info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Solution for the bitcoin distribution problem.
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Skybuck Flying
Aug 22, 2022, 9:42:37 AM8/22/22
to
An oppertunity exists for you, were you can create a more fair cryptocoin system, however it will take 2 hours and 20 minutes of your time to view the video about it, or perhaps you can skip through some parts of it, or perhaps you can grasp the core concept of this new blockchain idea:
Youtube video link where I discuss one out of two of bitcoin's main problems:
Problem 1: Coin distribution problem
Problem 2: Scalability problem.
I discuss problem 1:
https://youtu.be/QNKMpxZ2um0
So far the basic idea is to use "signed hashes" instead of "most powerfull hashes".
And the new/additional consensus rules that I have come up with so far are:
Basically I term/call/coin this new system: "Skybuck's Signed Hash Blockchain system"
Going to paste this text as it was described in the video above, maybe later I will work on it some more,
right now I am looking for feedback and critique if you think this system will work, or if you spot flaws and weaknesses in it ?!
PEER CONSENSUS RULES:
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 1. THE IP THRESHOLD RULE WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME.
PEERS WILL ONLY ACCEPT NEW BLOCKS WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME/PERIOD, WHERE THE BLOCK
WITH THE LOWEST IP ABOVE THE IP THRESHOLD WINS.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 2. THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS.
THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS/IS SELECTED AS THE MOST VALID BLOCKCHAIN.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 3. IF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT BLOCKS ARE DETECTED FROM A SINGLE PEER
THEN THESE BLOCKS AND THE PEER IS DISQUALIFIED AND THE IP THRESHOLD IS INCREMENTED + 1.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 4. DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE BROADCASTED THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK,
BASICALLY THESE WOULD BE THE MULTIPLE BLOCKS. PEERS (GROUP A) THAT IGNORED THESE
DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD INFORM THE PEERS (GROUP B) (<-THAT HAVE DISQUALIFIED THESE BLOCKS OR
THESE PEERS) THAT THEY (GROUP A)(THE PEERS THAT IGNORED THESE DISQUALIFICAGIONS) DISAGREE AND
WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON A SPECIFIC CHAIN AND IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO INFORM (GROUP B)
OF WHICH BLOCK OUT OF THESE MULTI BLOCKS THEY SELECTED, SO THAT AT LEAST (GROUP A) CAN KEEP
THAT CHAIN IN THEIR MEMORY OR MAYBE THIS CAN BE DONE LATER.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 5. IN CASE OF THE DETECTION/DETERMINATION OF DISQUALIFIED BLOCKS, WAIT
UNTIL IP THRESHOLD+1 (BASICALLY EITHER DISQUALIFIED BLOCK IP THRESHOLD +1) OR MAIN IP
THRESHOLD WHICH EVER IS HIGHER. IF THE PEER DECIDES TO DISQUALIFY THESE BLOCKS THE PEER SHOULD
MARK ITSELF AS DISQUALIFCATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED.
PEER CONSENSUS RULES 6. IF THE DISQUALIFICATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED FLAG IS SET THEN ON
INCREMENTATION OF THE IP THRESHOLD THE PEER SHOULD RE-SYNC ITSELF WITH OTHER PEERS THAT MAY
HAVE ACCEPTED THESE MULTI BLOCKS AND ASK THESE PEERS WHAT THEY NOW BELIEVE IS THE LONGEST
CHAIN...
MAYBE +1 IS A LITTLE BIT EARLY... BECAUSE THERE COULD BE MANY SPLITS ACROSS THE PEERS, MAYBE
THIS RE-SYNC THRESHOLD NEEDS TO BE SET A LITTLE BIT HIGHER LIKE +5 OR +6 OR +10.
THIS COULD BE CUSTOM SET AND REALLY LONG TERM IS NOT THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM.
SO THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A PROTOCOL WHICH ALLOWS PEERS TO ASK ANOTHER PEER:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT AT A CERTAIN IP THRESHOLD, OR ANOTHER IDEA COULD BE:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT FOR BLOCK NUMBER X, X BEING THE BLOCK NUMBER WHICH WAS DISPUTED AND
MARKED AS DISQUALIFIED. GOOOD.
Youtube video link where I discuss one out of two of bitcoin's main problems:
Problem 1: Coin distribution problem
Problem 2: Scalability problem.
I discuss problem 1:
https://youtu.be/QNKMpxZ2um0
So far the basic idea is to use "signed hashes" instead of "most powerfull hashes".
And the new/additional consensus rules that I have come up with so far are:
Basically I term/call/coin this new system: "Skybuck's Signed Hash Blockchain system"
Going to paste this text as it was described in the video above, maybe later I will work on it some more,
right now I am looking for feedback and critique if you think this system will work, or if you spot flaws and weaknesses in it ?!
PEER CONSENSUS RULES:
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 1. THE IP THRESHOLD RULE WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME.
PEERS WILL ONLY ACCEPT NEW BLOCKS WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME/PERIOD, WHERE THE BLOCK
WITH THE LOWEST IP ABOVE THE IP THRESHOLD WINS.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 2. THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS.
THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS/IS SELECTED AS THE MOST VALID BLOCKCHAIN.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 3. IF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT BLOCKS ARE DETECTED FROM A SINGLE PEER
THEN THESE BLOCKS AND THE PEER IS DISQUALIFIED AND THE IP THRESHOLD IS INCREMENTED + 1.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 4. DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE BROADCASTED THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK,
BASICALLY THESE WOULD BE THE MULTIPLE BLOCKS. PEERS (GROUP A) THAT IGNORED THESE
DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD INFORM THE PEERS (GROUP B) (<-THAT HAVE DISQUALIFIED THESE BLOCKS OR
THESE PEERS) THAT THEY (GROUP A)(THE PEERS THAT IGNORED THESE DISQUALIFICAGIONS) DISAGREE AND
WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON A SPECIFIC CHAIN AND IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO INFORM (GROUP B)
OF WHICH BLOCK OUT OF THESE MULTI BLOCKS THEY SELECTED, SO THAT AT LEAST (GROUP A) CAN KEEP
THAT CHAIN IN THEIR MEMORY OR MAYBE THIS CAN BE DONE LATER.
PEER CONSENSUS RULE 5. IN CASE OF THE DETECTION/DETERMINATION OF DISQUALIFIED BLOCKS, WAIT
UNTIL IP THRESHOLD+1 (BASICALLY EITHER DISQUALIFIED BLOCK IP THRESHOLD +1) OR MAIN IP
THRESHOLD WHICH EVER IS HIGHER. IF THE PEER DECIDES TO DISQUALIFY THESE BLOCKS THE PEER SHOULD
MARK ITSELF AS DISQUALIFCATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED.
PEER CONSENSUS RULES 6. IF THE DISQUALIFICATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED FLAG IS SET THEN ON
INCREMENTATION OF THE IP THRESHOLD THE PEER SHOULD RE-SYNC ITSELF WITH OTHER PEERS THAT MAY
HAVE ACCEPTED THESE MULTI BLOCKS AND ASK THESE PEERS WHAT THEY NOW BELIEVE IS THE LONGEST
CHAIN...
MAYBE +1 IS A LITTLE BIT EARLY... BECAUSE THERE COULD BE MANY SPLITS ACROSS THE PEERS, MAYBE
THIS RE-SYNC THRESHOLD NEEDS TO BE SET A LITTLE BIT HIGHER LIKE +5 OR +6 OR +10.
THIS COULD BE CUSTOM SET AND REALLY LONG TERM IS NOT THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM.
SO THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A PROTOCOL WHICH ALLOWS PEERS TO ASK ANOTHER PEER:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT AT A CERTAIN IP THRESHOLD, OR ANOTHER IDEA COULD BE:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT FOR BLOCK NUMBER X, X BEING THE BLOCK NUMBER WHICH WAS DISPUTED AND
MARKED AS DISQUALIFIED. GOOOD.
Skybuck Flying
Aug 23, 2022, 9:33:23 AM8/23/22
to
Basically this modest "invention" of mine is simply "digital signatures" applied to a blockchain.
So I called it "Proof of Signature" and Skybuck's Signed Hash Blockchain System !
In this video I come to the conclusion, the 10 minute time window is to limitting for bitcoin:
https://youtu.be/QNKMpxZ2um0
In reality some of these issues are solved by pool mining, which is a bit dangerous if they were to unite.
Furthermore the side effect of "proof of signature" is that it's energy efficient.
(Also combined with "lowest IP address above IP threshold wins")
Bye for now,
Skybuck.
So I called it "Proof of Signature" and Skybuck's Signed Hash Blockchain System !
In this video I come to the conclusion, the 10 minute time window is to limitting for bitcoin:
https://youtu.be/QNKMpxZ2um0
In reality some of these issues are solved by pool mining, which is a bit dangerous if they were to unite.
Furthermore the side effect of "proof of signature" is that it's energy efficient.
(Also combined with "lowest IP address above IP threshold wins")
Bye for now,
Skybuck.
Skybuck Flying
Aug 23, 2022, 9:38:21 AM8/23/22
to
Woops, old video link was posted (2 hour version)
Direct explanation video link is here (1 hour version, could have been shorter but wanted to explore some more):
https://youtu.be/yFngGdGDPAU
Bye,
Skybuck.
Direct explanation video link is here (1 hour version, could have been shorter but wanted to explore some more):
https://youtu.be/yFngGdGDPAU
Bye,
Skybuck.
0 new messages