sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
ruby32 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ruby32 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
murch has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
MaxSan_1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
MaxSan_1 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
MaxSan_1 has quit [Client Quit]
markus-k_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
markus-k has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
MaxSan_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Client Quit]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tunafizz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Starduster has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ruby32 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pro has quit [Quit: Leaving]
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
molz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moli has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
King_Rex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<kanzure>
"This work introduces SCI, the first implementation of a scalable PCP system (that uses both PCPPs and proof composition). We used SCI to prove correctness of executions of up to 2^20 cycles of a simple processor (Figure 1) and calculated (Figure 2) its break-even point [SVP + 12, SMBW12]. The significance of our findings is two-fold: (i) it marks the transition of core PCP techniques (like proof composition and PCPs of Proximity) from ...
<kanzure>
... mathematical theory to practical system engineering, and (ii) the thresholds obtained are nearly achievable and hence show that PCP-supported computational integrity is closer to reality than previously assumed."
<kanzure>
"But in contrast to SCI, all previous solutions circumvent the use of core PCP techniques like proof composition [AS98], low-degree testing and the use of PCPs of proximity (PCPP) [BGH+05, DR06]; these techniques are crucial for obtaining succinct proofs with a public setup process, discussed below."
<kanzure>
is public setup the same thing as trustless setup?
<kanzure>
bottom of page 4 seems to explain that this is not the trapdoor key scheme
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
r0ach has quit []
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
alferz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
RedEmerald has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
gigq has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
RedEmerald has joined #bitcoin-wizards
raedah has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
gigq has joined #bitcoin-wizards
alferz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
alferz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
alferz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
raedah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
r0ach has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nickler_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
moa has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
nickler has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nickler has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
N0S4A2 has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.5]
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
TheSeven has quit [Disconnected by services]
[7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nickler has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nickler has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
ruby32 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ruby32 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nickler has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
adamg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenm_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Burrito has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Inaltoas1nistra has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Inaltoasinistra has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Noldorin has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
spinza has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
frankenm_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nabu has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
roman_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenm_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Iriez has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenm_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xsdfdfsa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stqism is now known as coup_de_shitlord
frankenmint has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
coup_de_shitlord is now known as coup
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
coup is now known as stqism
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
cyphase has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cyphase has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
stqism has quit [Quit: Like 3 fire emojis lit rn
coup_de_shitlord has joined #bitcoin-wizards
coup_de_shitlord is now known as stqism
roman_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
roman_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
MaxSan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xsdfdfsa has quit [Quit: xsdfdfsa]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
murch has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
MoALTz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
b-itcoinssg has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Iriez has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Changing host]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bsm117532 has quit [Killed (kornbluth.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
liead is now known as adlai
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
ruby32 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Pasha has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ruby32 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Pasha is now known as Cory
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roman_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
roman_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
murch has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
raedah has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
raedah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
molly has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
se3000 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
molz has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
moli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
molly has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
raedah has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Inaltoasinistra has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Inaltoas1nistra has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Alanius_ is now known as Alanius
<bsm117532>
What would go horribly wrong with a coin that had *difficulty* as its token. (Instead of filtering difficulty through a time-based reward schedule) The avantage is that difficulty is fungible with itself, so it would allow chains to be merged without relying on synchronized clocks.
nonaTure has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<katu_>
bsm117532: be less vague
<katu_>
what is "difficulty as its token"
<katu_>
eg. give example
nonaTure has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
E.g. if you mine a coin at today's difficulty of 209453158595, you would have exactly 209453158595 Satoshis to spend.
<vyvojar>
if you want non-pyramid scheme, its been tried before in altcoins many times
<bsm117532>
Coin creation would be weighted towards later times, instead of earlier times with Satoshi's schedule R(t) = 100BTC*2^(t/4 years)
<vyvojar>
you break early adopter incentive and tuhs speculative value
<vyvojar>
end result: such altcoins tanked faster than usual
<bsm117532>
vyvojar: Has it? Do you have any links?
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: most of these were outright ridiculous schemes, but generally broke the deflationary rule. i think one was called like 'magi'
<vyvojar>
just pour through btctalk trashbin
<vyvojar>
*pore
<bsm117532>
ugh.
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: it can work very well in cryptocommodities
<kanzure>
how is that not hashcash/powpay
<vyvojar>
(ie if somebody manages to implement successful proof of storage for storage renting)
<bsm117532>
I've been thinking about it because I want to merge forks, and in order to do so you have to know how to value coins created on each side of the fork.
<bsm117532>
Nice try kanzure, but I've met you in person! :-P
<katu_>
vyvojar: there's been nothing like to the date afaik, how can you be so sure about speculation?
<kanzure>
bsm117532: like petertodd, that was a hired actor.
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: i dont think you need to break the usual incentives for that. simply keep increasing divide factor (equivalent of halving, maybe more aggresive), but otherwise base reward pegged (before divisor) to hash rate
<bsm117532>
vyovar You've just described bitcoin, up to a constant factor BTC/difficulty.
<vyvojar>
yes, the magic is this is not bitcoin
<vyvojar>
because hash rate peg
<vyvojar>
if it halves, but hash rate doubles in the mean time, reward is still the same
<bsm117532>
But you said halving too. ;-)
<vyvojar>
THE PEG
<bsm117532>
But yes, another way to think of it is that difficulty adjustments are only to keep the block rate coming at a regular pace, and don't change coin allocation.
<bsm117532>
Yes a peg, we're saying the same thing.
nonaTure has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<katu_>
bsm117532, vyvojar one consequence of that would be coin inflation is no longer predictable
<bsm117532>
katu_ correct. It's closer to the usual definition of "mining" in that regard.
<bsm117532>
I've come to see mining as posting an external economic asset into the crypto-coin. Any other usage is an IOU.
<katu_>
22:06 < vyvojar> if it halves, but hash rate doubles in the mean time, reward is still the same
<katu_>
no, this does not guarantee pyramid
sparetire has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Anyway, this was really about merging forks. You don't want to have to reallocate coins in the event of a merge. I've figured out how to make a continuous reward schedule with braids (no halvings) but a merge requires the two sides to agree on their *clocks* as well as rewards.
<katu_>
hash rate can simply overshoot
<katu_>
eg. asics
<katu_>
ton of black swans
<bsm117532>
katu_: Another way of justifying the reward schedule is that early hardware is less efficient than late hardware, but this is a curve that is hard to predict.
<bsm117532>
And it certainly doesn't justify the reward going all the way to zero.
<vyvojar>
katu_: oh, right. but wouldnt hw eventually start copying moores law (ie asic die shrink) ?
<katu_>
vyvojar: possibly, just make sure to make your halvings faster than moores. even then, you basically pray that moore's law holds.
<katu_>
bsm117532: indeed, theres always potential for inflation, only bitcoin has hard cap. i dont consider this wise idea.
<katu_>
(assuming the demand is massively speculative which it seems it is, at least early in the life of a coin)
<bsm117532>
Another possibility would be to have the reward decay to a non-zero constant. In the long time limit it would be equal (or equivalent to) a difficulty-based coin.
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: what do you mean reward decay, you mean some sort of ceiling on reward at any given time?
<bsm117532>
vyvojar: Take a reward schedule: R(t,d) = (100 BTC)*(exp(t/tau)+d) t=time, d=difficulty, tau=(4 years)/ln(2)
<bsm117532>
vyvojar: Take a reward schedule: R(t,d) = (100 BTC)*(exp((-)t/tau)+d) t=time, d=difficulty, tau=(4 years)/ln(2)
<bsm117532>
important minus sign inserted.
<bsm117532>
d needs to be divided by some "initial difficulty" factor.
<katu_>
bsm117532: d can always outpace your t value
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<bsm117532>
Yes, it can. If the purpose is to incentivize early investors, that's not a huge problem.
<bsm117532>
Or if the purpose is to compensate for hardware shrinks, you're just saying Moore's law came too fast and the transition to difficulty-based coin happened earlier.
<katu_>
no, it is a huge problem. bitcoin is 7 years old now, and conjencture is that it relies on its pyramid property heavily. also you cant make predictions like that, maybe somebody will do asics in 2 months. its all too weak.
markus-k_ has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<bsm117532>
katu_: think about the long-time limit. One is actually *expending* real-world assets. If this isn't compensated by *creation* in the coin, this will place a cap on the value that enters the coin.
<bsm117532>
tx fees are a zero sum game. No one will expend very much external assets to acquire them.
<katu_>
yes, it is all speculation. the consensus is that a lot of people "hodl" because they know exactly that their stakes are given and cant be devalued (in absolute bitcoin terms, not usd).
<katu_>
the moment you put uncertainty in there things get ... uncertain, and thus your currency is far less attractive for speculation
<vyvojar>
as i said, simply dont rely on pyramid and do something else, ie a commodity :)
<vyvojar>
storage, bandwidth
<bsm117532>
or difficulty. ;-)
<vyvojar>
(really hard to implement, maybe not even possible)
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: difficulty is not commodity.
<vyvojar>
outsiders wont buy it for its intrinsic value.
<bsm117532>
As a proxy for CPU power or electricity, it certainly is.
<bsm117532>
vyvojar: It has no value. It certainly has a *cost*.
<vyvojar>
what we're talking about is elastic supply. inflation as whatever commodity (eg storage server "hashrate" grow), deflation if it shrinks.
<vyvojar>
this makes it extremely unattractive for speculation
<vyvojar>
but
<vyvojar>
the tokens will have still value, simply by the virtue of service provided to customers
<vyvojar>
in fact, the value could be even quite stable.
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
I think it would be quite stable. It's the only way invented to cause individual database rows to have a non-negligible cost, and therefore, become valuable as a medium of exchange.
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: note that new coins are "minted" only if total supply increases. if the network hashrate flatlines, no new coins are minted, miners get all their reward by simply providing service.
<bsm117532>
Everything else is IOUs.
<bsm117532>
vyvojar: correct. I don't think that's a stable situation because of the ease of performing a 51% attack.
<vyvojar>
indeed, its all rather theoretical
<bsm117532>
So it seems to me that any coin actually does need there to be continuous creation of new coins.
<vyvojar>
and all proof of storage schemes i've seen are NaS-like
<vyvojar>
adding to the injury :(
<bsm117532>
This is why PoW works -- it sacrifices an external asset. Storage doesn't actually sacrifice the asset.
<vyvojar>
indeed, storage is PoS-like
nonaTure has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Though you could argue for the time-value of storage, and then the asset sacrificed is electricity to run your HDDs and replacement costs for failure.
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: well, thats the general idea of providing open storage market
<vyvojar>
the contracts are size*duration, contract default is failing to provide proof of storage etc
<bsm117532>
Honestly I haven't dug into the storage question :-/
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: i did a bit and it's not looking good :( have a stab at it though, it would be really interesting to have cryptocommodity
<bsm117532>
Taek is around here somewhere...
<vyvojar>
if storage happens, anything which can be online-proved can work similiarly (ie bandwidth, or even some mechanical-turk like contracts)
<katu_>
vyvojar: for all intents and purposes, bitcoin style is the simplest. just provide irrefutable guarantee that it cant suddenly inflate at any later time, and speculators do the rest :)
<bsm117532>
FWIW I think having proof of storage is very important. It's a big piece of sharding the UTXO set and guaranteeing the whole schebang is still consistent!
<vyvojar>
bsm117532: that could be already done. nodes prioritizing network communication in exchange for storage proofs, ie tit-for-tat style, trivial online proof commitment. but it cant be easily commoditized into full blown economy as a central token.
<vyvojar>
at least im not sure how it could be done :/ i suppose something very vaguely broken like a PoS could work, but ..
bildramer has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
adamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bildramer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<katu_>
vyvojar: run a PoW coin, and have this as side tx consensus rule. ie miners can snitch on storage nodes which fail on their continuous storage proof contract.
nonaTure has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
<vyvojar>
katu_: huh?
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<katu_>
vyvojar: basically a script extended with oracle opcode "check this storage proof of bond XYZ", online
<vyvojar>
katu_: erm, nope.
<vyvojar>
katu_: first, split network view, ie not all miners can possible arrive at the same answer.
<vyvojar>
katu_: second, just do fidelity bonds off chain for a service, like wifi hotspots in payment channel :)
<vyvojar>
the point is to base whole chain on this (ie base miner incentive is _only_ this), its not stashed on the side. this would get rid of the immense energy cost currently attached to each transaction.
<katu_>
vyvojar: Well, the cost will go down the moment mining rewards are gone and its all tx funded (presumably, blocks will be *very* large)
<katu_>
for bonds, the network would not be self-organizing, it would be something like oniontip is now .. things would gravitate to few central providers pooling the bonds, which is why the oracle idea.
<katu_>
you have a point about the split view, though :(
<vyvojar>
katu_: BTW, the most interesting research relating to this is various proposals to reward Tor relays, similiar problem, but bandwidth (which is harder to prove, as there is no succinct proof)
MaxSan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<amiller_>
storage is a consumable resource
<amiller_>
if you're storing one thing, you can't also be storing another thing
<amiller_>
i don't get your point bsm117532
<bsm117532>
amiller_: which point? about the time-value of storage?
<amiller_>
even if you aren't spending any electricit
<amiller_>
or replacing for failure
<amiller_>
it's still a resource you can spend
<bsm117532>
But it has zero marginal cost to you. This is why no one pays for individual database rows.
<amiller_>
i think that's a distortion because of not having good ways to allocate or distribute it, it does seem that way but it's because of these other effects
<amiller_>
physically it's a limited a resource
<bsm117532>
So is air. But you don't worry about running out of air when another person enters the room. It's *marginal* cost is zero. You don't worry about the cost of storing one more byte.
<amiller_>
that could change rapidly
<amiller_>
ilke, right now there isn't any way for me to monetize my storage
<bsm117532>
And when it does we'll see a market develop for storage coins. ;-)
<amiller_>
if there were, then i'd use it all up, and then i wouldn't have any more unless i bought more hard drives and rented more rooms to store them in
<amiller_>
yeah ok fair enough
<amiller_>
when bitcoin started, cpu cycles were free, becuase no one had a way of monetizing their old laptops and last year's gaming gpus
grubles has quit [Quit: brb]
<bsm117532>
Yes, it wasn't until real value in terms of GPUs and ASICs became serious that its price started climbing.
<bsm117532>
When the marginal cost of generating bitcoins was zero, someone paid 10,000 BTC for a pizza.
<bsm117532>
If people were planning out their "storage mining rigs" the way they did for BTC, LTC, and ETH, we'd be in a different realm.
<bsm117532>
amiller_: what's your opinion on that, are we still lacking algorithms to make that work?
<r0ach>
aren't storage as a resource coins doomed since you need to apply a continous wear to the source, otherwise you end up with fractional reserve storage, so you're really replicating PoW? But maybe it can be replicating PoW using less energy in some manner...
<amiller_>
bsm117532, yes, still lacking, i think bramc and the SpaceMint folks at mit and austria are getting close
<amiller_>
r0ach, the hope is that the continuous wear can be very small relative to the amount of storage needed
<r0ach>
once you think it through all the way to the end
<r0ach>
it honestly seems like it would centralize more
<r0ach>
You're giving the most benefit to the fabs to crank out high volume storage at lowest marginal cost. That means just 1 single variable. Right now you two 2 main variables, access to the fabs at a low price, plus good marginal cost of energy...
<r0ach>
but of course after sha256d is commoditized, it would go to 1 variable for BTC of just energy
<r0ach>
For the sake of argument, I'm going to say there is a much greater ability for entrepreneurs to try and find/create a low marginal cost energy setup than them trying to build a fab to create state of the art storage. So the gateway into the system might be more "permissionless" with energy as the main factor.
grubles has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
From a physics perspective, data storage is just entropy. (Think Shannon entropy) The two are inter-convertible.
<r0ach>
I'm definitely seeing storage PoW as worse now. We all know 1 BTC confirmation is completely arbitrary and meaningless since Satoshi didn't solve Byzantine generals. So the only way confirmations are useful is leveraging the fact they have no upper limit with the idea that cost to attack is high and can't be sustained, yet with storage having a low marginal cost to sustain.
<r0ach>
Your entire security model goes out the window IMO...
grashopr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grashopr__ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
roman_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<bsm117532>
r0ach: interesting argument. Indeed Satoshi's solution places an assumption on the resources of an attacker, instead of identifying generals. I've made this argument before.... "Your coin is secure as long as an attacker can't hold up a Google data center".
<bsm117532>
(Frankly I strongly dislike identifying generals/nodes in the first place...but assumptions about resources are difficult to make).
Davasny_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roman_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Davasny has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Cory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<vyvojar>
amiller_: the storage is contract of time*objectsize, not just objectsize.
<vyvojar>
as for spacemint and filecoin, arent these broadcast schemes? you dont want it to work like that.
<vyvojar>
put/get requests
<amiller_>
what do you mean by broadcast schemes?
<vyvojar>
put/get
<vyvojar>
and random pickers
<vyvojar>
also economics of filecoin are all over the place
<vyvojar>
anyhow, read the log what i had in mind :)
<amiller_>
filecoin is put/get and spacemint is not
<amiller_>
yeah time*objectsize is more what i had in mind not just objectsize
<vyvojar>
amiller_: spacemint is not what i had in mind (its just another naive burstcoin)
<amiller_>
i have no idea what you mean by 'naive burstcoin'
<vyvojar>
its literally quoted in spacemint paper
<vyvojar>
spacemint relies on tightrope nash to "solve" NaS
<vyvojar>
which is no solution at all
<amiller_>
tightrope nash?
<amiller_>
anyway i didn't advocate spacemint
<vyvojar>
anyhow, until this issue is addrssed
<amiller_>
they have a proof of space protocol that, while i think there is a flaw in it, is good and i think can be fixed
<vyvojar>
its basically dead in water :(
<vyvojar>
oh, if you mean PoS primitive
<vyvojar>
there are plenty of reliable ones
<vyvojar>
thats not the issue
<vyvojar>
(PoS=pospace in this case)
<amiller_>
all the known constructions have problems with "grinding" or amortization basically
<vyvojar>
yep
<amiller_>
so the question is if that can be fixed
<vyvojar>
it will have have to completely abandon the misguided idea of peercoin
<vyvojar>
amiller_: the good news that the resource *is* external, ie one cant rewrite reality as is the case with stake. problem is merely with mining of multiple forks.
Davasny_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<vyvojar>
bad news the proof is online one, so its even dubious if its worth it to keep blockchain, since the guarantees will be more closer to that of say, ripple
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Starduster_ is now known as Starduster
roman_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]