Quote from: tonych on November 06, 2016, 11:56:57 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on November 06, 2016, 04:07:08 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on November 06, 2016, 04:06:44 AM

Quote from: dsattler on November 05, 2016, 04:50:40 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on November 05, 2016, 11:34:02 AM

Btw, I don't understand why that paper failed to cite the prior art of Iota's and Sergio Demian Lerner's DAGs.

Don't forget Byteball, a new consensus algorithm and private untraceable payments using DAG, no POW, no POS! Wink

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.0

Also found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT7wQNg_s4

The innovation claimed is that everyone can agree on 11 of 12 centralized supernodes to order the transactions, thus we wouldn't need PoW nor blocks if this claim were true and desirable.

If that claim were true, then we wouldn't have Visa and Mastercard dominant today.

Since people can't agree, this is why the governance of society is a power vacuum. The most ruthless and powerful are sucked into the vacuum to provide the top-down organization (discipline) that society requires to function. So it will be no different outcome in this case, where the 12 supernodes will be controlled by one entity (even pretending to be 12 entities via a Sybil attack). Because the users will never be able to agree on any evolution away from the 12 by forming a consensus on an exact 12, since they are only allowed a mutation of 1 at a time. And any higher rate of mutation would make it implausible to define a total order.

I am sorry he has failed. And every possible¹ DAG design will fail.

Tangentially (off-topic for technical discussion) although the creator appears to have good intentions, I argue his distribution method is highly flawed. Giving away coins for free means most will dump them on the market, thus collapsing the price. Well maybe that is by design, so someone can scoop them up cheap and then later after price hits rock bottom, then that group can pump & dump it making the usual fortune by mining the n00b speculators.

¹ I am referring to the concept of a DAG where branches are undifferentiated. And I have something more specific to say about this, but not ready to publish yet.

Are you the new identity of AnonyMint?
If you have any specific attack vectors in mind, please describe them and let's discuss.

Yes I am AnonyMint.

I haven't been reading the thread to see if there are any follow ups.

I am still analyzing your design. I think the main issue is because afaics witnesses have nothing-at-stake and afaics it can't be objectively determined which witnesses are creating units referencing MCs which create ambiguity about whether finality was really final. It may also not be objective which witnesses are mishaving. But I may not yet completely understand the design.