A new consensus that promises high levels of security (PoH)

[proload]

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.

If you think it is better to use VISA it feels like you see more drawbacks in crypto rather than benefits. Maybe you don't want mass crypto adoption and use it for your everyday payments.

[1715593234]

1715593234

[1715593234]

1715593234

[1715593234]

1715593234

[1715593234]

1715593234

[monsterer2]

Looks like there are a lot of shills in this thread.

[Atherus]

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.

I can see many cryptocurrencies that try to be more decentralized as being centralized in the beginning so this may be a direction that it is perceived in a later stage of a centralized strategy.

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.

there are many different opinions about blockchain and decentralization, this is why i came to this place and learn more of that and evolve my critical thinking.

[HeRetiK]

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.

If you think it is better to use VISA it feels like you see more drawbacks in crypto rather than benefits. Maybe you don't want mass crypto adoption and use it for your everyday payments.

I think monsterer2 is pointing out the absurdity of centralized cryptocurrencies rather than claiming that decentralized cryptocurrencies are non-viable.

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.

I can see many cryptocurrencies that try to be more decentralized as being centralized in the beginning so this may be a direction that it is perceived in a later stage of a centralized strategy.

There's no hint of a later decentralized stage though. Even if such a stage would be advertised, its feasability would be rather questionable seeing how centralization lies at the very heart of this project. Centralized token issuance, centralized consensus... heck, even the name "Proof of Honesty" is trademarked apparently.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

But what would the Proof of Honesty participants be risking if they collude and control the network? If it is very cheap to collude and cheat the network then it would be very easy to do.

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.

Then would you agree that this is a collective for of centralization that would cost nothing to cheat the network? How would such a coin be valuable?

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.

I stopped reading at "users decide". That would be a consensus nightmare.

[TimeTeller]

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.

The critical problems that you pointed out are valid for this consensus.
Hence, PoH has a long way to go in establishing their niche here in the crypto world.
It would take time to validate their objectives for this consensus.
With how things are being handled in crypto, there's high chance that being labeled as "dishonest" may not be true at all and vice versa.
The criteria should be very precise on how they identify as "dishonest" or "honest" nodes, as their explanation is still hazy at the moment.

[cappy176]

seems pretty interesting but how would you know a dishonest node over an honest node what evidence would there be, and also as a miner would you only get a reward if people choose your node?

[DeluxeJR]

seems pretty interesting but how would you know a dishonest node over an honest node what evidence would there be, and also as a miner would you only get a reward if people choose your node?

From what I have read Dishonest and honest nodes are selected based on unanimity of users who has inserted their transactions for validation.A miner still gets reward if he is honest but still not selected. It feels like you are rewarded for keeping the system "Honest".

[Wind_FURY]

seems pretty interesting but how would you know a dishonest node over an honest node what evidence would there be, and also as a miner would you only get a reward if people choose your node?

From what I have read Dishonest and honest nodes are selected based on unanimity of users who has inserted their transactions for validation.A miner still gets reward if he is honest but still not selected. It feels like you are rewarded for keeping the system "Honest".

That suggests that the network should trust other users to act in good faith which is already a security hole itself in my opinion. A decentralized network should never require third party trust. This is why Bitcoin robustly works.

[onelineproof]

I think a decentralized reputation system can sort-of work as a proof-of-honesty. You can see my post about a potential sidechain that I want to work on regarding this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4919679.msg44289606#msg44289606

[einax_oliver]

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?

There are tons of problems with this approach. First of all, a user has no idea if the validator is indeed honest even if he was honest in the previous block. Second, a malicious entity can create an infinite amount of malicious nodes to create an illusion of the selected validator, to be honest. In the end, this consensus will inevitably lead to having a handful of trusted validators thus making this system controlled by them.

On the side note, your idea reminds me of how EOS (and it's deligated proof of stake) works. This is a step away from the trustless and decentralized system.