Search content
Sort by
Showing 12 of 12 results by petko
This guys are all known by their Real Name, not a lot of ICOs took place with such a transparency.
What's the real name of CfB?
Looks good, it's just unclear why you picked Bitcoin hashrate which is generated by ASICs working a million times faster than a computer.
I picked it in a search for a maximum possible hash rate owned by an attacker.
In fact here I assume the biggest ASICs farm is like a billion times faster than a computer. You are correct that ASICs farms wouldn't exist without the Bitcoin economic model. I.e. the ratio E/J wouldn't have grown to billions. But even if it was smaller, you still need a minimal number of transactions per second with the magnitude of E/J.
Anyways, good luck!
PS:
Iota is like a russian car: if it stop, it cannot start, but once it start, it cannot be stopped 
This looks good for the edge case of a tangle degenerated to a chain. It should be the same for a tangle with arbitrary topology for transactions that have already been considered confirmed, but intuition says that it's incorrect for transactions that haven't passed their adaptation period (i.e. there are a lot of tips not referencing them) yet.
OK, guess the transactions will get entangled fast enough. Let's and do a quick calc considering they do:
- Let J be the average Joe hash rate
- You cannot ask Joe to wait more than 60 sec to issue a single transaction, so the minimal PoW cannot be more than 60 * J
- Let E be the attacker's hash rate
The minimal number of transactions per second that you need in order to keep the system secure is N = E / (60 * J)
So for SHA-256 (in fact, what hashing do you consider?):
- Let's take the Core 2 Duo hash rate for Joe
J = 2.5 MH/s - Today's hash rate of the Bitcoin network is around 430 PH/s. It is plausible to assume that a single entity owns 1% of that hash power
E = 4.3 PH/s = 4 300 000 000 MH/s
=> The minimal number of transactions per second is the astonishing N = 28 666 666
Did I misunderstand something?
No, it's not that easy, if transaction flow drops then an adversary can catch up and double-spend. It's a never ending race.
Indeed, right. Another try:
To consider the system secure, the average number of transactions per second, multiplied by the minimal PoW, must exceed the maximal hash power per second of a probable attacker
Minimal PoW is enough, we assume that there exist a constant flow of new transactions which is a pretty reasonable assumption.
Security of Iota relies on assumption that an adversary controls less than 50% of hashing power. This is a standard assumption in cryptoindustry. Bootstrapping period will be protected by checkpoints.
So for a transaction to be considered confirmed, the number of approving transactions multiplied by the minimal PoW must exceed the maximal possible adversary's PoW?
Re: QOINTUM - First Quantum-Secure|Python Contracts|Multichain|QDPoS
The lightweight client performs SSV against the Maximally Vetted Delegate Chain, which is a weakly subjective consensus heuristic that only requires block headers.
Thanks, I had to read that before asking
Re: QOINTUM - First Quantum-Secure|Python Contracts|Multichain|QDPoS
Simplified State Verification and the blockchain compression are the most promising parts IMO (since they solve problems we have today, not hypothetical ones).
However, after reading the SSV description, the lighweight SSV client seems like a simple frontend to the SSV-providing node, which puts the question how will the lighweight client "know" that the SSV-providing node is trustful?
However, after reading the SSV description, the lighweight SSV client seems like a simple frontend to the SSV-providing node, which puts the question how will the lighweight client "know" that the SSV-providing node is trustful?
I guess the word "decentralized" means nothing to you.
No, it means something for me but there is apparently difference in the meaning for you and me.Keep in mind the cost parameters are quite different for a pure PoS block chain. There are little computation requirements, and thus negligible capital requirements. The notion of 'initial stakeholders' takes on quite a different meaning in this context. As long as the code is open source[1] then there is little barrier to entry, and disagreeable initial disbursements are not likely to be adopted(due to higher competition).
Long story short, at day one, the developers are the only ones who invested real-life efforts in this system, consequently they are the only ones interested in not destroying it.More details about my point of view - here
[1] and observationally NXT is not open source. Have a look at Reddcoin though, that's a bit more in the realm of what your considering.
I see a bitbucket project. But honestly I haven't fully examined this currency yet.It appears that Nxt already implement my idea - proof of stake only, open source (since 1st of March 2014) and of course the developers are the initial stake holders as it should be. It is a good idea to include that in the wiki, in order to prevent newbies like me causing unnecessary floods like the one I caused (apologies for that)
It's not that. It's the rich will have untouchable anonymous power. There is no way to stop a cabal of people from taking permanent control and reversing transactions discretely.
I think you were already answered:Wealth PUT AT RISK PROTECTING THE NETWORK = stake.
As soon as the cabal that holds 51% of the stake in PetkoCoin starts cheating, the trust in PetkoCoin will fall, a new currency - CBeastCoin - will appear (probably with same source code), and the cabal will lose the real-life wealth they have invested in PetkoCoin. This is what guarantees that the cabal (if any) will not be malicious. Of course, it is out of question that the currency software should be open-source (IMO).So, apart from the guys shouting "rich will get richer" (if I have invested several thousands dollars in mining hardware, I would have been shouting that too), the only problem for having a PoS-only currency is the initial distribution of the stake (correct?). And the current solution is the hybrid PoW/PoS implemented in PPCoin. Ah, and the other problem is that noone is willing to write the code.
Let's put this another way: the stake shows how much each participant has invested in the currency. If someone owns 99% of the stake, the last thing he will want is to destroy the currency (keeping the coins for himself will effectively destroy the currency because every payment method is meant to be used for payments). That being said, I cannot see another party who deserves more the initial stake than the guys who actually wrote the code (since they are the only ones who invested something in this currency). Then, let The Free Market decide how much is each coin worthed.
Let's put this another way: the stake shows how much each participant has invested in the currency. If someone owns 99% of the stake, the last thing he will want is to destroy the currency (keeping the coins for himself will effectively destroy the currency because every payment method is meant to be used for payments). That being said, I cannot see another party who deserves more the initial stake than the guys who actually wrote the code (since they are the only ones who invested something in this currency). Then, let The Free Market decide how much is each coin worthed.