Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2018, 03:22:39 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A new consensus that promises high levels of security (PoH)  (Read 454 times)
DeluxeJR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 06:33:58 AM
 #1

I was navigating through different projects and a new consensus called "Proof of Honesty" (PoH).

In simple words, in this consensus users select in which nodes their transactions will be validated, rather than PoW and PoS where nodes determine the validity of the transactions.
The idea is that users do not select the "dishonest" nodes as they let only the "honest" validators to validate the transactions, resulting to nearly 100% BFT.


Do you think that this idea may improve the security of blockchains?
1539789759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539789759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539789759
Reply with quote  #2

1539789759
Report to moderator
1539789759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539789759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539789759
Reply with quote  #2

1539789759
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1539789759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539789759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539789759
Reply with quote  #2

1539789759
Report to moderator
1539789759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539789759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539789759
Reply with quote  #2

1539789759
Report to moderator
1539789759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539789759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539789759
Reply with quote  #2

1539789759
Report to moderator
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 674


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 07:02:20 AM
 #2

But how does Proof of Honesty prevent collusion in how to decide "who" is honest and dishonest? Plus, more importantly, how cheap is it to collude?

Proof of Work works because there is no need to trust one another. A miner simply provides his "power" to hash and leaves his opportunity to win a block depending on how much power he gives. Plus colluding in the network would be expensive because the miners would be risking their investment in mining equipment and electricity, making it more profitable to be honest.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
DeluxeJR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 09:13:45 AM
 #3

But how does Proof of Honesty prevent collusion in how to decide "who" is honest and dishonest? Plus, more importantly, how cheap is it to collude?

Proof of Work works because there is no need to trust one another. A miner simply provides his "power" to hash and leaves his opportunity to win a block depending on how much power he gives. Plus colluding in the network would be expensive because the miners would be risking their investment in mining equipment and electricity, making it more profitable to be honest.

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?


As for "who decides who is honest or dishonest", the answer is "Users". People who would be affected by a wrong validation, in other words.

If discrepancies in a block validation may be noticed, then the user can inspect them and then decide with fork of data he wants to use for his transactions. I cannot though define the cost as i'm not a programmer in this project (www.Geeq.io). 


I just read about it and wanted to bring it there in order to exchange opinions about the implementation of a new consensus that may be beneficial to current projects as well.
nc50lc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 146


∙Self-proclaimed-Genius ㊙️


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2018, 09:36:05 AM
 #4

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?
I have checked the link and the "POH Explainer Video" but nothing's really explained but the possible positive effects of using their newly developed "just nodes coin".
Noticeably, they allotted more time explaining the downside of POW coins like Bitcoins than explaining their system.
Just like the quoted reply.

Not to mention, Proof of Honesty is the worst name for a system that was built for security.

Is there a better resource where "Proof of Honesty" was better explained?
Please provide some links.

(っ◕‿◕)っ Newbies and Newbies at heart! Remember to Lock your Thread(s) after receiving enough replies/sufficient answers. 
FEELING GENEROUS?: 39EKeFj43inkH6Ctkosh9E7oskx3tvhSXi ∙ Do not buy non-mainstream ASICs at second-batch and onwards, you know the risk!
ETFbitcoin
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1192


Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2018, 10:34:54 AM
Merited by TimeTeller (2)
 #5

Bitcoin and most cryptocurrency supposed to be trustless and use consensus method which enable trustless, so IMO this consensus isn't practical at all. Why don't we back using fiat/bank if high degree of trust is required in here.
I also check their explanation (https://www.geeq.io/the-most-secure-blockchain) and they vaguely explain the PoH which don't help at all.

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

That also applies to most consensus method, but in PoW and some kind PoS, there's punishment/wasting resource such as big amount of staked coins taken away or require million USD for ASIC/electricity when someone attempt to attack network.

As for "who decides who is honest or dishonest", the answer is "Users". People who would be affected by a wrong validation, in other words.

Just with this sentence, there are few critical problem such as :
1. How do they find out whether the user is real or don't have multiple votes/identity within the network?
2. Even if assuming they magically find way to solve 1st problem, people can be bribed, manipulated or have their device hacked to manipulate the vote.

███           ▄▄▄                          ███
███           ███    ▄█                    ███
███ ▄▄▄▄▄▄          ▄██▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄▄     ███        ▄██▄    ▄▄▄         ▄▄▄
███████████▄  ███ ▐████████  ██▄███████▄   ███       ██████    ███       ███▀
███▀    ▀███▌ ███   ███      ███▀    ▀███  ███      ████████    ███     ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███     ██▀    ▀██    ███   ███▀
███      ▐██▌ ███   ███      ███      ███  ███    ███      ███    ███ ███▀
███▄    ▄███▌ ███   ███▄     ███▄    ▄███  ███   ████▄    ▄████    █████▀
███████████▀  ███   ▀██████  ███████████▀  ███  ████████████████    ███▀
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀     ▀▀▀▀▀  ███ ▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ███▀
                             ███       ▄▄▄ ▄   ▄  ▄ ▄▄▄          ▄███▀
                             ███      █    █   █  █ █▄▄▀      █████▀
                             ▀▀▀      ▀▄▄▄ █▄▄ ▀▄▄▀ █▄▄█      ▀▀▀















❱❱
❰❰

DeluxeJR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 10:45:15 AM
 #6

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?
I have checked the link and the "POH Explainer Video" but nothing's really explained but the possible positive effects of using their newly developed "just nodes coin".
Noticeably, they allotted more time explaining the downside of POW coins like Bitcoins than explaining their system.
Just like the quoted reply.

Not to mention, Proof of Honesty is the worst name for a system that was built for security.

Is there a better resource where "Proof of Honesty" was better explained?
Please provide some links.

Here is a link that may help: https://youtu.be/m5zL2euruYQ?t=20m47s

it is also a provided example of how this can work. I know they are still in an initial stage and I want to see something "tangible" (I.e. code) in order to let us have a clear opinion about what Proof of Honesty really is.

HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 753


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 01:44:41 PM
Merited by suchmoon (4)
 #7

I was navigating through different projects and a new consensus called "Proof of Honesty" (PoH).

[...]

The idea is that users do not select the "dishonest" nodes as they let only the "honest" validators to validate the transactions, resulting to nearly 100% BFT.

[...]

Sounds pretty much like Ripple's and ByteBall's consensus algorithm, which suffer from either centralization, vulnerability to Sybil attacks or both.



Let's look at their whitepaper.

Genesis blocks are created by GeeqCorp at the request of other companies who wish to build applications.

Centralized it is, then.

If one or more forks exist, the user is able to inspect them and then decide which one he wishes to use for his transactions. The CDM places the responsibility of choosing between forks in the hands of users who hold tokens on the chain and who would therefore be harmed if false transactions were written into “verified” blocks.

Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?


If a user or node detects any dishonesty, he can send an audit request to the network. If dishonesty is verified, misbehaving nodes are ejected from the validation network and Good Behavior Bonds (GBBs), previously posted in order to join the network, are forfeited and used to pay rewards to the agents who called for the audit.

GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

DeluxeJR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 03:09:39 PM
 #8


Centralized it is, then.

It may defined as Centralized, but it will guarantee that blockchain is running smooth and with the same features as any other in the ecosystem.




Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?

I would not agree to this point. I can see it as a democratic option and people can decide where to put their money depending on their fork preferences.



GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

I want to see more on GBBs as well. I don't think that you have to purchase something but maybe you have to gain access to that somehow and It could be limited to a specific number of users.
HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 753


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 03:52:37 PM
Merited by aliashraf (1)
 #9

Facing the problem of hard forks by simply ignoring it is... brave, I guess?

I would not agree to this point. I can see it as a democratic option and people can decide where to put their money depending on their fork preferences.

There's a difference between hard forks as a democratic option (see blocksize debate) and chain splits as a regular occurance. A blockchain that hard forks regularly without internal consistency becomes unreliable as users end up on different forks and transactions get "lost" due to users following different chains.




Centralized it is, then.

It may defined as Centralized, but it will guarantee that blockchain is running smooth and with the same features as any other in the ecosystem.


GBBs are unfortunately never explained, neither in their whitepaper, nor on their website.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume it's something you'd have to purchase from GeeqCorp? If so, that means: First you buy a genesis block, then you buy consensus access? Is that what it would look like if EA created a cryptocurrency?

I want to see more on GBBs as well. I don't think that you have to purchase something but maybe you have to gain access to that somehow and It could be limited to a specific number of users.

Why use a blockchain then? If the network is centralized and permissioned one might as well just the classical banking system and the likes of VISA and PayPal. Same difference.

Atherus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 04:29:54 PM
 #10

The mentioned consensus seems to be very interesting especially when it comes to who users have the authority in the validation process.

My concern can be to the fact that this game theory of honest and dishonest nodes can bring confusion to the chain and cause latency in the transactions.
I have my doubts as well on the implementation of the consensus, but I think we should not criticize the project as it is still in the beginning of developing and we haven't seen proof of Honesty in practice.
HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 753


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 07:58:36 PM
Merited by monsterer2 (1)
 #11

The mentioned consensus seems to be very interesting especially when it comes to who users have the authority in the validation process.

Federated trust as decribed by GeeqCorp is precisely how humanity has done monetary transactions for centuries. Merely throwing in a blockchain for good measure doesn't change anything. Getting rid of federated trust is what made Bitcoin so revolutionary. Returning to it seems rather regressive.


[...] but I think we should not criticize the project as it is still in the beginning of developing and we haven't seen proof of Honesty in practice.

That's how public discourse works though. Otherwise they should have just worked in the shadows and presented the world with a finished product.

Atherus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 05:34:51 AM
 #12

Federated trust as decribed by GeeqCorp is precisely how humanity has done monetary transactions for centuries. Merely throwing in a blockchain for good measure doesn't change anything. Getting rid of federated trust is what made Bitcoin so revolutionary. Returning to it seems rather regressive.

My opinion is that an authority on the blockchain should be present in order to avoid fraudelent and malicious actions. See what's it going on right now on the Ethereum blockchain and ERC20 tokens which is full of scams.
And also, if people are not so much in fond of federated trust, how is it possible that Ripple has so much support by users making it 3rd regarding Market Cap?

That's how public discourse works though. Otherwise they should have just worked in the shadows and presented the world with a finished product.

It can work to make things better, this is the reason why none works in the shadows. And I believe that there is a great exchanges of ideas in this thread that can lead to a positive outcome.
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1009
Merit: 1012


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2018, 06:08:37 AM
 #13

Federated trust as decribed by GeeqCorp is precisely how humanity has done monetary transactions for centuries. Merely throwing in a blockchain for good measure doesn't change anything. Getting rid of federated trust is what made Bitcoin so revolutionary. Returning to it seems rather regressive.

My opinion is that an authority on the blockchain should be present in order to avoid fraudelent and malicious actions. See what's it going on right now on the Ethereum blockchain and ERC20 tokens which is full of scams.
And also, if people are not so much in fond of federated trust, how is it possible that Ripple has so much support by users making it 3rd regarding Market Cap?

If you want an authority, why do you need a blockchain?  Do you see a particular usecase that blockchain solves in a situation where you are fine with a trusted authority anyway?  In my opinion, a blockchain would just be a very inefficient database and/or buzzword in such a situation.

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
proload
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 06:35:58 AM
 #14

Federated trust as decribed by GeeqCorp is precisely how humanity has done monetary transactions for centuries. Merely throwing in a blockchain for good measure doesn't change anything. Getting rid of federated trust is what made Bitcoin so revolutionary. Returning to it seems rather regressive.

My opinion is that an authority on the blockchain should be present in order to avoid fraudelent and malicious actions. See what's it going on right now on the Ethereum blockchain and ERC20 tokens which is full of scams.
And also, if people are not so much in fond of federated trust, how is it possible that Ripple has so much support by users making it 3rd regarding Market Cap?

If you want an authority, why do you need a blockchain?  Do you see a particular usecase that blockchain solves in a situation where you are fine with a trusted authority anyway?  In my opinion, a blockchain would just be a very inefficient database and/or buzzword in such a situation.



Authority exists in every blockchain. Do you think there is not high volumes of authority in Bitcoin, when Satoshi holds a huge amount of BTC and mining pools the majority of the hashing power? They get the rewards of the transactions so the value is accumulated on them and coins are spread among few users.
Naida_BR
Member
**
Online Online

Activity: 213
Merit: 13


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 07:02:35 AM
 #15

I had a look at this project because your discussion made me curious about it. GeeqChain is pointing towards serious issues on the blockchain like scalability, security, interoperability and inexpensive transactions. I am very interested in seeing how this network is going to solve all of them.

Reading the whitepaper, I can understand the point of Honest and Dishonest game theory and it seems very exciting. Many corners are still shady because we don't have the code and check it.

Personally, I am fed up with the other projects that try to refine their chains that many times leading to forks and community confusion that lowers the value of the tokens.

If GeeqCorp can give an end to that I will definitely support them from the start till the end of the development.

           ﹏﹏﹋﹌﹌ WPP ENERGY ﹌﹌﹋﹏﹏
☆═══━┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈━═══☆
≈ WORLD POWER PRODUCTION ≈


【 BACKED ASSET GREEN ENERGY TOKEN 】
☆═━┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈━═☆
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 674


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 07:47:12 AM
 #16

But how does Proof of Honesty prevent collusion in how to decide "who" is honest and dishonest? Plus, more importantly, how cheap is it to collude?

Proof of Work works because there is no need to trust one another. A miner simply provides his "power" to hash and leaves his opportunity to win a block depending on how much power he gives. Plus colluding in the network would be expensive because the miners would be risking their investment in mining equipment and electricity, making it more profitable to be honest.

I agree on your points. However, in PoW hasing power is concentrating to 1-2 maximum 3 mining pools so in my opinion this dosn't make them "honest" 100%. Of course, there is a possibility to do a fork if they attack the chain, but wouldn't that affect the reputation of the PoW consensus?

But it would be unprofitable for the miners to also be dishonest because their investment in mining equipment and electricity would be wasted. Proof of Work eliminates the need for participants to be honest and dishonest. The protocol is everything.

Quote
As for "who decides who is honest or dishonest", the answer is "Users". People who would be affected by a wrong validation, in other words.

Are you suggesting that we should trust a collective third party? I believe that is a security hole.

Quote
If discrepancies in a block validation may be noticed, then the user can inspect them and then decide with fork of data he wants to use for his transactions. I cannot though define the cost as i'm not a programmer in this project (www.Geeq.io). 

This cannot work. If a transaction or a block is invalid, it should be rejected by the nodes immediately, but what would stop them from rejecting double spends if all the network stands on is your "honesty"?



▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
DeluxeJR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 08:26:45 AM
 #17

But it would be unprofitable for the miners to also be dishonest because their investment in mining equipment and electricity would be wasted. Proof of Work eliminates the need for participants to be honest and dishonest. The protocol is everything.
Exactly, you got the point. This is why this consensus defines that the protocol is secure. None will ever want to be "dishonest" because of what you mentioned above.

Quote
Are you suggesting that we should trust a collective third party? I believe that is a security hole.
This collective party is the people who have their money in the chain, so there is not a security hole because if they try to manipulate a decision they will simply lose their money.


Quote
This cannot work. If a transaction or a block is invalid, it should be rejected by the nodes immediately, but what would stop them from rejecting double spends if all the network stands on is your "honesty"?

In this consensus users decide. How can you trust a node to "judge" if a transaction is invalid, or it hasn't been invalid on purpose?
Because of the feature what users decide, nodes should try to avoid validating invalid transactions due to double spending as you said before.


I believe that there is an interesting concept behind Proof of Honesty consensus and I want to see how it is actually working in such cases.
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 104


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 08:30:50 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4)
 #18

Any distributed p2p, digital currency which relies on trust to make it work is nothing more than a horrible mistake a best, and at worst it's a scam.

As soon as you make that trust sacrifice, you might as well throw it all in the bin and use VISA, which has none of the drawbacks associated with crypto, and is already accepted everywhere.

HeRetiK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 753


the forkings will continue until morale improves


View Profile
August 29, 2018, 08:33:34 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4)
 #19

My opinion is that an authority on the blockchain should be present in order to avoid fraudelent and malicious actions. See what's it going on right now on the Ethereum blockchain and ERC20 tokens which is full of scams.

Alt coin and token scams are what makes it all the more important to call out questionable buzzwords such as Proof of Honesty. Dressing up federated trust as a trademarked term called "Proof of Honesty" is borderline deceptive. Selling a centralized solution as "100% Byzantine Fault Tolerant" is like selling asbestos free milk -- it's good to know but the least that I would expect.


And also, if people are not so much in fond of federated trust, how is it possible that Ripple has so much support by users making it 3rd regarding Market Cap?

I'm not saying that people are not fond of federated trust. I'm just saying it's a regressive and naive approach at cryptocurrencies.


It can work to make things better, this is the reason why none works in the shadows. And I believe that there is a great exchanges of ideas in this thread that can lead to a positive outcome.

So we do agree after all that even in the conceptional phase valid criticism is productive Smiley


Reading the whitepaper, I can understand the point of Honest and Dishonest game theory and it seems very exciting. Many corners are still shady because we don't have the code and check it.

Many corners are still shady because the whitepaper claims to solve various problems without proposing concrete solutions. The implementation is irrelevant if the very concept is flawed.


Personally, I am fed up with the other projects that try to refine their chains that many times leading to forks and community confusion that lowers the value of the tokens.

If GeeqCorp can give an end to that I will definitely support them from the start till the end of the development.

The problem of hard forks is effectively ignored on the protocol level.

If one or more forks exist, the user is able to inspect them and then decide which one he wishes to use for his transactions. The CDM places the responsibility of choosing between forks in the hands of users who hold tokens on the chain and who would therefore be harmed if false transactions were written into “verified” blocks.


Authority exists in every blockchain. Do you think there is not high volumes of authority in Bitcoin, when Satoshi holds a huge amount of BTC and mining pools the majority of the hashing power? They get the rewards of the transactions so the value is accumulated on them and coins are spread among few users.

Owning large amounts of currency does not equate authority. Large amount of hashing power do not equate authority.

Anyone can participate in the network. No one can block or censor transactions. Block subsidy is not something that gets handed out by a central authority but is what pays for electricity, hardware and infrastructure, keeping the network's security autonomous without external oversight.

Falling back on a centralized authority just because PoW based cryptocurrencies have mining pools is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1009
Merit: 1012


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2018, 08:44:37 AM
 #20

Falling back on a centralized authority just because PoW based cryptocurrencies have mining pools is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

This.

It is interesting how new forum members here are advocating for authority, while all the more senior members highlight how that is kind of pointless on a blockchain.  Assuming the newbies are not just shills for PoH/GeeqCorp, this probably means that people new to the blockchain space typically need quite some time to actually understand what blockchain and decentralisation is and isn't about.

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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