Advanced checkpointing should be rewarded
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42015” timestamp=“1386590382”]
In Bitcoin and other networks without checkpointing, transaction safety is ensured by hashing, which is remunerated. But the additional safeguard of Feathercoin, advanced checkpointing, is not remunerated in any way, which is not just. Bushstar might be too proud to object against this injustice, especially since the checkpointing is still centralized. But should it be ever decentralized, it should be a remunerated service. At the moment, Feathercoin is the most profitable network to mine, whereas the mercenary miners, who are supposed to protect the network, can easily turn against it. My point is, that the service that actually keeps the network super secure receives no reward. I suggest that the pay of the mercenary miners should consist mainly of the speedy transaction surcharges, and the block reward should be partially witheld for such time when the checkpointing is decentralized and its operating standards more clearly defined.
[/quote]You want to reward the benevolent dictators? You want to take the reward away from the already loyal (to community not coin) miners? You want to create a privileged class that decides what’s real and what isn’t? This seems a bit drastic and a lot like the guild / MPAA system.
ACP is a crutch. We have it because cryptocoins have simplistic send / receive accept / reject semantics. The solution is more complex transactions which by numerical structure raise the bar to n-1 steps/n steps.
-
So you think you can see right through me? Many have that kind of imagination. I still hope that [url=http://altcoin.wikia.com/wiki/Vaticoin]http://altcoin.wikia.com/wiki/Vaticoin[/url] is a joke, but what if not!
With ACP, FTC now offers the security flavor other cryptos don’t have. Face it, most of us do not have the brainpower to verify the algorithm. Even if you change it, most of us can only resort to having faith in you. To all but mathematicians, this is more dictatorial than ACP.
Face it, the fact that the BDFL is a person of known credentials (rather than a mysterious nickname) is your major distinction. Mining credibility is not based on the assumption of miners’ loyalty, but on the assumption, that many miners won’t collude. ACP credibility is based on your transparency and accountability, which can be judged by common sense. In their elitism, mathematicians tend to underestimate the power of common sense. You won’t avoid trolling whether you keep ACP, or scrap it and offer the same as other cryptos. (Because what is the point of diluting the total coin supply then?) If anyone would listen to my opinion, I would be against throwing away your early evolutionary experience.
Finally, a worker is worthy of his wages. Ask yourself, how many % of the safety credit goes to hashing, and how many to ACP? Which one offers more security? You have to distribute the reward evenly even if the recipient happens to be self. Yes, rewarding ACP would double the amount of trolling. But not rewarding it might constitute a security weakness on its own.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42183” timestamp=“1386619590”]
So you think you can see right through me? Many have that kind of imagination. I still hope that [url=http://altcoin.wikia.com/wiki/Vaticoin]http://altcoin.wikia.com/wiki/Vaticoin[/url] is a joke, but what if not!
[/quote]Sorry, what does Vaticoin have to do with this? I missed the connection.
[quote]
With ACP, FTC now offers the security flavor other cryptos don’t have.
[/quote]Incorrect. With ACP, FTC trades away security and replaces it with trust. Security in crypto-currencies comes from a distributed consensus which is reached in a trust-less environment. By eliminating distributed consensus, and introducing a single point of failure run by a benevolent dictator, you have significantly less security.
[quote]
Face it, most of us do not have the brainpower to verify the algorithm.
[/quote]So what? Either the algorithm can be verified, or it can’t. You don’t need to verify it yourself, that’s your computer’s job. But because the algorithm is open source, you CAN verify it, which is more than you can do in a closed source environment where trust is required.
[quote]
Even if you change it, most of us can only resort to having faith in you.
[/quote]No, you can get independent verification. As much as you want. That’s why open-source > proprietary, where you DO have to trust without verification.
[quote]
To all but mathematicians, this is more dictatorial than ACP.
[/quote]No. Your assumption is that because you don’t have the brainpower, it’s therefore better to trust a single person. But that’s completely backwards: It’s better to trust no one, and reach a consensus through massive verification where ALL the bright minds can verify that this DOES in fact work in the total ABSENCE of trust.
[quote]
Face it, the fact that the BDFL is a person of known credentials (rather than a mysterious nickname) is your major distinction.
[/quote]Wrong. The major distinction is that there IS a BDFL, where as other crypto-currencies don’t have one. Who s/he is isn’t relevant. Either you’re trusting a BDFL, or your operating in the absence of one.
[quote]
Mining credibility is not based on the assumption of miners’ loyalty, but on the assumption, that many miners won’t collude.
[/quote]Nope. Mining credibility is based on the assumption that by failing to follow the prescribed protocol, contributions will be rejected. Many miners DO collude: That’s what we call a pool.
[quote]
ACP credibility is based on your transparency and accountability, which can be judged by common sense.
[/quote]Incorrect. ACP credibility is based on mathematical assertions and basic assumptions. Like the assumption that a single point of failure hasn’t been compromised or otherwise subverted.
[quote]In their elitism, mathematicians tend to underestimate the power of common sense.
[/quote]You don’t have to be a mathematician to know that a verifiable proof is far superior to any opinion or assertion made without evidence simply because the person feels it makes sense to make such an assertion.
[quote]
You won’t avoid trolling whether you keep ACP, or scrap it and offer the same as other cryptos. (Because what is the point of diluting the total coin supply then?) If anyone would listen to my opinion, I would be against throwing away your early evolutionary experience.[/quote]ACP doesn’t change the rate of coin creation. The whole point of ACP was to prevent re-orgs in a hostile environment where hash-power is scarce. Once hash-power is no longer scarce, such measures become pointless and even detrimental to the network.
[quote]
Finally, a worker is worthy of his wages. Ask yourself, how many % of the safety credit goes to hashing, and how many to ACP?
[/quote]100% to hashing, zero to ACP.
[quote]
Which one offers more security?
[/quote]Hashing, by a demonstrable measure. If this wern’t true, Paypal would be superior to crypto-currencies.
[quote]
You have to distribute the reward evenly even if the recipient happens to be self.
[/quote]It is distributed evenly: 100% of it goes to those who are adding value to the network.
[quote]
Yes, rewarding ACP would double the amount of trolling. But not rewarding it might constitute a security weakness on its own.
[/quote]You’re free to make any donation you want, but changing the block reward in any way is going to have some seriously bad impacts on the valuation of the coin, and is likely to send miners running to other coins which don’t do such silly things.
-
I’m trying to solve the very same problem as you: The existence of a single point of failure, one introduced by trusting the machines of largely uniform architecture and equipment.
[quote]
So what? Either the algorithm can be verified, or it can’t. You don’t need to verify it yourself, that’s your computer’s job.
[/quote]Kevlar, computers cannot verify algorithms. Only mathematicians can. My suggestion of distributing ACP among the centers of academic repute is based on the proposition that there is no royal road to mathematics, and that average miners are not capable of secure computing.
In refuting my sentences one by one, you missed the one in parenthesis: If Feathercoin offers only the same as other cryptos, it does little beyond inflating the coin supply. I am not against hashing at all. But it is already offered by Bitcoin and Litecoin. ACP is FTC’s distinctive feature, and hashing serves to keep the ACP center(s) under supervision. Feathercoin is not compulsory to anyone. Those who do not like its features are free to move to other coins, and have already done so.
Your trustlessness should extend equally to humans and machines (lady Diana would agree). In post-Snowden era, this view is no longer paranoid. Having many computers of the same design and software does not dilute the relevant single point of failure, especially once cryptos become really important. You can read about how to make your computing semi-secure here: [url=http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html]http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html[/url])
Is the bios on your mining rig libre? If not, you are trusting something you cannot verify. Having a sense of security while in sandbox. Stallman ended up using Chinese Lemote notebook, because no other consumer computer today allows libre BIOS.
Finally, the Vatican connection. Let me say again, that for most users, transparency and accountability is already FTC’s selling point. Vatican people have caught up on it, want to offer it with no hashing at all, relying on trust alone. And they might succeed in stealing Feathercoin’s thunder, which would be quite sad.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42359” timestamp=“1386653296”]
I’m trying to solve the very same problem as you: The existence of a single point of failure, one introduced by trusting the machines of largely uniform architecture and equipment.[quote]
So what? Either the algorithm can be verified, or it can’t. You don’t need to verify it yourself, that’s your computer’s job.
[/quote]Kevlar, computers cannot verify algorithms. Only mathematicians can. My suggestion of distributing ACP among the centers of academic repute is based on the proposition that there is no royal road to mathematics, and that average miners are not capable of secure computing.
In refuting my sentences one by one, you missed the one in parenthesis: If Feathercoin offers only the same as other cryptos, it does little beyond inflating the coin supply. I am not against hashing at all. But it is already offered by Bitcoin and Litecoin. ACP is FTC’s distinctive feature, and hashing serves to keep the ACP center(s) under supervision. Feathercoin is not compulsory to anyone. Those who do not like its features are free to move to other coins, and have already done so.
Your trustlessness should extend equally to humans and machines (lady Diana would agree). In post-Snowden era, this view is no longer paranoid. Having many computers of the same design and software does not dilute the relevant single point of failure, especially once cryptos become really important. You can read about how to make your computing semi-secure here: [url=http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html]http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html[/url])
Is the bios on your mining rig libre? If not, you are trusting something you cannot verify. Having a sense of security while in sandbox. Stallman ended up using Chinese Lemote notebook, because no other consumer computer today allows libre BIOS.
Finally, the Vatican connection. Let me say again, that for most users, transparency and accountability is already FTC’s selling point. Vatican people have caught up on it, want to offer it with no hashing at all, relying on trust alone. And they might succeed in stealing Feathercoin’s thunder, which would be quite sad.
[/quote]I want to talk more with you about this, I haven’t had the bandwidth but I am very intrigued by your perspective from first glance. I will PM you.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42359” timestamp=“1386653296”]
I’m trying to solve the very same problem as you: The existence of a single point of failure, one introduced by trusting the machines of largely uniform architecture and equipment.[quote]
So what? Either the algorithm can be verified, or it can’t. You don’t need to verify it yourself, that’s your computer’s job.
[/quote]Kevlar, computers cannot verify algorithms. Only mathematicians can.
[/quote]Yes, they can. There’s an entire field of science around this idea called ‘deterministic computing’ that is devoted to this very concept. But even short of that, algorithms can be broken down into axioms and monads, and if you can assert those axioms and catalog the monads, then it can be verified programatically. That’s exactly how blockchains work: They require other users to verify that the miner who created the block did so by executing the algorithm. That’s why the whole ‘proof of work’ scheme is so potent: Because it’s difficult to execute correctly, but trivial to verify for correctness.
[quote]
My suggestion of distributing ACP among the centers of academic repute is based on the proposition that there is no royal road to mathematics, and that average miners are not capable of secure computing.
[/quote]They don’t have to be, because as I pointed out, proof of work is hard to do, but easy to check. They don’t HAVE to do secure computing, then can operate in a trustless environment because all the other miners can verify that they’re executing the algorithm faithfully, and reject anyone who doesn’t.
Your suggestion hinges on the premise that the average miners are not capable of establishing trust amongst each other, but this is demonstrably false.
[quote]
In refuting my sentences one by one, you missed the one in parenthesis: If Feathercoin offers only the same as other cryptos, it does little beyond inflating the coin supply.
[/quote]I didn’t miss it, I recognized it for what it is: A straw man attack. By saying that the blockchain is no different, you’re making the assertion that the currency is no different, but that’s false. A currency’s value comes not only from it’s technology, but also from it’s utility. Paper dollars have little to offer in the way of technology, but because it’s traded as a currency, it offers great utility for those who wish to exchange it. A blockchain’s success as a currency is measured no different: It’s 10% technology, and 90% adoption. It’s not the size or speed of the blockchain that makes it different, it’s how people use it.
[quote]I am not against hashing at all. But it is already offered by Bitcoin and Litecoin. ACP is FTC’s distinctive feature, and hashing serves to keep the ACP center(s) under supervision.[/quote]
I see where your confusion lies. That’s the opposite of how it works. Miners send blocks to the ACP server, and the ACP server records their order once a certain threshold has been reached… not the other way around. At any time a miner with 51% of the network can start mining blocks, broadcast them to ACP, and ACP will consider that THE blockchain. ACP doesn’t supervise, it repeats what the miners say. It’s nothing more than a repeater, not a supervisor.
The miners decide what’s on the network, and ACP DOES NOT defend against a 51% attack. It just makes double spending long after the fact more difficult, a feat already accomplished by other coins with decentralized technologies like PoS and ‘raw hashpower’. FTC is inferior to other coins because it’s failed to accomplish the same things in the absence of centralization and trust like Bitcoin and Litecoin has.
[quote]Feathercoin is not compulsory to anyone. Those who do not like its features are free to move to other coins, and have already done so.
[/quote]Indeed! Isn’t currency competition great?
[quote]
Your trustlessness should extend equally to humans and machines (lady Diana would agree).
[/quote]It definitely does! That’s why crypto-currencies are so attractive: Because I can live in a world where I can do neither and still know where my money is at.
[quote]
In post-Snowden era, this view is no longer paranoid. Having many computers of the same design and software does not dilute the relevant single point of failure, especially once cryptos become really important. You can read about how to make your computing semi-secure here: [url=http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html]http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html[/url])
[/quote]Thank you, I’ve been doing secure computing for a long time now. I got my first CISSP certification over 10 years ago.
[quote]
Is the bios on your mining rig libre? If not, you are trusting something you cannot verify. Having a sense of security while in sandbox. Stallman ended up using Chinese Lemote notebook, because no other consumer computer today allows libre BIOS.
[/quote]Yes I can! My BIOS is readily downloadable from the BIOS chip itself, or the manufactures website in the case of an upgrade. Disassembling such things and verifying them is old hat.
[quote]
Finally, the Vatican connection. Let me say again, that for most users, transparency and accountability is already FTC’s selling point.
[/quote]You mean it’s crypto-currency’s selling point, of which FTC happens to be one option? I agree.
[quote]Vatican people have caught up on it, want to offer it with no hashing at all, relying on trust alone. And they might succeed in stealing Feathercoin’s thunder, which would be quite sad.
[/quote]I’ve not seen any evidence of this. What exactly is the Vatican doing and why is it superior to FTC?
-
[quote]
Indeed! Isn’t currency competition great?
[/quote]Depends. In the world in which there are 10 identical clones of Bitcoin with capitalization and hashing power evenly distributed among them, these can be attacked one by one with 5.1% of the total hashing power. Also, creation of new identical currencies means that the promise of the total coinage is broken at the holders’ expense, in miners’ favor. Alt cryptos are good and fun while they remain niche. As for Feathercoin, i see it to be to Bitcoin what Scholarpedia is to Wikipedia.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42799” timestamp=“1386722559”]
As for Feathercoin, i see it to be to Bitcoin what Scholarpedia is to Wikipedia.
[/quote]I have been looking for an alternative to Wikipedia for some time now, thanks so much.
Aside from what is mentioned here what other features would you like to see in Feathercoin?
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42799” timestamp=“1386722559”]
[quote]
Indeed! Isn’t currency competition great?
[/quote]
Depends. In the world in which there are 10 identical clones of Bitcoin with capitalization and hashing power evenly distributed among them, these can be attacked one by one with 5.1% of the total hashing power.
[/quote]
There are a lot of reasons for 10 identical clones of Bitcoin, and then 100 slight variations.An efficient network only has to align at 10 - 50 times larger than it largest possible attacker, to be very secure. Less miners means more payment means more miners means less pay.
One criticism of Bitcoin is it is using a lot more power to do the transactions than is really necessary to secure the network.
Once crypto currencies are established, it will be in the interest of merchants to do some mining because, the tech savvy, will find they save transaction fees, that mining speeds up their transactions and customer confirmations. They will know they were helping secure the block chain, like shops do now checking for fiat currency forgeries.
-
[quote]
Aside from what is mentioned here what other features would you like to see in Feathercoin?
[/quote]There are 2 crucial features that Feathercoin needs.
1. Globally targetted SMS payment system for free to everyone (without any fees).
2. ACP security guaranty. That is, super secure backup of the master block.Both are important, while only 1. is urgent.
As for 1., a payment gateway smsaddress.info already exists, but it has fees and gives a UK-centered (rather than global) impression at a first glance. Fees deter those who only bought a few FTCs just in case. The provider needs fees, but if ACP center offered such gateway, its relatively minuscule expenses could be covered from the proposed ACP reward. Easy payment is paramount for wide FTC acceptance.
As for 2., let me explain what do I mean by super secure backup. The master block should be printed out and carefuly manually checked for proper size and sanity. It should then be securely engraved (eg. by a laser) on metal foil and stored in a safe room with access limited to the ACP responsible person in each ACP center.
This second feature serves 2 purposes:
2.1 Safekeeping of the master block
2.2 Winning the trust of the usersOn the long run, 2.1 is more important. On the short run, 2.2 is more important. For that reason, I suggest using platinum-irridium alloy foil for master block engraving (sounds good, used in SI standards). ACP block reward should be used to cover the costs of this backup. As for 2.1, it is important that before the engraved master block is deposited in the safe room, its contents should be checked one more time inside the safe room using a single-purpose intrusion-proof device. The technical details of such device can be discussed, but the details of its final wiring and software should be kept secret. Each ACP center should construct their own secure checking device independently after the basic guidelines for its construction are set forth.
-
[quote]
There are a lot of reasons for 10 identical clones of Bitcoin, and then 100 slight variations.
[/quote]I think that at least one of the miners discussing is this forum has performed or participated in the earlier 51% attack to prove that Feathercoin is bad.
-
Can’t it just be de-centralised without it been rewarded? Could that be possible.
Your rewarded for mining anyway…
To be honest, knowing your helping secure the network should be enough.
-
[quote name=“Calem” post=“42995” timestamp=“1386768779”]
Can’t it just be de-centralised without it been rewarded?
[/quote]You are right in a way. Having a currency that actually works might be a reward in itself. Yet someone has to cover the cost of really secure ACP (safe room, security and highly resistant backup of the master block). Establishing a master block reward would be a simple way of doing it.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“43044” timestamp=“1386774424”]
[quote author=Calem link=topic=5718.msg42995#msg42995 date=1386768779]
Can’t it just be de-centralised without it been rewarded?
[/quote]Yet someone has to cover the cost of really secure ACP (safe room, security and highly resistant backup of the master block). Establishing a master block reward would be a simple way of doing it.
[/quote]To my understanding this is not de-centralised.
-
[quote name=“panoramix” post=“42819” timestamp=“1386727691”]
As for 2., let me explain what do I mean by super secure backup. The master block should be printed out and carefuly manually checked for proper size and sanity. It should then be securely engraved (eg. by a laser) on metal foil and stored in a safe room with access limited to the ACP responsible person in each ACP center.
[/quote]The genesis block is of little use to anyone if they want to back up the blockchain. What is of use is the massive super-secure un-corruptable backup of the blockchain that lives on every node… it’s called the blockchain.
[quote]
This second feature serves 2 purposes:2.1 Safekeeping of the master block
2.2 Winning the trust of the users[/quote]
The genesis block is of no use to anyone. It’s kept safe on every running node, and users trust it because it’s verifiable in the absence of any authority, not because someone arbitrary says it’s valid.
[quote]
For that reason, I suggest using platinum-irridium alloy foil for master block engraving (sounds good, used in SI standards). ACP block reward should be used to cover the costs of this backup.
[/quote]I’ve got a better idea. What if we use something that can’t be stolen, corrupted, forged, falsified, or destroyed instead? Something that requires zero cost to safe guard and verify? Foil has this whole problem of needing to be physically protected. That way, we don’t have to change the block reward and screw over existing coin holders and miners.
[quote]
As for 2.1, it is important that before the engraved master block is deposited in the safe room, its contents should be checked one more time inside the safe room using a single-purpose intrusion-proof device. The technical details of such device can be discussed, but the details of its final wiring and software should be kept secret. Each ACP center should construct their own secure checking device independently after the basic guidelines for its construction are set forth.
[/quote]That sounds like a lot of work for zero benefit. At the end of all of this you have a very expensive operation to safeguard something which is of no value to anyone, least of all coin holders.
I can see you really don’t understand how blockchains work at all. Can I suggest you read Satoshi’s original whitepaper? I think it would save you a lot of time and energy: [url=http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf]http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf[/url]
-
[quote name=“Calem” post=“42995” timestamp=“1386768779”]
Can’t it just be de-centralised without it been rewarded? Could that be possible.Your rewarded for mining anyway…
To be honest, knowing your helping secure the network should be enough.
[/quote]It isn’t but it will be soon…
-
[quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“43787” timestamp=“1386941068”]
It isn’t but it will be soon…
[/quote]Good news. That’s the assumption I was under (think I read it somewhere all ready)
From all the articles I’ve read that keep popping up, It’s the major criticism at the moment.
[s]I’m sorry but i responded to the wrong post with the wrong quote and statement i think.[/s]
[i]Never mind… disregard…[/i]
