@anunymint
I appreciate the fact that you spend a considerable time on this subject, it is a good evidence for me to become even more convinced that:
1- You have good faith and as of trolling part of your writings, you just can't help it and I should be an order of magnitude more tolerant with you
2- You are smart and have been around for a long time, a good choice for chewing a complicated proposal like PoCW. Again, more tolerant, as tolerant as possible and more ... I should repeat and keep it in mind
SHA256 and other hash functions, are NP-Complete problems: their solutions consume negligible time and resource to be verified, it is basic in "computer science"
One polite request if I may: Please remain focused as much as possible. I quoted this from where I cut the previous one and inserted {*}. This is really hard to be productive this way, jumping from this objection to that one with little or zero relations between.
Actually I have answered this before.
Retrying:
I appreciate your concerns and if you manage to post a reply focused on something like this or any other technical concerns regarding the proposal, I'll send merits for you again, I just can't do it right now as you don't stop being generally and totally negative and aggressive and acting like a warrior who is fighting against ... against what or whom really?
As a conclusion and brief summary:
PoCW, practically fixes one of the most known flaws in traditional PoW, proximity premium. This has various important consequences besides its direct effect on mining pressure, including and not limited to discouraging selfish mining.
I started this thread by giving a brief historical perspective of how pools have been developed conceptually and practically. It was driven by ignorance and greed as I've concluded there.
If you are right, and there has been a mysterious proposal somewhere in the history, similar to mine, I'm sure it has been abandoned not because of being impractical. My analysis suggests with Satoshi being disappeared, people were left in the hands of junior programmers who were not committed to decentralization enough, on one hand and greedy pool operators who did anything to take advantage of bitcoin, centralized parasites grown on a decentralized infrastructure, like what Google, Facebook, ... are for TCP/IP and Internet.
Now, I managed to design this algorithm not because I'm very smart and can outperform all of the advocates and developers, I'm just more concerned about centralization compared to many of these guys who have got rich enough that many of them are already retired and instead of doing their job, they are just pretending and the remaining are now investigating how to take advantage from the centralized situation to get even more rich. They just don't care.
There should be a voice for people, fresh people who join, being promised to live in a better world a voice for average and small miners and hobbyists who wanna be a part of a fair business, free of corporates and pools. And guess what? They are a force, driving force after all that we have been through, after Bitmain.
This community is becoming more aware and a driving force is pushing for decentralization and it is the true reason that someone like me is so confident about the future. It is no more 2010, things have happened and there is a shift that encourages and dictates decentralization.
I'm not a genius, I'm just a dedicated programmer/software engineer who tries to think out of the box and ask crucial questions and could not be satisfied easily by stupid arguments and does not pay a sh*t to history and how it has happened to bring us this misery. A person who got enough courage to ask how it could happen and what do we have to deal with this mess now.
Hereby I ask for help, from brave, dedicated developers and advocates to join this proposal, improve it, implement it and kick these folks out of the decentralized ecosystems. I strongly believe they should better invest in or work for Google ...
Vitalik is specially a good candidate, he is already invited
3. I expect your design makes the proximity issue worse. I had already explained to you a hypothesis that the Schelling points in your design will cause network fragmentation. Yet you ignore that point I made. As you continue to ignore every point I make and twist my statements piece-meal.
Good objection.
Shelling points (transition points from Preparation to Contribution and from the Finalization to the next round ) have %7 value cumulatively (%5 for first and %2 for the second point). It is low enough, yet it is not at stake, totally:
For the first %5 part, the hot zone (the miner and its neighboring peers) are highly incentivized to share it asap, because it is not finalized and practically worth nothing as it won't be appreciated if it doesn't get enough support finding its way to finalization. Note that neighbors are incentivized too, as if they want to join the dominating current, they need their shares to be finalized as soon as possible, it needs the Prepared Block to be Populated although it is not their's.
For the second Schelling point, the finalized block found event, with %2 percent block reward value, hesitating to relay the information is in a very high risk of being orphan by means of other competitors(for the lucky miner), and to be mining orphan shares/final blocks (for the peers).
I understand you have some feelings that more complicated scenarios could be feasible but I don't think so and until somebody has not presented such a scenario, we better not to be afraid of it.
I'm aware that you are obsessed with some kind of network being divided because you think selfish mining is a serious vulnerability and/or propagation delay is overwhelming.
Network wont be divided neither intentionally nor as a result of propagation delay, and if you are not satisfied with my assessment of propagation delay you should recall my secret weapon, incentivizing nodes to share their findings, as fast as possible to the extent that they will put it in high priority. They will dedicate more resources (both hardware and software) to the job.
Correct! Now if you would just internalize that thought, and understand that your point also applies to your reckless (presumptuous) overconfidence and enthusiasm.
Here you have 'trimmed' my sentence to do what you are repeatedly accuse me of. I'm not talking about other people being not smart enough to understand me and/or my proposal.
I'm talking about the limitations of pure imagination and discussion about the consequences of a proposal any proposal when it might be implemented and adopted.
Why should you tear my sentence apart? The same sentence that you have continued quoting. Isn't that an act of ... let's get over such things, whatever.
In the context of the discussion of OmniLedger, I already explained that it cant provide unbounded membership for sharding, because one invariant of proof-of-work is that membership in mining is bounded by invariants of physics. When you dig more into the formalization of your design and testing, then youre going to realize this invariant is inviolable. But for you now you think you can violate the laws of physics and convert the Internet into a mesh network. Let me link you to something I wrote recently about that nonsense which explains why mesh networking will never work:
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1356-ray-vahey-presents-bitchute/#comment-50338
https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=28
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1356-ray-vahey-presents-bitchute/#comment-50556
I'll check your writings about sharding later, thanks for sharing. But As I have mentioned here, these are my initial intuitions and are provided to show the importance and beauty of the proposal and opportunities involved. I just want to remind that how pointless would be to just fighting with it, instead of helping to improve and implement it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atrilema.com+self-important
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Matthew-Laine-1
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/if-you-want-the-country-to-be-less-polarized-then-stop-writing-talking-and-thinking-about-b3dcd33c11f1
Now you are just fighting (for what?) ...
You are accusing me to be of this or that personality, being over-confident, ... whatever, instead I suggest you to provide more illuminating points and objections and make me to reconsider parts of the proposal, instead of repeating just one or two objections while you are playing your game of thrones scenes.
well, it was hell of a post to reply. I'll be back to is later.
Cheers
I appreciate the fact that you spend a considerable time on this subject, it is a good evidence for me to become even more convinced that:
1- You have good faith and as of trolling part of your writings, you just can't help it and I should be an order of magnitude more tolerant with you
2- You are smart and have been around for a long time, a good choice for chewing a complicated proposal like PoCW. Again, more tolerant, as tolerant as possible and more ... I should repeat and keep it in mind
I was nearly certain I had already mentioned it up-thread, but couldnt quickly find it to quote it. So let me recapitulate that your PoCW design proposes to put 10,000 times more (and I claim eventually 100,000 and 1 million) times more proof-of-work hashes in the blockchain that have to be validated.
[/quot]
Nop. It is about 10,000 and will remain in that neighborhood for long,long time to reach 100,000 it will take a century or so! I have already described it:I have no plan and there wont be such a plan to increase this number linearly with the network hashrate.
This proposal, with current parameters is about making solo mining 100,000 times more convenient right now, it is a good improvement regardless of what happens in the next few years and how we should deal with it.
Unlike what you suggest, ASICs won't be helpful in syncing block chain. Full nodes are not ASICs and don't utilise ASICs ever to validate a hash, they just compute that hash with their own cpu! [/quot]
Nop. It is about 10,000 and will remain in that neighborhood for long,long time to reach 100,000 it will take a century or so! I have already described it:I have no plan and there wont be such a plan to increase this number linearly with the network hashrate.
This proposal, with current parameters is about making solo mining 100,000 times more convenient right now, it is a good improvement regardless of what happens in the next few years and how we should deal with it.
Quote
This is going to make objectively syncing a full node (especially for a new user who just downloaded the entire blockchain since the genesis block) incredibly slow unless they have very high capitalization ASICs. And the asymmetry between commodity single CPUs and mining farms of ASICs will widen, so perhaps eventually it becomes impractical for a CPU to even sync from genesis. So while you claim to improve some facets, your design makes other facets worse. {*}
SHA256 and other hash functions, are NP-Complete problems: their solutions consume negligible time and resource to be verified, it is basic in "computer science"
Quote
{*} Including you continue to deflect the correct criticism that your design very likely makes selfish mining worse thus reducing an attack on economic security from 33% of the hashrate to an even lower threshold. The onus is on you to write a detailed whitepaper with formal security proofs. Not on me to write proofs that your design has such failure modes.
One polite request if I may: Please remain focused as much as possible. I quoted this from where I cut the previous one and inserted {*}. This is really hard to be productive this way, jumping from this objection to that one with little or zero relations between.
Actually I have answered this before.
Retrying:
- This proposal discourages selfish mining and generally any consequences regarding proximity premium flaw including but not limited to mining pressure which is its design goal.
- To understand how PoCW does this huge improvement, one should note that proximity premium flaw is about nodes having access to important, valuable information sooner than what competitors do, so that they may have chances to take advantage of this premium intentionally or not.
In worst case scenarios like selfish mining the privileged node(s) may decide to escalate this situation by deliberately keeping that information private for longer time, instead of relaying it according to the protocol. - One should also beware of the nature of this information: It is always about that a block has been found and the details of this discovery.
- Proof of Collaborative Work, this proposal, addresses this issue for the first time, by distributing the critical information in tens of thousands of possible points in each round across the network. It is smart because instead of eliminating the privilege of being close to the source of information, distributes it almost evenly through the participants
- It is also very important to note that how this feature of the proposal, relaxes any doubts about propagation delay, it turns to become a much less threat to the security of the network:
The proposal has another secret weapon worth mentioning here: It incentivizes sharing information because of the mechanisms provided to help finazilingthe the information, suspending its actual value.
This way, not only the focal points have been distributed across the network 100,000 times more, the distributed energy is not even a finalized energy yet. This makes it ways more irrelevant to keep it as a secret. - The above property, provides an excellent self regulatory mechanism that for every bit of hypothetical overhead it generates for the nodes to comply, and every microsecond of propagation delay it causes, there would exist a considerable decrease in security vulnerability of the network to propagation delay.
I appreciate your concerns and if you manage to post a reply focused on something like this or any other technical concerns regarding the proposal, I'll send merits for you again, I just can't do it right now as you don't stop being generally and totally negative and aggressive and acting like a warrior who is fighting against ... against what or whom really?
As a conclusion and brief summary:
PoCW, practically fixes one of the most known flaws in traditional PoW, proximity premium. This has various important consequences besides its direct effect on mining pressure, including and not limited to discouraging selfish mining.
Quote
Im quite confident that many experts already considered your design. I know I did circa 2014 or 2015. And we dismissed it without discussing in great detail in public because it was just not a worthwhile design to pursue. However, I do think if you read every post of bitcointalk.org (or which I can claim I have probably read more of it than most people reading this), then you will find discussion that proposed designs analogous to yours. And they were shot down for the reasons I am providing to you now. If you want to look for fertile design ground, you need to look away from the obvious things that everybody was trying to solve years ago. I raised the pools bugaboo incessantly in 2013/14. Youre like 5 years too late to the party. That sailed already.
It is not true as a general rule, actually it is not true even occasionally, imo. Technology doesn't trend only driven by just one factor: smartness of inventors or advocates, it is ways more importantly driven by interests and enthusiasm.I started this thread by giving a brief historical perspective of how pools have been developed conceptually and practically. It was driven by ignorance and greed as I've concluded there.
If you are right, and there has been a mysterious proposal somewhere in the history, similar to mine, I'm sure it has been abandoned not because of being impractical. My analysis suggests with Satoshi being disappeared, people were left in the hands of junior programmers who were not committed to decentralization enough, on one hand and greedy pool operators who did anything to take advantage of bitcoin, centralized parasites grown on a decentralized infrastructure, like what Google, Facebook, ... are for TCP/IP and Internet.
Now, I managed to design this algorithm not because I'm very smart and can outperform all of the advocates and developers, I'm just more concerned about centralization compared to many of these guys who have got rich enough that many of them are already retired and instead of doing their job, they are just pretending and the remaining are now investigating how to take advantage from the centralized situation to get even more rich. They just don't care.
There should be a voice for people, fresh people who join, being promised to live in a better world a voice for average and small miners and hobbyists who wanna be a part of a fair business, free of corporates and pools. And guess what? They are a force, driving force after all that we have been through, after Bitmain.
This community is becoming more aware and a driving force is pushing for decentralization and it is the true reason that someone like me is so confident about the future. It is no more 2010, things have happened and there is a shift that encourages and dictates decentralization.
I'm not a genius, I'm just a dedicated programmer/software engineer who tries to think out of the box and ask crucial questions and could not be satisfied easily by stupid arguments and does not pay a sh*t to history and how it has happened to bring us this misery. A person who got enough courage to ask how it could happen and what do we have to deal with this mess now.
Hereby I ask for help, from brave, dedicated developers and advocates to join this proposal, improve it, implement it and kick these folks out of the decentralized ecosystems. I strongly believe they should better invest in or work for Google ...
Vitalik is specially a good candidate, he is already invited
Quote
3. I expect your design makes the proximity issue worse. I had already explained to you a hypothesis that the Schelling points in your design will cause network fragmentation. Yet you ignore that point I made. As you continue to ignore every point I make and twist my statements piece-meal.
Shelling points (transition points from Preparation to Contribution and from the Finalization to the next round ) have %7 value cumulatively (%5 for first and %2 for the second point). It is low enough, yet it is not at stake, totally:
For the first %5 part, the hot zone (the miner and its neighboring peers) are highly incentivized to share it asap, because it is not finalized and practically worth nothing as it won't be appreciated if it doesn't get enough support finding its way to finalization. Note that neighbors are incentivized too, as if they want to join the dominating current, they need their shares to be finalized as soon as possible, it needs the Prepared Block to be Populated although it is not their's.
For the second Schelling point, the finalized block found event, with %2 percent block reward value, hesitating to relay the information is in a very high risk of being orphan by means of other competitors(for the lucky miner), and to be mining orphan shares/final blocks (for the peers).
I understand you have some feelings that more complicated scenarios could be feasible but I don't think so and until somebody has not presented such a scenario, we better not to be afraid of it.
I'm aware that you are obsessed with some kind of network being divided because you think selfish mining is a serious vulnerability and/or propagation delay is overwhelming.
Network wont be divided neither intentionally nor as a result of propagation delay, and if you are not satisfied with my assessment of propagation delay you should recall my secret weapon, incentivizing nodes to share their findings, as fast as possible to the extent that they will put it in high priority. They will dedicate more resources (both hardware and software) to the job.
Quote
2- Although this proposal is ready for an alpha version implementation and consequent deployment phases, it is too young to be thoroughly understood...
Correct! Now if you would just internalize that thought, and understand that your point also applies to your reckless (presumptuous) overconfidence and enthusiasm.
Here you have 'trimmed' my sentence to do what you are repeatedly accuse me of. I'm not talking about other people being not smart enough to understand me and/or my proposal.
I'm talking about the limitations of pure imagination and discussion about the consequences of a proposal any proposal when it might be implemented and adopted.
Why should you tear my sentence apart? The same sentence that you have continued quoting. Isn't that an act of ... let's get over such things, whatever.
Quote
...for its other impacts and applications, the ones that it is not primarily designed for. As some premature intuitions I can list:
- It seems to be a great infrastructure for sharding , the most important onchain scalability solution.
The current situation with pools makes sharding almost impossible, when +50% mining power is centralized in palms of few (5 for bitcoin and 3 for Ethereum) pools, the problem wouldn't be just security and vulnerability to cartel attacks, unlike what is usually assumed, it is more importantly a prohibiting factor for implementing sharding (and many other crucial and urgent improvements).
If my intuition might be proven correct, it would have a disruptive impact on the current trend that prioritizes off chain against on chain scalability solutions. - This protocol probably can offer a better chance for signaling and autonomous governance solutions
In the context of the discussion of OmniLedger, I already explained that it cant provide unbounded membership for sharding, because one invariant of proof-of-work is that membership in mining is bounded by invariants of physics. When you dig more into the formalization of your design and testing, then youre going to realize this invariant is inviolable. But for you now you think you can violate the laws of physics and convert the Internet into a mesh network. Let me link you to something I wrote recently about that nonsense which explains why mesh networking will never work:
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1356-ray-vahey-presents-bitchute/#comment-50338
https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=28
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1356-ray-vahey-presents-bitchute/#comment-50556
Quote
A thorough analysis of the details suggested in the design, would convince non-biased reader that this proposal is thought enough and is not that immature to encourage anybody to attempt a slam dunk and reject it trivially, on the contrary considering the above features and promises, and the importance of pooling pressure as one of the critical flaws of bitcoin, it deserves a fair extensive discussion.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atrilema.com+self-important
https://www.quora.com/Do-millennials-feel-more-entitled-than-previous-generations/answer/Matthew-Laine-1
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/if-you-want-the-country-to-be-less-polarized-then-stop-writing-talking-and-thinking-about-b3dcd33c11f1
Now you are just fighting (for what?) ...
You are accusing me to be of this or that personality, being over-confident, ... whatever, instead I suggest you to provide more illuminating points and objections and make me to reconsider parts of the proposal, instead of repeating just one or two objections while you are playing your game of thrones scenes.
well, it was hell of a post to reply. I'll be back to is later.
Cheers