Bitcoin Forum
June 22, 2024, 03:13:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 [129] 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ... 256 »
  Print  
Author Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer  (Read 387455 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
drawingthesun
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:11:16 AM
 #2561


Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero )


Seriously I respect you, but you must cut the crap. You're project is not the most technically superior CN coin. The Monero team are so busy trying to get the ram and ledger size on disk sorted out and fix the bandwidth QOS that they haven't moved onto these areas you went for first.

One of the reasons people are not following some of your design considerations is that they are questionable in their actual utility. Time will tell.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:19:41 AM
 #2562

Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.

Two minor technical corrections:

1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once).

2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:21:47 AM
 #2563

One of the reasons people are not following some of your design considerations is that they are questionable in their actual utility. Time will tell.

Zoidberg this is what I mean by unless your feature advantages are unequivocally compelling, then being the loner has the effect of being the "odd man out".

I favor being the loner when I think I can out innovate a group which is preoccupied on issues that I think I can eliminate. But you have not eliminated the issues they are working on? And they have more manpower to apply?

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:25:12 AM
Last edit: July 29, 2014, 02:36:36 AM by AnonyMint
 #2564

upd:
PoW is changed because oroginal CN PoW is extremely slow, even with optimizations. Now, with that slow hash Bytecoin, Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
In Boolberry we have 5-times faster synchronization and don't need to centralized blockchain file preloading.

Zoidberg

This is one that's worth elevating into the "strengths of BBR" list.

I didn't elevate it to my comparison list summary yet, because I am not sure this new PoW hash is not trivially preimageable. I would like to see some analysis of that first. This PoW design is a radical departure from the way any hash has been done in the past, thus it needs to be treated with extra caution.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:38:30 AM
 #2565

I'd even prefer the name Zoid over Boolberry, but Sieve I like better for the moment.

Others:

Boolzoid
Boolseye

Unfortunately none of my ideas nor Boolberry sound like money, but maybe that is okay if the name is catchy and doesn't have negative connotations (e.g. blue balls).

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
crypto_zoidberg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 646



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2014, 02:48:52 AM
 #2566

....
Boolberry

In case the coherence of my upthread posts was lost on the reader, my initial enthusiasm about Boolberry was quickly muted when I realized they claim pruning which I (and apparently Monero devs) think is impossible. And their PoW hashing algorithm seems to lack entropy as I think about it more, thus is perhaps gameable (probably but I don't want to publicly assert 'probably' until I can elucidate how). The marketing and product strategy seems to also not be thought out. Thus any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me (although it is not outside the realm of possibility that he is really talented and was just being careless but won't do it again-- not likely).


I was readed the history and just curious, how people could make such conclusions without even understanding technology and what have done with that... ? This is sad to read this.

The only thing that was actually evaluated is the project name i guess.



AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 02:53:51 AM
Last edit: July 29, 2014, 03:32:26 AM by AnonyMint
 #2567

....
Boolberry

In case the coherence of my upthread posts was lost on the reader, my initial enthusiasm about Boolberry was quickly muted when I realized they claim pruning which I (and apparently Monero devs) think is impossible. And their PoW hashing algorithm seems to lack entropy as I think about it more, thus is perhaps gameable (probably but I don't want to publicly assert 'probably' until I can elucidate how). The marketing and product strategy seems to also not be thought out. Thus any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me (although it is not outside the realm of possibility that he is really talented and was just being careless but won't do it again-- not likely).


I was readed the history and just curious, how people could make such conclusions without even understanding technology and what have done with that... ? This is sad to read this.

The only thing that was actually evaluated is the project name i guess.

 Huh

What did I state above that is wrong?

You don't prune the blockchain, which is a potentially exponential savings. I was correct. You only discard a constant percentage amount of data. Amdal's law applied to data size applies.

The product and marketing strategy is a mess, because for example you misuse the term 'prune' from its accepted meaning for Bitcoin. Whose fault is the misunderstanding?

And the entropy of the PoW hash has not been cryptanalyzed? Yes or no?

Zoidberg I have seen your developer stereotype many times in my career. Prodigious coder. You think a few minor relevance or irrelevant (and perhaps even incorrect) optimizations makes a product strategy. This is why you can not be a product manager for commercial software project.

Edit: if the PoW hash is analyzed (and fixed if required) and can be relied upon, then the speed up is not a minor relevance. But I don't know yet if that analysis has been done? I don't have time to go reading all the threads on all the altcoins. Your marketing has to get this information out front and center.

Obviously english is not your primary language. Your community needs to aid you. This is the point the Monero proponents are making. You can't do it all alone.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
crypto_zoidberg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 646



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2014, 03:11:45 AM
 #2568

Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.

Two minor technical corrections:

1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once).
I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ?


2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.

With all respect to you smooth, I doubt that it's true.
Based on my knowlage of protocol, i can say that clients while downloading the blockchain automatically switch to some other nodes if it's do response faster. So even if you have few overloaded nodes than newcomers will switch to another nodes that have faster response. You can see this in src\currency_protocol\currency_protocol_handler.inl:
Code:
int t_currency_protocol_handler<t_core>::handle_response_get_objects(int command, NOTIFY_RESPONSE_GET_OBJECTS::request& arg, currency_connection_context& context)
Close to this line:
Code:
//to avoid concurrency in core between connections, suspend connections which delivered block later then first one

But. Even it is true and you really faced that some nodes was overloaded - the hosted blockchain is still centralized and still bad solution. I would prefer to improve protocol to have spread bandwith over the nodes.
Just my opinion. As dev to dev.




AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 03:20:16 AM
Last edit: July 29, 2014, 03:33:33 AM by AnonyMint
 #2569

But. Even it is true and you really faced that some nodes was overloaded - the hosted blockchain is still centralized and still bad solution. I would prefer to improve protocol to have spread bandwith over the nodes.
Just my opinion. As dev to dev.

I suppose rather than joining Monero, you'd rather be independent so you can continue to test out your ideas for superior design. Competition is good. But it is clear that you are focused on coding, not on marketing and product strategy.

You need someone in your community to step up, who is good at the latter job and can put sufficient effort into it. I edited my prior post about this point, e.g. it is difficult to rave about your PoW hash until it has been properly vetted and your marketing makes it clear this has been done.

At this point, you need to use your PoW hash (since it is your only potential extremely compelling feature improvement that isn't trivially copyable by Monero) to rally other developers and community to your aid so you can compete with the manpower Monero has applied to refining the Cryptonote code base (even if you are copying each other's commits, you still need manpower to evaluate and sieve them). So you could focus on proving your PoW is secure and or fixing it to resolve any analyzed weakness.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
othe
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 03:21:15 AM
 #2570


Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero )



Or you might simply accept that we are working on different things because our priorities are simply different at the moment.
Feel free to read the missives, they communicate pretty clear on what we work and why we do that.
Like working together with Anoncoin on the i2pdaemon c implementation (https://sigterm.no/blog/30/), man power is important.

Quote from: crypto_zoidberg
I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ?

Yeah you did, and its yet to be seen what happens if the bbr scratchpad grows to a few hundred mbs and every miner on every pool has to download the scratchpad and that may result in a nice accidental ddos.


Quote from: crypto_zoidberg
But. Even it is true and you really faced that some nodes was overloaded - the hosted blockchain is still centralized and still bad solution. I would prefer to improve protocol to have spread bandwith over the nodes.
Just my opinion. As dev to dev.

Read the missives, that code is currently beeing rewritten, thats one example of stuff we prefer to work on.


PS: It's pretty lame to diss us with features we don´t agree on technically.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
July 29, 2014, 03:27:30 AM
 #2571

Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.

Two minor technical corrections:

1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once).
I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ?

You are correct, but we consider the verification time acceptable for installing a full node at this time. There are 1440 blocks per day. At 50 blocks/sec per core that is less than 30 seconds per day single threaded. A year of blockchain is 3 hours. If multithreaded on a quad core this will be under an hour. In practice I doubt that p2p downloads are that fast now anyway.

Also, with increasing usage of the network, (constant) PoW will become a smaller portion of block verification time anyway.

We may switch to a faster or different PoW at some point, who knows. But we don't see an urgent need for it.

Quote
2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.

With all respect to you smooth, I doubt that it's true.
Based onmy knowlage of protocol, i can say that clients while downloading the blockchain automatically switch to some other nodes if it's do response faster.

Sorry but you are mistaken. You are confusing a local problem with a global problem. They might switch to another node, but then the other node just gets overloaded. We have real world experience with a rapidly growing network and in practice almost every accessible node gets overloaded (or at least heavily loaded) with chain download traffic. And that is even with some users downloading the static chain, though at the time we were not encouraging it as strongly.

Exponential growth rate of the network will slow down at some point and this will cease to be an issue (new users as a fraction of existing nodes will be smaller). But it is a real issue if the growth rate is high.



Anotheranonlol
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 504


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 03:46:59 AM
 #2572

1) Ok, so we are all using assumptions of whether he dumped or held his instamined boolberries. My assumptions are based on just how, unlawful and untruthful a lot of seeming lee "honest" folk in the crypto scene are, I Highly doubt that he dumped anything/much.

2) There is obviously a clear winner, as Monero(formerly Bitmonero) was launched before boolberry

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 2. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

1)We agree on the bolded part.

2)Monero was released with a crippled hash that was instamined by Bytecoin devs. That is not a fair launch.

3)I am not a dev and never claimed to be. There are other devs.

Wait what? 2) you're claiming claymore is a Bytecoin Dev? What are you basing that on? Can I see some proof?

As far as I can tell he's just a talented programmer that wants to make money. I don't agree with his tactics but no way does this qualify Monero as a premine. This FUD campaign is so lame. Try again.

Where did he claim claymore was a bytecoin dev?. I think he is referring to the intentional slow_hash crippling
which was left over during the copy paste process and somehow sneaked past the eyes of the collective 'large dev team', during their expansive audit and review of the codebase.. something which is hardly a stretch to say could have been exploited by those that wrote it in the first place (or indeed an independent third party who knew how to read or write code to a basic level)

Reading some of the comments about the very bipolar light-switch loss of faith in bbr dev for supposedly making unsubstantiated claims about the ability to trim the blockchain down drastically, yesterday this is an 'impossibility: confirmed by multiple sources' now hey it's possible but we quickly backtracked now to semantics about definition of the word pruning.. it's ridiculous- how much research has actually been done?, let's be honest guys. The scaling to visa level,why?

What dga is saying is spot on as usual, what zoidberg says about boolberry being the technically stronger coin is absolutely correct and how anyone can try and pretend otherwise is beyond me. Maybe not superior in flowery talk and penning eccentricities like boolberry bulletins, not superior with creating as many threads- the majority of this thread is monero promo and back and forth discussion specifically around monero which seems to have become a synonym for cryptonote.. maybe not superior in convincing the unwashed masses it's is indeed the only thing worth investing in aside from bitcoin, . whilst everything else is a cheap clone or shitcoin, or in terms of bitcointalk allstar celeb endorsement  and greasing up the palms of exchanges though

drawingthesun
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 03:56:21 AM
 #2573

What dga is saying is spot on as usual, what zoidberg says about boolberry being the technically stronger coin is absolutely correct and how anyone can try and pretend otherwise is beyond me. Maybe not superior in flowery talk and penning eccentricities like boolberry bulletins, not superior with creating as many threads- the majority of this thread is monero promo and back and forth discussion specifically around monero which seems to have become a synonym for cryptonote.. maybe not superior in convincing the unwashed masses it's is indeed the only thing worth investing in aside from bitcoin, . whilst everything else is a cheap clone or shitcoin, or in terms of bitcointalk allstar celeb endorsement  and greasing up the palms of exchanges though


But this is your opinion. It's not spot on that BBR is the technically stronger coin, this is not "absolutely correct".

The pow change is questionable and the pruning is linear pruning, it's a fixed space saving per block, nothing that will reduce the chain like true transaction pruning does.

You have bought into Zoid's marketing hype.

Like I have said many times, this is the Litecoin fiasco all over again. I remember when I was told by many experts that Litecoin was faster [1], more secure, safer, technically superior to Bitcoin because it's Bitcoin plus awesome sauce on top.

I never bought into the Litecoin hype back then and I'm not falling for it today. All of the BBR arguments sound like the same fluff Litecoin supporters shouted back then.

[1] And that apparently was enough reason to hail a Litecoin take over where many people started panic buying Litecoins because Bitcoin now was on its way out. What a joke.

crypto_zoidberg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 646



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2014, 04:04:42 AM
 #2574

Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.

Two minor technical corrections:

1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once).
I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ?

You are correct, but we consider the verification time acceptable for installing a full node at this time. There are 1440 blocks per day. At 50 blocks/sec per core that is less than 30 seconds per day single threaded. A year of blockchain is 3 hours. If multithreaded on a quad core this will be under an hour. In practice I doubt that p2p downloads are that fast now anyway.
I guess this numbers is for powerfull cpu. Laptop's users gonna have much slower hash calculation time.
Quote
Also, with increasing usage of the network, (constant) PoW will become a smaller portion of block verification time anyway.
Quote
We may switch to a faster or different PoW at some point, who knows. But we don't see an urgent need for it.
or at least change block interval to 2 minutes

Quote
Quote
2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.

With all respect to you smooth, I doubt that it's true.
Based onmy knowlage of protocol, i can say that clients while downloading the blockchain automatically switch to some other nodes if it's do response faster.

Sorry but you are mistaken. You are confusing a local problem with a global problem. They might switch to another node, but then the other node just gets overloaded. We have real world experience with a rapidly growing network and in practice almost every accessible node gets overloaded (or at least heavily loaded) with chain download traffic. And that is even with some users downloading the static chain, though at the time we were not encouraging it as strongly.

Exponential growth rate of the network will slow down at some point and this will cease to be an issue (new users as a fraction of existing nodes will be smaller). But it is a real issue if the growth rate is high.


Real world is not only your's problem Smiley

So just curious how you going to solve this issue ?... bitcoin is also in more than real world and have blockchain much bigger than any CN coin(at least at that moment  Smiley ).
And it still load's it from network.
So you see the problem in slow protocol ? Or somewhere else  ?



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
July 29, 2014, 04:04:47 AM
 #2575

which was left over during the copy paste process and somehow sneaked past the eyes of the collective 'large dev team', during their expansive audit and review of the codebase..

Are you mentally ill, stupid, or just being deliberately offensive and dishonest?

I already explained to you there was no "large dev team" at launch. There was one guy (TFT) who worked on it very part time, and a few of us who commented a bit on the thread and agreed with the premise of forking (at the time it was more of a relaunch) off from the 82% BCN ninjamine/premine, plus a few minor fixes). That is all there was. No team, no audit, no review. In fact some suggestions were made by the community to slow down the launch. They were ignored.

All of this is verifiable by looking back at the old postings, so you don't have to take my word for it.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 521


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 04:09:32 AM
Last edit: July 29, 2014, 06:48:16 AM by AnonyMint
 #2576

AnonyMint has made his position on BBR clear:

...

He's confirmed that BBR's PoW "seems to lack entropy"

I've posted in other threads about the comparison between XMR and BBR's proof of work schemes.  The bottom line is that they're optimizing for fundamentally different things.  I have a hunch that in the long term, both will turn into DRAM bandwidth-limited currencies, but for very different reasons, but that's an attribute that places ASIC-accelerated approaches on a reasonably similar bar.  The GPUs will be faster than the CPUs.  The ASICs will be faster than the GPUs.  But the ratio will be less large than it is with Bitcoin.  In the short term, BBR will be relatively more GPU-friendly than XMR is, but I don't think that there's much difference for them with ASIC-based implementations.

Disagree.

I explained (start of discussion) how it is possible that Cryptonote's default (i.e. Monero's) PoW might possibly be reduced to a faster more optimized cache in the ASIC by trading computation for space.

The statement about the "seems to lack entropy" is as vague as AnonyMint's other attacks against the XMR proof of work for having weaknesses related to its use of AES.

Note my statement about misuse of AES round as a one-way hash function has cryptanalysis support (1 round only diffuses over 32-bits and less than 12 rounds is known to have attacks). Nevertheless it is an orthogonal point to the point I made above about optimization for ASICs.

Remember - he doesn't like either of them, if you're going to start dredging all this crap up.  I'm in the opposite boat - I suspect they're both fine for now, but I make that statement cautiously for both, with the understanding that they may need to be modified (in relatively small ways) at some point in the next few years.

You may never know that someone is getting a disproportionate amount of coins because they cracked the PoW and didn't tell you. Wink

What 'caution' and what 'crap' again?

You've already demonstrated your laziness upthread with failure to apply sufficient reading comprehension. Get control of your emotions please. This is a rational discussion.

I assume you have intellectual insight to add here, if you can somehow sieve your emotions out of the way.

There is one known "weakness" in the BBR proof-of-work that should be fixed at some point in the future,  but it's similar in importance to the way AES is used in XMR:

Disagree if you are also implying there is only one weakness in XMR's PoW. I explained potential vulnerability to ASICs. And worse I worry that such an ASIC would be highly proprietary if it ever comes and thus perhaps only available to a few.

BBR doesn't use AES-NI.

Both might make a serious cryptographer nervous if the function was being used **as a hash function** that needed all of the strong properties of a hash function,

Agreed and afaik I was the first person to point that out about Cryptonote on May 6.

but neither is overly-flawed as a *proof-of-work* function, barring future analysis.

In XMR's PoW, the use of the AES round as a random oracle to lookup memory locations within the scratchpad is likely not a uniform distribution, thus it potentially subjects the hash to a crack which employs a smaller scratchpad which statistically yields the solution at a sufficient success rate to justify the optimization. This is essentially related to a Birthday attack.

In BBR's PoW, it is employing entropy from the blockchain to replace the computation of confusion and diffusion that a hash function (AES in XBR) does to achieve random uniform lookups within the scratchpad. If this entropy is insufficient, then similar crack can be applied.

If I didn't have something much more potentially lucrative that is keeping me fully preoccupied, I would endeavor to go attempt to crack these PoW and keep it secret to make a lot of money mining. Maybe someone already has. And you don't know!

The truth about them both is that they've both used well-studied cryptographic primitives (good) and changed the *inside* of them to achieve a goal of memory hardness.  It's always dangerous to poke around inside the algorithms, but proof-of-work leaves a lot more breathing room as far as we know -- this is still a fairly under-studied field.

Dunning–Kruger effect. You don't know!

All of this misquoting of the mythical man month is silly, and ignores a more important point:  1-2 developers can do great things.  So can 7.  So can a dozen -- that's Amazon's preferred team size, for example.

You entirely missed the point of distinction between innovation and refinement. You continuously demonstrate lax reading comprehension.


P.S. I never wrote that the ideal team size is 1 or 2 for all scenarios. Rather I said that for raw innovation, the ideal is 1 or 2 and for refinement via open source, the core team size should be larger (with hopefully a Benevolent Dictator to keep innovation from being stifled by consensus gridlock or chaos) and the community of eyeballs should be unbounded.


Stop grasping at bull$#!#.

It is spewed all over your mirror.

(links will be added shortly to this post, come back in a few minutes)

Edit: dga is hard-headed, because I told him all of this before and he prefers his Dunning-Kruger effect...

Update:  I also read your linked thread's comments about the use of AES.  You're not looking at the big picture.  In the context of a proof-of-work scheme (NOT as the hash to verify integrity), the limitation of 128 bits at each step is unimportant.

In terms of you missing the 'big picture' see my points up-post.

CryptoNote employs AES encryption as a random oracle so that all possible cache table elements should be equally probable at each random access. But AES encryption isn't designed to be a random oracle. Thus there may exist attacks on the structure of the probabilities of random accesses in the table.

Note the AES vulnerability isn't required to implement an ASIC that out peforms. It is an orthogonal potential attack. There might be a way to trade computation for space within some structure that deviates from uniform random distribution given by the misuse of AES encryption.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
othe
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 04:11:33 AM
 #2577


Where did he claim claymore was a bytecoin dev?. I think he is referring to the intentional slow_hash crippling
which was left over during the copy paste process and somehow sneaked past the eyes of the collective 'large dev team', during their expansive audit and review of the codebase.. something which is hardly a stretch to say could have been exploited by those that wrote it in the first place (or indeed an independent third party who knew how to read or write code to a basic level)


Well, DGA did substantial work on the pow speedup (and NoodleDoodle, Wolf and others).

Nice own goal from you tho, because he also optimized the boolberry hashing code: https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/9e31e74048a4b2a92e048637a29bc0f9160c2432

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
July 29, 2014, 04:14:12 AM
Last edit: July 29, 2014, 07:50:09 AM by smooth
 #2578

So just curious how you going to solve this issue ?... bitcoin is also in more than real world and have blockchain much bigger than any CN coin(at least at that moment  Smiley ).
And it still load's it from network.

I explained that it has to do with exponential growth. If you have 100 live nodes and and you add 100 users, each of whom has to download the chain, then each of those 100 nodes has to on average upload the entire chain. That's a lot of upload for nodes on asymmetric or metered connections. If you have 1000 live nodes and add 100 nodes then it's only a 10% of the blockchain upload for each of them.

So over time this will likely become less of a problem, using the p2p will be okay.

That said, it's still an issue for Bitcoin. If you run a full node you often have to be very careful about upstream network usage. QoS features were identified as a need years ago, but still not added (the recommended work around is to use router QoS features, but that's not really a full substitute)

Also, bitcoin implemented exactly the feature I described for untrusted download of a static blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0
othe
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 29, 2014, 04:18:20 AM
 #2579

Real world is not only your's problem Smiley

So just curious how you going to solve this issue ?... bitcoin is also in more than real world and have blockchain much bigger than any CN coin(at least at that moment  Smiley ).
And it still load's it from network.
So you see the problem in slow protocol ? Or somewhere else  ?


Learn to use github before you guys badmouth monero Wink
https://github.com/rfree2monero/bitmonero/commits/dev-rfree

Its also mentioned in the weekly missives.
So yeah, we are currently rewriting that code and its a priority.

crypto_zoidberg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 976
Merit: 646



View Profile WWW
July 29, 2014, 04:21:05 AM
 #2580

What dga is saying is spot on as usual, what zoidberg says about boolberry being the technically stronger coin is absolutely correct and how anyone can try and pretend otherwise is beyond me. Maybe not superior in flowery talk and penning eccentricities like boolberry bulletins, not superior with creating as many threads- the majority of this thread is monero promo and back and forth discussion specifically around monero which seems to have become a synonym for cryptonote.. maybe not superior in convincing the unwashed masses it's is indeed the only thing worth investing in aside from bitcoin, . whilst everything else is a cheap clone or shitcoin, or in terms of bitcointalk allstar celeb endorsement  and greasing up the palms of exchanges though


But this is your opinion. It's not spot on that BBR is the technically stronger coin, this is not "absolutely correct".

The pow change is questionable and the pruning is linear pruning, it's a fixed space saving per block, nothing that will reduce the chain like true transaction pruning does.

You have bought into Zoid's marketing hype.

Like I have said many times, this is the Litecoin fiasco all over again. I remember when I was told by many experts that Litecoin was faster [1], more secure, safer, technically superior to Bitcoin because it's Bitcoin plus awesome sauce on top.

I never bought into the Litecoin hype back then and I'm not falling for it today. All of the BBR arguments sound like the same fluff Litecoin supporters shouted back then.

[1] And that apparently was enough reason to hail a Litecoin take over where many people started panic buying Litecoins because Bitcoin now was on its way out. What a joke.

I mostly agree with you about Litecoin... but from your own point of view, isn't Monero is just a Litecoin ?
Because it was just a copypaste fork of bytecoin, even with questionable changing block time... (still have no idea why tft did that).
And now many experts says that Monero is better.

BBR was made because i realized potential problems of CN, and i'm trying to solve it. Research took some time, and this is my main fault i guess - i spent time for real improments instead of just launch copypaste fork.

And now i really surprised - why you call BBR LiteCoin ?


Pages: « 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 [129] 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ... 256 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!