Search content
Sort by

Showing 6 of 6 results by ring2ding
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 02:11:54 UTC
I don't know. I don't think I have enough math skills to figure this out lol. Has the genious who came up with this figured out how to solve Q1?
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 01:47:20 UTC
Let me get this straight:

- For each transaction, each validation node gets an equal split of the transaction fee.
- One person could potentially control thousands or hundreds of thousands of nodes.
- For each node that gets a split of the transaction fee, a new record of said split of the transaction fee being distributed to the node needs to be recorded (i.e., for 10 nodes, you'd need 10 records of 1/10th of the transaction fee being distributed to each of the nodes).
- Suddenly, you have hundreds of KBs of information being recorded for each transaction, because the transaction fee is split between hundreds of thousands of nodes.
- Fail.

Good point. I'll have to think about this some more. There HAS to be a better way to randomly pick like 10 nodes that get to process the transaction.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 01:28:32 UTC
all you've managed to do is swap the 'proof of work' system, which prevents gaming of the system, with a system that gives control to whoever can muster the largest resources in terms of IP addresses and virtual nodes.
Having scrapped the whole 'block' system - this 'arms race' would happen at a rapid rate, and even if there were a few competing botnets, control of the network would oscillate between them.
In short - your proposal sounds like a disaster, and suggests you've missed the point of the block system and proof-of-work.

Isn't that how it works anyway though? If an attacker manages to get 50% of the processing power of the network then he could potentially validate an invalid transaction (like creating bitcoins out of thin air).

If anything I would think that my system would be more secure, since an attacker would have to have 2/3 majority, not in terms of processing power but in terms of nodes. This security is inherit in the philosophy of bitcoins, and it depends on the philosophy that there will always be more genuine validators than attacker validators.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 01:22:22 UTC
Hi

You can see my post here.

Nobody in newbie island knows enough to respond to my post.
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Introduce yourself :)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 00:59:09 UTC
my name is also batman
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Topic OP
Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution)
by
ring2ding
on 11/01/2012, 00:40:31 UTC
I attempted to post this on StackExchange, but was told to come here. So here it is:

I've been thinking a lot about bitcoins lately, and I've discovered some problems with the theory behind them.

1Q) How much will transaction fees eventually be?

2Q) There is a lot of wasted computational power, due to the requirement for "proof of work." Assuming they found a fix for #1, this would still drive the transaction fees to be a LOT higher then they would otherwise need to be.

3Q) Banking information is propagated freely to anybody and everybody. If you wanted to figure out how much money your friend (or worse, your enemy) has, and all of their transactional data, it really wouldn't be that hard. This isn't a huge problem, but this information ideally should be on a "need to know" basis.

After those questions came to mind, I did lots of research on the theory and did lots of thinking. I believe I have an extremely simple solution to all of these problems:

We redefine what it means to bitcoin mine. We scrap the entire idea of "proof of work," as well as blocks. All nodes that define themselves as bitcoin miners must now tell every other node that they are a miner, or "validator" if you will.

3A) When a client posts a transaction, that transaction is propagated ONLY to all validators, and NOT to other clients. Clients should not know about the transaction history of other clients.

2A) All validators must validate the transaction, and then post their results to all other nodes. If it is determined (by each individual node) that 2/3 majority of the validators have validated the transaction, then the transaction is deemed to be valid. There is no "proof of work" and clockcycles are no longer wasted.

1A) The reward (transaction fee) is equally split among all validators. Since each individual node knows how many registered validators there are, it can easily calculate a minimum transactional fee. Transaction fee = (time to process transaction) * (cost per time to process).

What do you guys think, does this make sense at all?