• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
A network of your peers   general - bitcoin foundation
 

A network of your peers general - bitcoin foundation

on

  • 237 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
237
Views on SlideShare
237
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A network of your peers   general - bitcoin foundation A network of your peers general - bitcoin foundation Document Transcript

    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Bitcoin Foundation → Foundation Discussion → General 3Follow this topic Page 1 of 2 1 2 NEXT Reply to this topicGo to first unread post A network of your peers Started by Mike Hearn, Oct 05 2013 02:00 PM tor bitcoin p2p 38 replies to this topic  View New ContentBitcoin Foundation Forums Members #1 Quote Lorenzo Petrone, Guilherme Gusmão da Silva, Gerhard Petruschat and 6 others like this Like This Member Lifetime 203 posts Mike Hearn Posted 05 October 2013 - 02:00 PM I'm experimenting with Medium, which is a sort of next-gen blogging platform. To try it out I wrote an article about how P2P networks with anonymous participants can nevertheless create and enforce ground rules despite the lack of central control. We already know that Bitcoin is a great example of this, the 21 million rule being the classic. My article looks at Tor, its exit policies and proposes a new method for node operators to block hidden services they personally don't wish to be involved with. It also touches on Bitcoin proofs of sacrifice at the end. It's a 10 minute read. Let me know what you think. https://medium.com/p/d3f9f299f729 mhearn@bitcoinfoundation.org Report #2 Quote Like This Member Members 93 posts Gerhard Petruschat Posted 05 October 2013 - 06:13 PM Very good article! Regarding proof of sacrifice: Isn't it problematic to sacrifice to the miners? Is there a viable alternative? If proof of sacrifice ever became big it would seriously add to miner revenue and therefore literally burn all money put into proof of sacrifice. Granted, it would further increase bitcoin security, but regarding it's original purpose it really makes every sacrifice completely go kaboom. You don't give your cookies away at random, you blow them up on youtube. Report #3 Member David Allen Posted 05 October 2013 - 06:54 PM Nice work, Mike. Search
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Quote Like This Members 57 posts Medium is a great forum for presenting solutions, and this article leads to trust-networks we need. What is required to start implimenting? Report #4 Quote Like This Member Lifetime 203 posts Mike Hearn Posted 05 October 2013 - 08:51 PM I don't see what the problem with sacrificing to miners is. You don't want to actually destroy the money, that just reduces the resolution of the system for everyone, but sacrificing to some third party raises the messy politics of who gets the money. Sending to miners is essentially a random redistribution around many different people, which is ideal. To implement you'd have to decide what to implement. Proofs of sacrifice require someone to design and code up and app+format for them. mhearn@bitcoinfoundation.org Report #5 Quote John Stahl likes this Like This Member, education committee Lifetime 472 posts Location Rochester, MN Brian Goss Posted 05 October 2013 - 10:01 PM Brilliant post. Dang you're insightful. Took me 1 hr to read (3 kids, no wife ATM). Facebook like link is kaput on iPhone 5s, iOS 7.02. I don't really understand the for intro/rendezvous stuff, likely due to screaming children Got GLIPH? Send me an encrypted instant message: Keep track of your addresses with myBitcoins for iOS! or check out babyPlayer, a video player for little hands! My very own Casascius Bearer Bar: 1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe Report #6 Quote Like This Member Members 194 posts Location Quebec, Canada Saivann Carignan Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:26 AM The proof of sacrifice approach was suggested as an option to help enforce good behavior in CoinJoin to my understanding. Very interesting post. Report #7Dan Plante
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Quote Lorenzo Petrone likes this Like This Member Lifetime 91 posts Posted 06 October 2013 - 09:14 AM Mike, a very interesting read, thank you. By the way, I watched your video about economically autonomous agents and our childhood fixation on the PopSci future last night. I felt like a kid again and had a lot of fun listening to you. I pictured auto mechanics leaving these automobile free-agents wheeless and up on hoists, extorting their bitcoin before they would repair and drop them down, and send them on their way. Which seemed silly and disconnected from reality so that in turn led me to consider the practical evolution of how things could have got to that point, and I surmised that it would probably have started with small-business taxi owner-operators that invested in autonomous vehicles on the side, as a way to bolster their income. I mean, they're SME's in that space, and they know the economics of the industry and don't have to pay a driver.... risky, but there could be rewards. These owner-operators might have experienced early versions of this kind of extortion due to progressively lengthening durations where they didn't feel the need to check up on their autonomous "employees" very often. Sometimes they would discover that dishonest mechanics were taking advantage of them by leaving their charges on hoists for days before the owner found out, then trying to extort the owners with the usual hand waving BS. This progressed into picturing the owners hiring coders to have the cars report to them when they went for repairs or similar situations, which over time evolved into picturing an autonomous agent p2p network where these cars keep each other up to date on each others' situation (less time and effort for the owners of course) and incorporated a kind of "dead man's switch" that caused every other autonomous vehicle to inform the local police, DA's office, chamber of commerce, and maybe more importantly everyone on the list of former riders/clients that when comms ceased, something might be fishy here, and it might cost them more money or political capital in the near term so you might want to look into it. But this wasn't a really satisfying scenario. Something missing. The legal framework/precedence must keep up to some extent. So, the taxi lobby, in conjunction with the much more powerful trucking lobby (which has evolved in kind during all of this of course, since they carry 80% of all finished and unfinished goods in the country) successfully lobbies to have these autonomous entities recognized as "corporate persons" (not a great stretch under current law) and where the trucking companies and taxi companies already own a certain amount of shares in these "autonomous corporations". Voila - overhead costs for the trucking and taxi "shareholders" drops, and autonomous vehicle agents get "person-hood". Things evolve progressively from there. Yes, there's a lot of holes in that scenario. Kinda fun to play around with it though. Makes me feel like a kid reading a magazine again. I'm not sure about this whole "proof of sacrifice" thing though. Sounds identical to "proof of stake" to me, practically speaking. Expenditure of one's value (bitcoins, dollars, whatever) always buys you something. Always. Unless you're clinically insane I guess. Whether it's physical goods, propaganda/advertising, future promise, personal/corporate reputation, whatever - it always buys you something that you perceive has value. That "something" is what you have a "stake" in. I might be misinterpreting though. Sometimes a subculture (like the bitcoin community) adopts jargon that doesn't quite map to the strict Oxford semantics. I'm kinda new, and so I acknowledge that possibility. Report #8 Member Members Gerhard Petruschat Posted 06 October 2013 - 09:59 AM Dan Plante, on 06 October 2013 - 09:14 AM, said: I'm not sure about this whole "proof of sacrifice" thing though. Sounds identical to "proof of stake" to me, practically speaking. Expenditure of one's value (bitcoins, dollars, whatever) always buys you something. Always. Unless you're clinically insane I guess. Whether it's physical goods, propaganda/advertising, future promise, personal/corporate reputation, whatever - it always buys you something that you perceive has value. That "something" is what you have a "stake" in. I might be misinterpreting though. Sometimes
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Quote Like This 93 posts a subculture (like the bitcoin community) adopts jargon that doesn't quite map to the strict Oxford semantics. I'm kinda new, and so I acknowledge that possibility. As far as i understand it, it is just proof-of-work without the problem of having to do work every single time you do something that can potentially be abused. instead you only pay by working only once and afterwards you only have to do it after you abused the network and get blacklisted. Of course this assumes there is a meaningful and practical way to blacklist in that specific network. It would be more like proof of stake, if it were possible to get the sacrifice back after some time after you prove that you only used the network in a non-abusive manner. Of course, that would require much more sophisticated ways to grade network usage, maybe even measurable positive contributions. It would be interesting to know if thats possible: to use proof of sacrifice as kind of a buy-in to a web of trust or something similar. a system that redistributes to older, still valid identities - like a pyramid scheme - would be a very direct approach to proof-of-stake. In any case, proof of sacrifice like described in the article sounds like a natural starting point with manageable requirements to experiment with such systems. Report #9 Quote Like This Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 06 October 2013 - 01:02 PM Dan Plante, on 06 October 2013 - 09:14 AM, said: I'm not sure about this whole "proof of sacrifice" thing though. Sounds identical to "proof of stake" to me, practically speaking. I would say it shares the fundamental idea behind both proof-of-stake and proof-of-burn: a shift from direct to indirect proof-of-work already "stored" in minted coins. Like in proof-of-stake, the coins are preserved, yet like in proof-of-burn, they are "sacrificed" from their owner's perspective, despite not destroyed. As the decentralized technology behind Bitcoin matures, it is only natural to see this fundamental shift from direct to indirect, already "accumulated" proof-of- work as it allows taking advantage of work already done. Report #10 Like This Bitgoblin Members 219 posts Location Genova, Italy Lorenzo Petrone Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:58 PM Very cool post, Dan, gg. (though I didn't manage to grasp it entirely...) Dan Plante, on 06 October 2013 - 09:14 AM, said: I'm not sure about this whole "proof of sacrifice" thing though. Sounds identical to "proof of stake" to me, practically speaking. Expenditure of one's value (bitcoins, dollars, whatever) always buys you something. [...] With proof of stake you don't "spend" the money, you just "have" them and "keep" them as you go. With proof of sacrifice, doing "the thing" actually "spends" you the money, so that you have less money later, to do more things. Edit Signature Your signature may contain: • Any number images
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Quote • Images of any size • Any number of URLs • Any number of lines Report #11 Quote Like This Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 08 October 2013 - 12:19 PM This is a great idea: 1. It allows one to "buy" a trustful public identifier without relying on any third parties. 2. Unlike (direct) proof-of-work, it allows one to leverage the work already stored in the block chain - instead of doing it. 3. The resulting identity can be as anonymous as Bitcoin can be. In essence, this idea segregates a Bitcoin address to act as an identity rather than as a regular payment address: it makes a practical, useful distinction between the identifying and paying functions of Bitcoin addresses, with possibly amazing results. Report #12 Quote Like This Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:31 PM Mike, Just wondering: have you imagined this, once implemented, eventually being used in the soon-to-be-released Bitcoin payment protocol (BIP 70) as an alternative to digital certificates? Report #13 Like This Member Lifetime 203 posts Mike Hearn Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:33 PM You could certainly do that, yes. The payment protocol is designed to support multiple PKIs for this reason. However it wouldn't solve exactly the same problems. If someone signed with an anonymous passport, that doesn't tell you anything about that person at all. If there's a dispute, you're left with nothing you can use to find the merchant or prove you paid any merchant in particular. If you have a Trezor style security device, it can't render anything useful for payments made to such an identity because they are .... anonymous! The most you could do is attach some kind of negative score to the passport if something went wrong (but then, how do you prevent gaming of those scores? by using anonymous passports? that's circular). In practice, I don't anticipate anonymous passports and the payment protocol being used together much. mhearn@bitcoinfoundation.org
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] QuoteReport #14 Quote Lorenzo Petrone likes this Like This Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:22 PM Mike, This proposal seems to merge nicely with your idea: https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm Now imagine that a site like SR (only legal) used a combination of this authentication scheme with your Bitcoin-based identifiers to maintain a reputation system. Such a system could not easily be gamed because: 1) Identifiers would cost money (bitcoins). 2) Reputations would be tied to previous transactions. The only way to game the system would be to fake failed transactions then rate the seller negatively based on them. However, this would require a large volume of transactions to be effective, either between the same addresses during a long time (not very effective) or between different addresses during a short one: the shorter the duration the more expensive it would get by requiring more Bitcoin-based identities. Wouldn't this be a favorable scenario for the Bitcoin payment protocol to use your Bitcoin-based identifiers? Report #15 Quote Like This Member Lifetime 203 posts Mike Hearn Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:39 PM One of the points of the payment protocol is that it would raise the bar for faking transactions. You could present a proof of successful transactions in the past to build the reputation, but those proofs would not be creatable without the co-operation of the merchants. mhearn@bitcoinfoundation.org Report #16 Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:23 PM Mike Hearn, on 22 October 2013 - 04:39 PM, said: One of the points of the payment protocol is that it would raise the bar for faking transactions. You could present a proof of successful transactions in the past to build the reputation, but those proofs would not be creatable without the co-operation of the merchants. What if I could rate each transaction in which I am the buyer later, provided I was using one of your paid identifiers? This would create a decentralized reputation system: damaging the reputation of a seller would become increasingly expensive proportionally to sales volume.
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Quote Like This Report #17 Quote Like This Member Lifetime 203 posts Mike Hearn Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:34 PM Sure, that's possible. Why not. mhearn@bitcoinfoundation.org Report #18 Quote Lorenzo Petrone and Brad Wheeler like this Like This Member Members 65 posts Peter Todd Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:38 PM Guilherme Gusmão da Silva, on 23 October 2013 - 05:23 PM, said: What if I could rate each transaction in which I am the buyer later, provided I was using one of your paid identifiers? This would create a decentralized reputation system: damaging the reputation of a seller would become increasingly expensive proportionally to sales volume. You can, but very careful to think like an attacker when implementing such systems: What's the cheapest way I could make a fake reputation? Remember that the attacker could create fake buyers and fake transactions, so you have to weight the bump to reputation of each Bitcoin transaction made based on the cost to make the transaction, not the claimed value of it. You also have to ensure that transactions can't be claimed by multiple reputations, and on top of all that, think about whether or not transactions claimed by a reputation could be reused by a totally unrelated purpose. For instance I could collude with a friend of mine who runs a popular web-wallet, and then create a bunch of sockpuppet accounts claiming that transactions done by users of my friends web-wallet were actually sales that went smoothly - even solutions like pay-to-contract have a hard time preventing this. It's really tough to get all this stuff right with a user-interface that people still understand; I suspect even NashX, as ugly as it is, has better usability and security for both parties than reputation schemes in a lot of real-world cases. Report #19 Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:39 AM Peter Todd, on 23 October 2013 - 11:38 PM, said: You can, but very careful to think like an attacker when implementing such systems: What's the cheapest way I could make a fake reputation? Remember that the attacker could create fake buyers and fake transactions, so you have to weight the bump to reputation of each Bitcoin transaction made based on the cost to make the transaction, not the claimed value of it. It is the cost of the rating-enabled identity that would make it expensive to fake a rated transaction: I would have to
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Page 1 of 2 1 2 NEXT Back to General · Next Unread Topic →    Reply to this topic Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: tor, bitcoin, p2p Foundation Discussion →  General →  An unsuspected ambiguity of "mining for bitcoins" Started by Guilherme Gusmão da Silva, 13 Nov 2013   bitcoin, mining 6 replies 47 views Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Yesterday, 12:37 AM Foundation Discussion →  General →  Beyond Aristotelian Monetary Properties Started by Guilherme Gusmão da Silva, 26 Oct 2013   monetary theory, Bitcoin 11 replies 80 views Guilherme Gusmão da Silva 27 Oct 2013 Foundation Discussion →  General →  Peer to Peer System for Buying and Selling of Bitcoin Online - looking for feedback Started by Rizwan Virk, 18 Oct 2013   trading bitcoin, p2p, protocol and 1 more... 4 replies 79 views Leith Marar 21 Oct 2013 Foundation Discussion →  General →  China's Google accepting XBT 0 replies Khreedharan SV Quote Like This use a previously bought identity to create a rating-enabled transaction, which I only could rate by reusing that same identity later. However, by always reusing the same identity, my ratings would seem increasingly suspicious: I would have to buy a number of different identities, proportional to the number of rated transactions needed to manipulate the reputation of a given seller. This way, the larger the sales volume of the target seller, the more expensive it would become for me to manipulate the same seller's reputation. Report #20 Quote Like This Member Members 79 posts Guilherme Gusmão da Silva Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:14 PM Mike, I was thinking: instead of calling this a "proof of sacrifice," a more natural way of seeing it would be a paid privileged identity: I am just paying for a somehow privileged Bitcoin identity by using a still unprivileged version of that same identity. Additionally, since this would be the only identity scheme to be native in Bitcoin, it should be the default identity scheme of the Bitcoin payment protocol. Report Post More Reply Options
    • A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation file:///G|/Bit Coin/foundation/A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation.htm[3/18/2014 3:27:02 PM] Privacy Policy Bitcoin Foundation → Foundation Discussion → General Started by Khreedharan SV, 16 Oct 2013   bitcoin, china, google 43 views 16 Oct 2013 Committees →  Education →  BitcoinExpo London 30th November 2013 Started by Matej Michalko, 09 Oct 2013   Bitcoin, bitcoinexpo, london, uk and 3 more... 0 replies 24 views Matej Michalko 09 Oct 2013 Mark Community Read Help Community Forum Software by IP.Board