Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2018, 04:44:33 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A fully decentralised consensus algorithm  (Read 327 times)
anunymint
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 28
Merit: 54


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 03:02:17 PM
Merited by suchmoon (5)
 #21

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.

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.



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

And Iota’s consensus is entirely centralized (as they admit by the centralized Coordinator). Iota is a basically a soft lie (i.e. don’t mention the Coordinator prominentlyconspicuously) that n00bs don’t understand or who prefer to make excuses about (because they’re invested in it). And Qubic appears to offer no solution to that issue.



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  Grin only fools will put their money in such a network.

Excellent example of why I say democracy doesn’t work and why the wealthy hate the masses.

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.

A consensus protocol should be objective and have a Nash Equilibrium game theory that resists Prisoner’s dilemma defection by the opinions or desires of groups of validating nodes.

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.

That is the problem with politics because the masses can be induced to rally around a Schelling point. First example is they rallied around the SegWit trojan horse which (I and others argue) breaks the security of Core’s Bitcoin because they’re too ignorant (naive) to understand that on-chain transaction scalability is incompatible with Nakamoto proof-of-work and they think they’re actually supposed to have some future on Bitcoin (instead of being kicked off-chain as they will be). For example, the fact that masses believe that voting for a red or blue color in elections has actual benefits for them. Rather it’s a Prisoner’s dilemma where they’re all destroying themselves in a tragedy-of-the-commons of monotonically escalating debt and totalitarianism. Indeed this is another reason why even if we could destroy the power-law distribution of wealth, then we should not.
1529945073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529945073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529945073
Reply with quote  #2

1529945073
Report to moderator
1529945073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529945073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529945073
Reply with quote  #2

1529945073
Report to moderator
Some PGP public keys you should import: theymos, Wladimir, Gregory, Pieter
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1529945073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529945073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529945073
Reply with quote  #2

1529945073
Report to moderator
1529945073
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529945073

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529945073
Reply with quote  #2

1529945073
Report to moderator
Peachy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 178
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2018, 03:13:40 PM
 #22

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).

RADiX (formerly eMunie): The future of money
anunymint
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 28
Merit: 54


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 03:15:16 PM
 #23

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

Indeed I did put the disclaimer in my blog that the Tempo whitepaper is lacking necessary details. I had to extract some additional details from a recent conference video.

I think the only way you can solve the problem is if the logical clocks are treated as implicit votes the same as in the Hashgraph system, but note that system is patented. But then all shards must validate all shards thus you lose the scalability. Anyway, I will wait to see the new information you’re promising.


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

Can you send me an early draft so I can update my blog before the 7 day window to edit it expires?

If not, I will have to add follow-ups in the comments below the blog.

Please do PM it to me and/or add a comment reply on Steemit. I will add now in my blog, a link to your comment.
monsterer2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 94


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 04:42:38 PM
 #24

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. Grin

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.

anunymint
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 28
Merit: 54


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 05:16:03 PM
 #25

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.

Disagree. Because Nakamoto proof-of-work mining will be centralized (c.f. also) and the wealthy have no Schelling point around letting the masses wreck it.
monsterer2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 94


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 05:24:44 PM
 #26

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.

Disagree. Because Nakamoto proof-of-work mining will be centralized (c.f. also) and the wealthy have no Schelling point around letting the masses wreck it.

All profitable enterprises centralise. As you know, that's the power law of economics. So under a human based PoW, you'd probably end up with human mining farms... that sounds a bit dark, actually....

anunymint
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 28
Merit: 54


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 06:15:16 PM
 #27

probably end up with human mining farms... that sounds a bit dark, actually....

666 is approximately near to the wavelength of blood red.  Cheesy

I had actually wrote publicly about that possibly before Bitcoin was announced back when I was more into studying Biblical prophesy during my mid-life manic depression crisis.  Embarrassed I’m not into that any more.
wolfewells
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2018, 07:55:31 PM
 #28

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.
aliashraf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 273


View Profile
June 11, 2018, 04:30:09 PM
 #29

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.

Disagree. Because Nakamoto proof-of-work mining will be centralized (c.f. also) and the wealthy have no Schelling point around letting the masses wreck it.

I disagree too, But not for unproven claim about centralization, but because PoW needs resources to be consumed for voting in the consensus mechanism, they won't vote for any shit, risking their costs unless they are sure about the income.

When there is nothing at stake, like what the case is with this proposal, people can vote just because they are  human and voting wont reduce their degree of humanity for example, they  just vote ...

It is free, and they vote, like what happened in the previous elections with Trump, idiots in the States voted for a clown like him, because it was free and it was just fun  Grin
monsterer2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 94


View Profile
June 11, 2018, 06:38:26 PM
 #30

I disagree too, But not for unproven claim about centralization, but because PoW needs resources to be consumed for voting in the consensus mechanism, they won't vote for any shit, risking their costs unless they are sure about the income.

When there is nothing at stake, like what the case is with this proposal, people can vote just because they are  human and voting wont reduce their degree of humanity for example, they  just vote ...

It is free, and they vote, like what happened in the previous elections with Trump, idiots in the States voted for a clown like him, because it was free and it was just fun  Grin

You've still not actually listened to anything I've written.

ir.hn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 20

Blockchain is a Digital Constitution


View Profile
June 11, 2018, 06:45:30 PM
 #31

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 20

Blockchain is a Digital Constitution


View Profile
June 11, 2018, 07:00:47 PM
 #32

probably end up with human mining farms... that sounds a bit dark, actually....
.

666 is approximately near to the wavelength of blood red.  Cheesy

I had actually wrote publicly about that possibly before Bitcoin was announced back when I was more into studying Biblical prophesy during my mid-life manic depression crisis.  Embarrassed I’m not into that any more.



Many are called but few are chosen Wink.

Serously though, what you need to understand is that the powers that be want to do away with the need for humans altogether.  Too difficult to manage.  If they can develop algorithms to solve everything they won't need us.  So for something to rely on humanity to solve is our ace in the hole.

Don't give up now, 6 years remain until the antichrist takes power.  This age we are entering into is the age of governance by algorithms

ir.hn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 20

Blockchain is a Digital Constitution


View Profile
June 12, 2018, 05:46:12 AM
 #33

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 570
Merit: 512


View Profile
June 12, 2018, 09:49:42 AM
 #34

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 11:04:39 AM
 #35

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 11:14:57 AM
 #36

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 02:54:26 PM
 #37

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 570
Merit: 512


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 04:17:47 PM
 #38

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 94


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 04:24:09 PM
 #39

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 570
Merit: 512


View Profile
June 13, 2018, 10:32:18 PM
 #40

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.
Quote

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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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