Shahin Go-Round, Proof-of-Consistency (PoCo) and the RingChain..

[mixoftix]

Hello everybody..

By an innovative block structure that we call it Shahin Go-Round, we could bring arbitrary integrity/difficulty power into blockchain transactions level. More to the point and as you know better, Merkle-Tree is a drastic data structure for transaction verification but when we face huge amount of concurrent verification processes inside a block, we need to move on several parallel paths which is pretty bandwidth and time consuming. But in Shahin Go-Round we could follow linear shortcuts that save the time and processing power. However Shahin Go-Round is consuming more disk space, but also has good effect on energy consumption by bringing nonce from block header to block payload.

There is a document that describes Shahin Go-Round in detail - available at:
http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/shahin_go-round.pdf

This may be a new approach to green blockchains so all feed-backs are welcome.

-- Shahin Noursalehi

UPDATED [November 26, 2018]:

Proof-of-Consistency (PoCo) module included (pages 11-16) - available at:
http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/shahin_go-round_v_1_1.pdf

UPDATED [December 26, 2018]:
Power Point Presentation file / PoCo Workshop - available at:
http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/shahin_go-round_v_1_2.ppt

UPDATED [January 11, 2019]:
All provided documents in this post are under MIT License and this will update in next editions of documents.

[1714976124]

1714976124

[1714976124]

1714976124

[1714976124]

1714976124

[1714976124]

1714976124

[1714976124]

1714976124

[aliashraf]

Just checked your document:

1- I think, you don't need to invent a new data structure and label  for every single improvement. For instance your proposal for embedding 'work' in transactions has a very good background in cryptocurrency (check IOTA) and i've included this in my PoCW proposal lately.

2- Merkle tree is a good and simple tool for hashing lists of data, you have just log₂n+n hashes to do which is super efficient. There is nothing to improve here!

3- There is no "green" work in the universe. Work is messy it increases anthropy and consumes energy. Bitcoin's consumption of energy is its source of value. Nobody could ever invent a way for bitcoin to consume less energy and keep its value at the same time, it is essentially paradoxical.

4- Transactions carrying "work" means wallets doing work and not miners, unlike what you think. In my own proposal, I'm suggesting a portion of work being projected to wallets (like 10-20 percents).


P.S:


good to hear from Iran  

Things are getting so difficult for people in Iran and resisting against bullyism in monetary system is the right mission for cryptocurrency. I don't understand how and why US and Trump administration's brutal and rude behavior against people of Iran is overlooked by crypto advocates but obviously Iran government is evil too, they are mostly a bunch of corrupted hypocrites who have been busy systematically destroying this great nation for years.

Checking your institutional relationship with a company that basically is another ordinary/opportunist player in the foggy business atmosphere of Iran is just worrying. Are you sure the dick heads running the company aren't planning for "their" coin or something?  

[mixoftix]

Just checked your document:

1- I think, you don't need to invent a new data structure and label  for every single improvement. For instance your proposal for embedding 'work' in transactions has a very good background in cryptocurrency (check IOTA) and i've included this in my PoCW proposal lately.

2- Merkle tree is a good and simple tool for hashing lists of data, you have just log₂n+n hashes to do which is super efficient. There is nothing to improve here!

3- There is no "green" work in the universe. Work is messy it increases anthropy and consumes energy. Bitcoin's consumption of energy is its source of value. Nobody could ever invent a way for bitcoin to consume less energy and keep its value at the same time, it is essentially paradoxical.

4- Transactions carrying "work" means wallets doing work and not miners, unlike what you think. In my own proposal, I'm suggesting a portion of work being projected to wallets (like 10-20 percents).


P.S:


good to hear from Iran  

Things are getting so difficult for people in Iran and resisting against bullyism in monetary system is the right mission for cryptocurrency. I don't understand how and why US and Trump administration's brutal and rude behavior against people of Iran is overlooked by crypto advocates but obviously Iran government is evil too, they are mostly a bunch of corrupted hypocrites who have been busy systematically destroying this great nation for years.

Checking your institutional relationship with a company that basically is another ordinary/opportunist player in the foggy business atmosphere of Iran is just worrying. Are you sure the dick heads running the company aren't planning for "their" coin or something?  

Hi Ali, thanks for reply.

1- I know some good engineers that believe blockchain is just a linked list and Merkle tree is just a binary tree, mixed with hash algorithms. But we know well these all are about providing new Use Cases and we assess their importance by their outcomes.

And about embedding work in transaction level, the IOTA is entirely another concept in this area. From iota.org : “The Tangle is a new data structure based on a Directed Acyclic Graph. As such it has no Blocks, no Chain and also no Miners. This radical new architecture enables things in IOTA work quite differently compared to Blockchains and other Distributed Ledger Technologies.”

But Shahin Go-Round still needs Miners and Blocks and Chains (with same consensus model and level) to do things.

2- Well, it first happened in my lab that I found out if we decide to download and process several transactions of a block, we should pass a longer path with Merkle Tree than linear paths that I have mentioned in document with simple calculations. For limited amounts of transactions Merkle Tree is still the best option.

These are something like differences among insertion sort (that takes time equal to C1 x N^2) and merge sort (that takes time equal to C2 x N x LOG[N]) algorithms to sort N items. Although insertion sort is usually faster than merge sort for small input size, once the input size N becomes large enough, merge sort’s advantage of LOG[N] vs. N will more than compensate for the difference in constant factors (C1, C2). C1 and C2 represent processing power of two different machine.  

By the way, Shahin Go-Round uses 2 x (log2n+n) hashes for a list of data.

3- But I really think people’s trust is the source of bitcoin’s value and energy consumption will destroy it in future. Entropy does not always satisfy by doing more work. Sometimes a simple change in work flows could improve performance too. This is why we sometimes fork a network to handle its new versions.

4- Shahin Go-Round doesn’t need clients to do anything than signing their transactions and orders. There are always transaction pools that a client could submit her job to it and wait for a miner to accept her transaction to process.

And I really like to read your proposal too. Would you please let us read it too - if applicable?

P.S.

You know, governments are pretty different things from nations. And just because I am not good in politics, I personally try to do my researches for nations that all of them are respectable. BTW, I am just a private researcher that works in his own lab – no other relationships.  -- Shahin

[aliashraf]

Hi Ali, thanks for reply.

1- I know some good engineers that believe blockchain is just a linked list and Merkle tree is just a binary tree, mixed with hash algorithms. But we know well these all are about providing new Use Cases and we assess their importance by their outcomes.

And about embedding work in transaction level, the IOTA is entirely another concept in this area. From iota.org : “The Tangle is a new data structure based on a Directed Acyclic Graph. As such it has no Blocks, no Chain and also no Miners. This radical new architecture enables things in IOTA work quite differently compared to Blockchains and other Distributed Ledger Technologies.”

But Shahin Go-Round still needs Miners and Blocks and Chains (with same consensus model and level) to do things.

2- Well, it first happened in my lab that I found out if we decide to download and process several transactions of a block, we should pass a longer path with Merkle Tree than linear paths that I have mentioned in document with simple calculations. For limited amounts of transactions Merkle Tree is still the best option.

These are something like differences among insertion sort (that takes time equal to C1 N^2) and merge sort (that takes time equal to C2 N LOG[N]) algorithms to sort N items. Although insertion sort is usually faster than merge sort for small input size, once the input size N becomes large enough, merge sort’s advantage of LOG[N] vs. N will more than compensate for the difference in constant factors (C1, C2). C1 and C2 may represent processing power of two different machine.  

By the way, Shahin Go-Round uses 2 x (log2n+n) hashes for a list of data.

3- But I really think people’s trust is the source of bitcoin’s value and energy consumption will destroy it in future. Entropy does not always satisfy by doing more work. Sometimes a simple change in work flows could improve performance too. This is why we sometimes fork a network to handle its new versions.

4- Shahin Go-Round doesn’t need clients to do anything than signing their transactions and orders. There are always transaction pools that a client could submit her job to it and wait for a miner to accept her transaction to process.

And I really like to read your proposal too. Would you please let us read it too - if applicable?

P.S.

You know, governments are pretty different things from nations. And just because I am not good in politics, I personally try to do my researches for nations that all of them are respectable. BTW, I am just a private researcher that works in his own lab – no other relationships.  -- Shahin

Shahin, I understand your situation as a software developer/engineer (a good one as I see) new to cryptocurrency and I appreciate your ambitions and courage but you are wrong about a few things here:
1- No miner is needed in your schema as long as there is no nonce in block level and transactions are not assembled by miners they are generated by users wallets and it will be the responsibility of wallets to generate your so-called "bounce"s. Otherwise how is it possible to have a block with multiple miners? Who has assembled this block and why?
Your idea regarding transactions and only transactions carrying work is good but IOTA and tangle is the way you should go not the classical blockchain.

2- Processing Merkle Path is not the bottleneck right now, fetching missed transactions from the peer is. So, given you are suggesting a more optimized data structure for processing transaction list ( which is not the case by the way, Merkle Path navigation is O(log_n) and optimized already) it is not a good point to start from anyway.

3- If you are a fan of "people's trust", you better focus on PoS shits instead of a PoW legendary system like bitcoin. Analogically speaking, people do not "trust" in gold they appreciate its value and the amount of resources socially necessary  to find, extract, refine, ... it.
Just like gold, bitcoin's value is determined by the amount of resources (energy, human resource, rent, overhead, ...) consumable for its production. Price eventually follows the value.

You can find my PoCW proposal here .

P.S.
I noticed you have officially announced yourself as being a researcher for a known payment processing company despite your latest statements here.
I know these companies and how they make it to be authorized and trusted by Bank Markazi to have access to bank gateways, etc.
I'm not a fan of politics too, but as an Iranian engineer, I have to be cautious about dis-transparency and corruption in my country, it is the most professional and least political approach possible for a software developer in Iran.

[mixoftix]

I barely understand your paper, but my thoughts are :
1. As aliashraf mentioned, merkle tree already very efficient. Besides, how about transaction verification by SPV wallet? from what i understand, SPV wallet need to get whole block to verify the transaction.
1. I don't see much advantage points of adding Bounce since it's value can be generated/modified with no cost.
2. While this idea could reduce "wasted" electricity since PoW based on winner-takes-all, total electricity used for mining is still same.
3. In part 5, it mentions that "and when there is no transaction in transactions pool, the system code could generate a rescue transaction for a new block and miners could still compete". I see there's conflict possibility due to transaction propagation, few nodes might generate rescue transaction just before receive a transaction.

Hello ETFbitcoin, hope all is well.

1- I need to refer you to the insertion sort and merge sort comparison part of answer to Ali. And about Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) - as I know too - SPVs just keep the header of blocks and download partial content of blocks whenever they are needed. There is also a paragraph in document that describes SPV.

1 again- The whole idea behind adding Bounce values in transaction level is great and is what I really like it. Bounces in transaction level just work as nonce values in block header. So you still need to find a proper bounce value to meet an individual difficulty for a transaction. But first of all, bounce values are different from one transaction to the others – so they are customizable. A user may order a difficulty target for her own transaction and pay for it. Nonce values are good for proof-of-work but bounce values are created for both proof-of-work and increasing the overall security of the network. This is how a bounce value works:

Imagine we have a hash (SHA256) value like this:

6D58A06DC487C30E5309FAEF7764C5C6D8E63EB50E437C4D473CA3E19601313F

With a custom difficulty level of 7 we need our miners find a bounce value that its output hash value begin with the first 7 characters of our input string:

6D58A06

And its bounce value should fit in a formula too. For example bounce values should be greater than the sum of digit parts of the input hash string too. Also, each zero may mean multiply the sum of digits in 10:

From 65806487305309776456863504374473319601313
Sum of (658648735397764568635437447331961313) =
180 x (10^5) = 18000000

So the output hash may be something like this:

6D58A069F1645B816F40DA4B91BBF9C401BAA3074D1D93C395EBBB4D102A09AB

With bounce value of 21734093 that is greater than 18000000.

Forcing bounce values to fit in a formula makes their output hash values higher resistant against collision attacks. There are reports like link bellow that shows a pattern in nonce values of classic crypto-currencies, so bounce is going to change the rules of the game:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24650/looking-for-nonces-of-even-numbers

2- Let discuss power consumption with simple calculations. Imagine we have 1000 miners in a classic blockchain and the target difficulty of 10 zeros which carries 100 transactions in its content. When 1000 miners begin to compete we know that finally 999 of them will lose the reward – and waste energy in fixed level of a high difficulty target – e.g. 1500 KWH.

Now let remove the nonce value from block header and say to our miner army find their prize in 100 different transactions (note: this is not a transaction fee). If we don’t want to make things complicated, we could see we have 900 of miners that lose, but in different range of difficulty target (e.g. proceeding for 4 to 10 zeros) – so we have improvement in rewarded miners from 1 to 100 with less waste in power for both winners and losers. Now miners could define their strategy to compete in a race that may finally lose 10 KWH or 1500 KWH which could lead us to new segmentation model. What I really tried to design is about defining a group of pre-mined transactions as a block; so you as end user could rent a dedicated miner (CPU, GPU or ASIC) to pre-mine your transactions, which could put us in the most ideal power consumption situation and break down any kinds of gold rush in a crypto-currency network. This means end users will rule these kinds of networks, not those miners who own the most hash power.

However Shahin Go-Round has its own method in transaction segmentation, but you could find some other new ideas here in this paper too:

http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/scaling_blockchain_to_human_commerce.pdf


3- True, however I could accept this as a price that we pay for benefit from the advantages of a decentralized system. And we have two options here: one, we could ignore to pay reward for a block that contains no transaction. No activity, No Profit – this is fair. two, still follow the rule of longest chain is the valid one and accept unexpected rescue transaction as a natural event that sometimes happens in the network.

-- Shahin

[mixoftix]

Shahin, I understand your situation as a software developer/engineer (a good one as I see) new to cryptocurrency and I appreciate your ambitions and courage but you are wrong about a few things here:
1- No miner is needed in your schema as long as there is no nonce in block level and transactions are not assembled by miners they are generated by users wallets and it will be the responsibility of wallets to generate your so-called "bounce"s. Otherwise how is it possible to have a block with multiple miners? Who has assembled this block and why?
Your idea regarding transactions and only transactions carrying work is good but IOTA and tangle is the way you should go not the classical blockchain.

2- Processing Merkle Path is not the bottleneck right now, fetching missed transactions from the peer is. So, given you are suggesting a more optimized data structure for processing transaction list ( which is not the case by the way, Merkle Path navigation is O(log_n) and optimized already) it is not a good point to start from anyway.

3- If you are a fan of "people's trust", you better focus on PoS shits instead of a PoW legendary system like bitcoin. Analogically speaking, people do not "trust" in gold they appreciate its value and the amount of resources socially necessary  to find, extract, refine, ... it.
Just like gold, bitcoin's value is determined by the amount of resources (energy, human resource, rent, overhead, ...) consumable for its production. Price eventually follows the value.

You can find my PoCW proposal here .

P.S.
I noticed you have officially announced yourself as being a researcher for a known payment processing company despite your latest statements here.
I know these companies and how they make it to be authorized and trusted by Bank Markazi to have access to bank gateways, etc.
I'm not a fan of politics too, but as an Iranian engineer, I have to be cautious about dis-transparency and corruption in my country, it is the most professional and least political approach possible for a software developer in Iran.

I think what I do is something beyond ambition, Ali. This is a pure curiosity. This is more than 4 years that I follow the blockchain and crypto-currency in theory and modeling sample blockchains in my local servers. I also mine some coins by wide range of processors from cheap raspberry boards to an expensive rig in my lab and even designed a controller board for rigs that work in farms, just to better understand where these all are going to. And I’m learning very much from your comments and I do appreciate it too.

1- Wallet resources are not good options in this schema. Bounces really need energy to solve the puzzle that directly comes from end user. Nodes still build the blocks, but this time they will benefit from the verification and confirmation fees.

I think IOTA (if speed up its network, despite of its downgrade to 34% for attacks) is good for micro-payment, but I am looking for a solution to handle decentralized digital-assets. So naturally this would be a good idea to have an upgrade plan for classic blockchains.

2- Fetching missed transactions is also an interesting problem. While miners tend to ignore transaction with lower fees, this problem will remain unsolved until a new PROOF model changes the work flows. In fact this new data structure that we are discussing here, is going to be the foundation of a new PROOF model.

3- based on my own analysis PoS is a loser solution. But PoW is valuable, however this needs urgent upgrades too. This is where I hope to introduce Proof-of-Integrity as a new consensus model and bounce values are going to play a key role here. With PoI energy will consume to provide exactly the requested amount of complexity for security reasons – not to join a gold rush. Wasting energy in a gold rush is bad, not using energy for a purpose.

Also, thank you for the link. I should read your proposal in free time with enough attention, but as a quick review I see that you are going to omit the role of pools in this ecosystem, and this could make people think your proposal is not Pareto Efficient. Please let me address you to Pareto Efficiency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

I think this would be a good idea that does not omit entities, but let end users select – based on their best practices.

P.S.:

Well, I am also an innovation advisor in managerial board of IranKish (one of 12 Payment Service Providers that work in a closed payment loop in Iran) and they support my private researches too. PSP companies are under regulation of cenral bank, not a part of that and as you know, central bank of Iran is going to generate its own crypto-currency by Hyperledger Project and as you know they never cooperate with private (you read independent) researchers that offer innovative ideas. I really hope using of blockchain becomes a regular thing everywhere (which brings transparency) but personally I would like to begin an ICO abroad, based on what we discussed above – the PoI. If you are familiar with Persian, you could also join my channel in telegram and follow my works:

https://t.me/baranidea

-- Shahin

[aliashraf]

1- Wallet resources are not good options in this schema. Bounces really need energy to solve the puzzle that directly comes from end user. Nodes still build the blocks, but this time they will benefit from the verification and confirmation fees.

There is no way for a miner to benefit from building a block other than by introducing a nonce to the block header along with her reward address. This is true also for block reward and its distribution strategy. Your miners should attach not only your beloved "bounce"s but also their wallet addresses, now the question will be about the amount of this reward, whose responsibility would be to create the coinbase transaction and what stops him to include his parties transactions and compensate for their attached work plus interest? What would be the cost of such an attack and basically how it could ever be mitigated? and so on.

I afraid, these are not insignificant issues fixable by simple tweaks, the whole idea is weak and fragile.

3- based on my own analysis PoS is a loser solution. But PoW is valuable, however this needs urgent upgrades too. This is where I hope to introduce Proof-of-Integrity as a new consensus model and bounce values are going to play a key role here. With PoI energy will consume to provide exactly the requested amount of complexity for security reasons – not to join a gold rush. Wasting energy in a gold rush is bad, not using energy for a purpose.

The "wasting energy" accusations of bitcoin are absolutely misled PoS/anti-bitcoin propaganda. I fill you've trapped in this unintentionally and now you are left with an unthoughtful mitigation to a flaw that never existed. I've been there myself, no worries, move on.

Actually, not a single kw of total bitcoin network is wasted. Every single kw of total energy consumed in bitcoin network is an absolutely necessary part of what keeps bitcoin safe and secure. To understand it once forever, note that an adversary should consume a comparable amount of energy that loyal miners consume to impose a serious and permanent damage to bitcoin.

Also, thank you for the link. I should read your proposal in free time with enough attention, but as a quick review I see that you are going to omit the role of pools in this ecosystem, and this could make people think your proposal is not Pareto Efficient. Please let me address you to Pareto Efficiency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

I think this would be a good idea that does not omit entities, but let end users select – based on their best practices.

Sorry, but neither bitcoin nor any other cryptocurrency is capable of compensating for damages caused by decentralization. Bitcoin itself by no means deserves to be considered Pareto_efficient, as a disruptive industrial and technological development.  


P.S.
Thanks for the invitation but I don't trust centralized social networks, as Satoshi's legacy, btctalk is an exception

[mixoftix]

In this post there is a new PROOF model that tries to reduce the energy consumption and relay some parts of job to transaction level:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5067769.0

in TAU-Coin I have found an interesting section entitled “reward distribution” in page 5 of the whitepaper which introduces a clipping function that ensures preventing meaningless transactions that do not come from economic need for trade. A copy of the TAU whitepaper is available here too:

http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/tau_coin_v_4.pdf

[aliashraf]

In this post there is a new PROOF model that tries to reduce the energy consumption and relay some parts of job to transaction level:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5067769.0

in TAU-Coin I have found an interesting section entitled “reward distribution” in page 5 of the whitepaper which introduces a clipping function that ensures preventing meaningless transactions that do not come from economic need for trade. A copy of the TAU whitepaper is available here too:

http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/tau_coin_v_4.pdf

Unlike what TAU whitepaper claims, belonging to a new class of consensus algorithms, I think it is basically PoS and yet not the most impressive one:

- Like most PoS coins, it is totally pre-mined through genesis. Funders distribute their subjective coins (which are essentially worthless because carry no work hence have no value) arbitrarily in a centralized fashion, there is no issuance hence no mining (no matter what they call their block generation process).

- There is no resource consumption and no work, just having access to an address used in a transaction as input, is enough to be considered eligible for participating in block generation and collecting fees from transactions.

- Specially, transactions don't carry work, they carry fees, part of the sender's balance.

- In TAU they try to overcome hoarding tendency flaw in PoS by avoiding stake deposits and prioritizing addresses used as inputs to transactions based on fees they've paid, but it makes it impossible to punish misbehavior and opens doors to nothing at stake attacks.

- Like most PoS systems they use an aging algorithm that prioritizes elder transactions (deposits originally).

-It suffers from availability problem, high risks of centralization (because of its built-in delegation mechanism), frequent unintentional forks, ... according to my preliminary assessment.

I don't see a good reason to dive even deeper in TAU-Coin, there are a zillion of ideas and alternatives, unfortunately it is not possible to examine all of them in details but I personally have one measure to be impressed: elegance. I afraid, TAU-coin lacks any sign of elegance and neatness being a conglomeration of ideas used as PR material for scamming people in the worst case or another implementation attempt for a failed approach to cryptocurrency in the best scenario.

Generally, I'm against using protocol/software tricks  to cover model breaches. As an example I don't recognize  Vitalik Buterin infamous weak subjectivity and his slasher algorithm as something even close to a mitigation to nothing at stake flaw in PoS. Somehow I have a dogmatic approach to protocol/software design that prevents me of recognizing tweaks and tricks as a modelling practice.

As of TAU-COIN relevance to your ideas, I don't see such a relationship, you are in PoW campus, TAU is PoS. PoW produces money by hard work, PoS forges money from thin air, big difference.

[mixoftix]

I don't see a good reason to dive even deeper in TAU-Coin, there are a zillion of ideas and alternatives, unfortunately it is not possible to examine all of them in details but I personally have one measure to be impressed: elegance. I afraid, TAU-coin lacks any sign of elegance and neatness being a conglomeration of ideas used as PR material for scamming people in the worst case or another implementation attempt for a failed approach to cryptocurrency in the best scenario.

Generally, I'm against using protocol/software tricks  to cover model breaches. As an example I don't recognize  Vitalik Buterin infamous weak subjectivity and his slasher algorithm as something even close to a mitigation to nothing at stake flaw in PoS. Somehow I have a dogmatic approach to protocol/software design that prevents me of recognizing tweaks and tricks as a modelling practice.

As of TAU-COIN relevance to your ideas, I don't see such a relationship, you are in PoW campus, TAU is PoS. PoW produces money by hard work, PoS forges money from thin air, big difference.

True. What I see in TAU is a PoS model too.

- This would be a good decision to call the coins of PoS *pre-defined* not pre-mined. Because “mining” comes from a work that creates value during the block creation. The phrase pre-mined also refers us to a work, but this time happens out of a block, and before the block creation.

- True. No work, no value. When we need to do work, this means we need several tools to do that. Request for tools in real world creates real values that finally transform into virtual values and transfer back into virtual world. There is a kind of Supply Chain behind PoW that makes it valuable.

And I agree in problems with TAU-COIN's centralized mechanism (mining club market) too, and I wrote about it for them. And about elegant work flows, there is a quote from Steve Jobs: “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works”. We could extend this quote to elegant system design too.

And about using protocol/software tricks, the fact behind a successful crypto-currency could better understand by Inverted Pendulum problem in control engineering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

There is no “tricks” in engineering world that fit in automatic control theory to design systems. We need an exact monitoring list of all forces involved in our system and define proper reactions to finally create a system that is automatically stable. Activating proper reactions for unpredicted forces needs planed WORK, not TRICK – and you are right.

By Shahin Go-Round (data structure) and its related PROOF model (that it seems I have to describe it in continue), what I am looking for, is to suggest a B-Plan for bitcoin data flow; whenever bitcoin network needs to improve its power consumption model, and make it more stable and valuable. Therefore to evaluate this B-Plan I may implement a crypto-currency to understand if the new PROOF model will work properly or not..

[mixoftix]

Proof-of-Consistency (PoC) module (pages 11-16) included to the previous data structure - available at:
http://www.mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/shahin_go-round_v_1_1.pdf

after reading the feedbacks and making proper changes:

- rescue transactions totally removed
- reward fee got back to block creation
- miners will benefit from transaction fee

also "Dither Effect" has a major role in the whole process and causes:

+ putting the whole process of block creation under effect of a controlled random noise
+ network fee that wipes out a part of transfer fee
+ oxidation fee that wipes out a part of transfer fee for old unused records.

all feedbacks are welcome.

UPDATED:

in summary, the PoC enforces all participants to fully check the consistency of the network over and over.

[aliashraf]

As much as I appreciate your dedication and ambitious spirit, I need to maintain my previous objections almost unchanged:

1- You should reconsider the idea of "green PoW".  Seriously, there is not such thing at all. Keeping blockchain secure needs resource consumption and electricity is the main resource in this context, for a given price and attack threat level, less electricity consumption means less security because malicious behavior costs drop as well. Period.

2- Miners 'working' on transaction level is not good idea, forget about it. For this to happen they should generate single transaction blocks (pointing to the legitimate chain (32 bytes), attaching a coinbase to claim their reward (32 bytes) , timestamping (4 bytes), ... ), it is obviously a waste of space and bandwidth.

4- Users picking a miner to inform him of their raw transaction is another bad idea. It makes transaction propagation a nightmare vulnerable to censorship and availability problems.

5- Synchronizing such "enriched by work transactions" to be prioritized by a block is the most ugly part. Blockchain technology is about prioritizing transactions, a mechanism for doing it. Competing blocks need a definitive measure to win the race and it is the amount of work they represent, when transactions carry the work (and not blocks) it would be so easy for adversaries to collect enough votes for chain rewrite attacks.

As an admirer and a friend who wishes best for you, I strongly recommend  not wasting your time and resources on the core idea of this proposal and starting a less disruptive one as an improvement to current technology rather than a full rewrite.

cheers  

P.S
I've been advised more than once to formalize my proposals, define projects, get investors, ... and I had always kinda hesitation about it. I believe ideas should be shared in their infancy before you've invested too much (time, reputation, money, ...) on them and before they have been advertised as an achievement. I mean it, we make ideas not the opposite. We should not be taken as hostage by our ideas. We need to keep the right of throwing out the whole idea and start fresh without too much pain and financial/personal consequences.

Institutional researchers act differently, they pick some idea no matter what then generate a lot of documents including a whitepaper besides passing a budget.  After a while, when digging a hole in a desert fails to look fruitful and the budget is no longer feasible to e revised, they simply accuse community of not being thoughtful or bitcoin of being ahead because of its historical and brand premium, ... it is why institutional research doesn't work in cryptocurrency. Otherwise Faketosh Wrong and the army of hired programmers around him had something to be proud of, they do not.

[mixoftix]

As much as I appreciate your dedication and ambitious spirit, I need to maintain my previous objections almost unchanged:

your technical notes and the time you spend to show weaknesses of the new idea is respectable. please continue.

1- You should reconsider the idea of "green PoW".  Seriously, there is not such thing at all. Keeping blockchain secure needs resource consumption and electricity is the main resource in this context, for a given price and attack threat level, less electricity consumption means less security because malicious behavior costs drop as well. Period.

2- Miners 'working' on transaction level is not good idea, forget about it. For this to happen they should generate single transaction blocks (pointing to the legitimate chain (32 bytes), attaching a coinbase to claim their reward (32 bytes) , timestamping (4 bytes), ... ), it is obviously a waste of space and bandwidth.

1 & 2 - with PoC I try to decrease the power consumption and replace it (trade off) with space & bandwidth consumption. space & bandwidth consumption are much more power efficient. also, the space that we use for fees and rewards are temporary and could vanish after calculation - because they simply could recalculate based on the blockchain. after 1 year these sort of data will worth nothing.

4- Users picking a miner to inform him of their raw transaction is another bad idea. It makes transaction propagation a nightmare vulnerable to censorship and availability problems.

4- don't think like a PoW believer  

in PoC miner's Marketing Knowledge is inevitable for receiving job from end user. this opens new horizons of social marketing and face-to-face marketing among end users and miners. in fact, instead of counting on processing power of a miner in PoW, I try to count on the legitimacy of a miner in real world. e.g. a charity organization may host a PoC mining facility and end users that know them very good may give their raw transactions to them. in PoC miners act locally and nodes act globally.

5- Synchronizing such "enriched by work transactions" to be prioritized by a block is the most ugly part. Blockchain technology is about prioritizing transactions, a mechanism for doing it. Competing blocks need a definitive measure to win the race and it is the amount of work they represent, when transactions carry the work (and not blocks) it would be so easy for adversaries to collect enough votes for chain rewrite attacks.

5- how you can say UGLY to the most beautiful part of PoC (JK   )..

I need to explain the situation. in Byzantine Generals Problem, the synchronization process initiates from one node that we call it "commander" among other generals - and this suits the PoW where a miner finds a nonce first and act as a commander in the current round of block creation. but in PoC, there are several pre-mined transactions that are valid and gathered by each general - separately. so simple voting system doesn't work in PoC. this is where The Chinese Generals Problem get involve in the PoC:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C55D9B5E6954B0AC79C53040430024F6?doi=10.1.1.532.4485&rep=rep1&type=pdf

the CGP is about several sensor nodes that individually sense a value (0/1) from the environment and then decide to sync them among each other to reach the consensus - all around an isomorphic ring. there is no commander node in CGP. the paper above shows how vulnerable is an isomorphic ring to consensus, and this is exactly what I need in PoC - because simply could show there is a traitor among nodes. any consensus value less than 100% will reject (and drops out the traitor) and reforms by a non-isomorphic ring that could handle the synchronization process.

however in contrary of pre-mined transaction values, a sensor value is editable and this makes CGP just a good background research/ solution for PoC. and this is the point that I should define The Persian Generals Problem which completely suits the PoC.

in PoC with The Persian Generals Problem, those miners and nodes which have more transfer fee / reward fee has more voting power in the round. please take in mind that the circulated data in the network is not editable and after block creation is not irreversible. there is no *longer chain is valid* law in PoC. instead of creating a block and wait 1 hour for enough confirmation in PoW, in PoC we decide to wait 1 hour for solving The Persian Generals Problem, then publish a concrete block..

As an admirer and a friend who wishes best for you, I strongly recommend  not wasting your time and resources on the core idea of this proposal and starting a less disruptive one as an improvement to current technology rather than a full rewrite.

cheers  

I really hope to do so, but it is impossible for great achievements with current approach of PoW. PoW has its own weaknesses too, you know, based on proofs in Two Generals' Problem the 100% safety never happens - we only could mitigate it.

P.S
I've been advised more than once to formalize my proposals, define projects, get investors, ... and I had always kinda hesitation about it. I believe ideas should be shared in their infancy before you've invested too much (time, reputation, money, ...) on them and before they have been advertised as an achievement. I mean it, we make ideas not the opposite. We should not be taken as hostage by our ideas. We need to keep the right of throwing out the whole idea and start fresh without too much pain and financial/personal consequences.

Institutional researchers act differently, they pick some idea no matter what then generate a lot of documents including a whitepaper besides passing a budget.  After a while, when digging a hole in a desert fails to look fruitful and the budget is no longer feasible to e revised, they simply accuse community of not being thoughtful or bitcoin of being ahead because of its historical and brand premium, ... it is why institutional research doesn't work in cryptocurrency. Otherwise Faketosh Wrong and the army of hired programmers around him had something to be proud of, they do not.

True. we call it MVP in innovation management. also, as a blue skies researcher I know that how much FAILURES are worthy and respectable - we call them EXPERIENCE.  so every thing is under control..

[aliashraf]

As much as I appreciate your dedication and ambitious spirit, I need to maintain my previous objections almost unchanged:

your technical notes and the time you spend to show weaknesses of the new idea is respectable. please continue.

1- You should reconsider the idea of "green PoW".  Seriously, there is not such thing at all. Keeping blockchain secure needs resource consumption and electricity is the main resource in this context, for a given price and attack threat level, less electricity consumption means less security because malicious behavior costs drop as well. Period.

2- Miners 'working' on transaction level is not good idea, forget about it. For this to happen they should generate single transaction blocks (pointing to the legitimate chain (32 bytes), attaching a coinbase to claim their reward (32 bytes) , timestamping (4 bytes), ... ), it is obviously a waste of space and bandwidth.

1 & 2 - with PoC I try to decrease the power consumption and replace it (trade off) with space & bandwidth consumption. space & bandwidth consumption are much more power efficient. also, the space that we use for fees and rewards are temporary and could vanish after calculation - because they simply could recalculate based on the blockchain. after 1 year these sort of data will worth nothing.

1- As of power consumption decrease: No such thing at all in your proposal, and it is not even possible to replace energy by space or bandwidth. Think about it! The adversary could equip himself with enough amount of such resources with neglectable cost. Security in decentralized ecosystem is about the equilibrium state of network in which attack costs considerably are higher than incentives/potential benefits for the attacker.

2- I maintain that attaching work by miners to transactions is bad Idea.

4- Users picking a miner to inform him of their raw transaction is another bad idea. It makes transaction propagation a nightmare vulnerable to censorship and availability problems.

4- don't think like a PoW believer  

in PoC miner's Marketing Knowledge is inevitable for receiving job from end user. this opens new horizons of social marketing and face-to-face marketing among end users and miners. in fact, instead of counting on processing power of a miner in PoW, I try to count on the legitimacy of a miner in real world. e.g. a charity organization may host a PoC mining facility and end users that know them very good may give their raw transactions to them. in PoC miners act locally and nodes act globally.

It is another bad idea, with a multiple layer of chaotic consequences.

5- Synchronizing such "enriched by work transactions" to be prioritized by a block is the most ugly part. Blockchain technology is about prioritizing transactions, a mechanism for doing it. Competing blocks need a definitive measure to win the race and it is the amount of work they represent, when transactions carry the work (and not blocks) it would be so easy for adversaries to collect enough votes for chain rewrite attacks.

5- how you can say UGLY to the most beautiful part of PoC (JK   )..

I need to explain the situation. in Byzantine Generals Problem, the synchronization process initiates from one node that we call it "commander" among other generals - and this suits the PoW where a miner finds a nonce first and act as a commander in the current round of block creation. but in PoC, there are several pre-mined transactions that are valid and gathered by each general - separately. so simple voting system doesn't work in PoC. this is where The Chinese Generals Problem get involve in the PoC:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C55D9B5E6954B0AC79C53040430024F6?doi=10.1.1.532.4485&rep=rep1&type=pdf

the CGP is about several sensor nodes that individually sense a value (0/1) from the environment and then decide to sync them among each other to reach the consensus - all around an isomorphic ring. there is no commander node in CGP. the paper above shows how vulnerable is an isomorphic ring to consensus, and this is exactly what I need in PoC - because simply could show there is a traitor among nodes. any consensus value less than 100% will reject (and drops out the traitor) and reforms by a non-isomorphic ring that could handle the synchronization process.

however in contrary of pre-mined transaction values, a sensor value is editable and this makes CGP just a good background research/ solution for PoC. and this is the point that I should define The Persian Generals Problem which completely suits the PoC.

in PoC with The Persian Generals Problem, those miners and nodes which have more transfer fee / reward fee has more voting power in the round. please take in mind that the circulated data in the network is not editable and after block creation is not irreversible. there is no *longer chain is valid* law in PoC. instead of creating a block and wait 1 hour for enough confirmation in PoW, in PoC we decide to wait 1 hour for solving The Persian Generals Problem, then publish a concrete block..

As I remember, you have already mentioned Butterin's ridiculous  99.5% which is based on such a version of Albanian Generals Problem both dependent on signed and synchronous messaging and I refuted such weird and obsolete ideas to be useful for cryptocurrencies, and as I remember, you retracted from this. Now once again, you are bringing it up!
What for? To cover the obvious weakness in your block generation algorithm. IOW, instead of simply taking back your proposal about blocks not enriched by nonce (work) you prefer to commit suicide

It is really suicide, jumping to dark zones of non-BGP issues. First you propose miners advertising themselves and now your nodes are trying to 'synchronize' by (apparently) signing blocks in an accumulative way (otherwise how they are non-rewritable or irreversible?) it is Buterin's 99.5% joke.

There is a reason for Pow being asynchronous and blocks not signed by peers: it is permissionless, p2p, public network of anonymous participants. Any proposal that requires synchronization or fame/signature is not considered part of cryptocurrency discourse imo.

I strongly suggest choosing mainstream cryptocurrency basics instead of sticking with flawed proposals, like disparately.

True. we call it MVP in innovation management. also, as a blue skies researcher I know that how much FAILURES are worthy and respectable - we call them EXPERIENCE.  so every thing is under control..

Things are out of control, already  

[mixoftix]

1- As of power consumption decrease: No such thing at all in your proposal, and it is not even possible to replace energy by space or bandwidth. Think about it! The adversary could equip himself with enough amount of such resources with neglectable cost. Security in decentralized ecosystem is about the equilibrium state of network in which attack costs considerably are higher than incentives/potential benefits for the attacker.

the built-in pool system in PoC need temporary space for accounting purposes - this has nothing to do with attacking/defending anything. I have described above the equilibrium policy of PoC. the miners and nodes with higher amount of transfer fee / reward fee have the most power in voting - which carries the power cost of mining and its related marketing cost into the equation.

It is another bad idea, with a multiple layer of chaotic consequences.

when you do not need marketing knowledge and marketing process for your job, this means you have someone else in a higher level is doing it (in other words, this means you are a slave or an employee in a centralized system. Pools in PoW, and PoW in huge processing power providers - in the case of bitcoin, ASIC provider companies). with marketable mining, you could have your own job in a decentralized market.  

As I remember, you have already mentioned Butterin's ridiculous  99.5% which is based on such a version of Albanian Generals Problem both dependent on signed and synchronous messaging and I refuted such weird and obsolete ideas to be useful for cryptocurrencies, and as I remember, you retracted from this. Now once again, you are bringing it up!
What for? To cover the obvious weakness in your block generation algorithm. IOW, instead of simply taking back your proposal about blocks not enriched by nonce (work) you prefer to commit suicide

It is really suicide, jumping to dark zones of non-BGP issues. First you propose miners advertising themselves and now your nodes are trying to 'synchronize' by (apparently) signing blocks in an accumulative way (otherwise how they are non-rewritable or irreversible?) it is Buterin's 99.5% joke.

There is a reason for Pow being asynchronous and blocks not signed by peers: it is permissionless, p2p, public network of anonymous participants. Any proposal that requires synchronization or fame/signature is not considered part of cryptocurrency discourse imo.

I strongly suggest choosing mainstream cryptocurrency basics instead of sticking with flawed proposals, like disparately.

now I could see you didn't read that paper about The Chinese Generals Problem. pay attention, the isomorphic ring of generals is 100% vulnerable to traitor nodes, which means one traitor node is enough to break the consensus. I use this property in DETECTING traitor nodes, then immediately drop them out of isomorphic ring (replace the 1st ring with a non-isomorphic version) based on the policies of the PoC protocol. after block creation, the block confirmation process begins by voting that we need to see how percent of traitor nodes may defeat it. ** primary calculations show the fault tolerant is still 51%.

and this has nothing to do with AGP and that 99% protection in ETH.. where did you get it from?! and blocks are not reversible means there is no *the longest chain is the valid one* rule in PoC - so reaching consensus will be a time consuming process. I am rewriting this, God. the worst thing that ever could happen here is transaction censorship that an end user could resend it to another miner.


P.S.

sometimes I really surprise how we accept weaknesses of PoW as under control equilibrium, but others weaknesses as out of control sinking ship   come one, there is no 100% guaranty in any of these systems at all and PoC has its own characteristics in this area.

[aliashraf]

now I could see you didn't read that paper about The Chinese Generals Problem. pay attention, the isomorphic ring of generals is 100% vulnerable to traitor nodes, which means one traitor node is enough to break the consensus. I use this property in DETECTING traitor nodes, then immediately drop them out of isomorphic ring (replace the 1st ring with a non-isomorphic version) based on the policies of the PoC protocol. after block creation, the block confirmation process begins by voting that we need to see how percent of traitor nodes may defeat it. ** primary calculations show the fault tolerant is still 51%.

and this has nothing to do with AGP and that 99% protection in ETH.. where did you get it from?! and blocks are not reversible means there is no *the longest chain is the valid one* rule in PoC - so reaching consensus will be a time consuming process. I am rewriting this, God. the worst thing that ever could happen here is transaction censorship that an end user could resend it to another miner.

It is why I'm calling it  a suicide attempt, you are sicking consensus in a mysterious undiscovered environment:

1- It is not possible to arrange nodes in this weird topology!  How would nodes join/back-off?

2- It is absolutely necessary to follow Butterin's proposal for this schema, nodes should sign the message one by another to prove consensus otherwise who decides about whether a block has enough votes?

3- For a message/block being circulating and getting signed in the ring there should be a time frame to avoid orphans getting into blockchain too. Again like what Butterin has suggested.

The point is, you just can't avoid both classical unsigned, asynchronous blockchain and  obsolete centralized encrypted messaging system.

To put it more simple:
Either there is an incentive for nodes to generate a block or there is not, without incentive game is over and anybody would be able to manage for a double spend attack
and with incentive there is a competition
and with competition people go selfish and try to put their own minted blocks in the chain
So there should be a protocol to regulate this race
and this protocol is based on a messaging system
and this messaging system is either asynchronous-unencrypted (both) or synchronous-encrypted(both)
there is no third chair to sit on!
The unencrypted version is what we know as blockchain technology
and the encrypted version is an obsolete idea left behind in 1980s and now as a joke is re-proposed by an ex-teenager who is just bored and wants to make himself great again!

To make it crystal clear:
Suppose I'm running a node, I'm loyal but I need money too and every single time that I receive a block from my neighbor(s)  I pick rich transactions and add them to my block and relay it to other peer(s) who are as greedy as I'm if not even more  

[mixoftix]

It is why I'm calling it  a suicide attempt, you are sicking consensus in a mysterious undiscovered environment:

when you rush in reply, your comment becomes inaccurate - Haj_Ali_Agha [it was Persian   ]

what you call it mysterious undiscovered environment is a formal ring topology in computer networking with its own advantages/disadvantages that suits it for PoC's decentralization approach. from wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_network )

"Rings can be unidirectional, with all traffic traveling either clockwise or anticlockwise around the ring, or bidirectional. Because a unidirectional ring topology provides only one pathway between any two nodes, unidirectional ring networks may be disrupted by the failure of a single link. A node failure or cable break might isolate every node attached to the ring. In response, some ring networks add a "counter-rotating ring" (C-Ring) to form a redundant topology: in the event of a break, data are wrapped back onto the complementary ring before reaching the end of the cable, maintaining a path to every node along the resulting C-Ring."

so we use the unidirectional mode of ring in PoC and in the case of any mismatch inside data packets (failure), the initial isomorphic shape transforms into a non-isomorphic shape, which works as a virtual C-Ring inside a real star format of internet among nodes:

"..also known as IBM token ring networks - avoid the weakness of a ring topology altogether: they actually use a star topology at the physical layer and a media access unit (MAU) to imitate a ring at the datalink layer."

and look at the advantages part of ring topology:

~ Very orderly network where every device has access to the token and the opportunity to transmit
~ Does not require a central node to manage the connectivity between the computers
~ Point to point line configuration makes it easy to identify and isolate faults.
~ Reconfiguration for line faults of bidirectional rings can be very fast

and while as a disadvantage we have : "One malfunctioning workstation can create problems for the entire network. This can be solved by using a dual ring or a switch that closes off the break." we could use this limited amount of fault tolerance as an immediate traitor detection inside the ring.

1- It is not possible to arrange nodes in this weird topology!  How would nodes join/back-off?

just like Ring networks that work with MAC addresses, the PoC works with "Wallet Address" of nodes inside the ring. as we wrote inside document, nodes that hold per-mined transactions (HolderNodes) begin broadcasting their (Wallet Address + IP + Listening Port + [Wallet Addresses of Miners that they hold their jobs including their hash value of their End-of-File] ) and sync them inside a storage unit sorted by Miners Wallet Address[/u], just like classic mempool (lets call it RingPool) does in PoW. therfore, each HolderNodes will understand its next HolderNode to communicate. with this simple use of ring topology in computer networking, we could build a virtual ring and nodes must follow its rules. any misbehavior of nodes will immediately detect and runs its related procedure.

based on the EOF hash value in RingPool, all HolderNodes must fill their dedicated space for the incoming pre-mined transactions that they will receive from the ring. if not, they could directly call the absent node (the non-isomorphic phase).

2- It is absolutely necessary to follow Butterin's proposal for this schema, nodes should sign the message one by another to prove consensus otherwise who decides about whether a block has enough votes?

no, no. look.. all nodes could access the RingPool and see the situation. when finally after several round of data circulation in virtual ring, each HolderNode will generate its RNOG (the final hash root of the block), so other nodes could see any early forks of candidate blocks. if they all do not generate a same hash value, then nodes understand there is a fork situation inside the ring and need to check the submitted process of miners' Dither Hash Value to evaluate the results and understand the winner block. refer to the whitepaper, each miner entity need to submit its Dither Hash Value to the built-in pool system of PoC to get its transaction fee - this will consider as the miners vote too.

while "the longer chain is the valid one" law of PoW is banned in PoC, under heaviest attack to the network, the attackers only could postpone the process of other transactions - for a while, nothing more. legitimate pre-mined transactions will move to the next ring and this time attackers for another delay need to generate MORE extra illegitimate transactions to postpone the process again. generating illegitimate transactions need to spend Power for mining and Network fee of PoC (that wipes out in the process).. really no incentives exist here.

anyways the protocol enforces the miners to submit their Dither Hash Value, but this would be a good idea to ask miners (not all nodes) to sign their approved block hash too. miners with more submitted pre-mined transactions in the current round have more power in voting, so when 51% of votes goes for a block hash value, the winner block will identified by the protocol.

3- For a message/block being circulating and getting signed in the ring there should be a time frame to avoid orphans getting into blockchain too. Again like what Butterin has suggested.

no, look, you know that one-time-passwords algorithms work both in time-based and counter-based modes. just like that, the PoW works in time-based mode, and PoC in counter-based mode, which means once you don't have enough time for block creation, this simply postpones the counter and buys another time frame for the delayed process. of cource there will be a timeout limit for miners to submit their Dither Hash Value (votes), otherwise the protocol ignores them for the round and do not renew the delay. HolderNodes act as a buffer in this situation.

but, I need to remind you that - refer to the whitepaper - in PoC we also have a reward fee for ALL nodes, if their wallet address matches to the hash value of a winner block. Winner nodes also need to submit and claim their reward too, but I think their votes should not consider in identifying the new block (still thinking about it). I only use miner's vote here to simulate the effect of classic PoW on miners incentives.

and with competition people go selfish and try to put their own minted blocks in the chain

there is no reward / benefit in putting mined transactions in the chain and ban others! as you know, in PoC disk space should be wide and the protocol is allowed to put as much transaction as it needs inside the new block..

I am really going to kill the time, space and bandwidth - but save ENERGY for the planet 

[BAC Blockchain]

I barely understand your paper, but my thoughts are :
1. As aliashraf mentioned, merkle tree already very efficient. Besides, how about transaction verification by SPV wallet? from what i understand, SPV wallet need to get whole block to verify the transaction.
1. I don't see much advantage points of adding Bounce since it's value can be generated/modified with no cost.
2. While this idea could reduce "wasted" electricity since PoW based on winner-takes-all, total electricity used for mining is still same.
3. In part 5, it mentions that "and when there is no transaction in transactions pool, the system code could generate a rescue transaction for a new block and miners could still compete". I see there's conflict possibility due to transaction propagation, few nodes might generate rescue transaction just before receive a transaction.

Forgive the noob question, but isn't Bytecode Virtual Machine the most efficient way to process transactions? This is from my CTO's mouth...

[ABCbits]

Forgive the noob question, but isn't Bytecode Virtual Machine the most efficient way to process transactions? This is from my CTO's mouth...

And how would i know about "Bytecode Virtual Machine/BVM" (since you're talking about technology for altcoin while this is Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion section) ?
Why don't you share the whitepaper/technical article of this "Bytecode Virtual Machine" since just say "it's the most efficient way to process transactions" doesn't prove anything.

Frankly i don't believe it as Bitcoin transaction is very simple and use ECDSA which have fast verification speed, unless this BVM uses cryptography signature which have faster verification time than ECDSA.
Bitcoin also use merkle tree for it's block structure which is pretty fast

[aliashraf]

It is why I'm calling it  a suicide attempt, you are sicking consensus in a mysterious undiscovered environment:

when you rush in reply, your comment becomes inaccurate - Haj_Ali_Agha [it was Persian   ]

Let's see  

what you call it mysterious undiscovered environment is a formal ring topology in computer networking with its own advantages/disadvantages that suits it for PoC's decentralization approach. from wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_network )

This is it? I'm talking about your whole idea of having consensus without proof of work or stake and you are trying to convince me by asserting that ring topology has a history of its own in networking?  We are not speaking about networking and link layer alternatives, we are speaking about consensus.
And I'm the one who is inaccurate here? Really? You are referring me to wikipedia for ring topology and IBM token ring in this context?


Unfortunately I'm kinda short of time for next couple of days, I'll come to your post later but there is one thing you need to take care of:
It is not a good practice to generate even more confusions instead of addressing the problems, as your friend, I feel an obligation to keep discussing it with you but most developers/contributors just lose the stem.