31
General Discussion / Re: Vitalik on stable currencies and POS
« on: December 28, 2014, 06:36:24 pm »...
1) We assume a trusted price feed exists
...
This is the elephant in the room.
(It's Oracles all the way down...)
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is the elephant in the room.
(It's Oracles all the way down...)
32
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:11:56 am »
Heh, so a miner had 55581 orphaned for being one second too late while still having the lower hash?
Looks like the Sparkle network is very well meshed
Looks like the Sparkle network is very well meshed
33
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 19, 2014, 05:27:48 am »
Thanks guys.
If anyone was running a client and hasn't --resync-blockchain (like I did), we could have a look at the network's forks.
If anyone was running a client and hasn't --resync-blockchain (like I did), we could have a look at the network's forks.
34
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 18, 2014, 07:55:49 pm »162.243.160.72:52620
104.131.0.131:1765
98.240.161.119:59647
104.236.44.210:41655
162.213.195.203:1765
I'm not an idiot.
Does anyone have any live nodes that I can connect to?
35
General Discussion / Re: BitShares v0.4.26 Feedback
« on: December 18, 2014, 03:43:37 pm »Any chance to reduce memory requirements for compiling on linux to something below 2gb?
I was able to compile v0.4.27.1 for 32bit using one thread, 1.5gb of free memory and swap turned off. (ymmv obviously)
36
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 18, 2014, 03:36:41 pm »
Can anyone link me up with a node?
I'm already 17 hours behind
I'm already 17 hours behind
37
General Discussion / Re: BitShares v0.4.26 Feedback
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:54:44 pm »
These lines appear:
I'm on the head block and delegate participation is 94.39%.
Also, since I only have 2GB in RAM, the wallet responds very slowly to commands.
I tried rescanning, resyncing, rebuilding index, resetting peer database.
Don't know what else to do..
Code: [Select]
--- syncing with p2p network, 22042 blocks left to fetch
--- in sync with p2p network
--- there are now 19 active connections to the p2p network
--- syncing with p2p network, 1524 blocks left to fetch
--- in sync with p2p network
--- syncing with p2p network, 583617 blocks left to fetch
--- there are now 18 active connections to the p2p network
--- in sync with p2p network
--- syncing with p2p network, 158482 blocks left to fetch
--- in sync with p2p network
--- syncing with p2p network, 9323 blocks left to fetch
--- there are now 19 active connections to the p2p network
...
This goes on and on..I'm on the head block and delegate participation is 94.39%.
Also, since I only have 2GB in RAM, the wallet responds very slowly to commands.
I tried rescanning, resyncing, rebuilding index, resetting peer database.
Don't know what else to do..
38
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 07, 2014, 01:20:11 pm »
Something very weird is happening with the network.
Either someone has invested in a LOT of mining power, found a way to run the algorithm on a GPU, or has found some weakness.
Blocks are coming in FAST. Less than a second apart and always from the same public key.
It's still going on.
edit:
It's even weirder than it looks.
The fast blocks caused the difficulty to rise (all good so far), but their hashes are nothing like what the difficulty would suggest:
Block 17000 was mined by a "regular" miner : SPKFEDZ7g7JPwmrTyiJcGBSzxsSnFtaQpsiz
Block 17001 was mined by our "attacking" miner : SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmLCj4K5mMs
Does this even make sense?
Either someone has invested in a LOT of mining power, found a way to run the algorithm on a GPU, or has found some weakness.
Blocks are coming in FAST. Less than a second apart and always from the same public key.
Code: [Select]
# TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
│=================================================================================================== ├
│16959 2014-12-07T13:23:39 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001725 │
│16958 2014-12-07T13:23:38 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00194 │
│16957 2014-12-07T13:23:37 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001846 │
│16956 2014-12-07T13:23:36 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001804 │
│16955 2014-12-07T13:23:35 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001714 │
│16954 2014-12-07T13:23:34 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00177 │
│16953 2014-12-07T13:23:33 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00201 │
│16952 2014-12-07T13:23:32 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001762 │
│16951 2014-12-07T13:23:31 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001679 │
│16950 2014-12-07T13:23:30 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001772 │
│16949 2014-12-07T13:23:29 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001755 │
│16948 2014-12-07T13:23:28 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001986 │
│16947 2014-12-07T13:23:27 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001779 │
│16946 2014-12-07T13:23:26 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00181 │
│16945 2014-12-07T13:23:25 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001693 │
│16944 2014-12-07T13:23:24 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001738 │
│16943 2014-12-07T13:23:23 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001883 │
│16942 2014-12-07T13:23:22 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001773 │
│16941 2014-12-07T13:23:21 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001807 │
│16940 2014-12-07T13:23:17 SPKFEDZ7g7JPwmrTyiJcGBSzxsSn... 0 139 4 0.002266It's still going on.
edit:
It's even weirder than it looks.
The fast blocks caused the difficulty to rise (all good so far), but their hashes are nothing like what the difficulty would suggest:
Code: [Select]
blockchain_get_block 17001
"previous": "0000008b60e210fd45bfa6678f701f5fcfcc15b4",Block 17000 was mined by a "regular" miner : SPKFEDZ7g7JPwmrTyiJcGBSzxsSnFtaQpsiz
Code: [Select]
blockchain_get_block 17002
"previous": "dd9e35cd8ab6e4e23f82af69c2fdd52d1b2800af",Block 17001 was mined by our "attacking" miner : SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmLCj4K5mMs
Does this even make sense?
40
Meta / Renew the forum's SSL certificate
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:59:23 pm »
Please, it's very close to expiring..
Having a huge red [X] instead of out forum is pretty bad.
Having a huge red [X] instead of out forum is pretty bad.
41
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:06:31 pm »I think he will honor it by address, so it's better to save the private key.
Never delete private keys.
Ever.
Also, one backup is zero backups.
42
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 04, 2014, 01:15:08 pm »...
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
...
Can't see my balance from the previous blockchain...
I think he didn't honor the blocks in the testnet genesis. It will just be honored in the final version.
Oh well, good enough.
Thanks.
43
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle Alpha Test Network Live: Mining to be Honored in Real Network
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:09:27 pm »...
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
...
Can't see my balance from the previous blockchain...
Mining is working fine on my dedicated server. But I am having an error message constantlyCode: [Select]I am disconnecting peer x.x.x.x.:x for reason: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
Me too
44
General Discussion / Re: Another Stupid Questions Thread - Sparkle
« on: December 02, 2014, 09:33:18 pm »It looks like Sparkles is thinking of requiring your private key to mine which would have a very interesting effect on mining pools.QuoteI am looking at a new approach to mining that will make Sparkle very resistant to mining pool centralization by requiring the private key of the account that will receive the mining rewards to be part of the mining process. I will replace the "miner address" field with a "signature" field and remove the nonce. To mine you must produce a signature of the block header such the the hash of the header + signature is less than some threshold. The only option is to sign over and over again because if you change anything in the block then the signature will not match the proper key.
The benefit of a mining pool resistant proof of work is that if and when ASICs are produced they will be performing ECC operations for signing transactions.
New proposed mining algorithm:
SignedHeader = MinerPrivateKey.sign( SHA256( header ) )
HashSignedHeader = SHA256( SignedHeader )
PublicKeyCheck = ECC_RECOVER_PUBLIC_KEY( SignedHeader.Signature, HashSignedHeader )
HASH = SHA256( PublicKeyCheck )
What are the properties of this set of operations?
1) To produce a block you must have access to the MinerPrivateKey. This eliminates mining.
2) To produce a block you must perform a ECC Signature
3) To produce a block you must perform a ECC Key Recovery which is the CPU bottleneck on transaction processing.
Given these steps it should result in ECC Key Recovery ASICs being produced which if done properly will help accelerate transaction processing and validation. Assuming this is implemented on a GPU it will help all crypto's to validate transactions faster.
The impact of not having mining pools means miners must handle the variability in finding blocks. This will change the incentive structure significantly. Having faster block times will help increase the number of winners.
Can anyone tell the time complexity of signature verification?
Is this viable on very large networks?
45
General Discussion / Re: Another Stupid Questions Thread - Sparkle
« on: December 02, 2014, 01:10:20 pm »
You do?
I'm pretty sure I mined most of my blocks with my wallet locked.
I mean, it's proof of work. You don't need to sign a block hash in other POW blockchains, so why here?
The dev did talk about signing blocks in a different thread, but that's not happening yet afaik.
I'm pretty sure I mined most of my blocks with my wallet locked.
I mean, it's proof of work. You don't need to sign a block hash in other POW blockchains, so why here?
The dev did talk about signing blocks in a different thread, but that's not happening yet afaik.
