0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 09:34:29 pmQuote from: bitsapphire on April 11, 2015, 09:32:16 pmQuote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 08:35:22 pmThis thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdfWe're the guys behind Pactum btw.The report says it is tokenless but also uses DPOS. Can you talk about what mechanism you use to vote for delegates in a tokenless DPOS?For DPOS to work you need shares (a percentage of ownership which everybody agrees on). This percentage can be dynamic and the result of a contract rather than fixed tokens. In Pactum's case it represents the a specific ratio of past reimbursement of IOUs towards all other players in the game.Pactum's goal is to assign in a distributed and P2P trustless manner counterparty risk coefficients to any state machines (blockchains, servers, smart contracts, governments, companies, legal systems, etc). These coefficients can then be for risk hedging between state machines. The side-effect is that it organically creates a global unit of account, by definition stable and independent of any governments. This unit of account can be used by any bitAsset or stable-coin system as the ultimate price feed.We believe that without such a risk determining and hedging mechanism you can't have "an internet of blockchains" nor true globalization of commerce.
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 11, 2015, 09:32:16 pmQuote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 08:35:22 pmThis thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdfWe're the guys behind Pactum btw.The report says it is tokenless but also uses DPOS. Can you talk about what mechanism you use to vote for delegates in a tokenless DPOS?
Quote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 08:35:22 pmThis thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdfWe're the guys behind Pactum btw.
This thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf
Quote from: CLains on April 15, 2015, 09:03:59 amQuote from: Jed McCalebFrom the beginning, we were trying to design [Stellar] to be able to reach hundreds of millions of accounts, thousands of transactions. So we’ve stress tested to 100 million accounts and a few hundred transactions per second, and its holding up under those loads.http://www.coindesk.com/stellar-founder-jed-mccaleb-new-protocol/Thanks... this will give us a good benchmark for us. I am curious what their latency is (block confirmation time).
Quote from: Jed McCalebFrom the beginning, we were trying to design [Stellar] to be able to reach hundreds of millions of accounts, thousands of transactions. So we’ve stress tested to 100 million accounts and a few hundred transactions per second, and its holding up under those loads.http://www.coindesk.com/stellar-founder-jed-mccaleb-new-protocol/
From the beginning, we were trying to design [Stellar] to be able to reach hundreds of millions of accounts, thousands of transactions. So we’ve stress tested to 100 million accounts and a few hundred transactions per second, and its holding up under those loads.
Low latency. In practice, nodes can reach consensus at timescales humansexpect for web or payment transactions—i.e., a few seconds at most.
Quote from: vikram on April 10, 2015, 06:58:04 pmQuote from: Pheonike on April 08, 2015, 06:46:08 pmThe Stellar Consensus Protocol:A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensushttps://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdfBM please note that Stellar has been rewritten and is no longer a clone of Ripple: https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proof-code/I recently took a look at the new stellar, based on SQL and simple operations. It looks like it is trying to be similar to BTS in transaction design. Ultimately SQL is going to be a bottleneck. I will look closer to see if we can glean any good ideas from it.
Quote from: Pheonike on April 08, 2015, 06:46:08 pmThe Stellar Consensus Protocol:A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensushttps://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdfBM please note that Stellar has been rewritten and is no longer a clone of Ripple: https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proof-code/
The Stellar Consensus Protocol:A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensushttps://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdf
Quote from: luckybit on April 06, 2015, 07:55:44 amWhy not call multisig accounts (shared accounts)?Shared accounts I think generally allow any member to spend independently of the others. Perhaps "corporate accounts"?
Why not call multisig accounts (shared accounts)?
3) Same question for Ripple
That's actually a problem currently - there is no server on the network that has any ledger before 32570 (the older ledgers got corrupted in "ye olden days" and nobody got around to fixing them). ...
[Re: Concise but complete technical description of various proof-of-stake (PoS) schemes?](Come-from-Beyond says:) The software determines the best chain by analyzing ratio of transactions belonging to well-known participants (e.g. Walmart, Alibaba, Coinbase) of the economical cluster using Nxt. Non-legit chains can't include such transactions because every transaction refers to a block mined several minutes before the transaction timestamp, which prevents inclusion of majority of the transactions into chains with lower cumulative difficulty or into chains generated by an adversary.
NEM http://www.ournem.com/https://forum.ournem.com/index.phphttp://blog.nem.io/overview/http://blog.nem.io/how-to-use-multi-signature-accounts/
Here is an interesting paper I found from 2014.http://p2sh.net/file/Purely%20p2p%20crypto-currency%20with%20finite%20mini-blockchain.pdfI don't know if it's exactly what Bytemaster is looking for but it's what I could find so far. Anyone want to take a look at it and see if it's helpful?Quote from: Troglodactyl on April 05, 2015, 04:39:45 amZeroCash paper: http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-oakland2014.pdfExtended version: http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdfZeroCash claims to improve on ZeroCoin by using zero knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARguments of Knowledge (zkSNARK), bringing transaction sizes down to <1KB and verification times down to <6ms.Here's a work in progress C++ library for zkSNARKS: https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnarkLibsnark is so complicated I don't know anyone in the industry except the developers working on it who understand it. I think if we do pick an algorithm or cryptography it helps if it's simple enough to be understood. When you implement something no one understands there is risk in that.At the same time it's said to be the most private option available.
ZeroCash paper: http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-oakland2014.pdfExtended version: http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdfZeroCash claims to improve on ZeroCoin by using zero knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARguments of Knowledge (zkSNARK), bringing transaction sizes down to <1KB and verification times down to <6ms.Here's a work in progress C++ library for zkSNARKS: https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark
Quote from: bytemaster on April 05, 2015, 04:20:55 amQuote from: xiahui135 on April 05, 2015, 04:10:45 amAbout Nxt,:I just use the web wallet of Nxt at secureae.com. How long of its sycn time is not important to me.Sync time is VERY important to understand scalability of the architecture of the "miners".... and not DOWNLOAD time but REINDEX/REPLAY time that removes all network sync overhead from the calculation. what is the purpose of this survey?
Quote from: xiahui135 on April 05, 2015, 04:10:45 amAbout Nxt,:I just use the web wallet of Nxt at secureae.com. How long of its sycn time is not important to me.Sync time is VERY important to understand scalability of the architecture of the "miners".... and not DOWNLOAD time but REINDEX/REPLAY time that removes all network sync overhead from the calculation.
About Nxt,:I just use the web wallet of Nxt at secureae.com. How long of its sycn time is not important to me.
I would like to do a survey of the most advanced tech in the industry. The goal is to aggregate all of the "ideas" into one place and label / sort them. This can be thought of as one of the largest repositories of white papers out there. The purpose of this is to help me keep up to date with the latest ideas without having to search for it all myself. I would also like some help gathering performance measures / benchmarks of our primary competitors. So have the following questions:1) What is the fastest implementation of reindexing the Bitcoin blockchain without signature checks, how may transactions per second does it process. This would probably be like reindexing Bitcoin prior to a checkpoint. 2) How long does it take to do the equivalent of reindexing with Nxt? how many blocks and/or transactions per second can Nxt reindex.3) Same question for Ripple 4) How many transactions per second can Etherem reindex? How many operations per second can their scripting engine execute? The goal of these benchmarks is to evaluate how well the existing implementations scale in the real world. Today BitShares can reindex at close to 1000 transactions per second. This hits the limit of the current implementation, but an updated implementation could easily get BitShares up to 10x that. I would also like to know everything there is to know about multi-sig technology offered by the various platforms. Lastly a survey of the various approaches to zero knowledge proofs for cryptographic privacy on a blockchain.