Quote from: kushti on January 15, 2016, 09:06:52 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 14, 2016, 11:57:30 PM

Warning I as AnonyMint proposed this in mid-2013 and referred to it as Proof-of-Storage. I also discovered it was fundementally flawed. If you continue, you will be wasting your time. Eventually I will come back and explain to you and Andrew Miller PhD why this is flawed.

Details are definitely needed here. I know about Proofs-of-Space and Proofs of Space-Time( http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/035.pdf ), Miller's Proof-of-Retrievability(Permacoin), and White's Proof-of-Storage in Qeditas. What's Anonymint's proposal about?

We found some possible drawbacks and attack vectors in Permacoin, but no fundamental flaws.

In my original analysis in 2013, I went down the same rat hole of flaws as in section "4.2 Local-POR Lottery" of the white paper. They assume so many things (including for example that Amazon bandwidth is 10 - 100X more expensive than dedicated host), and when you work through all the analysis, then the scheme does not work to prevent centralization of the mining, and thus the permissionless (uncensored) and robustness/durability of file storage attribute will not be sustained.

P.S. I also read these:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=186601.0 (this was an offshoot I think of my idea which was in my March 2013 thread)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=555375.msg6536798#msg6536798

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 31, 2016, 04:41:06 AM

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 04:25:49 PM

Proving data is stored on a decentralised node is something of an ongoing project.

Others are looking at the issue:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/proof-of-unique-blockchain-storage-revised/

So far I think PoW for nodes to validate blocks or data they contain is an interesting approach.

Afaics, all of these proof-of-storage/retrievably designs are fundamentally flawed (MaidSafe, Storj, Sia, etc) and can't ever be fixed.

They try to use network latency to prevent centralized outsourcing, but ubiquitously consistent network latency is not a reliable commodity. Duh. Sorry!

Sergio also the one who started the idea for a DAG which I have explained is fundamentally flawed (and afaics even had an egregious/fundamental error in this white paper for his DagCoin). Find that info in the thread linked above.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 10, 2016, 04:59:26 AM

Quote from: super3 on February 08, 2016, 10:09:08 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 08, 2016, 07:41:45 PM

Quote from: super3 on February 08, 2016, 05:01:48 PM

1) Sybil - Bonds and unique pieces

The mathematical models are right there in the paper. We are collecting live data from the network, which proves the models are correct.

"Its not going to work" in face of real data showing that is working is not going to cut it. Please provide some data or mathematical models that say otherwise. Latency doesn't matter for proofs.

Testnets do not prove that the Sybil attack resistance and payment model economics work (because game theory is fully incentivized in the wild).

Regarding case 1) in the quote above, the fact is the math models are often myopic[1] (and again that is so in this case), because it is impossible to prove proof-of-storage/retrievability:

These proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms also employ a challenge/response to force the node to have access to the full copy of the data which should be stored, but this does not prevent the node from outsourcing the storage to a single centralized repository. So to attempt prevent that centralized repository attack (i.e. Sybil attack on the nodes) these proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms try to use network latency to prevent centralized outsourcing, but [that is impossible because] ubiquitously consistent network latency is not a reliable commodity.

[1]

Meni Rosenfeld's myopic math, and note Meni is a widely respected academic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13633504#msg13633504

And my explanation of the myopia:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13797768#msg13797768
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13819991#msg13819991
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13763395#msg13763395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13647887#msg13647887