Nebula-The upcoming cryptocurrency that will incentivize reversible computation.

[Islapdonkey]

Princa. dvyanc.

This post is not related to Nebule Cash in any way or any other cryptocurrency or token. The purpose of my upcoming coin is to use a POW that will incentivize the development of the reversible computer. I am trying to solve the problem of "useless" POW problems by introducing a coin with a useful POW problem. No other cryptocurrency is incentivizing reversible computation (I currently resist the urge to change the name of this coin at this point because I am pretty sure that the scamcoin Nebule Cash will probably fail pretty soon. I apologize for any confusion, but the confusion will go away once those scamcoins fall by the wayside).

LOL. Princa and Dvyanc are the one responsible for Nebule and Stripple ( Nebule cash) i have been following and busting their several scam attempts in this forum. I find it funny that they trying to use reverse psychology to fool forum members into thinking that their intention is pure. This guys are also responsible for Sonic Ether, Supertonin Network, Evolution lab, Padideo coin, Securivitas, Logic AI, Regrar, Bitcoinash and several other countless scam coins

[1714780120]

1714780120

[1714780120]

1714780120

[1714780120]

1714780120

[liotmaan]

Princa. dvyanc.

This post is not related to Nebule Cash in any way or any other cryptocurrency or token. The purpose of my upcoming coin is to use a POW that will incentivize the development of the reversible computer. I am trying to solve the problem of "useless" POW problems by introducing a coin with a useful POW problem. No other cryptocurrency is incentivizing reversible computation (I currently resist the urge to change the name of this coin at this point because I am pretty sure that the scamcoin Nebule Cash will probably fail pretty soon. I apologize for any confusion, but the confusion will go away once those scamcoins fall by the wayside).

LOL. Princa and Dvyanc are the one responsible for Nebule and Stripple ( Nebule cash) i have been following and busting their several scam attempts in this forum. I find it funny that they trying to use reverse psychology to fool forum members into thinking that their intention is pure. This guys are also responsible for Sonic Ether, Supertonin Network, Evolution lab, Padideo coin, Securivitas, Logic AI, Regrar, Bitcoinash and several other countless scam coins

People will take you seriously when you stop posting like that. I already have you ignored because goddamn is that fucking annoying.

This coin looks incredible though, can't wait to see how it all works.

[jadefalke]

That sounds freaking Interesting, cant wait so see more and the whole Project, nice Job.

[Islapdonkey]

Princa. dvyanc.

This post is not related to Nebule Cash in any way or any other cryptocurrency or token. The purpose of my upcoming coin is to use a POW that will incentivize the development of the reversible computer. I am trying to solve the problem of "useless" POW problems by introducing a coin with a useful POW problem. No other cryptocurrency is incentivizing reversible computation (I currently resist the urge to change the name of this coin at this point because I am pretty sure that the scamcoin Nebule Cash will probably fail pretty soon. I apologize for any confusion, but the confusion will go away once those scamcoins fall by the wayside).

LOL. Princa and Dvyanc are the one responsible for Nebule and Stripple ( Nebule cash) i have been following and busting their several scam attempts in this forum. I find it funny that they trying to use reverse psychology to fool forum members into thinking that their intention is pure. This guys are also responsible for Sonic Ether, Supertonin Network, Evolution lab, Padideo coin, Securivitas, Logic AI, Regrar, Bitcoinash and several other countless scam coins

People will take you seriously when you stop posting like that. I already have you ignored because goddamn is that fucking annoying.

This coin looks incredible though, can't wait to see how it all works.

Again if you bothered to read my post, then you will see that i  didn't try to discredit this coin rather am actually discrediting the individuals that were trying to do that. Thanks

[jvanname]

"Slimeland"-Incentivizing an energy efficient implementation of the CNOT gate-A complement to Nebula.

The purpose of Nebula is the make it as easy as possible for the corporations to develop reversible computers by giving them a return on their investment on new technologies as soon as possible. I have an idea for another kind of POW problem that can together with Nebula achieve this goal much better than Nebula can alone. For this post, let me temporarily call this new POW and its corresponding cryptocurrency Slimeland (I promise to come up with a more professional sounding name later on). To describe this kind of POW, I have to now talk some computer science.

Computer science background: Recall that the CNOT gate is the function from Z_{2}^{2} to Z_{2}^{2} defined by (x,y)->(x,x+y mod 2). The CNOT gate is a reversible gate. It should be easier to construct a reversible device solely out of CNOT gates that it would be to construct any other kind of reversible device for several reasons:

1. The CNOT gate only acts on 2 bits rather than 3 like the Toffoli and Fredkin gates do.

2. The CNOT gate is not universal for reversible computation. In fact, no reversible gate on 2 bits is universal for reversible computation.

3. The CNOT gate is linear.

The purpose of Slimeland is to incentivize the construction of a reversible computer consisting of as many CNOT gates as possible in the same way the Nebula incentivizes a more general purpose reversible computer.

Problem description: Suppose that f is a suitable function composed of CNOT gates. Then the POW Slimeland is to find an N bit hash k along with an M bit string x such that f(k||x)<2^(m+n)/D where D is the difficulty of the problem. Now, the way that I have stated Slimeland should raise some red flags to anyone who is familiar with any linear algebra or cryptography. Slimeland as I have stated is trivially breakable since one can solve for x in
f(k||x)<2^(m+n)/D simply by doing a little bit of linear algebra. Therefore, to remedy this problem, the function f shall be composed mainly of CNOT gates with a few non-linear gates such as Toffoli gates or Fredkin gates to give Slimeland the required non-linearity. For example, the function f could be a composition A_{n+1}L_{n}...A_{1}L_{1}A_{0} where each A_{i} is a non-singular linear transformation of {0,1}^{m+n} and where each L_i is a very thin layer of non-linear gates.

Security issues: As stated Slimeland should still raise some major security concerns since the function f is still nearly linear. Of course, one can make Slimeland secure simply by making f composed of an extreme number of gates (for example, if f contains 1,000,000 gates and 10,000 of these gates are non-linear and the rest are CNOT gates, then Slimeland should be secure). However, this solution brings with itself a few of its own problems. First of all, if f is composed of too many gates, then the security of Slimeland will be reduced since fewer entities will be willing to validate the Slimeland POW. Second of all, as the number of gates in Slimeland increases, there is a greater chance of an experimental reversible device making an error in calculation. We want Slimeland to make it as easy as possible for corporations to construct reversible computing devices, so we therefore want to not burden these corporations with extra error correction and accuracy issues. I do not have any intuition about the number of non-linear gates that we need to ensure the security of Slimeland, and I do not know if this minimal non-linearity issue has been studied in cryptography elsewhere.

Another possible security issue of Slimeland stems from the fact that various circuits may be used to calculate the function f. Suppose that Alice has a circuit A that computes the function has a circuit B that computes f, and suppose that B has twice as many gates as A. Then since A has much fewer gates than B, Alice will have an advantage over Bob (we shall call this problem with f the "possible optimizability" of the function f). I do not have much of an intuition about whether Slimeland is possibly optimizable but I do not want to rule out the possibility just yet.

A proposed solution to these security issues:

So the solution which I propose to these issues shall be called the "internal testing technique." The internal testing technique uses two versions of the POW Slimeland which we shall call Secure Slimeland and Testing Slimeland. Slimeland will therefore have two different POW problems. Secure Slimeland is the POW which is used to incentivize the development of the reversible computer while Testing Slimeland is a POW that tests the cryptographic security of Secure Slimeland without compromising the security of Slimeland.

Suppose that N is a natural number (N will change over time). Then Secure Slimeland will require the function f to run for 3N rounds while Testing Slimeland will only require the function f to run for N rounds. If Slimeland becomes to insecure N will automatically increment by 1 in order to ensure that Secure Slimeland remains secure.

Slimeland will only allow Testing Slimeland to be solved for about 1 percent of all blocks. Furthermore, if Testing Slimeland is solved for Block R and for Block S for distinct R,S then we will require that |R-S|>25. This requirement will ensure that an attacker is not able to use Testing Slimeland to launch an attack against Slimeland. If the difficulty of Testing Slimeland grows too high because an entity has an algorithm that breaks Testing Slimeland, then N will increment by 1.

Testing Slimeland will also be weakened in the sense that a miner will have the option of slightly modifying the circuit that computes the N round version of the function f, and therefore Testing Slimeland will be easier to break than Secure Slimeland even if both problems only had N rounds.

Of course, since Testing Slimeland must be solved for only 1% of all problems, the outputs for the hashes for Testing Slimeland must be 100,000 times lower than they are required to be for Secure Slimeland (otherwise the Testing Slimeland problems will be solved all the time).

As I have mentioned before, the internal testing technique will in itself be a useful POW problem since testing the security of a new cryptosystem is in itself a useful problem (and hence the internal testing technique will help Slimeland obtain a strong perception of value).

The internal testing technique guarantees that Secure Slimeland will remain cryptographically secure, but the internal testing technique does not provide any protection against the possible optimization of the circuit for Secure Slimeland. In order to protect Slimeland against any possible optimization for the circuits that compute Secure Slimeland, miners are allowed to submit optimized circuits the Slimeland blockchain in exchange for coins (the miners will first submit the hash of the circuit+their public key and after the hash has been conformed, the miner may post the circuit). The Slimeland miners will then be informed about the best circuits to use to compute the POW, and Slimeland may use this information to automatically improve its POW.

The prognosis of Slimeland: With these security issues of Slimeland and due to the intricacies present with the solutions to these security issues, it will probably take much more resources to research and develop Slimeland than it would to research and develop other cryptocurrency ideas. I will therefore only devote my time to Slimeland once Nebula is up and running. Let me know if you see any insecurities or if you have any other concerns with Slimeland. Slimeland and Nebula will both incentivize reversible computation in different ways, and they are both necessary for the transition from conventional computational devices to reversible computational devices.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
11/16/2017

[Maximusu]

After computational device manufacturers produce devices to solve RCO-POW problems, they will have the knowledge and infrastructure to produce reversible computers for many other purposes and possibly even quantum computers.

[jvanname]

Warning: I has discovered major weaknesses in the following POW problem. Those weaknesses seem non-fatal. I am now working to patch those weaknesses.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.


A solution to the Erasure with Faulty Computation Problem

So recall that the objective in the Problem R5 is to find a 256 bit hash k along with a 68 bit string x such that f(k||x)<C where C is some constnat inversely proportion to the difficulty of the POW. One issue with this kind of POW problem is that even though the function f can be computed reversible as well as it can be computed irreversibly, one still has to erase 256 bits in the output f(k||x) after every solution attempt in order to overwrite the first 256 bits in f(k||x) with k so that one can begin a new solution attempt. Therefore R5 does not incentivize the reversible computer, but instead R5 incentivizes a nearly reversible computer or a reversible computer connected to a device that erases bits after every solution attempt. The problem that one has to erase a few bytes of information after ever solution attempt shall be called the Erasure Problem. I now have a solution to the Erasure Problem. In fact, I have a solution to a more difficult problem which I shall call the Erasure with Faulty Computation Problem (EFC Problem). The EFC Problem is to develop a cryptocurrency POW problem that can be solved by a device that does not hav to erase any data after ever solution attempt which is fault tolerant in the following sense: suppose that computing device A has made computational errors in Solution attempt number 5 but these errors do not change the value of the hash k which is used for the POW problem. Then computing device A can still correctly perform Solution attempt number n for n>5 without having to erase any data in order to correct the error that has been made in Solution attempt number 5.

Problem B: Suppose that f_k,T_k are both functions mapping {0,1}^{n} to {0,1}^n that depend on a 256 bit hash k and which can be easily computed using a reversible device. Then the objective of Problem B is to find a string x so that the final bit in the string f_k(x) differs from the final bit in the string f_k(T_k(x)).

Reversible Algorithm for Problem B: Suppose that the state of the device is (y,0) at the beginning of attempt n at solving Problem B.

Step 1: Transition from state (y,0) to state (y,y[last]) where y[last] denotes the last bit in the string y. This step requires one to simply apply a CNOT gate to the state.

Step 2: Transition from state (y,y[last]) to state (f(T(f^(-1)(y))),y[last]).

Step 3: Transition from state (f(T(f^(-1)(y))),y[last]) to state (f(T(f^(-1)(y))),y[last] XOR f(T(f^(-1)(y)))[last]). This step also requires simply a CNOT gate.

Step 4: Suppose that the device is in state (z,i). If z==1, then halt the device since a solution to Problem B has been obtained. Otherwise, continue on to Attempt n+1.

Partially Irreversible Algorithm for Problem B: First compute x,T_k(x),...,T^(n)_k(x) by applying the function T_k to the input x n-different times. Compute f(x),f(T_k(x)),f(T^(2)_k(x)),...,f(T^(n)_k(x)). If f(T^(i)_k(x))[last] is different from f(T^(i+1)_k(x))[last], then we have found our solution to Problem B. Notice how this algorithm is still quite reversible since the functions f,T are reversible.

Suppose that the function f takes j gates to compute while the function T takes k gates to compute. Then the reversible algorithm takes about 2j+k gates per solution attempt while the partially irreversible algorithm takes j+k gates to attempt. Therefore the ratio in the number of gates per solution attempt in irreversible algorithm to the number of gates per solution attempt in the reversible algortihm is (j+k)/(2j+k)=1-1/(2+k/j) and this ratio approaches 1 as k/j approaches infinity. Therefore while the partially irreversible algorithm may be more efficient than the reversible algorithm, by pumping up the value k, one can ensure that the reversible algorithm and the partially irreversible algorithm are almost as efficient as each other; in the case that one pumps the value of k up high, a miner will want to use a completely reversible device as opposed to a partially irreversible device.

The space of all feasible RCO-POW problems is much larger than I had originally imagined since I originally did not know how to make an RCO-POW problem which can be run on a completely reversible faulty computer.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

[riderinred]

I am glad that you are still updating this thread jvanname.

Am really excited about this project as it could be truly revolutional.
In your last post you said that the project needs more work than you anticipated. Do you have a timeline or roadmap or sth like that yet?

I would love to follow your work and journey with this project. Is there something else I can follow you except this thread and your blog/homepage http://boolesrings.org/jvanname?

Would be very happy to hear from you.
Keep up the good work!
You will definitely have my hashpower once it is needed.

[liotmaan]

All that math

*drools*

[jvanname]

riderinred. Thanks for the encouragement. At this point, I have C++ programs for the POW problem which I intend to use, but since I am not thoroughly familiar with the source code for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, I will need a cryptocurrency programmer to help me implement the code that I have written and launch the cryptocurrency (I currently only program for mathematical applications). If anyone knows a high quality programmer familiar with the source code of Bitcoin who is willing to help, let me know. Unfortunately, Nebula is currently a completely unfunded project, so my only form of payment is to simply let the programmer privately mine Nebula for a short period of time (which could be a very high level of payment if Nebula achieves a high market cap) and to have access to unobfuscated source code for R5 (the obfuscated source code runs slower so the programmer will have an advantage until someone finally deobfuscates the course code). I am currently working on this project alone, so that is why the development is slow. I apologize for any inconvenience that this delay has caused.

I am now seeking input from tech corporations that make computing devices and researchers about R5 to see their opinions about R5 and how cryptocurrencies could help develop reversible computers (I will even change the RCO-POW R5 if they offer a large sum of money as long as the new POW still incentivizes the construction of the reversible computer just as well).

In the mean time, I am investigating different RCO-POW problems especially those which can be solved by a reversible computer that does not delete information after every solution attempt and by a possibly faulty reversible computer (these sorts of RCO-POW problems appear to be much harder to construct and to verify the security of). I am also interested in RCO-POW problems where almost all of the gates are CNOT gates. The class of RCO-POW problems is much more diverse than I had originally imagined.

Right now, I am mostly just posting on http://boolesrings.org/jvanname.

I am glad that you are still updating this thread jvanname.

Am really excited about this project as it could be truly revolutional.
In your last post you said that the project needs more work than you anticipated. Do you have a timeline or roadmap or sth like that yet?

I would love to follow your work and journey with this project. Is there something else I can follow you except this thread and your blog/homepage http://boolesrings.org/jvanname?

Would be very happy to hear from you.
Keep up the good work!
You will definitely have my hashpower once it is needed.

[Andrey123]

How many coins do you need for POS-mining?
And where it is better to buy them?

[riderinred]

How many coins do you need for POS-mining?
And where it is better to buy them?

There is no coin yet and so no mining, if I understood jvanname correctly.

Currently it is about setting up/determining the RCO-POW problem to be used and to get more people involved.
Devs to actually write the code and researchers to get their oppinion so we could convince a chip manufacturer to actually create a RCO-Chip.
Am sorry if I messed something up, I only understand the basic principles of this topic.

[Andrey123]

Currently it is about setting up/determining the RCO-POW problem to be used and to get more people involved.
Devs to actually write the code and researchers to get their oppinion so we could convince a chip manufacturer to actually create a RCO-Chip.
Am sorry if I messed something up, I only understand the basic principles of this topic.

But the coin is already worth: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/neblio/
 

[riderinred]

That coin is not about reversible computing and it is called "Neblio" not Nebula.
So I don't think this is the project jvanname is writing about here.

Currently it is about setting up/determining the RCO-POW problem to be used and to get more people involved.
Devs to actually write the code and researchers to get their oppinion so we could convince a chip manufacturer to actually create a RCO-Chip.
Am sorry if I messed something up, I only understand the basic principles of this topic.

But the coin is already worth: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/neblio/
 

[jvanname]

rideinred.

I can make the RCO-POW problems myself (I already have made and analyzed these problems, but I am now considering modifying them again), though peer review is always helpful.

I just brought up the idea that a corporation will influence the final version of the RCO-POW problem in the case that such a corporation thinks that it will be easier for them to design a will computer for that RCO-POW problem (I want to make it as easy as possible for those corporations to design the reversible computer). For example, a corporation may think it is easier to construct a circuit using lesser known reversible gates such as the DKG or the Peres gate or they may want the RCO-POW problem to be based upon a 1 dimensional cellular automaton. Of course, they will have to pay in order for their recommendations to be implemented or launch their own corporate altcoin (which people will be skeptical about using) since I am not going to let a specific corporation have an advantage over others unless they pay.

Anyways, since the version of R5 which I have already posted requires one to delete 256 bits after every solution attempt, I am now considering drastically modifying the problems so that a much smaller amount of information is deleted after every solution attempt and so that these new problems have other superior characteristics. I will post my outline of how these new problems will work shortly.

As for implementing the RCO-POW that I have developed, I will write the functions in C++, but it will be better for a cryptocurrency developer to implement the functions which I have written.

[bingbong1589]

This is definitely on my watch list

[jvanname]

So here is an outline of the new kinds of POW problems which I am considering. Don't worry. The new POW problems will be modeled after the old R5 problems. So recall that with the old POW R5, we must find a 256 bit hash k along with a 64 bit string x such that f(k||x)<C where C is an adjustable number and where f is designed to be computed reversibly. As I have stated before, one issue with R5 is that after every solution attempt, one must erase 256 bits of output since one must set up a new input k||y for the next solution attempt. Since reversible components may be very difficult to hook up to irreversible components, we want to minimize the amount of data erased. Of course, it is probably too much to ask for a reversible device which solves the POW in just as many steps as an irreversible device but which does not erase any information whatsoever, but we can do better than erasing 256 bits after every solution attempt. Also, the input for the function f is a 324 bit string and if one can shrink the size of the inputs for the function f, then it would be much easier to construct a reversible device for solving the POW problem. Let me now give the details on a new POW that will remedy these issues.

New R5 problem description:

Input: Suppose that for each 256 bit hash k, f is a function from {0,1}^64 to {0,1}^64 designed to be computed using a reversible circuit. Suppose that H is a cryptographic hash function. Suppose that C and D are adjustable numbers.

Problem: Find a 256 bit hash k along with a 64 bit string x such that f_k(x) XOR f(x)<C and H(k||x||f_k(x))<D.

Let me now outline a nearly reversible algorithm for solving New R5. Let E be a natural number with 0<E<65. The number E will specify how many bits shall be deleted after every solution attempt. Of course, if E is smaller, then fewer bits will be deleted. However, if E is smaller, then one has to read and evaluate more false solution attempts. Now let v be a non-zero 64 bit string.

The state of the machine shall be a pair (x,y,z) where x is a 64 bit string and y,z are E bit strings.

Suppose that after attempt N at solving the POW problem, the machine is in state (x,y,0) where y is the first E bits of the string x.

Step 1: Move from state (x,y,0) to state (f_k(x),z,z XOR y) where z is the first E bits of the string f_k(x). This state is completely reversible.
 
Step 2: If z XOR y=0, then the machine halts and one reads the output f_k(x). In this case, one would test whether f_k(x) XOR f(x)<C and H(k||x||f_k(x))<D or not. If
f_k(x) XOR f(x)<C and H(k||x||f_k(x))<D, then k along with x is the desired solution to the POW problem. Otherwise, move to state (f_k(x) XOR v,z,0) and then move to attempt N at solving the POW problem.

Step 3: If z XOR y>0, then move from state (f_k(x),z,z XOR y) to state (f_k(x) XOR v,z,0). This state is irreversible since the E bit string z XOR y. Now move to attempt N+1 at solving the POW problem.

There does not appear to be any security issues with this kind of sort of POW problem.

Remarks:

-The function f_k should not be of the form g^n for easily computable g since if f_k=g^n, then the optimal algorithm for solving the POW problem is not the algorithm that I have stated above and the optimal algorithm will delete E bits of information every time g is computed rather than deleting E bits of information every time f_k is computed.

-Since the input for the function f_k is 64 bits, the reversible device for solving the POW is probably much simpler than it would be for solving Old R5. Furthermore, the function f_k can probably be secure with fewer rounds than it can be for Old R5.

-The optimal algorithm is solving this POW problem is reversible in the sense that in Step 1, one can instead move from state (x,y,0) to state (f_k^(-1)(x),z,z XOR y) where z is the first E bits of the string f_k^(-1)(x).

-Since f_k has a 64 bit input, it is probably feasible to make f_k so that it computes a 1D cellular automaton or a circuit consisting mostly of CNOT gates without compromising the security of efficiency of the POW problem.

-With Old R5, I included a few layers of CNOT gates which I called sigma, mu, and tau in order to increase security and so that all of the logic gates are actually necessary for solving the Old R5 problems. With these new problems, the awkward layers sigma,mu, and tau are not necessary. Therefore, these new problems can be considered more pure than the Old R5 problems.

[alexwolf011]

Hope everything well guys.

What's the news about Nebula?

There are many projects coming...Hope we can do the best!

[riderinred]

Hope everything well guys.

What's the news about Nebula?

There are many projects coming...Hope we can do the best!

Am also very excited about this project.
There are more and more ideas about how Blockchain can help in the transition from the now dominant idea of just putting more and more transistors onto one chip to another way of doing it.
Am so excited, Moores Law is coming to an end and we are right here, living in interesting times.

[alexwolf011]

Hope everything well guys.

What's the news about Nebula?

There are many projects coming...Hope we can do the best!

Am also very excited about this project.
There are more and more ideas about how Blockchain can help in the transition from the now dominant idea of just putting more and more transistors onto one chip to another way of doing it.
Am so excited, Moores Law is coming to an end and we are right here, living in interesting times.

Yeah, that's correct.

I am very glad that we meet the blockchain here.

Hope this next-generation project get the best!

It is a really novel idea and can change things.