Greencoin

[sd]

There don't seem to be many people on this forum prepared to reason outside the Bitcoin paradigm. The request to "Just tell us how this differs from BitCoin clearly and in as few words as possible" illustrates the mindset you are most likely to encounter, many folks actually seem to want to treat the current Bitcoin framework as being a desirable end state.

That is an unreasonable assumption to make. The problem isn't that greencoin as described is misdesigned or offensive in its differences to BitCoin, it's that greencoin isn't described or designed at all and on top of that it what little description of this that exists appears to be very badly translated. The only idea that seems to come out of the description is some form of central control, something abhorrent to the design of all P2P systems.

[1714077157]

1714077157

[1714077157]

1714077157

[kokjo]

There don't seem to be many people on this forum prepared to reason outside the Bitcoin paradigm. The request to "Just tell us how this differs from BitCoin clearly and in as few words as possible" illustrates the mindset you are most likely to encounter, many folks actually seem to want to treat the current Bitcoin framework as being a desirable end state.

That is an unreasonable assumption to make. The problem isn't that greencoin as described is misdesigned or offensive in it's differences to BitCoin, it's that greencoin isn't described or designed at all and on top of that it what little description of this that exists appears to be very badly translated. The only idea that seems to come out of the description is some form of central control, something abhorrent to the design to all P2P systems.

i think bitcoin is deeply flawed, just like HTTP or SMTP, or any other internet protocol that was hacked together over night.
but all thiss scam currencies, are just alot worse... the only other cryptocurrencies that are good are: namecoin(reason: distributed dns service), litecoin(reason: cpu mining). anything else is just shit.

and it was the first, and that is that anyone is using, so...

[sd]

i think bitcoin is deeply flawed, just like HTTP or SMTP, or any other internet protocol that was hacked together over night.
but all thiss scam currencies, are just alot worse... the only other cryptocurrencies that are good are: namecoin(reason: distributed dns service), litecoin(reason: cpu mining). anything else is just shit.

and it was the first, and that is that anyone is using, so...

BitCoin is a proof of concept that crypto-cash is possible without any form of central control. As a proof of concept it's a raging success and who knows we might even stick with it if nothing better turns up.

[kokjo]

i think bitcoin is deeply flawed, just like HTTP or SMTP, or any other internet protocol that was hacked together over night.
but all thiss scam currencies, are just alot worse... the only other cryptocurrencies that are good are: namecoin(reason: distributed dns service), litecoin(reason: cpu mining). anything else is just shit.

and it was the first, and that is that anyone is using, so...

BitCoin is a proof of concept that crypto-cash is possible without any form of central control. As a proof of concept it's a raging success and who knows we might even stick with it if nothing better turns up.

the problem comes from proof of concept and De facto. at the same time.

[Qoheleth]

The million dollar question here seems to be:

The one who is loyal to the net and reliable (identified by key pair) should get more to do with bigger possibility from the network.

How is loyalty and reliability determined?

Bitcoin's methodology is to fix the value of a person's word to the computing power they can throw at a "hard" computational problem. The idea is simple: any single "evil" user must outvote the computing power of all the "good" users in order to hijack the ledger. Hence, the ranking is purely to make it prohibitively difficult for any single "evil" user to get strong enough to do damage.

The idea behind your proposal seems to be, let's not use proof-of-work, it's wasteful and pins voting power to "people who can afford hardware". Let's find some other way to verify that the "votes" will be mostly "good" ones. It seems you want to do this by saying, okay, some nodes are more trustworthy "loyal and reliable" than others, so the "good" nodes have more voting power than even millions of nodes made by an attacker.

But that's easier said than done. What determines loyalty and reliability? If it's anything that is weak to social engineering, you're sunk. If it's anything where an attacker could lie low and act "respectable" for five or ten or fifteen years and then steal millions, you're sunk.

[ifinta]

Sorry for a little pause - I am a human too

"drawing": yes, it is a lottery...

I think it is better, if a miner is an identified person - so it is not possible anonym attack the system, and it is not possible more than one miner computer pro person.

If you think a "central authority" - Yes, we will have - in a form of a peer-to-peer net

And that computer is a computer, that is used for an another (daily job, hobby) purpose too. (And not only for "mining"...)

The german translation coming soon - please be patient.
For Idea "garanteer" I have new Ideas too.

[kokjo]

Sorry for a little pause - I am a human too

"drawing": yes, it is a lottery...

I think it is better, if a miner is an identified person - so it is not possible anonym attack the system, and it is not possible more than one miner computer pro person.

If you think a "central authority" - Yes, we will have - in a form of a peer-to-peer net

And that computer is a computer, that is used for an another (daily job, hobby) purpose too. (And not only for "mining"...)

The german translation coming soon - please be patient.
For Idea "garanteer" I have new Ideas too.

from reading your posts, im absolutely does not like your coin.

[Qoheleth]

I think it is better, if a miner is an identified person - so it is not possible anonym attack the system, and it is not possible more than one miner computer pro person.

How would this be guaranteed? How can a distributed network verify unique identity?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think it is better, if a miner is an identified person - so it is not possible anonym attack the system, and it is not possible more than one miner computer pro person.

How would this be guaranteed? How can a distributed network verify unique identity?

Exactly.  If one could solve this problem it would solve a host of issues beyond just Bitcoin.  

I mean it is like saying....
assume I had a device that you put 1 USD in and 2 USD comes out.  Wouldn't that be more efficient than working?  Of course but the "solution" comes w/ a huge caveat that no such (legal ) machine exists.  Likewise the OP "solution" isn't unique.  It is an idea which has been bounced around and dismissed as impossible.  


Simple put the blockchain (in Bitcoin) is a voting system.  In "normal" voting systems we can identify the voters and ensure each voter only votes once.  Each voter gets one vote and thus the outcome is whatever 51% of voters say it is.  The cornerstone problem of a distributed network is that you CAN'T identify each "voter" and you can't ensure each voter only votes once (i.e. 1 person making millions, or even billions of nodes).   Bitcoin accepts that limitation and says ok.  1 unit of work = 1 vote.  Thus an attacker still needs 51% of the "Votes" but those votes are issued by hardware which has significant real world costs which can't be faked.  Remove the significant realworld cost and you are back at square one.

How do you ensure a fair consensus in a network which includes attackers (potentially a majority of the entities are attackers) and identities can't be verified, nor can you ensure that each entity only "votes" once.

[ifinta]

I think, it is a must, that the miners personally identified. Think an history of bitcoin - and a possible future:

• firstly CPU mining. (technology A - public)
• then GPU mining. (technology B - public (fortunately) but technology A not an opponent)
• ... some other public technology, pools, merged mining, and so on...
• in future: technology X coming - (not published - owned by some (or one) persons/firms/...) AND (technology A and technology B and other public technologies aren't an opponent) - the controll of members of Bitcoin forum over bitcoin (and our "money") loosed!

And about some possible identification attribute of a person (or a computer):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information
• a fingerprint of a person, a computer, a cpu id or special HW
• I am identified in mtgox through a yubikey (+ some personal data - see wikipedia link)
• I am identified in Bitcoin forum through my activity (+ some personal data - e-mail, ...)

I think not a 100% identifying - I am engineer and not a Mathematicians - me enough for example the last in the list...

and

How is loyalty and reliability determined?

• Guest
• Newbie
• Jr. Member
• Full Member
• Miner - Full Member + an trusted public key
• Sr. Member
• Hero Member
• + Moderators

[kokjo]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information
• a fingerprint of a person, a computer, a cpu id or special HW

Can be cheated or played, special HW requires central authority.

• I am identified in mtgox through a yubikey (+ some personal data - see wikipedia link)

Requires a central authority to manufacturing yubikeys

• I am identified in Bitcoin forum through my activity (+ some personal data - e-mail, ...)

can be played, and requires a central authority
[/list]

bitcoin is designed to be DECENTRALIZED, it is a feature!
Therefor it does not need a single point of weekness. your plan is to introduce a SPOW into the bitcoin system, which is BAD. if we did that there would be no need for a blockchain at all, as the central authority could just validate every transaction, like creditcard companies does right now.

[DeathAndTaxes]

bitcoin is designed to be DECENTRALIZED, it is a feature!
Therefor it does not need a single point of weekness. your plan is to introduce a SPOW into the bitcoin system, which is BAD. if we did that there would be no need for a blockchain at all, as the central authority could just validate every transaction, like creditcard companies does right now.

Bingo.  Funny how people run around in circles because they never take the time to think (or just read Satoshi' paper) WHY Bitcoin does what it does.

They know WHAT Bitcoin does and HOW that is inefficient and try to run around thinking of solutions without asking them WHY Bitcoin does what it does.


The blockchain is based on VOTING.  However in an anonymous network you can't limit someone to one person is one vote so Bitcoin doesn't try.  Instead it makes it one hash = one vote.  Thus the identity of the person producing the hash isn't necessary.

[ifinta]

Info from github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/574

"gavinandresen merged 5 commits into bitcoin:master from sipa:dumpprivkey 9 days ago

sipa (re)opened this pull request October 07, 2011
Dumpprivkey

Introduces three new RPC calls:
* dumpprivkey: retrieve the private key corresponding to an address
* importprivkey: add a private key to your wallet
* removeprivkey: delete a private key from your wallet" - It isn't active yet.

I am a fan of this pull request! One requirement of greencoin was inspired by this...

Congratulation sipa, jgarzik and gavinandresen!

[ifinta]

Satoshi' paper (only the first paragraph "Abstract") criticism:

"Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."


"Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if
 a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending."

- A trusted third party (in greencoin) isn't required for prevent double-spending, it is required
to prevent 50%+1 attack. The trusted third party should be the community
of users/miners/guests/moderators of greencoin... The community of our money.

"The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed,
but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power."

- The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed,
but proof that it came from the largest pool of trusted miners. "power" is
a possible means of a "centralised authority" - please, do not use it for prevent double-spending

"The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on
a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,
accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."

- "best effort" = "power" => The network should be redesign too.

[sd]

- "best effort" = "power" => The network should be redesign too.

Sorry but your posts are really hard to understand and don't appear to be complete ideas in any case. Can anyone rephrase this stuff so it's easier to read?

Critical question:
Do you want a central authority? If so no-one will be interested because getting rid of central authority is the best thing BitCoin ever did.

[ifinta]

- "best effort" = "power" => The network should be redesign too.

Sorry but your posts are really hard to understand and don't appear to be complete ideas in any case. Can anyone rephrase this stuff so it's easier to read?

Critical question:
Do you want a central authority? If so no-one will be interested because getting rid of central authority is the best thing BitCoin ever did.

I think current Bitcoin-System will have a central authority - it's needed only some time... See my post:

I think, it is a must, that the miners personally identified. Think an history of bitcoin - and a possible future:

• firstly CPU mining. (technology A - public)
• then GPU mining. (technology B - public (fortunately) but technology A not an opponent)
• ... some other public technology, pools, merged mining, and so on...
• in future: technology X coming - (not published - owned by some (or one) persons/firms/...) AND (technology A and technology B and other public technologies aren't an opponent) - the controll of members of Bitcoin forum over bitcoin (and our "money") loosed!

...

I will that the Bitcoin (or Greencoin) - community do not lose later the control.
Please, see my first post too... I change it continuously.
This posts are a kind of 'Brainstorming', it is not about a real or implemented money. But it will be later implemented, I hope.

Thanks for criticism, and questions.

[ifinta]

I just try p2pool... See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.0
...
2012-01-13 07:28:19.188111 Average time between blocks: 0.88 days
2012-01-13 07:28:19.189053 Pool stales: 10% Own: 22±9% Own efficiency: 87±10%
2012-01-13 07:28:25.394099 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 149.261210 Payout if block: 0.381068 BTC Total block value: 50.035421 BTC including 13 transactions
2012-01-13 07:28:28.206763 Pool: 71643MH/s in 17322 shares (11958/17326 verified) Recent: 2.53% >1813MH/s Shares: 79 (16 orphan, 0 dead) Peers: 10
2012-01-13 07:28:28.208500 Average time between blocks: 0.87 days
2012-01-13 07:28:28.209375 Pool stales: 10% Own: 22±9% Own efficiency: 87±10%
2012-01-13 07:28:28.986495 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 144.975156 Payout if block: 0.380885 BTC Total block value: 50.035421 BTC including 13 transactions
2012-01-13 07:28:31.215252 Pool: 70741MH/s in 17323 shares (11959/17327 verified) Recent: 2.53% >1790MH/s Shares: 79 (16 orphan, 0 dead) Peers: 10
...
It is a very clever concept, and seems to be a very good implementation yet.

[ifinta]

Thank you for feedbacks and votes!

If you didn't do it then

Please, vote, post...

What are you thinking about this ideas?
What to do, implement first?
What is important for you?