State of Ethereum, and Mining
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

State of Ethereum, and Mining

on

  • 200 views

BitcoinConfHK

BitcoinConfHK

Statistics

Views

Total Views
200
Views on SlideShare
200
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

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

State of Ethereum, and Mining State of Ethereum, and Mining Presentation Transcript

  • State of Ethereum And Mining
  • ● People want features ○ Issue coins ○ Decentralized exchange ○ Financial contracts ● Solution: feature coins ● Problem: what if people want to do more? Cryptocurrency in 2013
  • ● Generalized cryptoledger ● Built-in programming language ● Create any feature that you want ● Also supports DACs/DAOs/DAs Ethereum
  • ● Special type of account ● Has: ○ Code ○ Ether ○ Storage (key/value database) Contracts
  • ● Idea: when a message is sent to a contract, code executes ● Code can: ○ Read/write storage ○ Send ether ○ Send other messages (ie. recursive VM) Contracts
  • Name registry: Currency: Examples
  • The Ethereum Blockchain
  • Ethereum in 2014 ● Decentralized applications (Đapps) ● More than just money
  • ● HTML/JS webpage, ETH JS API Đapps: contracts with GUIs
  • ● Whitepaper ● Protocol fully implemented ● 4 clients (Go, C++, Py, Java) ● 2 clients compatible for 1900 blocks ● Serpent, LLL, Mutan ● Basic browser ● Fully functional third-party dapps Progress so far (technical)
  • ● Financial ○ Kickstarter (38 LoC) ○ Denny’s Lotto ● Academic Publishing ○ CryptoSwartz ● Governance ○ People’s Republic of ĐOUG ○ Project Eris ○ BitVote Third-Party Development
  • Progress so far (non-technical) ● CCRG prelim (Toronto, Waterloo, Texas, Nicosia) ● Regulatory (Swiss, almost US) ● Sale website, cold storage policy (almost) ● 40+ meetup groups
  • What needs to be done (technical) ● EtherBrowser ○ Likely Chromium-based ● Efficiency upgrades ○ JIT compilation ● Security audits ● Light client implementation ● Mobile implementation
  • What needs to be done (non-technical) ● Finalize pre-sale tasks ● CCRG formal setup ● Education resources ● Translation ● 960 more meetup groups?
  • Conclusion ● Ethereum at halfway point ● Current version theoretically near- viable but buggy (eg. 2009 BTC) ● “Hard” work still remains (we’re only half-done…)
  • Decentralization, n. The security assumption that a nineteen year old in Hangzhou and someone maybe in the UK, and maybe not, have not yet decided to collude with each other. Mining
  • ● I have 100 BTC ○ Tx 1 sends 100 BTC to A ○ Tx 2 sends 100 BTC to B ● Both are published, which one confirms? ● Correct answer: the one that appears first ● Problem: need distributed timestamp ● Solution: blockchain Blockchain
  • Mining ● Miners attempt to produce blocks ● Each block references previous block ● Block making function 1/1020 success rate ● One random miner succeeds every 10 min ● Longest blockchain (one with most PoW) wins
  • 51% Attacks ● Problem: one entity has >50% hashpower ● Attack 1: reverse transactions ● Attack 2: exclude others, monopolize ○ Weaker version at 25%: selfish-mining ● Attack 3: censor transactions
  • Pools ● Mining is a lottery ● One ASIC has 15% chance of success ● Pools: mine for me, I pay you 0.00025 BTC per block ● Problem: pool centralization
  • Pools
  • ● Bad argument: no, majority miner has aligned incentives ● Better argument: users can quit pools ○ Unknown: will they? Is centralization bad?
  • ● Problem: centralized pools allow mining without validation ● Idea: protocol requires blockchain accesses ● Goal: make P2Pool economically viable Solution 1: force blockchain storage
  • ● Problem: small pools have high variance ● Idea: users mine into multiple pools simultaneously ● Goal: allow even small pools to fully absorb variance Solution 2: Multi-PPS
  • ● Original intent: mining decentralized, democratic ● Problem: specialized hardware ● Now: mining hardware all produced by a few centralized firms ASICs
  • ● 25% of hashpower made in one factory in Shenzhen ● First floor: 25% of Litecoin hashpower How bad?
  • ● Argument: CPU production very centralized too ● Counterpoint: CPU usage and control still local ● ASIC production now centralized, usage still decentralized ● Will this change? Is this a problem?
  • The First Grand Equation
  • ● Centralized maintenance, storage cheaper ● Decentralized energy free… up to a point ASIC Decentralization: The Argument
  • ● 2011: Scrypt ○ Problem: memory-hard to verify ● 2013 Oct: Momentum ○ Problem: Pollard cycle finding algo ● 2013 Dec: Dagger ○ Problem: shared memory ● Now: Cuckoo (length-42 cycles) Anti-ASIC 1: Memory-Hardness
  • ● Strategy: randomly generate a mining function every block ● Idea: optimal ASIC for “any function” IS a CPU ● Problem: how ● Problem 2: some specialization always possible ○ But: does that matter? Anti-ASIC 2: Generalized Computation
  • The Second Grand Equation ● Idea: use of computer hardware free… up to a point
  • End