A fully decentralised consensus algorithm

[Anonymous Kid]

A fully decentralised (or rather, distributed) consensus algorithm in a perfect world would be where, every participant in the network has an equal voting weight on what the correct history of transactions is.

Currently no crypto has this feature... with PoW based systems anyone can effectively *buy* the chain with their hashpower. With PoS the same can be said with buying actual stake within the network in terms of coins - the same applies to DPoS, and pretty much every other consensus mechanism I have come accross... WITH the exception of IOTA - despite the fact that IOTA doesn't work yet, I think the core game theory behind it, is probably the most innovative in the entire crypto space.

Instead of incentivising transaction verification through a monetary reward within the network (i.e. a coinbase reward), transaction verification is incentivised by the user's willingness to MAKE a transaction*.

The problem with this method and the reason it doesn't work properly is that it is quite easy for an attacker to game.

In what other ways can you shift around the game theoretic model of incentivising transaction verification and honesty on the network? I think this is the key to a fully distributed network where 1 person = 1 vote.


*If you don't know how IOTA works, user's basically have to perform a PoW on two previous tx. confirming them within a DAG like structure in order to broadcast their own tx.

[1714796959]

1714796959

[1714796959]

1714796959

[1714796959]

1714796959

[ir.hn]

Good job for reminding us what a consensus algorithm is intended to do, simply give one person one vote...or give people vote/rewards based on how much they contribute.  There are limitless ways to do this and many might have significant advantages over what is done currently.

Always good to keep a fresh mind and go back to the beginning constantly of what we are actually trying to do at the most fundamental level.  If we do this then we won't get off track.

[btj]

The majors disadvantages of IOTA: The tangle and Zero fee transaction.

A fully decentralised (or rather, distributed) consensus algorithm in a perfect world would be where, every participant in the network has an equal voting weight on what the correct history of transactions is.

And yes you are right, actually there no perfect consensus algorithm ... but there will be many improvments in the futur.

[mindphuq]

The only way to limit voting right now is binding the votes to some kind of a value, be it hashpower or investment in the blockchain. That's the whole reason why all of this exists. You want the decentralized system to be anonymous (or pseudonymous at leas) at the same time too, because the most free form of voting and participating is the anonymous one, and you will want to make voter fraud as expensive as possible. The system also has to be trustless, that means you are not required to trust a voter to play fair.

That's just how it is.

[ir.hn]

The only way to limit voting right now is binding the votes to some kind of a value, be it hashpower or investment in the blockchain. That's the whole reason why all of this exists. You want the decentralized system to be anonymous (or pseudonymous at leas) at the same time too, because the most free form of voting and participating is the anonymous one, and you will want to make voter fraud as expensive as possible. The system also has to be trustless, that means you are not required to trust a voter to play fair.

That's just how it is.

Yep.  Unfortunately the future of mainstream crypto will likely be identity verification, fingerprinting, facial recognition, gait recognition, background checks ... and god forbid mark of the beast, etc.  It will be fair all right (at least among the proletariat), but also fairly intrusive into your life.  So yes, here in the Resistance, we must come up with ways to prove work or existence in at least a pseudonymous way.

[Anonymous Kid]

Each consensus algorithm/method isn't perfect, even the one that IOTA uses. While the idea requiring users to verify 2 other tx isn't bad idea, i think there are potential problem such as :
1. What happen if parts of the network unable to connect to the another part of the network? Do they run independently?
2. When those separated network can connect again, how to determine which network is more "true" considering there's double-spend chance? In PoW, the nodes/network simply choose longest PoW.

Well the simple solution would be to give a weight to each transaction that get's increased with each pow verification done on top of it - though that still has the risk of an attacker just buying hashpower. Tbh I have no idea how else the game theory can be changed/modified without increasing risk of attack. I wonder if it is even possible...

[wolfewells]

Currently no crypto has this feature... with PoW based systems anyone can effectively *buy* the chain with their hashpower. With PoS the same can be said with buying actual stake within the network in terms of coins - the same applies to DPoS, and pretty much every other consensus mechanism I have come accross... WITH the exception of IOTA

I was wondering if you've looked into the "Tempo" consensus model? I believe its used by Radix. I stumbled upon a discussion about it on reddit recently, and I found it to be very interesting. They may have a better approach to incentivizing good actors, all while keeping the network decentralized

Forgive me for the lack of info - I'm still in the middle of my research researching Tempo. But from what I have gathered so far in, it appears to have done away with the whole mining/staking aspect of PoW & PoS. Which means no hashpower/majority stake/ crazy hardware  etc etc. According to the whitepaper, anyone can run a node, the prerequisites are little to nothing - With the barrier being so low,  every participant in the network gets an opportunity to weigh-in on the ordering of events.

The consensus model relies on "Logical Clocks"  -- Here's an explainer I found --http://www.mangoresearch.co/radix-dlt-logical-clocks-explained/ 

But THIS is what really caught my attention -- Unlike IOTA , it appears that this Radix network is already up and running.

[Anonymous Kid]

I was wondering if you've looked into the "Tempo" consensus model? I believe its used by Radix.

heh. zero activity on this account. bolding the words Tempo multiple times. It's pretty obvious you just came to shill in this thread but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have heard of Radix quite a while ago, but at the time there was very little info about them (they didnt even have a whitepaper if I recall). I'll give this a look though.

[monsterer2]

A truly decentralised consensus mechanism is one where humans perform the PoW. The trouble is, finding a problem that only a human can solve that is also easily verifiable by a machine is unsolved.

The person who solves this problem will be very rich indeed.

[aliashraf]

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm,   won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more   only fools will put their money in such a network.

[monsterer2]

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm,   won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more   only fools will put their money in such a network.

You're thinking about politics when you should be thinking about consensus. Anything you can apply to politics applies to all possible consensus mechanisms since they're all controlled by people.

[aliashraf]

In my opinion, PoW is the most reliable consensus paradigm ever. Specially I am strongly about op's obsession with one human, one vote idea.

Such a hypothetical "democratic" algorithm,   won't help monetary systems, on the contrary it would destroy them eventually. People would vote to seize the deposits of top 1% stake holders with a majority of 75% or more   only fools will put their money in such a network.

You're thinking about politics when you should be thinking about consensus. Anything you can apply to politics applies to all possible consensus mechanisms since they're all controlled by people.

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

[monsterer2]

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

You're still not thinking about the problem properly. A PoW solvable only by people would be the ultimate system because you cannot sybil attack it - the best thing you can do is crowd source it, but it would still have the lowest sybil coefficient of any system possible.

[aliashraf]

People can't vote for my money, it is said to be my asset, to be defended against people not to seize it. So, as long as it is about monetary systems, you better forget about democracy and speak about law.

Consensus, the way PoW deals with it, is achieved by requiring people to consume resources to participate, resources and costs that will be put in risk and be sated if they try something illegal. Otherwise people won't hesitate to take your money. People will participate in any attack if it is just free to join and there is a penny at stake.

You're still not thinking about the problem properly. A PoW solvable only by people would be the ultimate system because you cannot sybil attack it - the best thing you can do is crowd source it, but it would still have the lowest sybil coefficient of any system possible.

Sybil attack is not the issue, I'm talking about 50%+1 attack.

As for sybil attack classical PoW again gets the lowest profile unlike what you claim, because it is not about identities but about costs, nobody can forge costs:

To consume or not to consume? This is the question!

Not hard to understand, you decide (being a human or a machine, whatever) based on your analysis of the incentives and costs involved. PoW is the king here, a proven untouchable legit king.

[monsterer2]

Sybil attack is not the issue, I'm talking about 50%+1 attack.

As for sybil attack classical PoW again gets the lowest profile unlike what you claim, because it is not about identities but about costs, nobody can forge costs:

To consume or not to consume? This is the question!

Not hard to understand, you decide (being a human or a machine, whatever) based on your analysis of the incentives and costs involved. PoW is the king here, a proven untouchable legit king.

Suppose I give you a problem, solvable only by a human, that a human performing at his best takes 10s to complete. How can you improve this solution time? You can't.

Alternatively, I give you a machine solvable problem, which takes 10s on a the best CPU to solve. How can you improve this solution time? ASIC. You can probably improve it by at least 100x.

That is the difference here. You've getting hung up on PoW being a machine solvable problem.

[aliashraf]

Sybil attack is not the issue, I'm talking about 50%+1 attack.

As for sybil attack classical PoW again gets the lowest profile unlike what you claim, because it is not about identities but about costs, nobody can forge costs:

To consume or not to consume? This is the question!

Not hard to understand, you decide (being a human or a machine, whatever) based on your analysis of the incentives and costs involved. PoW is the king here, a proven untouchable legit king.

Suppose I give you a problem, solvable only by a human, that a human performing at his best takes 10s to complete. How can you improve this solution time? You can't.

Alternatively, I give you a machine solvable problem, which takes 10s on a the best CPU to solve. How can you improve this solution time? ASIC. You can probably improve it by at least 100x.

That is the difference here. You've getting hung up on PoW being a machine solvable problem.

There is no point in solving problems by humans (only) ... you are deeply out of the rails of cryptocurrency, imo.

To make it clear let's go a more further with your 'solution':

Suppose I'm an anarchist who claims to be a savior of poors and publish a message in the media, inviting people to commit a transaction that I've simultaneously submitted to your ideal network and is not confirmed yet because nobody (or just a few friends of mine) has committed to it.

In my statement I explain how good it would be if people just confirm my transactions instantly. I would say:

"Comrades,
This transaction destroys almost 70% of the coins which are in hands of less than 15% of people. Destroying these coins will automatically enrich the rest of the people by a quadratic ratio the poor owner who has just 10 coins in his wallet will find it to be 4 times more valuable now. Unite and confirm my proposed transaction and become 4 times more rich just by spending 10 seconds of your time which is not appreciated enough by capitalists by the way. They won't pay you a single penny for 10 seconds, you know."

What happens next? I know you and your parents are good guys, and have good faith, but dude, don't be naive, most of the people are not that honest, they will just try my proposal and commit my transaction ... please, now don't bring forward  PoS shits, I'm sick of its subjectivity.

[monsterer2]

In my statement I explain how good it would be if people just confirm my transactions instantly. I would say:

"Comrades,
This transaction destroys almost 70% of the coins which are in hands of less than 15% of people. Destroying these coins will automatically enrich the rest of the people by a quadratic ratio the poor owner who has just 10 coins in his wallet will find it to be 4 times more valuable now. Unite and confirm my proposed transaction and become 4 times more rich just by spending 10 seconds of your time which is not appreciated enough by capitalists by the way. They won't pay you a single penny for 10 seconds, you know."

What happens next? I know you and your parents are good guys, and have good faith, but dude, don't be naive, most of the people are not that honest, they will just try my proposal and commit my transaction ... please, now don't bring forward  PoS shits, I'm sick of its subjectivity.

Firstly, your transaction is invalid and not accepted by the network for propagation.

Secondly, you will need to pay each one of these people you attempt to bribe more than the block reward they earn for playing by the rules. So this attack is going to be expensive.

Thirdly, your attack has an ongoing cost because you still need to outpace the rest of the honest network.

Your proposition is a simple 51% attack and achieving it is far more difficult than renting hash power because people are the ultimate limited resource.

[aliashraf]

Firstly, your transaction is invalid and not accepted by the network for propagation.

Secondly, you will need to pay each one of these people you attempt to bribe more than the block reward they earn for playing by the rules. So this attack is going to be expensive.

Thirdly, your attack has an ongoing cost because you still need to outpace the rest of the honest network.

Your proposition is a simple 51% attack and achieving it is far more difficult than renting hash power because people are the ultimate limited resource.

Firstly, no worries about propagation, I just append the bytes to my statement.

Secondly, The sole fact that 70% of the coins have been destroyed they are automatically re-distributed to remaining coin owners,  in the most 'democratic' way ever.  Fewer coins, more valuable coins. Simple!

Thirdly, 'the rest' of the network is a bit stronger than 15% percent, say 16%, the rest of the 'manpower' is with me. I have poor class in my Anarchistic pocket.

Noways dude, just forget about this idea and go find something else to think about, I'm done here.

[Peachy]

FYI, I analysed Radix recently:

Re: Radix - Tempo Whitepaper

AFAICT, the design of Radix is flawed and a Sybil attack can stop transactions from being spendable.

It's understandable that you'd have that opinion based on the purposely-limited information we've released currently.

There will be a Tempo Technical whitepaper released in about a week that will cover the various mitigation strategies (including this one).

[monsterer2]

Firstly, no worries about propagation, I just append the bytes to my statement.

Secondly, The sole fact that 70% of the coins have been destroyed they are automatically re-distributed to remaining coin owners,  in the most 'democratic' way ever.  Fewer coins, more valuable coins. Simple!

Thirdly, 'the rest' of the network is a bit stronger than 15% percent, say 16%, the rest of the 'manpower' is with me. I have poor class in my Anarchistic pocket.

Noways dude, just forget about this idea and go find something else to think about, I'm done here.

The thing you are missing is that all these attack scenarios would apply to <insert PoW coin here> as well as any human based PoW, with the added bonus that they'd be easier to carry out as the hash rate market is much more mature than any human PoW market.

[wolfewells]

I was wondering if you've looked into the "Tempo" consensus model? I believe its used by Radix.

heh. zero activity on this account. bolding the words Tempo multiple times. It's pretty obvious you just came to shill in this thread but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have heard of Radix quite a while ago, but at the time there was very little info about them (they didnt even have a whitepaper if I recall). I'll give this a look though.

My apologies -- I see how that could be viewed as a shill. I just have this habit of bolding the subject matter in my emails. I very recently started looking into various consensus models, so I figured I'd engage in some dialogue here.

And yes, they didn't have a whitepaper until recently, and from what I've heard, there's an economics whitepaper on the way. So it is inconclusive until we have the whole picture. This got me excited 'cause of the the new consensus model, plus it doesn't fall in the whole blockchain spectrum.

If you do end up looking into it, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

[ir.hn]

A truly decentralised consensus mechanism is one where humans perform the PoW. The trouble is, finding a problem that only a human can solve that is also easily verifiable by a machine is unsolved.

The person who solves this problem will be very rich indeed.

Rich like satoshi?  We in the open source world aren't driven by riches.

You posed a great definition of the problem and with such I got inspired with a solution.

I think the answer lies in any algorithmicly unsolved math problem like "travelling salesman" or any other problem that relies on heuristics.  Simple.

https://www.education.com/reference/article/problem-solving-strategies-algorithms/

NP-Complete problems would be the perfect solution you are asking for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-completeness

Travelling salesman may be ideal because humans are good at it.  Bees can also solve it.

"The TSP (traveling salesman problem) in particular the Euclidean variant of the problem, has attracted the attention of researchers in cognitive psychology. It has been observed that humans are able to produce near-optimal solutions quickly, in a close-to-linear fashion, with performance that ranges from 1% less efficient for graphs with 10-20 nodes, and 11% more efficient for graphs with 120 nodes.[47][48] The apparent ease with which humans accurately generate near-optimal solutions to the problem has led researchers to hypothesize that humans use one or more heuristics, with the two most popular theories arguably being the convex-hull hypothesis and the crossing-avoidance heuristic.[49][50][51] However, additional evidence suggests that human performance is quite varied, and individual differences as well as graph geometry appear to impact performance in the task.[52][53][54] Nevertheless, results suggest that computer performance on the TSP may be improved by understanding and emulating the methods used by humans for these problems, and have also led to new insights into the mechanisms of human thought.[55] The first issue of the Journal of Problem Solving was devoted to the topic of human performance on TSP,[56] and a 2011 review listed dozens of papers on the subject.[55]"

[ir.hn]

Please check out my new post. 

I developed a Proof of Human Work system that can be proven to resist computer mining.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4459113.0

[tromp]

Please check out my new post.  

I developed a Proof of Human Work system that can be proven to resist computer mining.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4459113.0

Too bad it also resists human mining :-(

Challenge: give me one NP complete problem for which we can randomly generate instances of any desired difficulty and which humans can solve better than computers.

[lichuan]

The consensus of human can not be implemented at present, because the p2p consensus network is made up of many electrical machines, but human is not electrical, so if we want implement human POW consensus in the future, we need change the network communication architecture to human-network first, but How do people communicate with each other without relying on electricity??

[lichuan]

The consensus of human can not be implemented at present, because the p2p consensus network is made up of many electrical machines, but human is not electrical, so if we want implement human POW consensus in the future, we need change the network communication architecture to human-network first, but How do people communicate with each other without relying on electricity??

Btw, maybe we can achieve a point-to-point consensus network that relies on talking through our mouth.

[Anonymous Kid]

Please check out my new post.  

I developed a Proof of Human Work system that can be proven to resist computer mining.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4459113.0

Too bad it also resists human mining :-(

Challenge: give me one NP complete problem for which we can randomly generate instances of any desired difficulty and which humans can solve better than computers.

interested as well

[tromp]

Challenge: give me one NP complete problem for which we can randomly generate instances of any desired difficulty and which humans can solve better than computers.

Additional challenge: how to compensate for the time zone dependence of human hashing power?

[monsterer2]

Challenge: give me one NP complete problem for which we can randomly generate instances of any desired difficulty and which humans can solve better than computers.

Additional challenge: how to compensate for the time zone dependence of human hashing power?

You're suggesting timezones exist in which no human would be mining... or at least the man power rate would vary too much depending on timezone?

I'm not totally sure about that. For example, in traditional gold mining, crews will run 24/7 with a day shift and a night shift. It's fair to say the same thing would happen here, as its a similar, for profit enterprise.

[tromp]

or at least the man power rate would vary too much depending on timezone?

Yes, that one. The distribution of people poor enough to be willing to do such boring work is bound to be rather non-uniform across timezones.

crews will run 24/7 with a day shift and a night shift. It's fair to say the same thing would happen here, as its a similar, for profit enterprise.

I guess the poorest of the poor would be willing to sacrifice night-time sleep for such work, but others would not go that far.

Anyway, I just realized that this need not be a problem as long as difficulty adjustment happens on the scale of an hour at most.

[rigel]

What about https://www.elrond.network/  ?

[Snakerist]

I agree that DAG based consensus is very interesting and fair. All it needs now is more scalability. Byteball also uses DAG and all works fine.

[rigel]

What about https://www.elrond.network/  ?

Looks like a promising project. When mainnet?

In few months: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4430681.0