31–40 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you want to totally eliminate counter party risk or execute an unstoppable transaction. Most use cases do not require these benefits.
Unstoppable transaction is not a benefit.
Sure, the powers of the world that want to engage in financial censorship probably don't think of unstoppable transactions as benefit.
But the people that oppose censorship certainly do think of it as a benefit.
I propose "whatcoin", a cryptocurrency designed to create a market for peer to peer media sharing based on the upload/download ratio model used by what.cd and other private torrent trackers to incentive seeding and penalize leeching.
The whatcoin "blockchain" has a catalogue of all currently available music on the platform, so it doubles as the tracker and transaction ledger. The catalogue can have multiple copies of albums sorted by the specific release and the quality (lossless FLAC, lossy 320kbps, etc).
So let's say you want to download a FLAC formatted 1988 MFSL release of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album. You'll pay a specific amount of whatcoin from your own wallet based on the size of the files being downloaded, which will be distributed to the seeders you peer with. You'll also pay a network transaction cost.
The network transaction costs fund the "miners", or those who upload new, verified releases that are not on the whatcoin network yet. Those who upload the music are also strongly incentivized to continue seeding it, because they will be paid whatcoin inversely proportional to the number of other available seeders for the same files whenever someone chooses to download them. So the more exclusive the media is, the more lucrative it will be to host it.
Seeders will be paid for uploading media and leechers will pay for downloading media; leechers can then earn more whatcoin by continuing to seed the media they've just downloaded. Each upload/download transaction is recorded on the whatcoin network, and the greatest economic opportunity is available to those who can upload popular new media and then seed it very early on.
This proposal is similar to Filecoin, but you're paying to download new media instead of to store your own and retrieve it later. It also adds the extremely high fidelity media cataloguing that some private trackers have achieved. You could market it to the MPAA or RIAA as an "enterprise blockchain" the way banks are currently investigating it. The studios would be paid for new media they bring onto the platform, and indie artists could be paid for bringing their media onto the network instead of, say, SoundCloud or Bandcamp. If the media is popular enough then the original uploaders are heavily compensated and their hosting costs decrease over time, because there will be other seeders to maintain the media.
If large media firms didn't go for this immediately, you could try and take this concept and ICO with it. Then start competing with Bandcamp and SoundCloud to capture the indie market. With the ICO funding and notoriety in that space, try to take on the RIAA.
> Blockchain, however, handles conflict resolution in quite a different way. If there is a net-split between Europe and the USA and two versions of the database emerge, it simply decides on re-connection to keep the entirety of the version that has received more traffic during the disruption (aka the longer chain). This means if the USA version wins, all of the modifications in the European version, even if there are…
I have a use case for a new blockchain/cryptocurrency that I think is cool. Feel free to take the idea from me and implement it for an ICO :) I propose "whatcoin", a cryptocurrency designed to create a market for peer to peer media sharing based on the upload/download ratio model used by what.cd and other private torrent trackers to incentive seeding and penalize leeching. The whatcoin "blockchain" has a catalogue of…
Hmmm. Under this scenario, though, wouldn't the major labels be losing out when others host their files? They may have an incentive to place music on the chain, but if I read you right, when others host the same files, the labels' share of whatcoin for those files declines.
> Blockchain, however, handles conflict resolution in quite a different way. If there is a net-split between Europe and the USA and two versions of the database emerge, it simply decides on re-connection to keep the entirety of the version that has received more traffic during the disruption (aka the longer chain). This means if the USA version wins, all of the modifications in the European version, even if there are…
So you could say that the connected component of the netsplit graph with the highest hashrate will win with the highest probability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof of work does not elect the next miner. Proof of work means that the lucky random miner has invested energy on a previous valid block, and is lucky enough to find another valid block. If you take that away, you could as well use a database and a trusted timestamp server.
No, that's a false dichotomy. And also the "lucky" is relative to the whole scheme. The value to the miner of finding a hash to make another block has gone down and will continue to go down, that's partly why transaction fees are so high. In any case, that's like saying someone is "lucky" to win a video game in Dave and Buster's. That's not the only way to incentivize validators to timestamp transactions. All you rea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you want to totally eliminate counter party risk or execute an unstoppable transaction. Most use cases do not require these benefits.
Unstoppable transaction is not a benefit.
TL/DR: "If Byzantine Fault Tolerance [0] does not create a huge advantage for your use-case, it is unlikely blockchain makes sense to consider over a traditional database." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance
Though many new "blockchain" systems do achieve BFT (perhaps most notably Tendermint, which seems to be passing aphyr's Jepsen tests with flying colors), it's important to keep in mind Bitcoin falls short of achieving it: https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/765.pdf "Regarding BA, we observe that Nakamoto’s suggestion falls short of solving it, and present a simple alternative which works assuming that the adversary’s hashin…
Besides , how many times in history a continental network partition of the internet has happened?
And it would only take a single node connected to both sides (land and satellite?), to undo all the work of the would be attacker.
The other major issue with Blockchain is that "all nodes can see everything". This is theoretically a problem with distributed databases as well. However, in the case of distributed databases, the database nodes that can "see everything" are not the end user, whereas, in Blockchain because the nodes are untrusted, one must assume that the end user can see the entire Blockchain state. This limits the number of use-cas…
We're working on 5), a privacy option for public blockchains using secure multi party computation. Few application trade-offs (mostly around availability logic and additional cost), no private or trusted chains.
Garbled circuits don't scale.