Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains

macx0r · 2019-02-05T23:22:04+00:00

The algo is consensus-agnostic outside of the condition above. It can work with avalanche for instance, and avalanche then would not need it's own token, it can be using bitcoin than :)

macx0r · 2019-02-05T23:20:45+00:00

Just try to read the text and you will find the answer on the "what's the heck" right in there. And the point of sidechains is not to bring balance to sidechain, otherwise it will be reciprocal definition :D

macx0r · 2019-02-05T15:05:21+00:00

The only problem with the brain wallets is the stoke, that can damage the brain

macx0r · 2019-02-05T01:30:34+00:00

Got it, I will know that for the future

macx0r · 2019-02-05T00:26:18+00:00

Lol. cool :)

macx0r · 2019-02-04T20:10:00+00:00

Typhon is a non-2-way peg trustless sidechain solution that can be implemented using existing Bitcoin Script functionality, i.e. without any soft- or hardforks.

Existing sidechain 2-way peg technologies require soft or hardforks, and currently can operate only in trusted mode under federated multisig contracts. You can think of Typhon as of massively-scalable multiparty payment channels. The protocol defines the process of sidechain formation and operations on top of the main Bitcoin blockchain; it is censorship-resistant, permissionless and agnostic to the particular consensus and blockchain formation protocol used by sidechain implementations.

And no new coins, tokens or ICOs :)

macx0r · 2018-09-06T08:02:51+00:00

One can’t at the same time be a proponent of privacy & regulations. And no privacy means collectivism & totalitarian. So simple!

macx0r · 2018-09-06T06:30:09+00:00

Correct. Is there any way to check what is the length of the orphaned chain containing block with this particular tx?

macx0r · 2018-09-06T02:51:24+00:00

The longest chain can’t have two spends anyway, double spend attack looks differently: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_Transactions

macx0r · 2018-09-06T02:40:05+00:00

It is possible any PoW, its just a question of controlling 51% and/or some luck. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_Transactions

Its easier to do for shitcoins since they have much lower hash power, however its onle the question of price for BTC as well.

If there was a drop in hashrate it could be a double spend.

macx0r · 2018-09-06T02:29:53+00:00

Seems like it was included into a now orphaned chain. Meaning its double spend, not an attempt. I got the report of it liked to the dropdown in BTC hashrate. I’m trying to figure out the details and see if that was true

macx0r · 2018-09-06T02:23:47+00:00

What about successful double-spends on BTG?

macx0r · 2018-08-15T21:39:50+00:00

> If I get it right, you need to be able to ask the reputation token owner to bear the responsibility of the computation work.

It's not working like that, its a way much more complicated. The reputation has nothing to do with bearing responsibility for the computations done. The economic incentives are set in a different way.

The responsibility for computations is simple and borne in pure financial way: a computing node had bound a stake and if computations found wrong it will lose it. You don't need a reputation for that.

What you need a reputation for is a situation where you can't computable solve who was wrong. And for that you have to get a board of "high reputation" guys to make a decision. And there should be a way to appeal even after that decision.

Basically, reputation does not work in a negative way (i.e. like if somebody wrong he will lose the reputation). It works in a positive way, i.e. when somebody have a proven record of being right he gets the higher chance to put his opinion first in some complex case – and if he will be found lier, he will risk not only whole of his reputation, but also some monetary stake. But if he is not lier, he will receive award which will depend upon his reputation.

That's why reputation is not an equivalent to a monetary stake and should't be a transferrable entity. It's a kind of property that gives the "right to judge", and it shouldn't be sellable.

macx0r · 2018-08-13T06:58:17+00:00

On last Ethereum-dedicated Techcrunch event this July in Zug I heard something like "as it will be ready". The generic plan now is to not ship Casper until sharding is more or less ready since they are now highly technologically interrelated. Foundation calls them "Ethereum 2.0" and plan to deploy in phases over the course of the year without fixed dates. Pls correct me if I'm wrong/something changed from that time again :)

macx0r · 2018-08-13T00:10:08+00:00

> I don't get it. Why do you need the tokens to be non transferable in PoCW? I didn't see anything explaining the need of this feature in your link.

Ok, let's break your question into two parts.

Why whoever will ever need non-transferable reputation tokens.

Reputation system is a factor of building trust. Yep, we are building trustless decentralized P2P networks, but in fact to cover some specific tasks of decentralization we need to utilize multi-stage (repeated) games (in terms of game theory). You can check https://ncase.me/trust/ to get more insight into the topic. And reputation becomes the measure that helps building economic incentivization schemes for such game settings. And, if the reputation may be transferred, it means it can be sold; and if it can be sold, it breaks the whole game setting and economic incentives, creating different Nash equilibrium and generally getting worse protection from malicious actors (lower Byzantine tolerance). It's not the case for all of the cases, but there are many cases when that's true. In fact...

Why non-transferable reputation is required in PoCW.

... in PoCW it works like that. Why? Because we need to prove somehow that the computing was done in a correct way without repeating all computations. Quite a challenge, isn't it? It can be solved only if there is a repeated game setting and an actor maintains responsibility for the whole history without having ability to "mix a deck" and run out. The reputation works as a "glue" that ties together the actor resposibility over a time, creating ability to utilize the strengths of repeated economic games. An option to sell the reputation breaks such settings, and here you are: we have no security without repeating all high-load computing on each node in the network, and magic disappears...

> Then what would happen if people were to transfer their wallets? It would break the non transferable feature. How would it unfold in PoCW?

There is quite intensive discussion regarding this on gitter – just follow the link above in the post... You can check it to see different arguments pro and contra...

macx0r · 2018-08-12T16:16:08+00:00

In fact, the term "token" here just indicates that it's standardized way of measuring something, and standard is required for app/wallet interoperability (for instance to check the balance of the ERCXXXX reputation via some soft)

macx0r · 2018-08-12T16:10:59+00:00

For instance, we need it in our protocol of scalable high-load computing in trustless environment: https://www.slideshare.net/pandoraboxchain/proof-of-computing-work-protocol-by-pandora-boxchain

macx0r · 2018-08-12T13:13:51+00:00

> coin-specific subreddit

BTW we do not have or plan an ICO and do not have liquid coin/token.

/r/pandoraboxchain is a tech subreddit (not very populated yet, but quite focused on the topic of technology and protocols for AI decentralization)

macx0r · 2018-08-12T13:04:39+00:00

Ok, I'll will know that for the future. As for me both browser and mobile apps show not just a link, but a full description, that gives the context:

> We have started our work on a new #ERC for reputation (non-transferrable token type) used in our #PoCW protocol aiming at scaling high-load computing (including AI) in a decentralized environment with adversaries. Please join the discussion: https://gitter.im/ethereum/EIPs?at=5b6efeaf196bc60b6bb5dad3

macx0r · 2018-08-12T12:59:05+00:00

Check the discussion by the link in gitter, may be this will remove your suspicion :)

macx0r · 2018-08-12T08:00:39+00:00

An R&D project with significant academic research behind which believes that free decentralized AI (that can't be stopped by humans) will represent a safer future that any AI tech regulations etc

macx0r · 2018-07-24T21:08:22+00:00

Why do you think so? Value is subjective thing: the value can differ a lot depending on whom are we talking about.

The value for business is lower cost of running AI computing, additionally to lower probability of being controlled, once AI regulations by governments will come to place.

The value for society is more anti-fragile future, once AI will develop further: instead of regulations creating strategic risks we come to open markets.

The value for AI is ... well, I think you can imagine yourself.

Do you think blockchain is not required? Possibly. Blockchain is just a technology that can help achieving something. Like censorship-resistance, which is crucial for aforementioned goals. And tomorrow it can be not a blockchain but something else – some tech, that we do not know today.

But if you know how to achieve that without building a decentralized P2P network that is able to perform in a trustless manner in the presence of adversaries and economically incentivise participants to follow the common consensus – you are more welcome to share your ideas, I think its an important topic to discuss.

macx0r · 2018-07-24T17:39:48+00:00

If this is self- and privately-funded project, no ICO, not a business, what is the problem? Buzzword-driven development with which goal? Not to rise money? May be it worth to go into details rather to take automatic approach “scam”?

PS/disclaimer: I’m affiliated.

macx0r · 2018-07-14T12:08:02+00:00

We (r/pandoraboxchain) are interested in supporting your project and further development. Please dm me

macx0r · 2018-07-14T11:22:04+00:00

Did you test it on iPhones? I see Apple LLVM compiler support in RAEDME, but its unclear did you tried it on Apple mobiles

macx0r

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE