Eliminating ACP
-
[quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“52926” timestamp=“1389965174”]
One argument against ACP was that it was not in the Bitcoin the paper and that Alternate currencies that should die were kept alive by ACP.
[/quote]Observation : DoS protection for Bitcoin was not in the paper (due to time?) and Bitcoin was kept alive by …
-
Another option I promoted, was a small proportional transaction fee, to be fairer to and attract more miners.
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“53230” timestamp=“1390064317”]
The problem of distributed checkpointing is what nodes are trusted enough to generate them and what to do if a checkpoint conflict occurs. The current implementation of ACP allows only one master node. If there are two or more of them and they checkpoint different blocks for a height given, the consequences are dire. There is no way to reset a checkpoint without either deleting the entire block chain downloaded or maybe re-compiling the daemon with a new checkpoint public key. The first step to extend this protocol is to allow several master nodes to operate in parallel and communicate without revealing themselves. I have the ideas, but no time to implement them.
[/quote]Could Kevlar’s flux protocol be used the that communication?
Also to build a trust level, I was thinking to use the uptime of the pool nodes.
Thoughts:
[list]
[*]a single miner can’t get the hashing power to manipulate the blockchain, so only a pool could do that
[*]the longer a pool is online, the smaller is the chance, that the pool owner intends to manipulate the blockchain, as they are up to fast money
[*] all acp nodes build a list of all other acp nodes and a preference is attached to each acp node
[*]the preference is calculated on several paramerers
[list]
[*]node uptime
[*] ratio pool hashrate to total hash rate
[*] change of pools hash rate over time
[*] …
[*] …[/list]
[*]the ACP functionality could be implemented as part of the pool software
[*]pools with lower hashrate could get higher preference
[*] pools beeing online for a longer time could get higher preference
[*] pools with constant hashrate could get higher preference
[*] distributed pools (= p2pool) coud get higher preference
[*]the acp node with the highest preference rules the generation of checkpoints
[/list]Probably a lot of this - if not all- is nonsense…
Thoughts are not really sorted out…
No clue, if such a principle/process can be implemented…
Not really sure, if this really would help to secure the blockchain…comments?
-
You don’t need uptime to turn trusted pools into checkpoint masters. Let them generate pairs of keys, include the public ones in the daemon’s code and here you go. What you need is a protocol to resolve checkpoint conflicts and potential abuse. You also need a supermaster key pair capable of invalidating any of their key pairs and related checkpoints on the fly by message broadcasting. I talked about this implementation half a year ago in this forum when FTC was under attacks with no ACP at all.
-
If wie need something like a super key, we have a central authority hat can change things to own advantage and we don’t need to change/modify/improve ACP.
I tried to describe an approach to implement an additional set of rules/procedures/algorhisms to increase the security oft the blockchain without centralized authorities, as I think, it’s the idea oft crypto currencies to work without such central ‘banks’
-
[quote name=“Wellenreiter” post=“53258” timestamp=“1390071031”]
Could Kevlar’s flux protocol be used the that communication?
[/quote]You mean Link? Link uses the address system to store information. Not sure if that much info should go into addresses. My FLUX design also depends on Link. Maybe if we had a MetaCoin or PoolCoin or such.
[quote]
Also to build a trust level, I was thinking to use the uptime of the pool nodes.Probably a lot of this - if not all- is nonsense…
Thoughts are not really sorted out…
No clue, if such a principle/process can be implemented…
Not really sure, if this really would help to secure the blockchain…comments?
[/quote]The unfortunate thing is: ACP was introduced to deal with hostile and potentially suicidal attackers. They intended to lose money. We need to defend not just adapt.
-
instead if this being only for pools could we not add this to the normal client where trusted node starts out being the acp server node but is then recalculated by each node broadcasting which it thinks should be trusted based on
uptime - higher is better
hashrate - lower is better ()etc etc
essentially a primary node on the network. If we can get a consensus on the block chain why cant we get a consensus on this?
I know it would potentially suffer the same problems with a 51% but we would then have two lines of defence rather than one.
-
I don’t pretend to understand a lot of this stuff, but I’d expect to be hearing the name Leslie Lamport being thrown around. I am sure *something* he has done regarding distributed consensus would apply here - namely the Paxos related consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Lamport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_algorithm
Is there a coin that even mentions Paxos or Lamport anywhere? If there was, I’d sure jump on it (as a total CS nerd).
-
paxos is a very useful distributed voting, but it lacks one big thing for coins the notions of attacker node that is one of the problem of coins.
someone can setup millions of voting nodes to say yes so win the concensus but those node are attacker node. coin own in POS is a way to minimized this and replace it by who own more coins. the actual POW is who work hard enough to find the solution.
-
[quote name=“groll” post=“56200” timestamp=“1391141274”]
… the actual POW is who work hard enough to find the solution.
[/quote]This would give a lot of power to the ‘big wales’, a very big drawback for me.
-
[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“52165” timestamp=“1389720303”]
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6861.msg52126#msg52126 date=1389711177]
“Loyal network”
[/quote]Go onnnn. What is this “loyal network” of which you speak?
[/quote]That is my cuddly name for “loyal miners” who just mine Feathercoin, and don’t try to coin hop to manipulate the Difficulty calculation.
-
[quote name=“groll” post=“56200” timestamp=“1391141274”]
paxos is a very useful distributed voting, but it lacks one big thing for coins the notions of attacker node that is one of the problem of coins.someone can setup millions of voting nodes to say yes so win the concensus but those node are attacker node. coin own in POS is a way to minimized this and replace it by who own more coins. the actual POW is who work hard enough to find the solution.
[/quote]Just saying that distributed consensus with adversaries, however defined, is fairly well researched. I am sure POS or POW can be incorporated. CCs strike me as an area ripe for application.
-
I’d like to see this happen. While ACP has been something to add security against good old 51% and was something that I liked. It does centralize FTC which I think is ultimately what is holding it back from its true market potential.
-
Will be replaced by ACP DCP , Is it true ?
-
I’d like to see this happen. While ACP has been something to add security against good old 51% and was something that I liked. It does centralize FTC which I think is ultimately what is holding it back from its true market potential.
I agree. It’s that big chunk of news that will get the nay sayers talking.
-
How are we coming along with this?
Just wondering if it was all still in the works.
-
I think, it is still in the queue, but other things cought more focus, e.g. new website and the fluctuating difficulty
-
For sure ahy. The new site taking priority was the right way to go. The difficulty issue should be the next. After that, eliminating ACP would be next I suppose.
-
ACP should not be eliminated. Only the number of trusted ACP centers should increase.
-
ACP should not be eliminated. Only the number of trusted ACP centers should increase.
One step towards decentralisation is better than none. Personally though I’d like to see it entirely decentralised.
