Bible Pay

Read 1220 times

  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
The primary purpose of this proposal is for the approval for us as a community to use Proof-of-Distributed Computing as a major reward algorithm in biblepay, and as a tool to help bust the botnet.

Please read some of the background info on PODC here:
http://wiki.biblepay.org/Distributed_Computing


Block Security
===========

With Proof-of-distributed-computing enabled, I propose that we continue to use the existing consensus algorithm, PoBH (proof-of-bible-hash),  for block security.

This is so our chains integrity can be maintained, and will not be completely trusted to any 3rd party.  We continue to use DGW (Dark Gravity Wave ) for our difficulty algorithm, this helps us stay less prone to 51% attacks (attacks formed by buying out a percent of biblepay on the market).
    The existing POBH-POW algorithm for chain security ensures that we have a structurally sound blockchain that syncs from zero consistently, and that it is easy for the core wallet to detect forks. 
( This is a major concern, and must be taken seriously).

(This is in contrast a common problem with proof-of-stake consensus systems- where hackers have an attack vector potential created by solving blocks on multiple chains, making it hard for the core wallet to recognize which chain has the most work). In POW based chains, it is easy for the core wallet to stay on track, as the chain with the most work is usually a magnitude more than other chains.

I recommend that we keep the existing POBH-POW-heat mining system for block security, and for chain sync consistency. However, we reduce the payments on the POW-Heat side by 90%, so that we starve off the botnet first of all, by raising the PODC rewards up by 90%.

Imo, no botnet is going to choose to Heat Mine for 90% less when they can choose Rosetta mining for 90% more.
(This is proven in practice in all casinos).

I propose that we promote POBH mining only on the controller wallets, since those wallets would perform sending/receiving of biblepay funds, starting/stopping sanctuaries, managing Rosetta CPIDs, CPID association, and also mining on one thread for our block security.

It has been raised as an issue that if we lower rewards on the heat side by 90%, most strong miners will go away thereby leaving our security more vulnerable to an entity with large dormant hashpower, meaning that they will attempt to come in with a quick hash attack, and take over the chain and issue a double spend.

To combat this, I propose that we limit the ability to solve blocks to only Researchers with Active CPIDs in the chain (associated cancer researchers), with existing Magnitude and coins earned in the last superblock, and limit CPIDs from solving only one block per 6 block period.  What this does is ensures that one researcher cannot enable massive hashpower and solve another block in the confirm period duration.  This would require distinct CPIDs to join in-lessening the chances of an attack.  Since the CPIDs must be actively crunching with RAC and magnitude and be in the prior superblock, a horizonal scaling attempt is not possible  (as it will take at least 2 days to ramp up a new CPIDs magnitude and be paid, while the attackers Old cpids will be diminishing in power).  In addition, DGW already adjusts to the current difficulty level, so a brute hashpower attack is very unlikely to win, with our low nonce rule, the attackers difficulty would rise by exponential amounts per solved block, and if any non-hacker CPID solves a block in between (which is highly likely due to the low nonce rule), the attack is not successful.

Security:

In this solution, we require Rosetta CPIDs to actually type in their credentials to become associated with Biblepay.  All other biblepay researchers check the burn transaction in the memory pool, to verify the CPID is actually owned by the owner.  So therefore it is not possible to be rewarded research rewards for any CPID not owned by the owner and verified with the burn transaction.  Once the burn is checked, the researchers signature is set in the chain, and we respect future signed CPID messages from this researcher.  Replay attacks are not possible.

The SanctuaryQuorum votes on the daily Magnitude file.  We have a system in place to ensure only the official CPID magnitudes will pass in the vote (as a net 10% have to vote on the correct hashed contract) in order for the contract to be recognized as valid for the daily superblock.

In addition, the research payments are constructed in a way that divides the magnitudes by the superblock available budget, so if a Rosetta error would occur, the payment error would be relative to that superblocks budget, and would not result in a chain block overpayment (IE we never pay more than the total budget per day) and we divide the rewards by the share of each researchers weight per day.

Unlimited Scalability:

The daily superblock reward system was chosen so that biblepay may scale to allow up to 32767 researchers to be paid concurrently per day.  Since there are currently 48,000 Rosetta servers actively crunching, this system could accomodate every Rosetta CPID as a potential biblepay user!  We also do not require the researcher to quit their team, but through our advanced security, they may come onboard as a loyal biblepay user.  This results in great PR for biblepay.


In summary, this is what I am proposing:

Proof-Of-Work rewards drop to approx 600 BBP per block (a reduction of 90%)
Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing rewards increase to approx 5500 BBP per block (an increase of 90%)
One superblock per day airdrops the researcher rewards, allowing up to 32767 research payments per day


Theory to bust the botnet:

Since POW rewards would decrease by 90%, the botnet would quit heat mining and start cancer mining
POW would require a signed CPID to solve a block
POW would require a CPID to be active and have prior payments to solve a block
Biblepay would have a feature, if no CPID is available in 31 minutes to solve a block, we would allow any heat miner to solve the block (so chain never gets frozen, in case of Rosetta being down etc)
These rules would lower the chances of an outside 51% attack to almost zero, when combined with DGW's protection

I recommend POL to be disabled for now (proof-of-loyalty) and that we instead research ways to include an element of POL in each Rosetta work unit to raise the trust and integrity level of Proof-of-distributed-computing to the highest level for the masses. 
^ If POL is trusted as a sole consensus algorithm, then PODC+POL may be a potential global leading candidate in the future.

PODC also will allow us to achieve a great future milestone:  Mining for the unbanked.  Since Rosetta cancer mining supports ARM tablets and ARM cell phones, it is possible for the unbanked through cancer research to earn enough to live on or at least buy groceries in third world countries.  This is more than we currently have, since POBH currently runs on PCs only.


The financial renumeration for this proposal is only 10 BBP, as our budget is mostly consumed.

Please vote for this if you believe this will not only allow us to be a humanitarian force - one facet of our community is doing what Jesus would do : help heal others, but also if you believe we will help remove the influence of the botnet and take our community back.





  • Swongel
  • Newbie

    • 14


    • 1
    • January 29, 2018, 02:03:22 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2018, 12:43:26 pm »
I oppose this proposal, I have given numerous reasons in the test net forum and on the BitcoinTalk forum.

In summary; my biggest concerns are as follows:

Less CPU protecting the network:

There is a finite amount of CPU resource currently working in order to protect the Bible Pay block chain by mining Bible Pay, the new algorithm for Rosetta@Home will not protect the block chain but would still get 90% of the current PoW rewards.
It follow that in a rational economy 90% of the current CPU resources will towards Rosetta@Home, therefor 90% of the CPU resources protecting the block chain will no longer be protecting the block chain.
It follows that a 51%-attack which requires 51% of the mining capacity will become 10 times less, making the amount of CPU power required for someone to launch such an attack 10 times less.

Effectively making it 10 times as easy (and therefor 10 times as inexpensive) to launch a 51% attack against Bible Pay.

Centralisation:

Rosetta@Home is a organisation to further scientific research, their point system is designed to be a novel way to gamify the donation of computing resources for scientific research. These points were never designed to hold any value, the people managing these points do not have protocol in place against black mail, corruption or fraud.
Nor has the organisation of Rosetta@Home accepted any responsibility for holding this position of trust.


Considering these facts I purpose we look in to different solutions for the problems currently being faced.
We cannot risk the network and in extension thereby the continious donations to orphans due to these facts.



  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2018, 02:03:25 pm »
I oppose this proposal, I have given numerous reasons in the test net forum and on the BitcoinTalk forum.

In summary; my biggest concerns are as follows:

Less CPU protecting the network:

There is a finite amount of CPU resource currently working in order to protect the Bible Pay block chain by mining Bible Pay, the new algorithm for Rosetta@Home will not protect the block chain but would still get 90% of the current PoW rewards.
It follow that in a rational economy 90% of the current CPU resources will towards Rosetta@Home, therefor 90% of the CPU resources protecting the block chain will no longer be protecting the block chain.
It follows that a 51%-attack which requires 51% of the mining capacity will become 10 times less, making the amount of CPU power required for someone to launch such an attack 10 times less.

Effectively making it 10 times as easy (and therefor 10 times as inexpensive) to launch a 51% attack against Bible Pay.

Centralisation:

Rosetta@Home is a organisation to further scientific research, their point system is designed to be a novel way to gamify the donation of computing resources for scientific research. These points were never designed to hold any value, the people managing these points do not have protocol in place against black mail, corruption or fraud.
Nor has the organisation of Rosetta@Home accepted any responsibility for holding this position of trust.


Considering these facts I purpose we look in to different solutions for the problems currently being faced.
We cannot risk the network and in extension thereby the continious donations to orphans due to these facts.


This comment must be marked as FUD since it is not true.

In this proposal, only CPIDs can mine, in contrast to everyone.  Therefore the hash rate ratio is not 10* less, it is equal to one signed boinc instance CPID per block, making it far more fair than 12,000 random hashers who can hit us at any time randomly and pump n dump at will.

To protect us against pump-n-dump, no single CPID can solve another block within 5 blocks.

This idea is even more secure than POL, since there is not a risk of buying the coins on the open market.

It is also more secure than the bitcoin status quo, which allows supermajority ASICs groups to form.  (Because the equivalent effect in bitcoin would be to require miners to register on the network, and provide credentials per block, and deny a duplicate bitcoin block to be solved by the same mining organization).  Which would be an improvement over what they have now (an unfair supermajority and most full nodes offline).

FUD.  UNTRUE.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 02:20:33 pm by Rob A. »


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2018, 02:52:37 pm »
I oppose this proposal, I have given numerous reasons in the test net forum and on the BitcoinTalk forum.

In summary; my biggest concerns are as follows:

Less CPU protecting the network:

There is a finite amount of CPU resource currently working in order to protect the Bible Pay block chain by mining Bible Pay, the new algorithm for Rosetta@Home will not protect the block chain but would still get 90% of the current PoW rewards.
It follow that in a rational economy 90% of the current CPU resources will towards Rosetta@Home, therefor 90% of the CPU resources protecting the block chain will no longer be protecting the block chain.
It follows that a 51%-attack which requires 51% of the mining capacity will become 10 times less, making the amount of CPU power required for someone to launch such an attack 10 times less.

Effectively making it 10 times as easy (and therefor 10 times as inexpensive) to launch a 51% attack against Bible Pay.

Centralisation:

Rosetta@Home is a organisation to further scientific research, their point system is designed to be a novel way to gamify the donation of computing resources for scientific research. These points were never designed to hold any value, the people managing these points do not have protocol in place against black mail, corruption or fraud.
Nor has the organisation of Rosetta@Home accepted any responsibility for holding this position of trust.


Considering these facts I purpose we look in to different solutions for the problems currently being faced.
We cannot risk the network and in extension thereby the continious donations to orphans due to these facts.

Why do you think Rob's method would not work. It seems like the amount of computing power wouldn't matter after the safeguards are in place. I am new to this so I am learning from you guys as I go along.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 02:54:09 pm by T-Mike »


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2018, 03:14:38 pm »
Rob, it seems like an attack could take place when Rosetta is down since you would let any miner mine on the blockchain. Is there a way to fix that?


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2018, 07:56:18 am »
Rob, it seems like an attack could take place when Rosetta is down since you would let any miner mine on the blockchain. Is there a way to fix that?

I thought about the rule and realized we have to make a distinction between Rosetta going down and Rosetta rewards stopping vs Heat mining ramifications.  Let me coin the term "DR" (Disaster Recovery mode, when Rosetta is down), which btw is probably only going to happen once every 2 years for one day - its if they bring their network down for upgrades, anyway, let us assume we are in DR.

In DR mode, this is 24 hours after Rosetta stops accepting work units, our SanctuaryQuorum will not come to a consensus.  They will all have a filehash of 0x0, and will not vote for a consensus.  This means when the superblock hits, it will reward 0 Research payments.  Heat mining will continue however.

In DR mode, our CPID signature rule will still be in effect, for existing CPIDs.  So the security is still there, because CPID DCC's are still signed in the chain.  So really nothing changes (except researchers are not getting paid Daily Research Payments, everyone is just mining for 600 BBP heat rewards).  This is because the wallet still knows the existing magnitude, prior payments, and signed cpids, so they can keep heat mining (The rule is written to go back to the *last* DC superblock that was actually Paid), hence the reason it is going to always access the last researcher set (for heat mining rules).

Even if we were in DR mode for 6 months, and lets assume the wallet loses records of all signed CPIDs, we would then revert to 30 minute blocks (as the blocks would Lag because the wallet is trying to enforce the CPID rules), but there would not truly be a "security emergency", instead it would be as it is now:  random researchers hashing with DGW as our diff algorithm.  It would be slightly less secure but by then we would be issuing a mandatory upgrade to fix whatever broke down in PODC (Maybe entire BOINC network upgraded the protocol etc).

« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 08:01:40 am by Rob A. »


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2018, 10:45:17 am »
I thought about the rule and realized we have to make a distinction between Rosetta going down and Rosetta rewards stopping vs Heat mining ramifications.  Let me coin the term "DR" (Disaster Recovery mode, when Rosetta is down), which btw is probably only going to happen once every 2 years for one day - its if they bring their network down for upgrades, anyway, let us assume we are in DR.

In DR mode, this is 24 hours after Rosetta stops accepting work units, our SanctuaryQuorum will not come to a consensus.  They will all have a filehash of 0x0, and will not vote for a consensus.  This means when the superblock hits, it will reward 0 Research payments.  Heat mining will continue however.

In DR mode, our CPID signature rule will still be in effect, for existing CPIDs.  So the security is still there, because CPID DCC's are still signed in the chain.  So really nothing changes (except researchers are not getting paid Daily Research Payments, everyone is just mining for 600 BBP heat rewards).  This is because the wallet still knows the existing magnitude, prior payments, and signed cpids, so they can keep heat mining (The rule is written to go back to the *last* DC superblock that was actually Paid), hence the reason it is going to always access the last researcher set (for heat mining rules).

Even if we were in DR mode for 6 months, and lets assume the wallet loses records of all signed CPIDs, we would then revert to 30 minute blocks (as the blocks would Lag because the wallet is trying to enforce the CPID rules), but there would not truly be a "security emergency", instead it would be as it is now:  random researchers hashing with DGW as our diff algorithm.  It would be slightly less secure but by then we would be issuing a mandatory upgrade to fix whatever broke down in PODC (Maybe entire BOINC network upgraded the protocol etc).

Ok, I understand mostly now, there might be a corner condition somewhere that we might not have though of but we will keep pondering. Another question is this, what prevents someone with write access to the Rosetta database to fake the information required by Biblepay ro calcualte the magnitudes and fool the safeguards?


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2018, 10:52:21 am »
Ok, I understand mostly now, there might be a corner condition somewhere that we might not have though of but we will keep pondering. Another question is this, what prevents someone with write access to the Rosetta database to fake the information required by Biblepay ro calcualte the magnitudes and fool the safeguards?

The people at Rosetta dont calculate magnitudes.  They only approve or deny single work units.

Its up to Boinc to figure out how many cobblestones went into the workunit, using the host info, the duration, the video coprocs, and they even have "checks" where they check in on the work unit every X seconds and log info about each timeslice so as to log the exact cobblestone rate.

You have to fool Rosetta And boinc.  And boinc is not so easy to fool, as its distributed.

In addition, boinc does not give us the magnitude, it gives us total credit delta.  We subtract yesterday from today to find the delta.  RAC is a decay function.  We base Magnitude on RAC.   One can reverse engineer RAC from Total Credit, so those numbers cant just be manipulated (IE if someone jacks up Total Credit without RAC, RAC is wrong).

The answer to your question though is really, what if the admin of Rosetta goes in and validates all of one researchers workunits without work being performed?  Then the only way to detect that is to write pool reports comparing our reference machine to each researcher.  That is the only idea I have for that, otherwise, we have to trust Rosettas SQL database per workunit result.





  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2018, 11:24:10 am »
The people at Rosetta dont calculate magnitudes.  They only approve or deny single work units.

Its up to Boinc to figure out how many cobblestones went into the workunit, using the host info, the duration, the video coprocs, and they even have "checks" where they check in on the work unit every X seconds and log info about each timeslice so as to log the exact cobblestone rate.

You have to fool Rosetta And boinc.  And boinc is not so easy to fool, as its distributed.

In addition, boinc does not give us the magnitude, it gives us total credit delta.  We subtract yesterday from today to find the delta.  RAC is a decay function.  We base Magnitude on RAC.   One can reverse engineer RAC from Total Credit, so those numbers cant just be manipulated (IE if someone jacks up Total Credit without RAC, RAC is wrong).

The answer to your question though is really, what if the admin of Rosetta goes in and validates all of one researchers workunits without work being performed?  Then the only way to detect that is to write pool reports comparing our reference machine to each researcher.  That is the only idea I have for that, otherwise, we have to trust Rosettas SQL database per workunit result.

Thanks for answering my questions, I'll continue asking in the testnet froum.


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 435


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 10:29:06 am »
I've read everything that Schwongel and Rob wrote about the subject. I respect Swongels knowledge on the subject and admire the fact that he has a solid opinion.

That being said, I find it extremely difficult to process every little detail that has been given related to PODC and the ramifications it could possible have for the project. My biggest concern is that of the botnet. Of course, decentralization is paramount because we are a cryptocurrency, but most of all, I want this project to succeed in the charitable vision it set out to be. And for that, in my opinion - we need to get rid of the botnet.

When I first found out about this project, I recognized someone with a great vision in Rob, and although I'd like to have more knowledge before making a decision, I'm going with my gut feeling on this, and choose to stand by Rob and whatever his vision is. He made this coin, and if his decision for PODC will ultimately lead to the demise of Biblepay, then that's just how it shall be. So I vote yes :)


  • Swongel
  • Newbie

    • 14


    • 1
    • January 29, 2018, 02:03:22 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2018, 02:45:32 am »
Since you won't accept my arguments regarding Cerntralisation or even about lowering the amount of hashes needed, here's a few more:

There's ASICS doing protein simulations / folding already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_(computer)

BOINC themselves are talking about "reducing the likelyhood of results and credit falsification" signifying that this is a problem that cannot be solved but is merely counteracted in a patchy way:
https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SecurityIssues

GridCoin isn't considered a good implmentation of crypto by many hackers (not the evil kind):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8962896

Additionally, If a 51% attack is successfully executed (which will be much easier but even if you don't consider to be true), one can prevent new CPID's from joining the network simply by not allowing any CPID announcing transactions in to the network, there would be no incentive for miners to mine CPID announcing transactions other than for the good of the network (which isn't reliable enough for crypto).

« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 09:32:51 am by Swongel »


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 435


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2018, 07:57:07 am »
With the addition of Swongels latest arguments, and the questions on bitcointalk from investors, maybe it's best to go about this implementation slow and steady, since it's such a big step in development. I really hope more people will give their opinion on this implementation.

I'm not a programmer, nor am I an expert on blockchain technology, and I'm sorry that I can't give more input on that side, but in the end I do want this community to flourish.


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2018, 08:19:15 am »
With the addition of Swongels latest arguments, and the questions on bitcointalk from investors, maybe it's best to go about this implementation slow and steady, since it's such a big step in development. I really hope more people will give their opinion on this implementation.

I'm not a programmer, nor am I an expert on blockchain technology, and I'm sorry that I can't give more input on that side, but in the end I do want this community to flourish.

There are no questions on bitcointalk from investors.  Burito is not an investor and that would be "singular".

I think what we have in the PODC testing room is better than we have in prod, since the status quo, has let us down, and we are sharing 93% of our emission with a botnet.  Id rather start by sharing it with 2000 boinc network cancer researchers, and making a major effort to ensure the security stays.

As I said once, it would be better to be hacked once a day inside Rosetta than we have currently.

I will say this:  the latest post from Swongle is 70% accurate this time, so I will not delete it, instead I will ask him if hes willing to help us make PODC the defacto standard, a highly secure consensus algorithm for blockchains, this way Biblepay could address the remaining 1% concern that he posts. 

I am dissapointed at the last part of the post, about his biased view of 51% attacks however.  If we are going to talk about this, we need to be neutral, and not spread FUD.  He knows that every coin is subject to 51% attack risk, and disregards the fact that a limited subset of miners with DGW in front of it is more secure than the unfair supermajority existing in bitcoin today.  Its redicules, to make those assertions and be taken seriously.




  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2018, 08:22:53 am »
Since you won't accept my arguments regarding Cerntralisation or even about lowering the amount of hashes needed, here's a few more:

There's ASICS doing protein simulations / folding already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_(computer)

BOINC themselves are talking about "reducing the likelyhood of results and credit falsification" signifying that this is a problem that cannot be solved but is merely counteracted in a patchy way:
https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SecurityIssues

GridCoin isn't considered a good implmentation of crypto by many hackers (not the evil kind):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8962896

Additionally, If a 51% attack is successfully executed (which will be much easier but even if you don't consider to be true), one can prevent new CPID's from joining the network simply by not allowing any CPID announcing transactions in to the network, there would be no incentive for miners to mine CPID announcing transactions other than for the good of the network (which isn't reliable enough for crypto).

First regarding the asic:
Thats irrelevant.  ASICs are designed to perform specific tasks.  It does not mean Rosetta could run in an asic in 20 years. They have 150 paid scientists, and the code is too complicated to even port it to GPU.  Low risk, not relevant.

Ill address the others as we go.



  • Swongel
  • Newbie

    • 14


    • 1
    • January 29, 2018, 02:03:22 pm
    more
Re: Proposal: Proof-Of-Distributed Computing as major reward algorithm
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2018, 09:11:07 am »
There are no questions on bitcointalk from investors.  Burito is not an investor and that would be "singular".

I think what we have in the PODC testing room is better than we have in prod, since the status quo, has let us down, and we are sharing 93% of our emission with a botnet.  Id rather start by sharing it with 2000 boinc network cancer researchers, and making a major effort to ensure the security stays.

As I said once, it would be better to be hacked once a day inside Rosetta than we have currently.

I will say this:  the latest post from Swongle is 70% accurate this time, so I will not delete it, instead I will ask him if hes willing to help us make PODC the defacto standard, a highly secure consensus algorithm for blockchains, this way Biblepay could address the remaining 1% concern that he posts. 

I am dissapointed at the last part of the post, about his biased view of 51% attacks however.  If we are going to talk about this, we need to be neutral, and not spread FUD.  He knows that every coin is subject to 51% attack risk, and disregards the fact that a limited subset of miners with DGW in front of it is more secure than the unfair supermajority existing in bitcoin today.  Its redicules, to make those assertions and be taken seriously.

Yes 51% attacks exists in any coin, only you propose to make the required CPU-power only 5.1% by asking 90% of the cycles to go to non-direct blockchain related workloads. Don't patronise me, I know very well what I am talking about, you might disagree with me but that doensn't make you right. I will help you with PODC by telling you, don't implement PODC in this way, and I have told you this often with valid reasons.