Bitcoin Forum
August 22, 2019, 02:18:33 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A Consensus Protocol Based on the Ability of Network Dispersity.  (Read 222 times)
yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:18:53 AM
Last edit: October 25, 2018, 12:13:43 AM by yj1190590
 #1

hi:
This is the research paper about the project I posted before.
Thank you for your time.
[disabled]
If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks.

previous post:[disabled]
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 09, 2018, 08:41:01 AM
Merited by Foxpup (1)
 #2

Quote
“Proof of Stake” (PoS) protocol is the most successful one of them because it doesn’t
need any external resources and consumes low energy

I stopped reading the paper at this point. I'm afraid this paper reads like a blog post from someone who just read about cryptocurrencies for the first time.

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 11:45:59 AM
 #3

I stopped reading the paper at this point. I'm afraid this paper reads like a blog post from someone who just read about cryptocurrencies for the first time.
I don't quite catch the point of you but if there were any misunderstandings caused by the grammar and syntax, I'm very sorry about that becsuse I'm not a native English speaker.
If you have any point of view that is against mine, would you please tell me in a direct way because I don't want to miss the main idea again. Thanks.
aleksej996
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 327


Do not trust the government


View Profile WWW
May 10, 2018, 12:15:11 PM
 #4

I stopped reading the paper at this point. I'm afraid this paper reads like a blog post from someone who just read about cryptocurrencies for the first time.
I don't quite catch the point of you but if there were any misunderstandings caused by the grammar and syntax, I'm very sorry about that becsuse I'm not a native English speaker.
If you have any point of view that is against mine, would you please tell me in a direct way because I don't want to miss the main idea again. Thanks.

Proof of Stake protocol is less secure than Proof of Work. Calling it more successful is naive. It has it's costs and it's benefits.
It trades security for energy consumption, it isn't better, it is just different.
yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 12:59:25 PM
 #5

Proof of Stake protocol is less secure than Proof of Work. Calling it more successful is naive. It has it's costs and it's benefits.
It trades security for energy consumption, it isn't better, it is just different.
I have never said that PoS is better than PoW.
I said PoS is the most successful one of the other alternative protocols, isn't it ?
Quote
All the other protocols are following the same logic, like Proof of Activity, Proof of Burn, Proof of Storage, Proof of Elapsed Time, and so on. "Proof of Stake" (PoS) protocol is the most successful one of them...
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 01:45:19 PM
 #6

I stopped reading the paper at this point. I'm afraid this paper reads like a blog post from someone who just read about cryptocurrencies for the first time.
I don't quite catch the point of you but if there were any misunderstandings caused by the grammar and syntax, I'm very sorry about that becsuse I'm not a native English speaker.
If you have any point of view that is against mine, would you please tell me in a direct way because I don't want to miss the main idea again. Thanks.

You cannot objectively verify claimed network latency, so you cannot build a consensus using this concept. I think you have realised this, so you've stake weighted your consensus to compensate.... At best this will leave you with the security model of PoS. At worst you will have all kinds of sybil attack problems related to the nuances of your implementation.

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 02:36:19 PM
Last edit: May 10, 2018, 03:15:46 PM by yj1190590
 #7

You cannot objectively verify claimed network latency, so you cannot build a consensus using this concept. I think you have realised this, so you've stake weighted your consensus to compensate....
You are right, that was one reason that I use stake to measure the power of voting. But it was not a compensation because the "stake" property plays other important roles like “balance the mining power”.
you could see it here: https://github.com/yj1190590/PoND/blob/master/README_eng.md#compete-for-the-voters.
Quote
At best this will leave you with the security model of PoS.
You can consider it as a kind of PoS mechanism in this respect, that's OK. But from some other respects it has many differences from PoS. About this question, you could refer to: https://github.com/yj1190590/PoND/blob/master/README_eng.md#faqs if you'd like to.

Quote
At worst you will have all kinds of sybil attack problems related to the nuances of your implementation.
Sybil attacks are not so easy just because I use the "stake" property like you said.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 03:27:46 PM
 #8

You can consider it as a kind of PoS mechanism in this respect, that's OK. But from some other respects it has many differences from PoS. About this question, you could refer to: https://github.com/yj1190590/PoND/blob/master/README_eng.md#faqs if you'd like to.

Quote
At worst you will have all kinds of sybil attack problems related to the nuances of your implementation.
Sybil attacks are not so easy just because I use the "stake" property like you said.


My point was, if you only achieve the security model of PoS with this technique, why bother at all?

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 04:05:20 PM
 #9

My point was, if you only achieve the security model of PoS with this technique, why bother at all?
We assume that you are right that it has the same security level as PoS, which actually not(you will know that if you read the section "51% attack"). At least the new model don't have the common flaws of PoS such as the wealth concentration issue or "nothing at stake" problem.
yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 05:25:37 PM
 #10

My point was, if you only achieve the security model of PoS with this technique, why bother at all?
We assume that you are right that it has the same security level as PoS, which actually not(you will know that if you read the section "51% attack"). At least the new model don't have the common flaws of PoS such as the wealth concentration issue or "nothing at stake" problem.
And provides incentives to build open development multi-chain systems which may be a progress in the field of cryptocurrency.
Quote
Provide an incentive for developers to build extend projects which ensures the sustainability and extendibility of the system.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 10, 2018, 06:40:58 PM
 #11

My point was, if you only achieve the security model of PoS with this technique, why bother at all?
We assume that you are right that it has the same security level as PoS, which actually not(you will know that if you read the section "51% attack"). At least the new model don't have the common flaws of PoS such as the wealth concentration issue or "nothing at stake" problem.

All stake based protocols suffer from NaS - yours included.

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 07:09:00 AM
 #12

All stake based protocols suffer from NaS - yours included.
I hope this could explaine:
Quote
The difference is that when the votes take effect, they are already sealed in the existing blocks. That makes the common problem of PoS such as “nothing at stake” or “stake grinding” resolved.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 11:22:57 AM
 #13

I hope this could explaine:
Quote
The difference is that when the votes take effect, they are already sealed in the existing blocks. That makes the common problem of PoS such as “nothing at stake” or “stake grinding” resolved.

Words like 'sealed' have little meaning in any system where block generation has zero cost.

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 12:57:39 PM
 #14

Words like 'sealed' have little meaning in any system where block generation has zero cost.
I recommend you to read the article "Transactions as Proof-of-Stake" by Daniel Larimer whose idea was close to mine in this respect.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 01:09:55 PM
 #15

Words like 'sealed' have little meaning in any system where block generation has zero cost.
I recommend you to read the article "Transactions as Proof-of-Stake" by Daniel Larimer whose idea was close to mine in this respect.

That won't help you at all. It doesn't address the problem of historical private keys. I suggest you read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382241.msg14058047#msg14058047

Realen44
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 01:24:19 PM
 #16

i

hi:
This is the research paper about the project I posted before.
Thank you for your time.
https://github.com/yj1190590/PoND/blob/master/research_paper.pdf
If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks.

previous post:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3251016.0
yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 02:10:20 PM
 #17

That won't help you at all. It doesn't address the problem of historical private keys. I suggest you read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382241.msg14058047#msg14058047
Long range attack is an other problem of PoS but we are discussing the NaS problem aren't we?
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/15/long-range-attacks-the-serious-problem-with-adaptive-proof-of-work/
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 348
Merit: 115


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 02:13:23 PM
 #18

That won't help you at all. It doesn't address the problem of historical private keys. I suggest you read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382241.msg14058047#msg14058047
Long range attack is an other problem of PoS but we are discussing the NaS problem aren't we?
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/15/long-range-attacks-the-serious-problem-with-adaptive-proof-of-work/

It's all NaS in the end. Every problem that PoS has is due to NaS.

edit: in any case, what I've posted isn't 'long' range, but instead *any* range.

yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
Last edit: May 11, 2018, 06:29:16 PM by yj1190590
 #19

It's all NaS in the end. Every problem that PoS has is due to NaS.

edit: in any case, what I've posted isn't 'long' range, but instead *any* range.
I know what you mean with "NaS" but I used that word with the meaning of the "double voting problem".
If the problem mentioned at that post is still unresolved, I must say that's the problem we haven't resolved yet. But we have at least resolved the first one.
yj1190590
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 15


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 06:13:17 PM
Last edit: May 12, 2018, 03:27:13 AM by yj1190590
 #20

That won't help you at all. It doesn't address the problem of historical private keys. I suggest you read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382241.msg14058047#msg14058047

I have thought seriously about the problem you posted and maybe I have found a way to mitigate it. It's useful to any PoS protocols.

First of all the reorganizition is designed to prevent forks. Under normal circumstances,  some stakeholders would be active(trading or mining) in both branches (caused by NaS too) if there appears a fork. According to the probability there will be similar stake proportion of "double-active" users between both branches.

But if the branch is a fake chain built by the attackers, they will be disproportionate —— the proportion mentioned above in the mainchain will be much less than that in the fake one, unless you have bought every account, which is impossible. Under this circumstance, the branch should never be accepted no matter how long it is. This operation is also nessesary to prevent some group of users from getting extra advantage by unfair means when forks come.

By the way, the situation you have mentioned:"any syncing node querying at random will find his fake nodes with fake history" could be resolved by controling the p2p links——
Quote
each node only needs to build connection with a certain number of nodes with the fastest response speed.

The attacker needs to try through a lot of past blocks so that the longer range he seeks, the better chance he would success. But the longer range he starts the fork, the more obvious the disproportion will be. I think that might increase the difficulty you launch an attack, after all you gain those private keys by "buying".
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!