Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2021, 05:02:36 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 ... 200 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement  (Read 381231 times)
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 21, 2015, 01:58:17 PM
 #1781

What you want is not "decentralization", it is "federation". You trust a number of servers, but each individual chooses the set of servers they trust. Email is federated. It is not a centralized system and there are multiple domains and anyone can run their own email server if they want to and do not want to use a third party domain.

Incorrect.

fed·er·a·tion
ˌfedəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs.

the action of forming states or organizations into a single group with centralized control.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
1635094956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635094956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635094956
Reply with quote  #2

1635094956
Report to moderator
1635094956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635094956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635094956
Reply with quote  #2

1635094956
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1635094956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635094956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635094956
Reply with quote  #2

1635094956
Report to moderator
1635094956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635094956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635094956
Reply with quote  #2

1635094956
Report to moderator
1635094956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635094956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1635094956
Reply with quote  #2

1635094956
Report to moderator
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 21, 2015, 11:40:58 PM
 #1782

Summary of my opinion follows.

I just want to save you (or myself) time. I'd rather get directly to what can work.

IMO, your consensus algorithm is a lower priority because collective consensus is not provably decentralized (and I don't think you've proved it yet and I am very skeptical that collective consensus of humans can be decentralized because afaics it is incongruent with nature and our big brains). Your worthwhile experiment could be a competing currency but IMO it is not the high priority structure we need first to put in place.

If any highly talented programmers, cryptographers, and/or mathematicians wants to help me implement the paradigm shift structure I outlined, then please PM me.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 12:20:09 AM
 #1783

The increase in technology, knowledge, productivity, machinery is constantly pushing the cost to do things down. A person could operate one lathe by hand, now a technician can operate a thousand CNC controlled lathes. Soon a technician with robots will be able to operate an infinite series of lathes and shuffle work units between lathes and CNC machines in a factory anywhere on earth, from a laptop.

A single person will be able to design a thing, have millions of pieces machined out and then assembled into a structure. The physical world will increasingly look like a game of Minecraft being played by robots. The same robot on earth that can build a castle or pyramid in an Africa desert over the internet, can build the same structure on the moon or mars, from the same laptop on the same beach.

---

The reason companies are organizing theses cartels through government, is that they are on their deathbed. The large companies are unable to achieve consistent long term profitability without a government organized cartel, subsidies and a heavy financial manipulation by the FED.

That is the bifurcation of the economy I was writing about in the Economic Devastation thread.

http://mobihealthnews.com/36874/the-evolution-of-ibms-watson-and-where-its-taking-healthcare/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/doctors-lawyers-peaking-with-2015-75-the-crash-burn/

Quote
The two fields that are peaking with this turn in the ECM appear to be law firms and the medical industry. Both has become extremely arrogant and way over-priced. The entire Obamacare was REALLY about hospitals who had to provide care for indigent people who just showed up in emergency rooms. Obamacare was all about making sure these medical-for-money corporations did not have to do anything for free. But in trying to guarantee their financial security, he has established the high.

The legal profession has committed suicide. The big firms have so over-priced themselves and pad the bills unbelievably it is outright criminal. I actually had a lawyer send me a bill [for an] attempted phone call not answer[ed]Analysis on a closer level reveals how the greed of the “Largest 50” firms has taken it toll. There has been a distinction shift in legal work from the “Largest 50” firms to the “Large Enough” category is far more dramatic. The “Large Enough” firms have almost doubled the share of high fee litigation matters that generate fees exceeding $1 million or more rising from 22% three years ago to 41%. This is contributing to lawyers being laid-off.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/comment-from-the-medical-profession/

Quote
I laughed out loud this morning reading your blog. Your blog piece about how doctors (health care in general) and lawyers are peaking with 2015.75, I believe is spot on.

Looking back at the past 10 years I have been in practice, the fortunes of my group do trace out the ECM. There was a soft landing from the bottom in March 2009… an Ice storm! Independent medical practices that are still afloat are delving into real estate and other ventures. Just look at the number of practices or any health care ventures in strip malls and retail commercial space at this time. Think back ten or 15 years ago…. how many back then? I believe this is part of the peak.

At a conference not dealing with medicine, I sat next to a hospital administrator of a small outlying facility in southwestern Pennsylvania. The projections from his association for their future is for 50% of small outlying hospitals to be closed in the next 5-10 years. (The periphery goes first!)

From a personal perspective, I appreciate very much your opening up your thoughts and teaching to the little guy. I have felt for some time that something is wrong but could not put my finger on it.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
skycoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 498
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 02:08:49 AM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 03:33:17 AM by skycoin
 #1784


Quote
Your whitepaper says roughly 2% of influential nodes can game the system.
Yep, so if of the same scale of bitcoin network(8000 nodes), it will need 150 top nodes to collude.

Your statistic counts nodes irrespective on their relative influence? I doubt it. If not, then the number of nodes could be much less if their relative influence is much higher?

I think you are obfuscating here. The point is that in Bitcoin the influence is much more concentrated in a few pools. You apparently assume the influence will be less concentrated in your algorithm, thus you claim it will take more nodes to collude.

Quote
You are asserting that there is no disincentive to not participate in aggregating influence in your algorithm. Prove it.
I believe an influential node can offer to pay those who will participate in gaming the system. Which is what PoW implicitly does.

aggreating is inevitable, that's the reason why there are top influential nodes.
actually in our test dataset, each of the most several top nodes has about 30% followees.

a node can follow MANY nodes, so the power it gives out is decentralizated.
If a node is paid to only follow exact ONE node, then the followee is highly suspicious.

Bitcoin pools are highly suspicious but nodes get paid more, so they mine there. That is the reality of life. Profit talks, ideology walks. As you pointed out, GHash could hide its influence so that the ideology surely walks and miners get on with maximizing their profit.

I don't see how it will be any different for your algorithm. The nodes will maximize their profit and the influence can hidden with Sybil attack (as it is for Ghash hiding that it is really multiple pools or what ever technique they use to create obfuscation).

>One could pool hop for reasons of wanting to spread their voting power around not for gaming the payout algorithm. There is a variance disincentive to dilute your mining shares across many pools though. But I also am not convinced your algorithm has a disincentive to not participate in aggregatingconcentrating influence.

They could concentrate influence all they want. In fact, we could give control of the network to Bank of America, the FED and Goldman Sachs and it would not matter.

They are unable to 51% attack. What is the worse they could do? The worse thing they could do, would be to black list transactions or slow down network consensus. If they abused their power, people would modify the network topology and kick them off the network.

So there is
- a set of consensus nodes and you probably dont care who runs these. Ideally should be someone you trust.
- a piece of software to ensure the consensus nodes are not fucking up. If they fuck up, it detects them and removes them and any other sane peer will automatically do the same.

If Goldman Sachs, the FED and Bank of America were running the network, they can follow the rules OR they can violate and get their asses kicked off the network. They might be able to get their transactions executed slightly faster than other people, with network control, so there might be a slight benefit. However, any brazen abuse just gets their asses kicked off the network.

That is why this system is perfect. It is perfect, not because it stops people from attacking, but because it just doesnt care.



Once consensus is secure, the most vulnerable part is the communications network. Transmission of blocks, transactions and consensus information. This is same vulnerability that can destroy Bitcoin, without even going after the miners. That is why Skywire was developed.

After communications is locked down, the most vulnerable part becomes the operating system and hardware. We are moving down the stack until its bullet proof from the software down to the bare metal.

xyzzyx
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 250


I don't really come from outer space.


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 02:16:58 AM
 #1785

In fact, we could give control of the network to Bank of America, the FED and Goldman Sachs and it would not matter.

They are unable to 51% attack. What is the worse they could do? The worse thing they could do, would be to black list transactions or slow down network consensus. If they abused their power, people would modify the network topology and kick them off the network.

So there is
- a set of consensus nodes and you probably dont care who runs these. Ideally should be someone you trust.
- a piece of software to ensure the consensus nodes are not fucking up. If they fuck up, it detects them and removes them and any other sane peer will automatically do the same.

If Goldman Sachs, the FED and Bank of America were running the network, they can follow the rules OR they can violate and get their asses kicked off the network. They might be able to get their transactions executed slightly faster than other people, with network control, so there might be a slight benefit. However, any brazen abuse just gets their asses kicked off the network.

That is why this system is perfect. It is perfect, not because it stops people from attacking, but because it just doesnt care.

This is what I find most appealing about Skycoin: forking away bad actors.  I believe that BCNext had the same idea for the Nxt system, but it relied on people too strongly.  When the opportunity to kick a bad actor off the Nxt network happened, the people who had the power to act were too stuck in the bitcoin mindset and allowed the attacker to stay on the network.  I believe this was a mistake.

I look forward to Skycoin's implementation.


"An awful lot of code is being written ... in languages that aren't very good by people who don't know what they're doing." -- Barbara Liskov
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 02:21:01 AM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 02:58:24 AM by iamback
 #1786

They could concentrate influence all they want. In fact, we could give control of the network to Bank of America, the FED and Goldman Sachs and it would not matter.

They are unable to 51% attack. What is the worse they could do? The worse thing they could do, would be to black list transactions or slow down network consensus. If they abused their power, people would modify the network topology and kick them off the network.

So there is
- a set of consensus nodes and you probably dont care who runs these. Ideally should be someone you trust.
- a piece of software to ensure the consensus nodes are not fucking up. If they fuck up, it detects them and removes them and any other sane peer will automatically do the same.

If Goldman Sachs, the FED and Bank of America were running the network, they can follow the rules OR they can violate and get their asses kicked off the network. They might be able to get their transactions executed slightly faster than other people, with network control, so there might be a slight benefit. However, any brazen abuse just gets their asses kicked off the network.

That is why this system is perfect. It is perfect, not because it stops people from attacking, but because it just doesnt care.

Proclamations and pontifications.

Experience has taught me that these evaporate because you are not omniscient.

I don't have time to dig into the details of and figure out how to game your model. Put it into the wild, then you will find out.

There is a huge difference between a few nerds messing around with (limited scope) models and research (i.e. theory) and actual real world practice.

For example, you assume above that ("sane") peers have an incentive to follow the protocol ("the software") and not game it.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
skycoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 498
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
February 22, 2015, 02:51:06 AM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 05:37:19 AM by skycoin
 #1787

What you want is not "decentralization", it is "federation". You trust a number of servers, but each individual chooses the set of servers they trust. Email is federated. It is not a centralized system and there are multiple domains and anyone can run their own email server if they want to and do not want to use a third party domain.

Incorrect.

fed·er·a·tion
ˌfedəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs.

the action of forming states or organizations into a single group with centralized control.

You Websters dictionary is obsolete. Protocol federalization has nothing to do with government federation.

Protocols can be
- centralized (single privileged entity; AIM, Facebook Chat)
- federated (choice of privileged entities; XMPP, Email)
- decentralized (no privileged peers; tox, bitmessage)

Decentralization is not always superior to federation.

- Bitorrent has decentralization at the download/swarm level, but meta-data and search (torrent file) is federated (Piratebay, Demonoid).
- Kazaa had decentralized download/swarm, but decentralized search/metadata and was inferior to bitorrent because it lacked curation
- Napster had centralized download/swarm and centralized search/metadata and so was not survivable against legal threats.

- FTP has centralized metadata and has centralized download but federated servers (federated service identity, where as napster and kazaa had centralized service identity).
- DC++ had federated service identity (Hubs instead of a single global network) with a mixture of federation, decentralization and centralization within the hub

When developing Skywire, I examined every internet and communication protocol that has existed since the beginning of human history and defined the attribute matrices on every relevant attribute pair, that defines the set of attributes of all possible protocols that do not require the creation of new protocol attribute types. My communication protocol attribute ontology is almost machine readable.

There is only a very small set of protocols used and they fall into a very small set. Storage, communication, computation and identifiers. Bitorrent is storage and communication. Email is communication.  Ethereum has aspects of storage and computation.

There is a rough, undefined category for "transaction" where data is distributed across multiple points and you need to know if you have the latest data and to control access and modification of data where there are multiple conflicting writes. Bitcoin, NoSql, Paxos, all database and distributed systems are primitive, complicated and barely working attempts at a solution to this problem. The problem of Bitcoin and avoiding double spending, is the same problem as determining if another database node has written over a piece of data and determining if you have the latest version. It is the same problem.

You can build databases on Bitcoin like systems, where the transactions operate on the state of the database. They are functions that map the database from its existing state to a new state. Centralized ledgers slow it down and destroy advantages of decentralization so you get rid of that and each node only had local information or a subset of the data on the network.

All of these protocols are just part of or implementations of a more general abstract, mathematical system. There is a lisp or mathematical kernel for distributed computing. Bitcoin and NoSql was just a stepping stone, a dissatisfaction with the existing technology, moving us towards a more perfect system with greater power and elegance and less complexity.

There are several systems moving in that direction
- Skycoin
- Urbit
- Ver (programs and data as hashes)
- Docker, CoreOS (containization)
- Ara (granularity, modularity, fungibility at the physical hardware level)
- Etheurem (ledger+computation as a service)
- Cloud computing (computation as a service)
- StoreJ, Dropbox (storage as a service)
- Skywire (communication as a service)
- NoSql distributed database based databases based upon Bitcoin, but without a global blockchain. Transactions become atomic operations on the state of the database. Double-spending becomes resolving two writes to the same people of data by two different nodes in the distributed system.

All of these systems will be unified. I can already see that. There is no natural border between the technology stacks. Everything that exists will be replaced. However, there is no way to make money on this as a corporation trying to own the stack, anymore than Microsoft can monetize people open files and saving them to disc. People will make a ridiculous amount of money in this ecosystem, but it wont be on a feudal corporate model, like we are seeing with Bitcoin today (Coinbase, Bitpay, ...).The infrastructure will be open source and most of money will be going to the service operators.

> decentralized consensus is impossible

And yes, you are correct. "decentralized consensus" is impossible. You can prove it mathematically. There is no way to do it that is no sybil attack proof or resource intensive. Federation is superior than decentralization for a secure protocol, for the simple fact that a secure decentralized protocol that is not resource intensive is mathematically impossible. If you relax the requirement for global consensus then this might not be true anymore, but for Bitcoin like currencies with a global ledger it is a mathematical certainty that no such algorithm exists.

PoS is a type of federation, where consensus is delegated according to ownership stakes of the assets being transacted on the ledger consensus is being performed on. PoS still has the same communication attack service vulnerabilities as Bitcoin.

Four years ago, we started with an attempt at ad-hoc consensus protocols, similar to Ripple. That failed. Then we tried to enumerate the set of all possible consensus protocols by defining the attributes of consensus protocols. Then we eliminated broad classes of protocols that could be proven to not meet requirements (resource intensive or subject to sybil attack). The result is a very small set and with a choice of attributes, that does not give you much choice. You end up with Skycoin type consensus no matter what you do, the only difference to me appears to be implementation details like using directed vs non-directed graphs and other details.

If you remove the requirement for global consensus and a global ledger, then you end up with more options and I believe this is direction that consensus research will move. If you choose global consensus with a global ledger and do not want sybil attacks or resource intensity, then you only have the choice of Skycoin type consensus or securing the asset against something else (PoS or sidechains on another digital asset).

You can also show that Bitcoin type digital assets systems are in insecure, unless information about the global and local state of the communications network they are running on is available. The local and global convergence of the consensus process, critically depends on the communication process between the nodes. The linguistic pragmatics of information about consensus, depends upon the communication process itself and the state of the network over which that communication process occurs. For instance a Bitcoin node has no way of knowing if there blocks on longer chains than their current head. It has no way of knowing that it is not captured in a sub-network that completely controls communication into and out of the node and which controls and manipulates its view of the network. Skywire was developed to solve that issue.

iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 03:21:11 AM
Last edit: February 22, 2015, 10:58:03 AM by iamback
 #1788

You Websters dictionary is obsolete. Protocol federalization has nothing to do with government federation.

Protocols can be
- centralized (single privileged entity; AIM, Facebook Chat)
- federated (choice of privileged entities; XMPP, Email)
- decentralized (no privileged peers; tox, bitmessage)

That taxonomy seems to be illogical or you've misapplied it to my proposal.

What I proposed is to have a plurality of independent entities competing, none of which are forced to follow the same protocol. They are completely independent currencies. The only suggestion is they each provide a way to track orthogonal units-of-account.

Thus I proposed decentralization. Your above taxonomy claims that a single protocol with in theory no priviledged peers is decentralized, but in fact this is centralization! That has been my point against Bitcoin since I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

For me federation requires a centralized protocol, which is what the standard definition implies.

Decentralization is not always superior to federation.

- Bitorrent has decentralization at the download/swarm level, but meta-data and search (torrent file) is federated (Piratebay, Demonoid).
- Kazaa had decentralized download/swarm, but decentralized search/metadata and was inferior to bitorrent because it lacked curation
- Napster had centralized download/swarm and centralized search/metadata and so was not survivable against legal threats.

- FTP has centralized metadata and has centralized download but federated servers (federated service identity, where as napster and kazaa had centralized service identity).
- DC++ had federated service identity (Hubs instead of a single global network) with a mixture of federation, decentralization and centralization within the hub

Indeed. Some of us have gone down this rabbit hole and realize that a single protocol can not be fully decentralized. There will always be an attack vector. Nature does not do decentralization that way. We can't design the perfect protocol. Nature instead decentralizes by having a plurality of competing choices (i.e. creative destruction). I am repeating myself.

Are you starting to come to my perspective?

When developing Skywire, I examined every internet and communication protocol that has existed since the beginning of human history and defined the set of Garner 2x2 and attribute matrices on every relevant attribute pair, that defines the set of attributes of all possible protocols that do not require the creation of new protocol attribute types. My communication protocol attribute ontology is almost machine readable.

I am impressed. You have more patience and are more erudite than I am. That would be typical for an Asian vs. Westerner. Also for someone younger with more energy and a long career ahead. I am very impatient now.

But I can cut through a lot of needless (or let's say needed, but lower-level) work and get directly to the end goal. Paradigm shift it. This is the strength of a Westerner (older generation). "Just Do It". See the market as more important than the technobabble. Etc.

And yes, you are correct. "decentralized consensus" is impossible. You can prove it mathematically. There is no way to do it that is no sybil attack proof or resource intensive. Federation is superior than decentralization for a secure protocol, for the simple fact that a secure decentralized protocol that is not resource intensive is mathematically impossible. If you relax the requirement for global consensus then this might not be true anymore, but for Bitcoin like currencies with a global ledger it is a mathematical certainty that no such algorithm exists.

Bingo! Exactly. Your consensus algorithm will be competing against something like a hidden centralized server in my idea. And can you match ALL the desired attributes? I think impossible mathematically.

However, we might find something your algorithm can do better than a centralized hidden server. Maybe it is decentralized trust? (but that has to be proven out and the market has to decide if it is important) My proposal for competing currencies gives you that platform within which to compete.

If you remove the requirement for global consensus and a global ledger, then you end up with more options and I believe this is direction that consensus research will move. If you choose global consensus with a global ledger and do not want sybil attacks or resource intensity, then you only have the choice of Skycoin type consensus or securing the asset against something else (PoS or sidechains on another digital asset).

That is why I am advocating we create the secure communications platform first, since it is the common denominator to heading that direction. And we can leverage that communications platform to get adoption (would need to detail that in private because we can't get traction if we open source everything at or before the launch and everybody is copying us before we can gain some inertia).

The secure communications platform is a closer to a guaranteed winner. It is needed. Whereas, your consensus algorithm has to be evaluated by the market. The market may have different priorities, i.e. faster transactions or may not trust your model.

Are we starting to converge our perspective?

You can also show that Bitcoin type digital assets systems are in insecure, unless information about the global and local state of the communications network they are running on is available. The local and global convergence of the consensus process, critically depends on the communication process between the nodes.

Absolutely. And there will ALWAYS be tradeoffs, because the speed-of-light is not infinite (if it was we wouldn't exist). That is why we need competing currencies, so the market can decide which tradeoffs it wants and in which proportions.

The linguistic pragmatics of information about consensus, depends upon the communication process itself and the state of the network over which that communication process occurs. For instance a Bitcoin node has no way of knowing if there blocks on longer chains than their current head. It has no way of knowing that it is not captured in a sub-network that completely controls communication into and out of the node and which controls and manipulates its view of the network. Skywire was developed to solve that issue.

You are delving into details. I want to stay more high level for now. Details are for the competing currencies to prove out. I am more interested in developing the platform first. I want to enable others.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 04:04:39 AM
 #1789

I had just started to dip my toe into P2P in 2008:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=28#p168

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
chompyZ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 291
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 22, 2015, 11:41:26 AM
 #1790

Hello OP,

In a public chat we had, you wrote me:

Quote from: skycoin
so there is question about how to get group to pursue common goals or easiest thing is for someone to say they will do something, then people who benefit from it, to pay them or throw in money from a pool; so you have some kind of manager allocating funds and overseeing projects and then money going into the pool.
so these are like taxes; from the meshnet operation, from darknet traffic forwarding, i want to automatically, by default move 5% or 10% of the revenue of the node operators into one of those funds.
i tried to do completely decentralized funding models before, but couldn't; so do centralized, use that to bootstrap and go from top-down funding , to community directed or distributed funding.
...
the options are 1> one person one vote 2> property owners vote (people operating nodes etc) 3> proportional to coin ownership (PoS weigted voting)  . It turns out that people with a lot of money are not more informed or better than others either and it creates upward concentration of power/wealth in long run, compared to the node operators, I think

I'd like to propose a 4th option, as follows:

tl:dr – 98% of the genesis coins held by OP and released annually for project development [as you originally proposed] + transaction fees collection distributed as lottery for a flatting the wealth distribution (i.e. lower Gini coefficient) + [later[ network tax distributed among those contributing network resources

Problems to solve:
=============
1. What consensus model should be used for managing and allocating funds to propel projects that develop a public good or interest in the most efficient manner.
2. How to provide wealth opportunities to late-comers at the expense of 'rich becoming richer'.

Solution to #1:
===========
Basically, we can allocate project development funds based on -

1. OP decides
2. OP tries to reach community consent
3. Community autonomously tries to reach consensus
What makes fiat currency useful and intrinsically valuable is the fact people are obligated to use them by law. In Skycoin's case, people are not 'obligated' to use them, and they can practically fork the project and initiate Skycoin'. Therefore, I see no contradiction between #1 OP decides, and #2  OP tries to reach community consent, because if OP decides against consent, community members will abandon ship and coins will loose their value.
OTOH, creating a voting mechanism on what projects to fund, when, by how much, and who/how the funds are transferred in a trustless manner is a complete DAO system that is not available at this time.
I therefore humbly suggest that OP retains hold of the minted coins that are geared to development projects, and allocates them based on a predetermined interval of coins/year.


Solution to #2:
===========
The classic POS model disturbs me because wealth is not evenly distributed from the start. This leaves very little incentives if any to contribute to the network, because closed wallets (in classic POS) do not earn anything, while open-wallets earn as little as they stake (i.e. rich become richer).

OP's vision looks as far as the horizon when skywire will be implemented, thus people will be inputing “real” “valuable” resources to the public good, namely storage space, routing, bandwidth, CPU, gateways, etc. Users will pay a network tax that will be split among these service contributors.

Nonetheless, we again reach the point where those with more resources can gain more resources, whereas 'late-comers' and 'orphans', will always remain the poor layer of users.

My suggestion is to shuffle this a bit in the following manner:
Transaction fees of every X blocks will be sent to a pool, from which it will be released some time in the future to a random address that has >X skycoins.
In Bitcoin protocol, the miner that gets the block reward is the one that finds the transactions+nonce hashcach result = a hashcash that starts with an X number of zeros -00000000000

For Skycoin, we can allocate the winner of this pool in a somewhat similar way. But instead of POW, I suggest we use the different 'transaction id' of each transaction as the base for determining the future winner of this daily “prize”.
If for example the pool selected Tranx-ID = 12345678xxxxxx, and at some time in the future userX makes a transaction with a Tranx-ID = 12345678zzzzzzz from his wallet, then he is allocated the pool prize. A timelock with a condition.

Furthermore, I suggest that 'transaction fees' will not be flat as in bitcoin, but as a % or the transaction. In POW this makes small transactions problematic as miners will not include them, but in Skycoin it should not be a problem. The gain is that 'richer' pay more transaction fee/tax that is then redistributed to the poorer population.
 
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 07:08:57 AM
 #1791

Reposted as edited (again, I apparently have prodigious memory and can seem to vaguely remember key phases in 100s of Armstrong's posts, see added footnote with the aid of my external memory a.k.a. Google)...

chompZ, you are trying to top-down decide "the one right way" but there isn't one right way unless the bottom-up free market decides that. The best is multiple competing currencies. The free market anneals.

I am entirely against this socialism of letting people vote. Leadership by consensus is either chaos (or leadership by lies appeasing to what people want to hear, i.e. politics) and very inefficient. Actually benevolent leaders have been[1] the saviors of society. I'd like to see competition and choice between competent leaders leading a plurality of currency choices.

And yes we are headed into a shit storm and need to get focused on the priorities that make the most significant impact against what we are facing within a year. Consensus algorithms are not the highest priority near-term need. The major need is anonymity of the communication network. We don't have that on the internet and we REALLY NEED IT BADLY.

Transactions fees are not desirable (try to compete against a currency that doesn't have them), except as necessary to prevent spamming the tx network. But I have an idea for a solution that eliminates tx fees and solves the spam issue.

[1] http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/05/19/china-bubble-or-breakout/

Quote
The ONLY form of government that seems to work is the benevolent dictator. But that is rare. Give people power and they all go nuts no matter what form of government. So the people can yearn for democracy, but it will be no better.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/22/rising-tide-of-civil-unrest-2/

Quote
These Marxist governments that mascaraed as Democracies cannot see that they are killing the future. They are merely the same corrupt Republics that compelled Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon. The governments infested with lawyer-bureaucrats are writing laws contrary to human nature and then prosecute anyone who dares to try to defend themselves. Government then fights the shadows in their mind fearing their loss of power like a cornered rat.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
skycoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 498
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2016, 10:47:38 AM by skycoin
 #1792

IPO START

Chinese new year is done. I think everyone is back from vacation now. So we can start IPO.

IPO Instructions:

Install Bitmessage:

Send message to: BM-2cU8XJp3GPVQG75ZwMjiyzdDEa9eD4B7iM

with

===
{
   contact: "bitcointalks: username, github:username, email:user@domain.com",
  
   bitcoin_addr: "bitcoin_address",
   skycoin_addr: "skycoin address or seed",
   coins_requested: "1000"
}
===

Then you can put note or any text below that. You can put anything in the name field. You can leave it empty. You can put email, bitmessage or bitcointalks username.

example "github:myaccount, twitter:myaccount"

This is for contacting you if there is a problem.

The bitcoin_addr, should be an address that goes to your wallet. This is for returning bitcoins if there is a problem with the IPO. This is where bitcoin will be sent back to if there is a problem.

skycoin_addr is a skycoin address. If you put in a string like "9f86d081884c7d659a2feaa0c55ad015a3bf4f1b2b0b822cd15d6c15b0f00a08". Then that will be the deterministic key for generating the wallet. Otherwise we will send them to skycoin address given. Make sure you write this down! Only use ASCII characters.For security if you give us a seed, we are converting it to a wallet address and nuking the passphrase, so the private key cannot be recovered in future.

coins_requested is number of skycoin your are asking for.
- We will send test coins to make sure you receiving address works. Do not send Bitcoin unless you have confirmed address works
- We will try to run web-server so you can see balances
- The IPO price will be 0.10 USD per Skycoin, at a fixed Bitcoin price of 240 USD/BTC. So 2400 SKY per BTC.
- We will start with 1 million SKY (1% of total) and then release more over time (between 2% and 10%), once we are sure everything is working.

You will receive a receipt in the form of

===
{
  bitcoin_send_address:"<bitcoin_addr>
  bitcoin_amount": <number>

  bitcoin_return_address:"<bitcoin_addr>,
  skycoin_addr:"<skycoin_addr>,
  skycoin_amount: "<number>",
}
===
{
  hash: "<hash of receipt>,
  pubkey: "03f13f397a0a8d8840525c1b5c70eb21c8d49acb63cfa0d7225e57075ff4ec9e8a",
  signature: "<signature>.
}
===

The receipt tells you where to send the Bitcoin. SAVE THE RECEIPT. If there is a problem, you can publish the receipt and any third party can verify that we we sent the coins and can publicly verify how many skycoin were sent to the address, how many bitcoin were sent and returned. Anyone can validate the signature to know that it came from our server.

IPO Tranches

2% of coins (2 million SKY, out of 100 million SKY. ~800 BTC ) will be sold on a first come first serve basis through Bitmessage.

1% of coins (1 million SKY, out of 100 million SKY. ~400 BTC) will be reserved at the IPO price for pool of Bitcoin usernames who have posted on this thread before this post.
- If there are 1000 users who posted to thread then, each account will be eligible to buy up to 1000 SKY each at IPO price
- window will be ~3 months

We will pay someone on odesk to scrape the forum, grab user names on this thread, put them into spreadsheet, generate code/coupon for each user. Then they message us for coupon, or we can send out the coupons en-mass.

Trading Bot:

Skycoin wallets can now generate Bitcoin addresses. This means that we can have a BTC/SKY tox trading bot
- the bot will not hold any long term coin balances, but the coins will stay in your wallet instead of being stored on a remote server until they are stolen
- this bot may be illegal for you to use if you live in New York. You should apply for Bitlicense approval, hire a lawyer and contact your politician before using any exchange service. Only Coinbase coins are legal coins. We are not responsible for government seizure of illegal coins that have not been registered with government. This is direction the wind blows
- exchange service will be run by trusted third party who meets security requirements
- Bots for LTC and Doge and other other secp256k1 coins can be added later
- Bot will be open source

With Skycoin we want to move away from central exchanges and thefts and move the private keys to the user's computer. Exchanges can be useful for buying/selling, but they should not be holding long term balances.

This bot is the first step towards a distributed exchange architecture and towards distributed systems for smoothing price volatility.

Generating Addresses

Generating Skycoin Addresses:



Generating Bitcoin Addresses, add -b to command line



We want a linux environment that windows users can just double click and run Skycoin from source. That does not exist yet, but something we will work towards. Usermode linux is coming close. This would also create an isolated virtual machine, that prevents people from stealing coins or bitcoin wallets outside of the virtual machine.

IPO technical note: State of Computing in 2015

We tried to use TOX. Had problems with NaCl library missing from debian, so toxcore would not work within docker container in VM. Spent six hours on this. Not spending more time on it.  Bitmessage was under attack with 10 GB/s spam attack last time and was not working. Bitmessage appears to be working again, so we will use that.

We had difficulty syncing Bitmessage and the network may be under attack. If Bitmessage is not working, then we will need to find another communication method. Based on our experience, every system for secure communication that exists is being actively targeted for disruption of service.

Software barely works in 2015. Key crypto packages like NaCl and toxcore have had deb packages for a year but are still not in debian and do not have alternative repositories. Golang dependency and path management is nowhere as easy or reproducible as it is in python right now. Debian packages do not have deterministic builds, so we cannot be assured there are not back doors in the package binaries that are not present in the source.

The state of computer security right now is very bad. This is a bug in PHP. If you send a server a timestamp or date field, it parses it and takes over the server. Or allows private keys to be read out.
- https://github.com/80vul/phpcodz/blob/master/research/pch-020.md

This bug was released yesterday. This is very similar to the types of exploits that would be used to attack Silk Road and identify the services. There are hundreds of bugs like this. Some of them are intentional. Many of these exploits are in the wild for a decade before they are found. These bugs allow bitcoin exchanges and servers running websites like Silk Road to be hacked.

Skycoin is using Golang instead of PHP (MtGox) or C++ (like Bitcoin), so we can guarantee that there are no buffer overflows that will allow computer to be hijacked from the Skycoin client (unlike Bitcoin). At best, an attacker will be able to crash the Skycoin client.

There is no guarantee that there is not an unknown exploit in the Bitcoin client or library dependencies that would allow remote hijacking of the client and theft of Bitcoin from all active Bitcoin clients. The recent vulnerability in the glibc library that allows remote code execution from DNS resolutions, that escaped all protections on remote code execution is evidence that all the standard libraries are backdoored (intentionally or unintentionally) and that achieving security will require fundamental changes to toolchains, compilers and operating systems and not just the patching of individual exploits.

The vulnerabilities found, just in glibc are very worrying.
- http://www.intelligentexploit.com/search-results.html?search=GLib

Bitcoin uses OpenSSL which has daily security exploits. Skycoin has its own cryptography library that wraps a small C library by sipa. The Skycoin cryptography library is on the 3rd generation and the 4th generation library has been commissioned. For 4th generation we want to get cryptography completely into Golang  for cross compilation and have a common cryptography core across all the major coins (Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Skycoin). The 5th generation will focus on native support for open source key storage and signing devices.

In Bitcoin the node and the wallet are a single piece of software that cannot be separated out. If the node is successfully attacked over the network, then the wallet private keys will be gone and all coins will be lost. In Skycoin, the node is designed to be separated out and communicate with the node over a JSON interface fire-walling the public network from private key storage.

We cant protect against web-browsers, Java or security vulnerabilities in the operating system. There was recently an exploit in firefox, that would allow your computer to be hijacked through javascript. You merely needed to click a link and a buffer overflow exploit was triggered in an XML parsing library that Firefox used as a dependency.

Skycoin uses a web-browser (local web-client). By default Google Chome saves everything you type into fields and sends it to a remote server to be saved (form autocomplete). So we had to package our own version of Chrome and V8 into the Skycoin repo. This is working, but is only so-so. That is what the ./gui.sh script is.

I think in future will we will see private contracts that do 90% of NSA hacking, looting random computers for coins with the thousand upon thousands of security vulnerabilities. They will do this just because it makes money. As coin adaption increases and becomes serious money, the level of hacking will accelerate beyond anything we have seen before. The attacks we have seen so far are amateur level.

Fixing every bug in every piece of software used is impossible. The best we can do is
- standardizing a subset of LLVM IR as a CIL and achieving platform independent deterministic builds at the compilation unit
- compilers that enforce memory safety  (to rule out buffer read overruns and remote code execution attacks)
- CPU architectures and compilers that enforce memory safety
- compartmentalizing the applications
- funding low cost open source hardware wallets and doing computations on external CPUs connected over USB
- ARA like hardware and standardization of hardware specifications to achieve security.
- pushing as much of kernel and standards library into user space as possible.
- pushing the network, graphics and sound stack into user space
- pushing POSIX and the gnu standard library into user space. See: http://www.intelligentexploit.com/search-results.html?search=GLib

CoreOS, Docker and LLVM are bringing us much closer to these goals. We will not need to implement everything from scratch. It will however be a very expensive process, taking years. We are realistically look at a cost $4 to $15 million dollars over five years and seven dozen small, high intensity six month projects that can be completely by one to three developers.

This is an open-source computer on a USB thumb stick. USB Armory. 800 Mhz Arm processor, 512 MB of ram



https://www.crowdsupply.com/inverse-path/usb-armory

We may be able to get this down to $10 and then move all the cryptographic and key storage operations to this. Locking down the coins and making cryptocoins safe for average user will be a long journey.

Research Note

I do not want to announce anything prematurely, but it may be possible to use VerSum to lock out 51% attacks completely at overkill level. http://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/vandenhooff-versum.pdf

Previously we had designed a check pointing system and it appeared to not introduce any edge cases that were exploitable. Instead of doing distributed checkpoints on the program state every few hours or ten thousand blocks, this pushes the check points down to incremental block by block level.

This means some hashes we were intending to put in the block header are redundant and should be pushed to the block wrapper. There are several possible uses for VerSum type block by block incremental checkpoints.

Skycoin recovers from an attack on the network by identification of the attacking nodes and users collectively kicking them off or marginalizing the influence of the attacking nodes. The kicking of bad nodes off the network can be done by hand or it can be automated if it can be done safety. This incremental checkpointing system even if it is not used to prevent attacks that would revert previously executed transactions, may be useful for automatically identifying the bad nodes.

This has to be worked through very carefully to ensure that it would not introduce any edge cases, so will be something we look at for the second generation consensus algorithm implementation. I dont think there is time to fit into this iteration.

I think the existing Skycoin consensus design is 51% attack proof, because the number of nodes required for performing the attack is much larger than the number of mining pools that need to collude and if it occurred, the chain would just fork and run both chains until they were pruned by hand and the bad nodes are kicked off by hand. So it is not clear what the economic incentive for a 51% attack in Skycoin, or why anyone would attempt it. Its more annoying than anything else.

The most important property is that the network quickly recovers and survives. In Bitcoin if someone attacks the network once, they still have enough hashing power to repeatedly attack the network over and over and over again. In Skycoin, the attacker spends a large amount of time building up the trust relationships, then they attack (which may succeed or may fail) then they get their ass kicked off network.

The number of nodes that need to collude to successfully attack is at least the top 2% of the nodes (absolute worst case). With 10,000 nodes in the network, that means 200 people need to collude to merely attempt an attack. In Bitcoin, only the top two or three mining pools need to collude to attack the network.

In Skycoin, even if they succeed in attacking the network, one approach merely forks the network into two concurrent branches and it is resolved by hand, by individual node operators. Attackers branch just gets pruned. This is one technique we are evaluating for second generation Skycoin consensus. The network should never get to the point where this needs to be used.

The ability to survive the very worst attack and keep the ledger running, is very important. We call this "survivability". In Bitcoin a successful attack, would send price down and mining equipment would be shutoff and the next attack would require even less hashing power. So a 51% attack could be a death spiral for Bitcoin, like it has been for other altcoins based upon Bitcoin. In Skycoin the network security does not depend on the coin price and the network quickly continues operation after an attack that would destroy any existing PoW coin.

The second generation Skycoin consensus implementation will not be a change to the consensus algorithm itself, but automating the detection of bad node behavior and trust revocation, to marginalize the bad nodes automatically. I can see a use for the continuous distributed check-pointing system for this purpose. What is also interesting, is that some of these defense and detection systems are independent and can be layered on top of each other.

If the continuous check pointing system works, the number of nodes for a secure network could be reduced to 10 or 15 for an open network that anyone can join. For a closed network, for a central bank running a private ledger on secure hardware we think 3 to 5 nodes in a fully connected topology is sufficient for a secure network, with a sufficient level of redundancy.

Consensus/Ledger Topologies: bank control vs public control

There are different topologies and they have different use cases and security concerns
- single server, with no replication (centralized, SQL database)
- master server, with peer-to-peer slave replication (where we are now)
- peer-to-peer consensus in closed network, with peer-to-peer slave replication (central bank, bank running assets on a private ledger for internal or for customer use. Ripple. Skycoin ledger running on closed network)
- peer-to-peer consensus in open network, with peer-to-peer replication (Bitcoin, where we will be at version 1.0)

The danger is that if we dont solve the last problem, that we will have Bitcoin like systems, but they will be controlled by the banks and not the public. The third topology is a special case of the forth and the security problems are easier. If we have last problem solved, then we we end up with a hybrid system inter-operable of closed an open consensus networks on the same code base.

If the solutions are only extended to the third case, then the banks control the ledgers and can still impose transactions fees as gate keepers and can still charge merchants chargeback fees involuntarily and can still add involuntary debits and fees to customer accounts, such as overdraft fees. That is where the industry is being herded right now and why the consensus problem in open networks needs to be solved. Bitcoin in its current form will be obsolete as soon as those systems are in place, but the system will have been recentralized with banks as the gate keeper.

You might have a banks with ten branches and they each branch runs two servers and all the servers on are a closed consensus network and use the ledger for clearing between the branches and for customers to move digitized assets. So you have a network where there are twenty computers (bank computers) that can create new blocks and determine network consensus. All blocks and transactions are replicated peer-to-peer and there may be 200 computers, but most of them are slaves that replicate transactions/blocks over same system and network and have same internals but are not influencing the network consensus at all.

There are hybrid topologies between the full crypto with peer-to-peer replication and the legacy SQL finantial ledgers. For instance, where the block introduction servers are "closed" and there might be five servers and one of them is a master and there is paxos for fall over and leadership election, but the blockchain/ledger is also replicated peer-to-peer to nodes outside of the closed network (slaves instances, maybe on customer premise).

Then there are fully peer-to-peer systems like Open Transactions, that do not have a central ledger or need replication. We believe that the Bitcoin triple entry accounting has won and that the SQL-master-slave double entry model will die out in mainstream use.

So Skycoin is only concerned with that case. It is also the most difficult case. The Bitlicense requirements put heavy tolls on the decentralized variants like Bitcoin, while exempting gift cards and all use of blockchain technology outside of the walled garden. So blockchain traded gift cards will be completely unregulated, blockchain traded bank products with be completely unregulated, but Bitcoin and other coins will be completely locked down. Coinbase will be required by law to seize coins that are "tainted" because they were sent from an address not registered under the KYC standards.

This is really a question about whether we end up with the Bitcoin technology in a walled garden, with gate keepers or whether it remains decentralized.

50cent_rapper
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 23, 2015, 03:12:42 PM
 #1793

IPO START
- The IPO price will be 0.10 USD per Skycoin, at a fixed Bitcoin price of 240 USD/BTC. So 2400 SKY per BTC.
- We will start with 1 million SKY (1% of total) and then release more over time (between 2% and 10%), once we are sure everything is working.

"A business with terrific economics can be a bad investment if the price paid is excessive." W.Buffett.

Skycoin is superb technology, but it's a terrible investment.
illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1003


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 04:02:42 PM
 #1794

skycoin_addr is a skycoin address. If you put in a string like "9f86d081884c7d659a2feaa0c55ad015a3bf4f1b2b0b822cd15d6c15b0f00a08". Then that will be the deterministic key for generating the wallet. Otherwise we will send them to skycoin address given. Make sure you write this down! Only use ASCII characters.For security if you give us a seed, we are converting it to a wallet address and nuking the passphrase, so the private key cannot be recovered in future.

Sorry to bother you with stupid questions, as I understand this first IPO is for those who understand how the stuff works, but is the deterministic key similar to NXT, where I just need that one key/password/seed and that's all I need to backup? I can just write that one password down, and then download the client/wallet on another computer and enter the password, and everything works again?
Wexlike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1462
Merit: 1060



View Profile
February 23, 2015, 08:21:36 PM
 #1795

The initial IPO price would put this coin to #10 on coinmarketcap.com

Looks a bit overpriced for magic out of thin air.

Nevertheless the technology sounds great.
Momimaus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 767
Merit: 500

Never back down !!!


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 08:22:19 PM
 #1796

The button for loading deterministic wallets from seed is now in interface. I need to switch the wallet generator to the deterministic wallet and confirm now.



The wallet backend needs to be refactored, but can happen later.

Wallets have an id field, a name field,filename and a seed. This should probably been "filename" as id. The name field should be renamed "notes" or removed. The json storage format needs to be improved later. Just general cleanup in future.

When the wallet format changes, you need to go into ".skycoin/wallet" and move the folder. Then open the wallets with a text editor and extract the seed. Then run client and reimport it.

I did this, and I have a skycoin address now. But I can´t see my privat key, and I can´t secure it with a password.
Am I doing this right?


CoinTracking.info - Your personal Profit / Loss Portfolio Monitor and Tax Tool for all Digital Coins
CoinTracking is analyzing all your trades and generates in real time tons of useful information such as the profit / loss of your trades, your balances, realized and unrealized gains, reports for tax declaration and many more. For Bitcoin and over 3000 altcoins, assets and commodities.
Get 10% discount for all packages or create your own affiliate link to get 20% for every sale.
13Darko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 621
Merit: 507


Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol


View Profile
February 23, 2015, 09:22:37 PM
 #1797

I sent 3 messages to the address provided. 4 hours have passed since the 1st one, but I haven't received anything so far.


               ▄████████▄
               ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
              ██▀
             ███
▄▄▄▄▄       ███
██████     ███
    ▀██▄  ▄██
     ▀██▄▄██▀
       ████▀
        ▀█▀
The Radix DeFi Protocol is
R A D I X

███████████████████████████████████

The Decentralized

Finance Protocol
Scalable
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██                   ██
██                   ██
████████████████     ██
██            ██     ██
██            ██     ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██     ██
██▀▀▀▀██      ██     ██
██    ██      ██     
██    ██      ██
███████████████████████

███
Secure
      ▄▄▄▄▄
    █████████
   ██▀     ▀██
  ███       ███

▄▄███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██    ███████████

███
Community Driven
      ▄█   ▄▄
      ██ ██████▄▄
      ▀▀▄█▀   ▀▀██▄
     ▄▄ ██       ▀███▄▄██
    ██ ██▀          ▀▀██▀
    ██ ██▄            ██
   ██ ██████▄▄       ██▀
  ▄██       ▀██▄     ██
  ██▀         ▀███▄▄██▀
 ▄██             ▀▀▀▀
 ██▀
▄██
▄▄
██
███▄
▀███▄
 ▀███▄
  ▀████
    ████
     ████▄
      ▀███▄
       ▀███▄
        ▀████
          ███
           ██
           ▀▀

███
Radix is using our significant technology
innovations to be the first layer 1 protocol
specifically built to serve the rapidly growing DeFi.
Radix is the future of DeFi
█████████████████████████████████████

   ▄▄█████
  ▄████▀▀▀
  █████
█████████▀
▀▀█████▀▀
  ████
  ████
  ████

Facebook

███

             ▄▄
       ▄▄▄█████
  ▄▄▄███▀▀▄███
▀▀███▀ ▄██████
    █ ███████
     ██▀▀▀███
           ▀▀

Telegram

███

▄      ▄███▄▄
██▄▄▄ ██████▀
████████████
 ██████████▀
   ███████▀
 ▄█████▀▀

Twitter

██████

...Get Tokens...
iamback
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 24, 2015, 12:07:11 AM
 #1798

- exchange service will be run by trusted third party who meets security requirements

How can you meet security requirements when there is no secure communication channel on the internet which can obfuscate the IP addresses of the communicating parties?

Except maybe Bitmessage?

We tried to use TOX.

I can't readily find any mention about TOX using high-latency onion routing nor Bitmessage-like PIR (everyone sees everything) in order to obfuscate the IP address of the sender and recipient. Does TOX do this?

Tor is low-latency (with very few onion hops), arguably a honeypot, and thus can not be fully trusted.

Based on our experience, every system for secure communication that exists is being actively targeted for disruption of service.

Bitmessage finally (after several weeks of my posts in their forum) implemented a variant of my suggestion to mitigate the spam.

But PIR is not a scalable design. We really need the high-latency onion layer network with paid nodes, so we can resolve Tor's vulnerabilities. Also we need to use several layers of encryption including quantum proof such as  McEliece, because if everything is being recorded then eventually our prior anonymity will be cracked ex post facto (and that means jail time for participants later in life).

Debian packages do not have deterministic builds, so we cannot be assured there are not back doors in the package binaries that are not present in the source.

Deterministic builds are not sufficient to guarantee there are no back doors, instead you need to compile the compilers yourself using multiple compilers to compile the compilers with (and even that doesn't provide an absolute guarantee).

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/countering_trus.html

https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/deterministic-builds

The state of computer security right now is very bad.

We can't possibly fix this every where within even a year or two.

What we can do is build a more secure network communication as a first line of defense that is needed by everyone. Then we can pick up next in line priorities that apply to the widest swath of software that would be motivated about security.

You can not possibly get any traction if you need to perfect the universe first.

Skycoin is using Golang instead of PHP (MtGox) or C++ (like Bitcoin), so we can guarantee that there are no buffer overflows that will allow computer to be hijacked from the Skycoin client (unlike Bitcoin). At best, an attacker will be able to crash the Skycoin client.

When I looked at it, Golang had afair fundamental design flaws with expression of higher level semantics, and vulnerabilities also creep in semantically.

You seem to be trying to perfect the world from the bottom up, instead of trying to strategize around priorities.

You appear to need a strategist.

... achieving security will require fundamental changes to toolchains, compilers and operating systems and not just the patching of individual exploits.

How are we going to write our own languages, compilers, and toolchains if we don't first create a $billion market cap so we have the funds to do this?

If you go raise $1-5 million in an IPO, you will quickly burn through that and it will not be sufficient. Plus you will try to do too much at once, not having a good prioritized strategy.

Whereas, I have an idea how to get off the ground immediately without any IPO funding (or very small funding maybe $100,000 max) and generate $billions in revenue for the developers over time in order to actually change the world.

If you have socialist attitude (do not value the importance of the money side of things), you won't be able to accomplish your wide ranging goals.

Again I think you need help. You are excellent nerds (better than me), but you need strategy help. I need some extra brain power (and coding help) on the technical side in order to insure I can accomplish my ideas.

But we can't seem to acquiesce to each other.

We cant protect against web-browsers, Java or security vulnerabilities in the operating system. There was recently an exploit in firefox, that would allow your computer to be hijacked through javascript. You merely needed to click a link and a buffer overflow exploit was triggered in an XML parsing library that Firefox used as a dependency.

You can't possibly protect the user's computer from code they run that is not yours.

You worried about details which are too low-level when we haven't even yet solved the high level issues such as how do we communicate over the internet without revealing our IP address.

Skycoin uses a web-browser (local web-client). By default Google Chome saves everything you type into fields and sends it to a remote server to be saved (form autocomplete). So we had to package our own version of Chrome and V8 into the Skycoin repo. This is working, but is only so-so. That is what the ./gui.sh script is.

Why bother! Just tell the user to not run Chrome! Come on guys, you need to learn how to "ship it" and not "perfect the universe" first.

CoreOS, Docker and LLVM are bringing us much closer to these goals. We will not need to implement everything from scratch. It will however be a very expensive process, taking years. We are realistically look at a cost $4 to $15 million dollars over five years and seven dozen small, high intensity six month projects that can be completely by one to three developers.

As usual, estimates in software are always an order-of-magnitude too optimistic. You won't get even close to the resources you need with an IPO.

As another user has commented, if you raise $millions, then the upside is too risky to justify investing. All those fools who bought the Ethereum IPO are going to learn the hard way.

This has to be worked through very carefully to ensure that it would not introduce any edge cases, so will be something we look at for the second generation consensus algorithm implementation. I dont think there is time to fit into this iteration.

I think the existing Skycoin consensus design is 51% attack proof, because the number of nodes required for performing the attack is much larger than the number of mining pools that need to collude and if it occurred, the chain would just fork and run both chains until they were pruned by hand and the bad nodes are kicked off by hand. So it is not clear what the economic incentive for a 51% attack in Skycoin, or why anyone would attempt it. Its more annoying than anything else.

How much time are you going to waste down the low priority rabbit hole of perfecting nature?

Eventually you will learn the hard way that consensus is never decentralized. How many thought experiments and then learning from the real world implementations will have to go through?

There are so many factors such as even social engineering, but it comes down to the fact that humans have large brains and thus prioritize self-interest.

I am not against developing your consensus algorithm to see where it ends up, but it is a lower priority need at the moment. That should happen later when the $billions in development funding is rolling in from a success coup in the investment market.

The number of nodes that need to collude to successfully attack is at least the top 2% of the nodes (absolute worst case). With 10,000 nodes in the network, that means 200 people need to collude to merely attempt an attack. In Bitcoin, only the top two or three mining pools need to collude to attack the network.

How many people voted for Obama or Merkel?

Do you want to scale this to the masses? Or are we just playing a delusion game and keeping this within the crypto zealot market where we can pretend we have decentralization (e.g. Bitcoin today)?

In Skycoin, even if they succeed in attacking the network, one approach merely forks the network into two concurrent branches and it is resolved by hand, by individual node operators.

Since when did Grandma bother with such technical duties?

And what if node owners are paid to run a client which has been patched with code to serve some nefarious interests? What if this is presented to them as a net positive, i.e. offers some improvements in transaction clearing speed or some other desireable trait.

There are so many vectors to introduce failure of decentralized consensus I can't possibly enumerate them all.

In Skycoin the network security does not depend on the coin price

My flippant thought is that is impossible. Why would interest in the coin not decline if it was under attack?

The danger is that if we dont solve the last problem, that we will have Bitcoin like systems, but they will be controlled by the banks and not the public.

The public never controls anything, they are always controlled by the banks.

Decentralized consensus is a lie that doesn't exist in reality.

Analogous to how the fools who vote now don't realize the political system is captured by the banks, the crypto zealot fools don't realize the decentralized consensus systems will be captured by the banks too (via the government, NSA, etc).

Don't forget that the NSA has a black budget in the $5+ trillion range. Even Donald Rumsfeld admitted on national TV the evening before 9/11 that the $3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget. The records for this investigation were destroyed at the Pentagon when the plane (or missle) hit the Pentagon.

To me you appear to be very smart kids playing with Tinker Toys. You are not serious. If you want to be serious, you need to get brutally realistic about what is realistically feasible and what is instead "pie in the sky".

If you expect to perfect the universe and prioritize ideological "pies in the sky" then you will fail.

This is really a question about whether we end up with the Bitcoin technology in a walled garden, with gate keepers or whether it remains decentralized.

No the question at hand is whether you guys want to wake up from your myopia and get real, or if you prefer to mess around in delusions.

I say that with a high level of respect for your technical capabilities. I think you need help directing your talents to a better focus.

Password scrambled, ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. Formerly AnonyMint, TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctaniumTesticles.
altcoinUK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 24, 2015, 12:19:14 AM
 #1799


Whereas, I have an idea how to get off the ground immediately without any IPO funding (or very small funding maybe $100,000 max) and generate $billions in revenue for the developers over time in order to actually change the world.


Would you share what is that idea? I am sure many potential investors would fine useful that info to understand what could be on the table in case you are in the team.
reverse02
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 86
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 24, 2015, 12:24:48 AM
 #1800

Stuck again with windows installation.

I installed mingw.
Ran the mingw shell.

Managed to clone skycoin's github completely.

When I ran ./setup.sh

It got stuck with gvm and go1.4

"$ ./setup.sh
Installing gvm and go1.4
./install-gvm.sh: cannot make pipe for process substitution: Function not implem
ented
./install-gvm.sh: cannot make pipe for process substitution: Function not implem
ented
./install-gvm.sh: line 4: <(curl -s -S -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moov
web/gvm/master/binscripts/gvm-installer): ambiguous redirect
grep: /home/WitTheSecond/.bashrc: No such file or directory
./install-gvm.sh: line 15: /home/WitTheSecond/.gvm/scripts/gvm: No such file or
directory
./install-gvm.sh: line 18: gvm: command not found
./install-gvm.sh: line 24: gvm: command not found
Installing skycoin to $GOPATH
GOPATH is not set
Installing or updating skycoin dependencies
xargs: go: No such file or directory
Done
Do './run.sh -h' to confirm it is installed. This runs the daemon.
README.md has further instructions for building and running the gui.
"

I have a ubuntu live USB and a fresh drive. Would it be alot easier to use that?Huh


i have the same problem ... what can i do?
have no clue
uninstalled and reinstalled gvm and go .. compiled skycoin again
i'm on osx 10.10


actually it says llke that:

Downloading Go source...
Installing go1.4...
 * Compiling...
Installing skycoin to $GOPATH
GOPATH is not set
Installing or updating skycoin dependencies
xargs: go: No such file or directory
Done
Do './run.sh -h' to confirm it is installed. This runs the daemon.
README.md has further instructions for building and running the gui.
Pages: « 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 ... 200 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!