like this one the best as well. This has promise.

FreeBit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 01:30:17 AM
 #413







Heil Dir, NaziCoin ...







Heil Dir, NaziEuro ...

This were my first thoughts. But - I'am totally german - I appreciate the irony and could live with that  Wink ...
tacotime (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 01:53:19 AM
 #414

Forum has launched

http://platinumdigitalreserve.com/forum/

Registration will open soon Open

Dedicated domain name also coming soon

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
Evolekam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 02:34:41 AM
 #415

https://i.imgur.com/Vd0l7mx.png

More like this? Just a concept


This is actually pretty good, I like it.
zero3112
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 02:35:54 AM
 #416

Why is there no taco coin?

redream
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 03:11:28 AM
 #417

How about something like this for the logo? Open to any suggestions.

https://i.imgur.com/C58u6jN.png
Joerii
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1050



View Profile WWW
May 08, 2013, 03:19:55 AM
 #418

How about something like this for the logo? Open to any suggestions.



Beautiful ! I also really like the other one eventhough, yes, it does have a faint resemblance of a swastika.

Hypercube - get the attention you deserve
3Dfilament
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92
Merit: 10



View Profile
May 08, 2013, 03:41:57 AM
 #419

How about something like this for the logo? Open to any suggestions.



Navy blue "N", bitcoin colored gradient stripes. "color coins" are an important mechanical property ... implementation of Netcoin.
Litecoin colored background, silver, and copper edge.
cunicula
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 03:52:36 AM
Last edit: May 08, 2013, 09:31:04 AM by cunicula
 #420


As expected, the malicious stakeholder gets about 51% (0.52019) in the scenario of a 3 of 5 requirement, but in a 1 of 5 requirement, the stakeholder now has 97% control of the blockchain.  It get worse quickly with increasing malicious stakeholder wealth with the unanimous system; at 30% we see 83% control of the chain, and at 40% we see 92% control of the chain.


I don't disagree with your calculations. In fact, they accomplish just what I want. We don't want the same things (you prefer work; I prefer stake; you think energy use is okay; I think it is a big waste).

Edit: However, I thought about it a bit more and decided it is not worth making a fuss over. Here are approximate percentages on attack resistance (this is for permanent 51% attacks, not lucky streaks from minority attackers; majority voting performs better against lucky streaks).

4 out of 7 majority voting: (99.95% work 5% stake; 99.5% work 10% stake ; 94.4% work 20% stake)
3 out of 5 majority voting: (99.90% work 5% stake; 99.1% work 10% stake ; 94.1% work 20% stake)

3 out of 3 unanimous voting: (99.985% work 5 % stake; 99.86% work 10% stake; 98.46% work 20% stake)
5 out of 5 unanimous voting: (99.99996% work 5% stake; 99.998% work 10% stake; 99.9% work 20% stake)

3 out of 5 majority voting is adequate when paired with a nonnegligible PoW block reward. I was fanatic for PoW protection because I wanted minimal energy use. I forgot about your big PoW rewards.

There is another issue I forgot, the waiting issue. To me it is no big deal, but I expect a huge fuss  from others. You should remove this weakness to avoid future problems.

You can always hoard coin-age by waiting (see numerous rants by killerstorm). To attack, you need 5% of stake-days, not 5% of stake. (e.g. so if you have x% of stake and bide your time for y voting cycles, then you can attack just like someone with xy% stake)


How about you buy most tickets with straight coins rather than coin-time? Coins are escrowed up until the tickets win or get invalidated. This approach sidesteps the waiting issue.

Sadly, it also excludes small holders from direct participation, though they could still use lottery pools, banks, etc. You have what ~ 60000 tickets. That is 160 coins a ticket if there are 10 million coins. A bit steep. To let small holders participate directly, perhaps allocate 10% of tickets based on coin-age and 90% based on straight coins. That would allow for some token grassroots participation. Honestly there will be a bulky blockchain to store. Smallholders would end up PoS mining via a banking system anyway. No point in designing a system that allows for infeasible use cases.

Question: When you purchase a ticket, could you then send the ticket key to a pool to manage for you (in exchange for a cut)? Or does transferring your ticket impose some risk? In my opinion, it would be good to attach some risk to letting other people mine for you (e.g. allow the ticket holder to steal the winnings). It would be bad to attack a huge risk to letting other people mine for you, (the principal used to purchase the ticket should be safe from theft).  This strikes a balance between discouraging centralization and encouraging participation in PoS mining.
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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!