[ANN][BITLATTICE] A Revolutionary Step - Bitlattice.org

[complexring]

Looking forward to the new math ...

Wouldn't be new, just with emphasis on different things.

If it hasn't been peer reviewed or published in any other form ... seems like it's newly discovered, hence new.

Either way, looking forward to it.

[1714018411]

1714018411

[1714018411]

1714018411

[1714018411]

1714018411

[Hibryda]

Looking forward to the new math ...

Wouldn't be new, just with emphasis on different things.

If it hasn't been peer reviewed or published in any other form ... seems like it's newly discovered, hence new.

Either way, looking forward to it.

If it's based on existing math (as most things around) with some added value, only this added value would be new. I don't like "discovery" word in such matters, better "new arrangement". Regardless definitions, I will keep you updated.

[adhitthana]

So..a blockchain is a chain of blocks. But Bitlatice is not a blockchain. So what is is?

Does it have blocks of information that get verified? 

Can you explain a little more what the "lattice"is. It's not clear.

Thanks

[sugarbaby]

So..a blockchain is a chain of blocks. But Bitlatice is not a blockchain. So what is is?

Does it have blocks of information that get verified? 

Can you explain a little more what the "lattice"is. It's not clear.

Thanks

In the present scheme of blockchain there is no possibility to perform more than two operations at once, stemming from the fact that every next blocks depends on the previous. Of course this is mitigated by packing multiple transactions into one block and hashing them collectively. But it’s far from concurrency, rather it’s just a way to deal with this very limited structure. In lattice things are different. There are multiple root points that are referred to from the main root. It resembles child chains in some applications, but is very different on the basic level of functionality.
With lattice, many operations can be performed at the same moment in time by different miners/processing units. And still the whole structure will retain integrity. Because clusters can but usually won’t overlap.

I think this can help you

[adhitthana]

So..a blockchain is a chain of blocks. But Bitlatice is not a blockchain. So what is is?

Does it have blocks of information that get verified? 

Can you explain a little more what the "lattice"is. It's not clear.

Thanks

In the present scheme of blockchain there is no possibility to perform more than two operations at once, stemming from the fact that every next blocks depends on the previous. Of course this is mitigated by packing multiple transactions into one block and hashing them collectively. But it’s far from concurrency, rather it’s just a way to deal with this very limited structure. In lattice things are different. There are multiple root points that are referred to from the main root. It resembles child chains in some applications, but is very different on the basic level of functionality.
With lattice, many operations can be performed at the same moment in time by different miners/processing units. And still the whole structure will retain integrity. Because clusters can but usually won’t overlap.

I think this can help you

Thank you, but TBH, I still don't understand what that is.
In a blockchain, the new block refers back to the previous block, but in bitlattice the new block refers back to.......what?

[sugarbaby]

So..a blockchain is a chain of blocks. But Bitlatice is not a blockchain. So what is is?

Does it have blocks of information that get verified?  

Can you explain a little more what the "lattice"is. It's not clear.

Thanks

In the present scheme of blockchain there is no possibility to perform more than two operations at once, stemming from the fact that every next blocks depends on the previous. Of course this is mitigated by packing multiple transactions into one block and hashing them collectively. But it’s far from concurrency, rather it’s just a way to deal with this very limited structure. In lattice things are different. There are multiple root points that are referred to from the main root. It resembles child chains in some applications, but is very different on the basic level of functionality.
With lattice, many operations can be performed at the same moment in time by different miners/processing units. And still the whole structure will retain integrity. Because clusters can but usually won’t overlap.

I think this can help you

Thank you, but TBH, I still don't understand what that is.
In a blockchain, the new block refers back to the previous block, but in bitlattice the new block refers back to.......what?

It can be a new block in a new chain!

[complexring]

Looking forward to the new math ...

Wouldn't be new, just with emphasis on different things.

If it hasn't been peer reviewed or published in any other form ... seems like it's newly discovered, hence new.

Either way, looking forward to it.

If it's based on existing math (as most things around) with some added value, only this added value would be new. I don't like "discovery" word in such matters, better "new arrangement". Regardless definitions, I will keep you updated.

You can always discover a new arrangement; however you are right, and as such it doesn't matter and is just word play. 

Looking forward to the updates. 

[adhitthana]

Thank you, but TBH, I still don't understand what that is.
In a blockchain, the new block refers back to the previous block, but in bitlattice the new block refers back to.......what?

It can be a new block in a new chain!

What does that block refer back to?
Are new chains being created that do not need to refer back to their original roots?

Is this anything like the slicing that HEAT is looking to do?

Or anything like Byteball?

[Hibryda]

Thank you, but TBH, I still don't understand what that is.
In a blockchain, the new block refers back to the previous block, but in bitlattice the new block refers back to.......what?

It can be a new block in a new chain!

What does that block refer back to?
Are new chains being created that do not need to refer back to their original roots?

Is this anything like the slicing that HEAT is looking to do?

Or anything like Byteball?

Forgive my interruption of your discuss...
First - not blocks, I call it nodes (because they differ from what is called blocks in blockchain). Second, provided more degrees of freedom they refer to from 4 to 26 other nodes. They must match combined hash and number of nodes included in such hash determines moment when the node was added.
//EDIT: One thing to add, testing order of insertion can possibly act as PoW provided there are time expensive hashing algos used. I prefer PoS, so this can act as a curiosity or be used for other purposes.

[adhitthana]

Thank you, but TBH, I still don't understand what that is.
In a blockchain, the new block refers back to the previous block, but in bitlattice the new block refers back to.......what?

It can be a new block in a new chain!

What does that block refer back to?
Are new chains being created that do not need to refer back to their original roots?

Is this anything like the slicing that HEAT is looking to do?

Or anything like Byteball?

Forgive my interruption of your discuss...
First - not blocks, I call it nodes (because they differ from what is called blocks in blockchain).

Thank you. Now, I know what a block is. And a block must contain information. It's pedigree, and cryptographic information etc....

But what information is in a Bitlattice node?

Each node contains combined hash and time of insertion?  And this enables it (with the help of other nodes) to verify later information that is added?

Is this like Byteball then?

[Hibryda]

Forgive my interruption of your discuss...
First - not blocks, I call it nodes (because they differ from what is called blocks in blockchain).

Thank you. Now, I know what a block is. And a block must contain information. It's pedigree, and cryptographic information etc....

But what information is in a Bitlattice node?

Each node contains combined hash and time of insertion?  And this enables it (with the help of other nodes) to verify later information that is added?

Is this like Byteball then?

Of course must contain data. It's primary role of blockchain. It's just a database (with built in immutability of data) Whether it's money, code, or plain bytes - doesn't actually matter. The same with BL - it stores data. There are different kind of nodes depending of their role. Some store transactions, some code.
Each node contains combined hashes. In blockchain, as well as in BL storing timestamp isn't wise - first, it's easy to forge, second network latency plays a role. Instead, what counts is position in time - which is previous, which is current and which is next (this can be determined with proofs). In BL, thanks to dependency on other nodes, this sequence can be guessed. And yes, this enables it to be verified.
As to Byteball - fundamental difference is in structure. Byteball is built upon DAG, mine is much different.

[andreibi]

So ya, I commented earlier kinda snarky....but after looking into to the idea and reading your answers I gotta say I'm excited about this. You've got a really unique approach to some limitations of the current blockchain and it looks like you know what you want to fix and are ready to do it. I'm all ears, to quote your ANN, this looks like a revolutionary step...& I'll gladly participate in it.

Don't worry, now the FAQ is up and running, people can read and contemplate what this project is about. Of course it's vague with scarce information and you lack the complete picture.
Since a couple of months back I have been privy to some inside information, like Usukan, regarding this project and I'm have been and continuously reading/studying this from the basic (compliments of Hibryda). End point being that Hibryda knows how to make this happen from theory to practice.

Sorry bud, you may have missed the tone of my original post. I was at first skeptical but I've read everything I can and have been in contact with Hibryda and have gained some insight into this project, both through the conversations & my research. I can truly say I'm all aboard. Most people will shy away because this isn't the traditional Bitcointalk ANN with fancy images & specs & what not. They won't even bother to read the info , they just turn away. While my first post was based off the initial ANN, I'm not one of them. I've researched and talked to Hibryda and that's why I posted what I did. As I told Hibryda this IMO is one of only a couple projects that look to address the problems with new ideas, not the same clone shit with a different approach. He's firm in his ideas and knows how to solve the problems. As you already know, this is the future, and if pulled off it will be huge. Like you, I'm glad to offer my support.

I like where this is going. Continue with tests and experimentation! +1

[sunanchi]

keep going, i like this idea.

[sidhujag]

Please, please start with unit tests, so we can read and understand, the worst is when people jump into coding without writing tests first. Test-driven development is a must. I would say when dealing with money, anything under 75% code coverage is not good enough for a mainnet. Looking fwd to the tests so I can understand your system Hibryda,

Cheers,
Jag(From linked in)

[Hibryda]

Please, please start with unit tests, so we can read and understand, the worst is when people jump into coding without writing tests first. Test-driven development is a must. I would say when dealing with money, anything under 75% code coverage is not good enough for a mainnet. Looking fwd to the tests so I can understand your system Hibryda,

Cheers,
Jag(From linked in)

Absolutely, agree. But before I'll jump into making a client I have to test multiple smaller chunks to prove they work. In addition to unit tests and proofs where possible, I will also employ stochastic testbed of my idea to find scenarios that are hard to predict (at least some of them). So, don't worry. Will have proper test coverage contrary to popular practice .

[Hibryda]

I like where this is going. Continue with tests and experimentation! +1

keep going, i like this idea.

Thank you both for support - while it is supposed to take some time (not 8 years, not even a year) I will keep you updated.

[Hibryda]

I am going to publish here my answers to constructive questions from other resources too.

Q: Oracles are centralization components are you sure you need this esp at consensus level? How do you solve the byzantine generals problem with lattice structure?
H: I won't use oracles in current sense (what is in description now is often simplified to be easier to picture, but sometimes introduces interpretation problems). Oracles depend on external inputs, I use entities that derive their output only from internal (network wide) state.

As to BFT - the issue with BG is always when there are multiple "generals", thus authorities. There are basically two solutions to this - have one external supervisor (which is against all that BC represents) or play with roles and their dependencies (LSP). I suggest third - built in, network wide, distributed authority. Inaccessible by anyone. Just providing steering output.

[Mihawk]

Is there at least one website to visit? Why all this suspense? Is it ICO?
People are tired of being cheated! 

[Hibryda]

Is there at least one website to visit? Why all this suspense? Is it ICO?
People are tired of being cheated!  

Here is the link to the website http://bitlattice.org/
You can follow us on twitter https://twitter.com/bitlattice

There is no ico plan, read previous posts and learn more.

[BTC Community]

great ,if any progress for bitlattice , let us know about it. thanks