Quote from: Cryptopotato021 on December 05, 2018, 10:20:04 AM

Quote

That sounds like we'd be back to square one though.

How to determine the majority (ie. how to prevent the majority vote from being manipulated)? How to tell "good" AI containers from "bad" AI containers?

The thing is each node makes a decision on it's own and it doesn't know what's happening with the other nodes. It wouldn't even know that there are other nodes. It would just send out it's decision based on the data that is fed into it so i don't see how it would turn bad!

But in the end there still needs to be a consensus about the state of the ledger, right? What if you simply flood the network with malicious nodes? There doesn't seem to be any way to prevent sybil attacks in this scheme. If the majority of the network is malicious, there's no way for nodes to know the "correct" behaviour. And flooding a network with malicious nodes is fairly trivial if the economic cost is negligible (unlike proof of resource schemes such as PoW or PoS).

Edit:

Quote from: mixoftix on December 05, 2018, 10:57:56 AM

BUT, instead of that, you try to use AI in enhancing the consensus protocol in run time. for example:

[...]

3- HOW we could arrange a format in nonce values that protect the network from selfish miners? statistically analysis of nonce values in
history of blockchains.. [I use this one in introducing BOUNCE value instead of classic nonce]

[...]

Neat examples, especially #3 makes me curious.

Could you elaborate on that? How would changing the nonce format help prevent selfish mining?