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.


Messages - vikram

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82
1186
Just want to make sure this isn't overlooked: How are allocations for Keyhotee Founder AGS handled?

1187
General Discussion / Re: bitshares wiki?
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:05:39 am »
But if you don't mine and therefore don't need Big DAC Power, why exactly would you want to put your DAC's fate in the hands of the collective?

This really made it click for me.

1188
Paper on vulnerability of vanilla POS: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinSerious/comments/1xpzb8/pos_is_more_vulnerable_to_51_attacks_than_pow/

I haven't looked thoroughly, but I don't think this affects TaPOS.

1189
General Discussion / Re: Estimated Price of 1 Bitshare
« on: February 12, 2014, 06:45:23 pm »
Quote
Happily coding away on unforeseen problems that come with the concept of a distributed exchange.

As I don't have time to follow everything every where, I would love to know what problems they have encountered.


how much time it will take to make a snapshot on Feb 28th? 30 minutes?
and as i know the snapshot will be done on 00:00 Feb 28th,right? but which time zone?

He won't make the snapshot on the same day; I don't see why it matters how long it takes. Probably after a day or two at least. Anyway, snapshots should be automatically generated every day assuming this bounty gets completed: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2869.0

The snapshot will be taken for PTS and AGS using the last blocks in PTS and BTC blockchains that were mined before Feb 28, midnight UTC.

1190
General Discussion / Re: Live Interview on Liberty Panacea
« on: February 10, 2014, 03:50:48 am »
Great interview.

1191
General Discussion / Re: Minimum Transaction Fee
« on: February 05, 2014, 10:46:37 pm »
Code: [Select]
MIN_FEE = SHARE_SUPPLY *.5% / BLOCKS_PER_YEAR / TARGET_BYTES_PER_BLOCK

What is the reasoning for this particular equation using these particular constants?

Code: [Select]
NEXT_FEE_BASE = BLOCK_SIZE * PREV_FEE / TARGET_BYTES_PER_BLOCK
NEXT_FEE = (PREV_FEE * 99 + NEXT_FEE_BASE)/100
if( NEXT_FEE < MIN_FEE ) NEXT_FEE = MIN_FEE

What is the reasoning for using a 100-block moving average and not some other size window?

1192
General Discussion / Re: Great News for the Industry and Competition
« on: February 05, 2014, 09:11:52 pm »
Comments from PeerShares lead on BitShares: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=527.msg8780#msg8780

Quote
Bitshares is promising to develop a wide variety of banking, exchange and securities related functionality. It is a very ambitious project. The scope of Peershare is much more narrow, which makes its completion more practical. So far Bitshare has not detailed how its wide array of functionality will be implemented to the extent that I have detailed the proposed implementation of Peershare.
 
I would be delighted if they succeeded in their objectives as it would completely transform the crypto economy, multiplying its usefulness many times. I hope they succeed. To date they have only produced a CPU mined proof of work altcoin called Protoshares, which they say represents the value of all the innovations that will be produced by Bitshares by way of a "social contract" according to Daniel Larimer in an interview on Let's Talk Bitcoin. A cynical person might say this narrative is a way to pump their rather ordinary altcoin (promising it will be developed into much more than an ordinary altcoin). A less cynical person might say they are really focused on delivering functionality and that Protoshares provides people a way to buy a stake in its success in just the way that buying a stake in Bitcoin encourages people to develop it further to increase the value of their stake. I hope they are able to deliver but it is also possible that as time passes the consensus that develops will be that this is a scam.

I will remind everyone that I have not asked for people's money or asked them to invest in anything of my creation.

1193
After looking at the math it is clear to me that if a block is even a few CDD shy of the target for the minimum threshold no one will mine because the difficulty would be so much higher that it will not be profitable. 

Therefore in order to 'mine' every block must destroy the minimum number of coindays.  This means that for the blockchain to progress shareholders everywhere must be ready to use their accumulated coindays to mine.   So the question becomes how to divide the transaction fees between the miners and the dividends.   This is another case where I hate to employ price fixing so whether I set it at 100% like NXT, 50% like the original BTS white paper, or 1% like I have suggested recently the result is price fixing.

Fortunately I have a solution that is fair for all and avoids price fixing.  When a miner uses their own coindays to secure the network, they get a percentage of the fees in that block proportional to percentage of the CDD they provided vs those provided by 3rd party transactions.   This means that dividends are earned when security is provided entirely by real network transactions and that mining fees are earned when security is provided by the miner using their own CDD to secure the network. 

This should motivate miners to consume as many CDD as they can as quickly as they can to earn the maximum fees and move the network along.   

The next question people may have is how will transaction fees be priced?   Minimum fee will be set such that if the blockchain was running a full capacity (512K per block) that 1% of the share supply per year would be earned as dividends.  Then I will adjust the fee like I adjust difficulty to maintain an average block size of 512K and a maximum block size of 1 MB.   So if demand picks up then so do fees and when demand falls below 512K below fees will fall back to the minimum.

Could a minimum threshold on CDD make it difficult to bootstrap fledgling DACs which start out with very little activity?

Also, I found this post interesting: http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/02/01/on-transaction-fees-market-based-solutions/

1194
This is very similar to the original TaPOS paper, the primary difference is difficulty adjustment and mining reward. 

Transactions must reference one of the 2 most recent blocks for their CDD to count toward reducing the mining difficulty.

Transactions from a forked chain can be migrated like any new transaction, their CDD does not count when migrated.

Target block time is 5 minutes.

In my implementation I have removed the square after further review.

Momentum is the hashing algorithm.

What prevents someone from picking a block far in the past, adding their own transaction with large CDD to its transaction set, then mining and broadcasting a new block with the resulting higher BCDD, causing a huge reorg of all children blocks?

1196
I have been working on the consensus algorithm and while it is fast it has the following problems:
1) There is no way to compensate people for running full nodes. 
2) The cost of running full nodes grows with N^2 the number of nodes participating in the consensus process
3) There is no way to reward nodes that participate in consensus to cover the cost of bandwidth growing
4) If you rely on charity, the regulatory risks may result in nodes not proliferating
5) If you do reward nodes participating in the consensus process your costs either grow N^2 or nodes on the UNL have financial incentive NOT to add new nodes to the inner circle.
6) If you rely on indirect benefits then the incentives might not be properly aligned.

My conclusion is that the primary benefit for using the consensus algorithm is automatic failover in the event some nodes go down.  I also believed it was more decentralized that BTC but perhaps less so than NXT.

To this end it seems I must strive to achieve the goal of decentralization and thus have a new proposal for implementing TPOS. 

1) The "mining" reward will be kept to 1% of transaction fees.  We do not want significant resources thrown at this because the only purpose of mining now is to decide on the next block, NOT to secure the network.  The cost of mining should thus be very small and amount to an election.

2) Let N be the number of blocks per year
    Let M be the money supply at the start of the year
    Let m be the money transacted and n be the number of days since it was last moved.
    Let CDD be m*n
    Let ACDD be the Average CDD per block which can be calculated as N*M/N or M
    Let T be the base mining difficulty target (adjusted via moving average)
    Let BCDD be the CDD actually destroyed by the block.

    IF( BCDD > ACDD ) BCDD = ACDD.

    Given the above we can define the target difficulty for solving a block as:
   
    1 + T*(1- BCDD/ACDD)^2

3) The only transactions that count toward CDD are those that reference a prior block in the chain, thus miners will be unable to build secret chains using CDD of transactions produced by regular users.
4) If two blocks are found that extend the same chain, the one with the most CDD wins.
5) If two blocks with the same CDD are found then the one with the higher hash wins.

Results:  everyone can mine and attempt to produce a block at some 'base level' that is not perceptible to the user.  Someone with a large amount of the share supply would have limited advantage because everyone gets to mine POS using everyone else's transactions and everyone is mining at a base level, say 1% of CPU. 

The only thing a 'miner' can do to harm the network is Denial of Service (blocking transactions), but a miner attempting to do this would be at a disadvantage against all of the miners which are including transactions. 

So what can someone with unlimited hashing power do...  they can still perform a DOS on the network provided they have  100,000 * the number of computers on the network in hash power.  Unfortunately for them, the cost would far exceed the fees earned. 

Something to think about.

How is that for decentralized?

  • Overall, this seems to precisely be an implementation of the original TaPOS paper. Are there any fundamental differences?
  • Do transactions reference a "parent" block, or just any "recent" block (and what does "recent" mean)?
  • How exactly are transactions from a forked chain migrated to the true chain?
  • What is target block time?
  • So making a transaction with large CDD can be used to immeditately confirm block before target block time?
  • Why the square in the block target difficulty calculation?
  • What hashing algorithm?

1197
General Discussion / Re: Do BitShares need an interest rate?
« on: January 31, 2014, 09:48:12 pm »

Not to get too 'meta' but how should the interest rate on the interest rate BitAsset be set?   I am thinking it could be fixed at 0% because it isn't actually trying to maintain a peg against anything else.

Even with a 0% interest rate, people should still have an incentive to go long or short depending on their predictions right?

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could there be any danger of a positive feedback loop from many people wanting to short assets, then bidding down the interest rate, causing more people to want to short, etc. Or should it all balance out assuming the prediction markets work properly?

1198
Stan your impeccable use of center-align for rhetorical effect never ceases to amaze me

+1

1199
General Discussion / Re: Do BitShares need an interest rate?
« on: January 29, 2014, 03:12:44 pm »
Not to get too 'meta' but how should the interest rate on the interest rate BitAsset be set?   I am thinking it could be fixed at 0% because it isn't actually trying to maintain a peg against anything else.

Even with a 0% interest rate, people should still have an incentive to go long or short depending on their predictions right?

1200
So it is test chain only? If the test is working well, will there be another snapshot, or just using the snapshot on Feb 28th?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it works well then it will have much value, if it fails there will be a new snapshot. 

There will of course be many other chains and snapshots.

Please clarify: Does this mean that unless there is an issue warranting a new snapshot, then the snapshot taken on Feb. 28 for BitShares X Test will be the same snapshot used for BitShares X (Production)?

If the answer is yes, then this is a huge deal. And there needs to be a huge notification/advertisement campaign so people can acquire PTS/AGS in time.

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82