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

[leadnor]

As per my PM. Let me know

[1714758959]

1714758959

[1714758959]

1714758959

[1714758959]

1714758959

[1714758959]

1714758959

[Akka]

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?

One big difference as I see it would be:

Instead of investing a lot of Money in Hardware that basically does nothing but to produce hot air. people would invest the money in Hardware that actually benefits the network. Space to store the Blockchain and Bandwidth. Just imagine all this Millions that where invested in Bitcoin Mining would have been invested in this resources.

We wouldn't even need to talk about the max. Blocksize issue yet.

Interesting if this really works.

[Visin]

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.

That sounds extremely boring. I think you don't quite understand how different eMunie is compared to BitCoin and thats maybe why you are trying to get it the same requirements.  So drop everything you think you know of 'security' and let the big boys play, as i'm fairly certain fuserleer knows what he is talking about and wouldn't just ramble nonsense.

This is why eMunie is having the beta, not to see if there are any holes in eMunie, but yet to see how people live it compared to the alternatives out there. If you want to try it, go for it, if you don't then just stick with your favorite currency.

[sor.rge]

Instead of investing a lot of Money in Hardware that basically does nothing but to produce hot air. people would invest the money in Hardware that actually benefits the network. Space to store the Blockchain and Bandwidth.

But it may not benefit the network if there are too many hatchers. As pointed out before, you could run many hatchers on the same machine, potentially a huge number of them (billions of virtual hatchers which are just IDs?) depending on the details of the protocol to be revealed. Then you are not even providing the storage space. So there will be a million of hatchers competing for the same transaction. And then transaction spam may kick in, possibly maliciously designed to go to a certain set of hatchers in order to bump their trust.

It's true that you will not break the system by that. But the rules for money distribution are complicated and possibly flawed. As they are presented now, they could be cheated, and then the cheating will become the new, perverted rule. The advantage of bitcoin here is the simple, clear money distribution rule which has not been cheated so far (if you don't consider mining pools as cheating).

[Akka]

Instead of investing a lot of Money in Hardware that basically does nothing but to produce hot air. people would invest the money in Hardware that actually benefits the network. Space to store the Blockchain and Bandwidth.

But it may not benefit the network if there are too many hatchers. As pointed out before, you could run many hatchers on the same machine, potentially a huge number of them (billions of virtual hatchers which are just IDs?) depending on the details of the protocol to be revealed. Then you are not even providing the storage space. So there will be a million of hatchers competing for the same transaction. And then transaction spam may kick in, possibly maliciously designed to go to a certain set of hatchers in order to bump their trust.

It's true that you will not break the system by that. But the rules for money distribution are complicated and possibly flawed. As they are presented now, they could be cheated, and then the cheating will become the new, perverted rule. The advantage of bitcoin here is the simple, clear money distribution rule which has not been cheated so far (if you don't consider mining pools as cheating).

Absolutely agree, I saw this weakness as well (already mentioned about 100 times in this thread)

But it's an interesting experiment non the less.

That's why:

Interesting if this really works.

[xorxor]

Instead of investing a lot of Money in Hardware that basically does nothing but to produce hot air. people would invest the money in Hardware that actually benefits the network. Space to store the Blockchain and Bandwidth.

But it may not benefit the network if there are too many hatchers. As pointed out before, you could run many hatchers on the same machine, potentially a huge number of them (billions of virtual hatchers which are just IDs?) depending on the details of the protocol to be revealed. Then you are not even providing the storage space. So there will be a million of hatchers competing for the same transaction. And then transaction spam may kick in, possibly maliciously designed to go to a certain set of hatchers in order to bump their trust.

It's true that you will not break the system by that. But the rules for money distribution are complicated and possibly flawed. As they are presented now, they could be cheated, and then the cheating will become the new, perverted rule. The advantage of bitcoin here is the simple, clear money distribution rule which has not been cheated so far (if you don't consider mining pools as cheating).

just my point. lets hope we just cant see the solution, but there is a solution.

[Seth Otterstad]

This proof-of-work system would be like having anyone running a bitcoin node compete for doing the "work" of a difficulty 1 hash that is attached to any transaction.  The idea to change the proof-of-work to a tree-sort is great, as tree sorting runs on a CPU better, but there are massive errors in this implementation:

1) The "work" is tied to the number of transactions
2) The "work" difficulty does not rise with the number of people competing to do it
3) The currency will get distributed to a handful of people who know how to spawn infinite hatchers since the infinite hatchers hardly have to do any "work"

Also, tell me if this one is wrong, as I'm not certain how this is done:
4) The "work" is assigned randomly instead of having every full node verify transactions, as in bitcoin.

I think it's funny that litecoin was run for months as a CPU-only coin and called a "botnet coin" by bitcoiners.  Then there was a giant uproar when someone figured out how to run it on a GPU, but now litecoiners call any true CPU coin a "botnet coin".  Yes it sucks if 30% of the new currency goes to a handful of botnets who don't process transactions, but this is far better than having 95% of the new currency go to a handful of guys with huge GPU farms.  If the currency does not get a good initial distribution, it will fail.  The success depends on getting it into as many people's hands as possible.

Coblee's thread about GPU-mining and Litecoin for people clueless about the history of litecoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64239.0
TacoTime suggested switching the POW to a radix sort or tree search to make litecoin CPU-only again, but Coblee didn't want to do the development work to implement this, so nothing was done.

[poriks]

If its still open sir, I wan't join the beta testing.   

[rbdrbd]

I do agree that the absence of PoW with this coin raises a lot of questions and new ways to "game" the system. PoW can be very energy intensive, but it works very well to distribute coin circulation to participants (esp early on when it's crucial to get coins in as many hands as possible), while rewarding folks that take the most risk (i.e. dedicate the most computing resources to it) and preventing manipulation by unethical players that would undermine the basis of any currency (trust).

It sounds like at this point the issue with this system is how to prevent someone from just creating 1000 amazon instances, with 1000 node instances on each. I DO think this matters because besides the obvious unequal and unfair coin distribution in this case (where, unlike PoW there isn't a significant cost/risk increase on the "hatcher"'s part to justify it), I also see network speed and stability issues. If your coin distribution is controlled primarily by how many "trusted" hatching nodes/clients you have up, the P2P network could grow to immense proportions and complexity, especially if the coin starts to gain traction and "hatchers" try to out-game eachother. At that point, your propagation speed across the network could become an issue (or at least would be greatly affected). Machines do have hard limits on the number of open file descriptors/ports, for instance. With bitcoin, this is a non-issue because node participation is not a rewarding factor in and of itself, and thus is naturally optimized in the system.

Any solution to the above in a PoW-less implementation would most likely need to solve the issue of accurate node identification... for instance, if, in the protocol, they tie hatcher identity to IP (or something that factors network node identity in, such as MAC address), you can possibly use tor/proxy meshes, MAC spoofing, IP aliasing, etc to overcome this. I highly doubt there is a form of zero-trust node identification that can not be gamed. With PoW this doesn't really matter, since the work itself is both the limiting and identifying factor (i.e. payment address), and can be easily verified by other nodes.

I guess we will see what direction this all takes when/if the source/whitepaper is released.

[rbdrbd]

Coblee's thread about GPU-mining and Litecoin for people clueless about the history of litecoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64239.0
TacoTime suggested switching the POW to a radix sort or tree search to make litecoin CPU-only again, but Coblee didn't want to do the development work to implement this, so nothing was done.

Soo...for this or some other coin, on the topic of CPU-based PoW:

I saw his post with the breakdown of algorithms over at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64239.msg786472#msg786472 in that thread.

I am still a newb to the math involved with bitcoin. Would the radix sort/tree sort be thrown in there as an addition to the hashing work done, or to replace it? Hashing seems to be the glue that keeps the entire blockchain concept in place to me. In either case, what data would you be sorting/searching? Is this data stored in the blockchain to allow some kind of verification by other nodes? And if you're searching/sorting a lot of data and you are storing it, how do you prevent the blockchain/whatever from growing out of control?

I guess I am trying to figure out what the mechanics of how either of these algorithms would enable the brute force initial pass and easy verification system that bitcoin PoW currently uses, while keeping the blockchain size (or whatever transaction logging system would be used) size down.

[Visin]

yeah the algo's for it all seem pretty solid and I think this kind of system is what the community needs as a whole, why just stick with BTC clones when there is atleast another trying something new? my humble opinion.

[groll]

i'd like to be beta tester and make some attack analysis on experiment on the code base.

I have some idea on how someone with 50 clients sending to each other money can help market share of 4-5 hatchers. one would be to scrap other hatchers rep. yes sometimes he best way to get the best rep is to scrap other rep. this is especially true in computer computed rep. making.


I have some concern about the rep and the monopol of transaction to 4-5 high rep hatchers. As this will make it in the hand of 4-5 persons getting 80% of the currency and 10% as interest on their pile of currency while selling few to market to make a profit as only 10% could be in fact really circulating the price will be high or the currency not used.


the interest part seems a good  distribution method when a lot of coin are hold by different person, but can be exploited to get a lot of interest if someone get a big part of the currency available and sit on it. especially when coins are still not very disperse at begin.(note this can be exploited by the entity that would back it for 100K )



But the idea is very interesting. I would love to try to break it in beta(to make sure it is bullet proof) before someone break it for real and get someone scam in the process

[super3]

Seems interesting. I'll give it a try.

[Deprived]

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.

This is the bit that gets me confused.

I run a client on my local network - it can only connect to my own hatchers.  What stops them from hatching its transactions - noone else is going to see them to get the chance?  Or do nodes only ever approve transactions that they saw before they were processed (meaning immediate fork as soon you connect if any transactions were already being processed)?

Is there something that stops hatchers below a certain trust-level from processing transactions?  Do they have to back-date the time-stamp so it looks like they waited to give more trusted ones a chance to process them first?

And what's with the claim that honest nodes can detect ping-pongs (not quoted above)?  Is there some penalty for sending funds back and forth?  Do hatchers need to analyse all transactions to make sure they won't be penalised if they process them?  If I send money to someone then they send it back will it be taken away or something?  A general statement that something can be detected doesn't explain anything without detail of what happens when it IS detected.

If generating key pairs is fairly trivial then there'd be no need for anyone doing transaction padding to use same address twice anyway.  You just have X blocks of cash that you keep moving to new addresses.  Or one big block if its weighted by transaction size.

[Skrapps]

This is yet another: 'Interested to test' post.

[Devianttwo]

I would love to be a beta tester.

[ironcross360]

another ripple.

[wtfvanity]

another ripple.

Ripple
Closed Source
Premined 100 billion ripple, gave 80 billion of them to opencoin
Gives coins to some forum members, people on mailing lists, and other for profit companies like PIA

EMU
Open source
New way to distribute coins instead of proof of work (different than bitcoin)


I'm confused as to how you are tying the two together. Care to share any more thoughts than the diarrhea that came out in your last post?

[Seth Otterstad]

another ripple.

Ripple
Closed Source
Premined 100 billion ripple, gave 80 billion of them to opencoin
Gives coins to some forum members, people on mailing lists, and other for profit companies like PIA

EMU
Open source
New way to distribute coins instead of proof of work (different than bitcoin)


I'm confused as to how you are tying the two together. Care to share any more thoughts than the diarrhea that came out in your last post?

eMunie incorporates trust, causing some of the same vulnerabilities as ripple.  Also the proof-of-"work" that eMunie uses is so absurd that it will cause all the coins to get distributed to a handful of people, much like ripple.

[eddyfitz]

Does anybody received "invitation" to be a beta-tester?
since OP silent on my pms