Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

jessquit

Member
Feb 24, 2018
71
312
The selfish miner can "pre-propagate" his block to his Sybil nodes in all four corners of the world. This means the SM's block will be sitting ready-to-go one ultra-low-latency hop away from every miner while the HM's block is still localized in the specific corner of the network where it was mined. The SM thus has an advantage here.
SM already has the lowest possible latency connection to the HMs via the fully connected graph.

So, then he adds a Sybil node outside of this graph network that can only react slower than the SM itself, because the SM node in the fully connected graph will learn about the HMs new block before any of the nonmining Sybil nodes outside of the fully connected graph. Then this Sybil reacts, but the reaction will be seen by HM with lower priority than the SMs direct connection to the HM nodes. So the Sybil node reacts slower and the response is seen with lower priority.

So by using Sybils per the SM paper (instead of using his direct connection to the HMs per the new small-world mining paradigm), the SM, if anything, lowers gamma, instead of raising it.

When you write, "the HM's block is still localized in the specific corner of the network where it was mined" I start to think that you are still not fully considering the impact of the fully-connected model. This "corner" of which you speak ought not to exist. To the degree it does, the fastest way out of the corner to the rest of the miners is via the fully-connected graph. If you try to "beat" the graph by placing non-generating and therefore low-priority nodes outside of it, thus diffusing your visible hashpower and lowering your own priority in the graph network, I can only see that as counterproductive (ie, lowers gamma).

Help me understand where anything I said is wrong please.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
@cypherdoc, its simple. If you want tokens that have the same properties as BCH -- P2P, pseudo-anonymous, uncensorable, can't be confiscated -- you need op_group. If you don't care about all these properties one of the other token schemes will fit your needs.

That there is a difference is a hard argument to make. people claim that (say) a stock requires that you trust the issuer. Not really... you are just "trusting" in them to preserve or enhance the fiat value of the stock. You are not trusting them to track and provide proof of your ownership. Similarly, with bitcoin cash. A high profile company failure such as coinbase or gemini, or govt legislation could hammer the fiat value of BCH, BCH's properties only protect your ownership of and ability to transfer some quantity.
That's the thing. I don't think we need those things to be secured by a protocol that's designed to be Sound Money. Even btc is proving difficult to be just money . Tying a bunch of tokens and other assets into the BCH protocol is changing it in a highly unproven manner counter to what alot of us bought into last August.

Btw, I was at the JT concert this last weekend at the T Mobile arena and I was talking to one of its owners about your double spend ticket scenario you seemed concerned about. He promptly pulled out his phone and showed me his QR code version of his ticket. It was changing every few seconds. From what I gathered quicky without getting into too much other detail is that they have solved the problem of forwarding these tickets on by using what I assessed to be a Google authenticator-like system where the phone code is tied to a clock on their servers. He says it has all but solved this issue of duplicate tickets.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
The QR code is probably tied to a special app that is required to download the ticket which also gets permissions to identify the phones unique MAC address or SIM card identifier maybe like the Cointext app currently requires. Once T Mobile has that info in combination with the time synced QR, it would all but eliminate almost all fraud, which is what this guy said.

This is an example of how devs want to tie all sorts of perceived real world problems into a decentralized protocol that primarily was only designed to handle the much bigger problem of money. This sort of thing is not needed as there already are real world tools that exist to handle such problems. Blockchains don't appear to be one of them by my estimation.
 

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Can you explain why not? You do realize that someone gaining control of the server can't just steal the block rewards, right?



It seems like you're making the "the SM can't use both channels, only one or the other" mistake that I highlighted.

*shrugs* SM paper says SM must use sybils to "increase gamma"

If SM does use sybil it would seem to introduce latency b/c extra work needed which could manifest as the mystical negative gamma e.g. HM finding another block in this additional period of latency and getting out to other HM's first.

If they don't use sybils best case is they are probably still a *bit* slower because SM receives HM block the same time as all the other HMs and has the additional work of responding, by which time its too late?

Personally I think a theoretical model with gamma zero is a reasonable middle ground for approximating. HM's always mine HM blocks, as that's the first block they saw.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
i've been wanting to post this chapter from Mises for a while but wasn't quite sure how to present it. the money is this paragraph:

In the case of money, subjective use-value and subjective exchange value coincide.2 Both are derived from objective exchange value, for money has no utility other than that arising from the possibility of obtaining other economic goods in exchange for it. It is impossible to conceive of any function of money, qua money, that can be separated from the fact of its objective exchange value. As far as the use-value of a commodity is concerned, it is immaterial whether the commodity also has exchange value or not; but for money to have use-value, the existence of exchange value is essential.


what that says to me is that BCH should just be a dumb token. the other point being that the price is indeed important. and in our case with a limited supply of 21M coins, the higher the better, for liquidity purposes.


https://mises.org/library/theory-money-and-credit/html/pp/1226
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
It seems to have become adoption over everything, but is it presumptive to think it was not that at the outset?
It is adoption over everything, it's the network of people exchanging value that makes bitcoin valued.

I see some desirable use-cases for tokens, so I think they should evolve. However I don't see them as a priority, and I would not like to see Ethereum tokenization happening on top of BCH, I suspect that will degrade utility and fracture the fundamental use case of sound money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and sgbett

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Leaving the brouhaha around certain persons in this space in the past, I was actually a little bit productive again. No, not weakblocks now, but that will progress again soon as well :)

@Christoph Bergmann : Do you remember our tokenization discussion from a few days ago? This made me write down (into code) what I have in mind regarding a potential BCH token system:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8dg42q/sito_simple_tokens/

(Also @theZerg and everyone else. I think this approach or something like this should be a contender for potential tokenization approaches)
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
What I really need, is a hardware person that knows NFC and micro controller programming to get this started.
Probably I would do proof-of-concept on an existing mobile device (android phone) before proceeding with other hardware stuff.
[doublepost=1524157949,1524157221][/doublepost]
- I wonder why number of daily transactions is still so low on BCH
Perhaps the more pertinent question is why they are so high on BTC. I don't mean that in a pejorative way but knowing this might indicate a direction for BCH to focus its efforts. Is it all exchange arbitration? Gambling? It surely can't be retail transactions and I would think speculators on/offramping would be a small proportion.
[doublepost=1524158566][/doublepost]
yeah, i think OP_RETURN is the way to go with these add ons due to the ability to prune and that they get automatically deleted from the UTXO set. @theZerg's argument of OP_GROUP facilitating SPV wallet use doesn't make sense to me. tell me, if millions of Africans adopt SPV wallets, where are they going to spend their BCH? at local African merchant stores, of course, that will be encouraged to setup to service these new users. those will have an increased financial capacity to run local full nodes either shared or individually.
Question: Any way we can find a way to support this in a way which does not inflate the UTXO by design?
[doublepost=1524159178][/doublepost]
Blockchains don't appear to be one of them by my estimation.
Yep. Blockhains are basically a specialized form of database with specific features. As a database, they can be used to store data but that doesn't mean they are an appropriate tool for storing every kind of data. When you only have a hammer...
 

Tomothy

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
130
317
I think this approach or something like this should be a contender for potential tokenization approaches)
So i've read this and since I'm not very good with most of this I'm struggling a bit.So my understanding is two dust transactions would result in funding and creation of two separate batches of tokens in your example? 500 and 1000? And the reason those tokens exist are then because you said they exist or rather executed a script that stated a fact, that fact being that these tokens now exist, and can check to see that they were created by within and from those two dust transactions? I.e., you can print/create anything and the cost is only what's necessary for it to have occurred, or rather the information or script to have run?


So and this is all done on chain or do you need an offchain database somehow to lookup token information? The last thing is kindof what confuses me. Regardless, this seems like it has amazing potential and is easy as heck. Almost as simple as changing a 1 to an 8 or rather 1 to 32 :D. What am i missing?
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@Tomothy: Yes, the idea is basically the following. A classic BCH transaction, a bit simplified (lets ignore scripts and complicated spending schemes and so forth for now) looks like this:
INPUT_1 (pointer-to-output, signature-to-spend-it)
...
INPUT_N

goes to
OUTPUT_1 (amount, address-of-keypair to spend it)
...
OUTPUT_M
And then the BCH distributed system checks that all the necessary conditions to make this money match (sum of ins larger or equal than sums of outs, signatures check out etc.).

With OP_RETURN, you can add, as you know, a special field with arbitrary data to BCH.So how about creating a token chain which looks basically identical to the above, but transacts "TOK" instead of BCH?

And the idea is basically to do exactly that, and use the exact same keys and addresses of the BCH transaction to do so and augment the BCH transaction with an OP_RETURN that basically is a pointer (in the form of an unforgeable SHA256 hash) to the extra TOK transaction.

And then my script basically just make sure that the TOK transactions are sufficiently well-formed to behave as tokens (no faking, no creation by anyone other than the owner etc).

Which will result in a token chain parallel to the BCH chain and sharing the BCH keys and addresses but having a separate set of values transacted.

And you do token creation by spending from outputs of the token's address - and assume that all tokens are identified by a generating address (of the company / individual / entity / alien / whatever who wants to create a bunch of tokens).

Which creates chains of transactions just like in BCH and you'd store those to check them until their 'genesis'.

This way, no one can fake the tokens of the owner of the privkey to that address, with a bit of extra information published, inflation can be checked to any desired schedule by everyone and so forth.

EDIT: I might also add that the validity here and any idea of "sybilling" or creating fake transactions and the like is thwarted by requiring, of course, that any TOK output is unspent only if the corresponding BCH output is unspent as well. Which means that basically, the OP_RETURN data in the latest TOK transaction points to a chain of TOK transactions that go back until the genesis of these TOK tokens - which is a TOK-augmented "generation" spent from the address that the token is identified with. By the unforgeable hash reference, TOK transactions for all intents and purposes of validation become part of the BCH transactions. This should also, I think, address @jessquit's concern (which I share to some extend) that BCH can scale to be the world's money, but maybe not the world's container for all financial transactions.

As you all know, I am personally not even very keen on the value of many of these token schemes (though am willing to entertain the notion that others see this differently). With this approach, the only "damage" to the BCH chain is more transactions and more miner income plus a couple of prunable OP_RETURNs - so IMO no damage at all. And it also keeps the core validation code of BCH clean, nice and simple and pushes anything complex like this away from this core.

Yet it also does not invent any metacoins - or, respectively, allows anyone to quickly invent "metacoins" (which I'd rather call tokens).
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
Probably I would do proof-of-concept on an existing mobile device (android phone) before proceeding with other hardware stuff.
No. @Peter R did it on a custom device years ago. And I just discovered the postings he did on Bitcointalk about SigSafe, and the paper he wrote about it.

I haven't gotten around to read everything yet, but AFAIK, he actually had the option of using SigSafe as just a payment wallet.

@Peter R : I don't want to steal your idea. I want to bring SigSafe forward. It's fucking brilliant, and I understand the effort you put into it. Let's take SigSafe to the next level!

Without reading the spec/paper Peter wrote about SigSafe yet, I believe the only different feature I would add is a function to overwrite the previous private key. This will bring a lot of power to SigSafe, as you can "pair" it with your personal phone that can have a 12 word seed backup in case you lose your phone or your SigSafe (Ka-ching?) or both.

This simple feature will make your phone able to track, alert and make a record of all your payments.

Peter, you have been very quiet when I have approached you on this, after we met in Tokyo. You had great advice regarding the use of Sipas secp256k1 to minimize the size of the antenna.

I don't want to take cred, control or anything. I just want your wonderful project to move on!

Please respond, and just say straight what you think.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
No. @Peter R did it on a custom device years ago. And I just discovered the postings he did on Bitcointalk about SigSafe, and the paper he wrote about it.
Meh, your choice. I just know I like to have something function-alike in my grubby little hands when developing the real thing. Gives you more of a feel for what you're getting into and where you're going.

Can you imagine if they had had a "this is how it's going to work" of the lightning network before throwing the future of Bitcoin behind it? If there hadn't have been ulterior motives, they would have demanded it.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@Richy_T
[doublepost=1524186307][/doublepost]@Peter R
And one more thing: The point is not to make it fit into a ring at this point. The SigSafe design can work fine as the first step. And even more sexy in a credit card format (with a HUGE antenna area, he he.)

It's about establishing a NFC protocol where the merchant construct the transaction based on your public key (Or address. Or Xpub-key.)

And to get Bitcoin.com to integrate it in their wallet. And then get BitPay onboard. They can provide the BCH-to-fiat conversion and, even more important, started a relationship with Ingenico a few years ago.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
@Norway, I have seen that video before (or at least skimmed it). There are a few issues with that model of wallet. I'll read your Kaching paper and give you my thoughts. I actually was in the early discussions of Bitcointalk and laid out some of the basic design that has been used (not saying I originated it but I described it pretty closely) and even started developing one. I maybe should have pursued it further but between how niche it is and how Bitcoin adoption has stalled, kind of glad I didn't.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115294.0

Here's one where I kinda mention something like the above:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115294.msg1250691#msg1250691
 
Last edited: