[ANN] eMunie (EMU) - NOT a BitCoin fork/clone - call for beta testers

[Fuserleer]

"or a tree search algorithm as the proof-of-work "

Isn't that exactly the same as a forward traversal of a transaction chain from a genesis transaction??

Which is what I've been explaining as the POW for about 8 hours.

The HD was an example of just one bottleneck in the system.

[Etlase2]

"or a tree search algorithm as the proof-of-work "

But this doesn't get more difficult as a factor of the number of hatchers.

[Fuserleer]

It doesn't need to.

Does BitCoin monitor the number of miners signed in and increase difficulty?  No.

[timeofmind]

So, to recap:  SHA256 is replaced with running merkel roots.  Whoever is able to fire up the most instances can assign themselves 79% of all new coins, and is able to double spend.

Dishonest hatchers will not lose their reputation in this case.  Honest hatchers will reject the double spends, but the honest ones are only 1% so the clients won't know.  All the clients will see are 99% of the amazon nodes telling them the double spends are valid.

Keep in mind a little something... when network is first started and runs with honest nodes for some time, nodes will build their reputation off the amount of available transactions... as network runs on, transactions will being going first to most trusted nodes before they reach untrusted nodes. If someone comes into the network with a million hatchers... this will be way more hatchers than is needed to meet the transaction volume of the network, so those hatchers will  likely never even be asked to process a single transaction.

As the network matures, it becomes hardened. New hatcher nodes that are not required to fulfill the transaction volume become redundant and would be ignored.

[Seth Otterstad]

"or a tree search algorithm as the proof-of-work "

Isn't that exactly the same as a forward traversal of a transaction chain from a genesis transaction??

Which is what I've been explaining as the POW for about 8 hours.

The HD was an example of just one bottleneck in the system.

Is this really the same?  I'm not technical enough to know.  If it is, then just change the bitcoin code to replace SHA256 with tree search.  Just leave the rest of the bitcoin code the same.  It needs to have difficulty adjustments to work properly.  You will probably overtake litecoin at some point if you do launch it like that, because the CPU userbase is WAY higher than the GPU userbase.  Whoever attracts the most users wins.  You'll never pass bitcoin due to the network effect, but you might become #2.

[timeofmind]

So, to recap:  SHA256 is replaced with running merkel roots.  Whoever is able to fire up the most instances can assign themselves 79% of all new coins, and is able to double spend.

Dishonest hatchers will not lose their reputation in this case.  Honest hatchers will reject the double spends, but the honest ones are only 1% so the clients won't know.  All the clients will see are 99% of the amazon nodes telling them the double spends are valid.

Keep in mind a little something... when network is first started and runs with honest nodes for some time, nodes will build their reputation off the amount of available transactions... as network runs on, transactions will being going first to most trusted nodes before they reach untrusted nodes. If someone comes into the network with a million hatchers... this will be way more hatchers than is needed to meet the transaction volume of the network, so those hatchers will  likely never even be asked to process a single transaction.

As the network matures, it becomes hardened. New hatcher nodes that are not required to fulfill the transaction volume become redundant and would be ignored.

In this way, hatchers meet network demand perfectly. You cannot go firing off a billion-gazillion nodes as hatchers and expect them to be used by the network when there are only a few trickling transactions that need to be verified.

I wonder though... if perhaps you created a 3rd class of client, a "monitor", and allowed these monitors to do extra work in verifying that the network was secure.... like spot check the work of hatchers or something? Perhaps they could gain trust if they find a dishonest hatcher and report it to other hatchers? and perhaps they could also be rewarded with pay-outs if they find dishonest hatchers.

[LewiesMan]

It Looks Promising - I'd Like To Be Tester!

[Seth Otterstad]

So, to recap:  SHA256 is replaced with running merkel roots.  Whoever is able to fire up the most instances can assign themselves 79% of all new coins, and is able to double spend.

Dishonest hatchers will not lose their reputation in this case.  Honest hatchers will reject the double spends, but the honest ones are only 1% so the clients won't know.  All the clients will see are 99% of the amazon nodes telling them the double spends are valid.

Keep in mind a little something... when network is first started and runs with honest nodes for some time, nodes will build their reputation off the amount of available transactions... as network runs on, transactions will being going first to most trusted nodes before they reach untrusted nodes. If someone comes into the network with a million hatchers... this will be way more hatchers than is needed to meet the transaction volume of the network, so those hatchers will  likely never even be asked to process a single transaction.

As the network matures, it becomes hardened. New hatcher nodes that are not required to fulfill the transaction volume become redundant and would be ignored.

In this way, hatchers meet network demand perfectly. You cannot go firing off a billion-gazillion nodes as hatchers and expect them to be used by the network when there are only a few trickling transactions that need to be verified.

I wonder though... if perhaps you created a 3rd class of client, a "monitor", and allowed these monitors to do extra work in verifying that the network was secure.... like spot check the work of hatchers or something? Perhaps they could gain trust if they find a dishonest hatcher and report it to other hatchers? and perhaps they could also be rewarded with pay-outs if they find dishonest hatchers.

Of course you can fire up a billion hatchers.  If they hardly have to do any verification, there is no downside to firing them up and essentially getting free lottery tickets for more coins.  Just do a difficulty adjustment like bitcoin so that anyone who wants to win monies has to do a lot of work.  You need to just copy the bitcoin code, change the algorithm to the tree search, and make the difficulty adjustment work with the tree search.  Then at least you can beat litecoin.  Just don't botch the launch.  Litecoin completely failed at being a CPU algorithm, and that was its initial draw.  Litecoin only has something like 25 merchants.  If you sign up that many merchants plus launch as a CPU currency and cut out all the GPU farmers and do a somewhat fair launch, you will crush litecoin fast and take its whole market cap.

[kkay]

Sign me up to be a tester please, very interested. Thanks man.

[lightlord]

Id be interested in being a beta tester  6/MH

[forsetifox]

This is what my eyes look like reading all this. ---> @.@

[timeofmind]

Of course you can fire up a billion hatchers.  If they hardly have to do any verification, there is no downside to firing them up and essentially getting free lottery tickets for more coins.  Just do a difficulty adjustment like bitcoin so that anyone who wants to win monies has to do a lot of work.  

Once you have more hatchers than meets transaction level, you just end up with all new ones just sitting there idle and waiting for transaction volume to pick up. The majority of transactions would go to the "trusted" hatchers.

In a way, this is like a hybrid of Ripple UNL and Bitcoin proof-of-work, except it is a major enhancement on UNL, because #1, the network can provably chose who to trust most, rather than just some preconfigured list of trusted nodes, #2 the transactions end up being distributed over much broader range of hatchers, than UNL nodes, #3, the damn hatcher nodes get rewarded! So are motivated to actually do the work. In Ripple, the servers are not rewarded for their work; instead, it is just expected that people will run servers voluntarily.

[timeofmind]

Of course you can fire up a billion hatchers.  If they hardly have to do any verification, there is no downside to firing them up and essentially getting free lottery tickets for more coins.  Just do a difficulty adjustment like bitcoin so that anyone who wants to win monies has to do a lot of work.  

Once you have more hatchers than meets transaction level, you just end up with all new ones just sitting there idle and waiting for transaction volume to pick up. The majority of transactions would go to the "trusted" hatchers.

In a way, this is like a hybrid of Ripple UNL and Bitcoin proof-of-work, except it is a major enhancement on UNL, because #1, the network can provably chose who to trust most, rather than just some preconfigured list of trusted nodes, #2 the transactions end up being distributed over much broader range of hatchers, than UNL nodes, #3, the damn hatcher nodes get rewarded! So are motivated to actually do the work. In Ripple, the servers are not rewarded for their work; instead, it is just expected that people will run servers voluntarily.

I mean think about it... people seem perfectly satisfied with Ripple's UNLs to thwart sybil attacks right? Well shit, if that is good enough for them, then eMunie must seem like absolute security overkill to these people! It has both proof-of-work, and trusted nodes similar to Ripple...

Edit: except I'd want to emphasize again and again, they are *similar* to Ripple UNLs, but far superior, because they are not just some configured list of a limited number of nodes, they are dynamically determined by the network.

[Seth Otterstad]

We already established this:

"The point is that the attacker has 1m (essentially unlimited number) nodes with equal trust to the honest nodes."

The idea to switch the proof-of-work to a radix sort or tree search is the best move an alt-coin can make right now.  Making the currency allocation and double-spend defense dependent on millions of spawned nodes is not smart though.  You have to make the tree-search difficulty go up based on how much work is getting done.  Otherwise all the coins will get distributed to only a handful of people.  The way to solve it is to have a difficulty adjustment so that the attacker gains nothing from infinitely spawning and doing nothing.  Each of the spawns must do a lot of work.  Just make it bitcoin, but change the mining to something that is GPU resistant.

[timeofmind]

We already established this:

"The point is that the attacker has 1m (essentially unlimited number) nodes with equal trust to the honest nodes."

I know. That was the hypothetical situation that was being used for theoretical purposes. I'm just making the point that this theoretical situation is virtually impossible because as this network grows, the amount of hatcher nodes that even get to handle transactions and prove themselves honest cannot be greater than the greatest number of simultaneous transactions sent out on the network at any time... so in reality you end up with a relatively limited amount of hatcher nodes that are even relevant to this system. Slowly over time, as transaction volume grows, more hatcher nodes are required and allowed to gain trust with the system.

[intellivision]

I'd like to become a tester, sign me up.

[timeofmind]

2) You cant choose the hatcher, it chooses you.  You can request some parameters, such as trust level, min fee, but your broadcast goes system wide.

EDIT:  Your next transaction is sent to a different hatcher, you can not send a transaction to the same hatcher twice in a row, and the network can see this as the hatcher signs the transaction.

I'm basing this on the above. If clients have a configuration for "trust level", then hatchers with higher trust are going to be favored by clients over hatchers with lower trust, and hatchers with no trust at all will probably have to wait until there are no other hatchers available to service transactions.

[HuuHachu]

We already established this:

"The point is that the attacker has 1m (essentially unlimited number) nodes with equal trust to the honest nodes."

The idea to switch the proof-of-work to a radix sort or tree search is the best move an alt-coin can make right now.  Making the currency allocation and double-spend defense dependent on millions of spawned nodes is not smart though.  You have to make the tree-search difficulty go up based on how much work is getting done.  Otherwise all the coins will get distributed to only a handful of people.  The way to solve it is to have a difficulty adjustment so that the attacker gains nothing from infinitely spawning and doing nothing.  Each of the spawns must do a lot of work.  Just make it bitcoin, but change the mining to something that is GPU resistant.

You mean something like YAC ?

Not that very well distributed either ... CPU POW is *very* botnet friendly.

(Besides, YAC was abused by people renting AWS clusters at the start, and was suspiciously designed to be GPU friendly - but not publicly available - for the first months of existence)

[candoo]

If you are still open to testers I would love to be considered. Thank You

[xorxor]

There are guys having tens of VPS's with  8 cores and VM capability, raping every new coin, or simply mining YAC.
VPS'es are easy and cheap to obtain. installing numerous VM's with a client's on every one of them is easy and fast.
there would be a monstrous fight for getting a bigger and bigger amount of clients and hatchers, sending EMU from one to another to make a lot of transactions and confirmations - and therefore the bigest posible percentage of new EMU creation. this means, NO ONE ELSE would get anything - just like trying to solomine BTC on cpu right now.

difference:
 POW - waste a lot of energy

 distributed trust - waste a lot of energy, bandwidth, transaction history data.

this is possible even when source will NOT be given, or system was perfect in other ways.
 

to be secure, it has to be ripple-like closed and centralised, and thats no crypto currency, thats company issued credit.

please tell me where am I wrong.

OK I've written a lot on this already, but I'll try and re-explain to clear up the confusion.

100 nodes in the system, 49 honest, 51 not.

2 are hatchers, 1 honest, 1 not.  Both do equal transaction according to honest/dishonest nodes in the system (49% and 51% respectively) work for arguments sake.

Honest nodes vote honest hatcher to make an EMU
Honest hatcher creates EMU and distributes 39% to itself, and 41% to dishonest hatcher.  Remaining 20% is distributed to non-hatcher nodes dependent on EMU holding.
Everyones happy.

Dishonest node votes yes to EMU create with dishonest clients.
Dishonest node creates EMU
Dishonest node gives all EMU to itself.

Honest nodes reject dishonest nodes EMU creation.  
Dishonest node can't spend those EMU's in system.
Honest nodes happy again.
Dishonest node wasted effort.

EMU's HAVE to be distrubuted according to set of rules, which can be checked against the ledger by ANY node in the system.  Thus, there's no point in dishonest nodes trying to create EMU's for themselves as they can not keep them, and if they do, the honest nodes reject them and they can never be spent.

You are trying to explain why the system cannot be cheated. Im not saying it can be, I sad : "even when source will NOT be given, or system was perfect in other ways."

(.....)

2) Real world cost, if some guy, wants to rent 1 million Amazon nodes and perform 99% of all the transaction work in the network, that's up to them.  It's still work.  Some miners have HUGE hashrates, and rake in a lot of BTC, but they have had a real world cost, so why shouldn't they get the reward for that?  No one seems to have a problem with that model so why should it be different here?

thats exactly what I ment. So You agree?


POW : new currency generation is distributed to hashpower
1.people buy tons of unnecessary GPUs, build gigantic clusters of 10, 20 or even 100 Mhash . lots of resources is lost.
2. a lot of energy is wasted on POW.

effect = network is run by proffessional hashers. you WILL NOT get even 1usd worth of BTC by mining on normal computer for a year.

eMunie : new currency generation is distributed to transaction-verifying-power/luck
1. people buy/rent a lot of servers with VM and launch as many instances of hatchers as they can.
a lot of resources is lost, just more cpus mobos rams and drives and less gpus
2. a lot of energy is lost to run millions of unnecessary nodes

effect = network is run by proffessional hatchers. you WILL NOT get even 1usd worth of EMU by hatching on your computer for a year.


where is the difference? that are the advantages?

disclaimer:
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, thats new and refreshing. I'm NOT criticizing it. I'm simply very much interested in it and just want to understand it.

p.s. what about my P.M. ?