Quote from: Fuserleer on September 27, 2015, 09:31:39 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on September 27, 2015, 09:30:50 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 27, 2015, 09:28:35 PM

That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck with shift to network I imagine?

Network will become a bottleneck at 12'000 TPS (for 100 Mbps).

Yup, partitions my friend, that problem goes away Wink

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.

[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 25, 2015, 09:38:38 PM

You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.

Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.

This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]