Amoveo ♥🧿
29 July 2019
Z
17:16
Zack
erl
17:16
Starts a new erlang she'll
17:16
Or maybe erl --version
17:17
erl -v
S
17:17
Sy
Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.2]
Z
17:17
Zack
Great
So you are using Ubuntu 18 probably
S
17:17
Sy
yes
17:17
but im running all my nodes with v20 since the day i joined :D
Z
17:17
Zack
Haha
S
17:18
Sy
i just installed erlang via apt, never checked
17:18
so yeah, thats running 😂
Z
17:18
Zack
The newer Ubuntu worked all along, I just never tried it
S
17:18
Sy
looks like the fpga miners are back, probably sniping lowdiff...
17:18
have been gone for almost 48h now
Z
17:19
Zack
Well, at least we don't waste so much bandwidth during install now. And we have the newer cowboy and jiffy versions
S
17:19
Sy
👍
Z
17:21
Zack
In reply to this message
If they have a strategy like that, it is more likely that they are using Veo while they wait for the difficulty in another blockchain to drop.

Our retargetting is so fast, you can't do stuff like this against us very effectively.
17:23
If they were doing this to us specifically, I think they would only mine about 20 blocks, then disappear for 100 blocks or so.
S
17:23
Sy
true, the retarget is pretty fast
Z
17:25
Zack
If we are acting as the support for these actors attacking other blockchains, it is like amoveo is indirectly fighting the other blockchains.
17:25
We are benefiting from increased hashpower at lower price per hash
17:28
It's like amoveo is aggressively siphoning value away from other blockchains. Like a predatory creature in this new environment.
17:28
Without any intention from any of the users
17:35
Oscillations in the electromagnetic field are light waves, which transfer energy from one electron to another.
2 electrons connected across space time, vibrating in sync.

Synchronized oscillations in the relative difficulty of different blockchains creates a kind of wave that transfers value from one blockchain to another.
Laura invited Laura
Z
17:43
Zack
Let's calculate the portion of the attackers revenue which goes to amoveo.

If he can get a 2x advantage by spending only 1/4 of his time on some other altcoin.
So he can spend 3/4 of the time mining Veo, and make as much total profit as someone who spends 125% of their time mining Veo.
That means they would mine Veo at a 25% lower price than a miner who was not attacking anyone.

So, with the numbers from this example, it means hashpower would be about 25% higher, so the value of new Veo being produced should be higher.

And it costs ~25% more to attack our consensus mechanism.
L
18:00
Laura
Hi Admin
18:00
Does veo make any premine and ICO before?
Z
18:00
Zack
No premine. No ico.
DV
18:27
Denis Voskvitsov
https://medium.com/numerai/introducing-erasurebay-7a5de91b78d2

Numerai introduced marketplace of paid oracle-like entities.

how do you think, is use case like this possible for Amoveo?
Z
18:36
Zack
In reply to this message
it sounds like these are the steps:
1) I do a proof of existence of my data by recording a Merkel root onto a blockchain like bitcoin.
2) I make a contract so that I will get paid if and only if I reveal the data that I had hashed.
3) I reveal the data to get paid.


Yes I can build this easily on amoveo. But i will not.
No one wants a tool like that.
18:38
It's crazy. People just bundle up random cryptoeconomic tools and then sell it as a product.

I think that product development should be driven by the needs of users.

Bundling up random features and then looking for a customer after the fact is not a viable way to build a useful product.
18:41
Looking at their examples:

1) deal ideas
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in entrepreneurship and investing. The idea is free, or even cheaper than free. You can earn profit by spending time listening to people's business ideas, you shouldn't pay for something that you can get paid to do.
18:46
2) due diligence.
A prediction market is excessively superior at predicting whether fraud will be uncovered, in comparison to sending your bitcoin to an anonymous person who claims to be very smart.

Dominant assurance contracts are the ideal way to for someone to anonymously reveal fraud. That way anyone can reveal the info to take the prize.

3) Whistle blowing.
Again, prediction markets and dominant assurance contracts are the ideal tools.
Sending your money to a stranger online should never be option we consider.
Blockchains exist so we don't need reputation or trust any more.
AK
18:47
Alexey Kanakhin
In reply to this message
This is a gold one. There are a lot of people, usually "genius" engineers, who want to sell their ideas. It doesn't work like that. Especially, if someone built a working product, enterprneur should invest some money for marketing, or noone will know anything about this good working product.
Z
18:50
Zack
Sending your money to an anonymous person in Africa, because their anonymous identity has such good reputation.
This is not very different from the prince of Nigeria scam.
I
18:51
Instinct
In reply to this message
😂
Z
19:00
Zack
Another big disadvantage of this tool vs prediction markets: A person who has studied something like Math or Economics for many years, he can use his specialized knowledge to make more accurate predictions about what will happen.
With a prediction market, he could sell this info by simply making profitable trades in the market.

With the tool from this article, there would be no way to sell the info. He could put the merkel root of all the books and scientific papers he learned during his career, but no one will accept that as valid evidence.
19:04
reputation, at best can provide 3.2 level security.
it will always be orders of magnitude more expensive than Amoveo oracles.

But in this case, even 3.2 is not achieved.
For example, I could make 1000 accounts with their system, and make different predictions with each account. Some of them will be correct randomly, so those accounts will have high reputation, and I can do retirement attacks to convert that reputation into a fungible form.
Z
21:01
Zack
@ALGO94 was hired by exan.tech to be a community manager for Amoveo.
I have been talking to him, and it is clear that he is the kind of person who is capable of thinking in terms of incentives, and he already has an understanding of derivatives markets.
We are lucky to have such competent people involved in Amoveo.
A
21:02
ALGO
Zack Thank you for the kind words, glad to be here and assisting the project move forward. I will look to continue to grow my involvement and participation in the community as time goes on. 👌
B
22:00
Ben
nice, welcome
22:03
Deleted Account
Welcome @ALGO94
ŽM
22:22
Živojin Mirić
Congratz Zack for accepting this
22:22
I wonder what @ZackatronTheArchangel thinks about this...
Z
22:42
Zack
I didn't accept or not accept anything.
exan.tech is not in my control. I don't even know very much about them.
B
22:50
Ben
which is a pitty, looks like they are number one contributer to your project beside yourself
22:51
btw. i just funded the remaining 18.5 Veo for the Wallet Devlopment which you were not interested to fund.
DV
22:53
Denis Voskvitsov
thanks Ben! I hope we'll be able to deliver all the features in time
B
22:56
Ben
you will make it ;)
ŽM
23:10
Živojin Mirić
In reply to this message
So a community manager won't have privileges on "official" amoveo telegram group?
Z
23:17
Zack
Sure, they have the privilege to make posts. Just like everyone else.
?
23:30
🤠Anton
In reply to this message
😮
23:31
In reply to this message
🔥 good luck @ALGO94 !
30 July 2019
LEO (aka NEO) invited LEO (aka NEO)
Deleted invited Deleted Account
S
04:25
Sy
@tangentially1 use qtrade.io or a1 - no trades in telegram
DV
04:35
Denis Voskvitsov
only trade in telegram if you trade with @ExchangeAmoveo_bot :)
S
07:43
Sebsebzen
In reply to this message
Can confirm this works quite well. Tried it yesterday
AK
21:52
A K
Just caught up with the discussion ) 1. @jadefalkebtc super thanks for showing support to exan tech guys 2. @denis_voskvitsov include me in the nex DAC please 3. Current system, where futarchy market is supposed to determine the correct govt oracle outcome, but nobody can look into the futarchy - can not work 4. Zack When Ben and I commit funds to a DAC, would you also say we worked some of our time for free? Cos you know, we have to buy / mine these VEOs we commit somehow... You comment re "I would have worked for free" applies to any backer of any DAC ever and is just so wrong.
21:53
@jadefalkebtc has the gov oracle been resolved by now btw? I'm super inclined to bet with you against raising the reward just to show how wrong the current system is
DV
21:54
Denis Voskvitsov
@Malaclypse sure, np. thanks for your support!
we're planning to publish next DACs on https://forum.amoveo.io/c/contracts-oracles-bets just like current one
S
22:00
SSDD
In case you missed it 👌
S
22:00
SSDD
A
Amoveo News 30.07.2019 21:39:40
This week's newsletter covers new video from Zack Hess, Buterin's opinion on futarchy, discussion of the best use case for Amoveo and much more.

Read more about it here: https://amoveo.substack.com/p/20-vitalik-buterin-about-futarchy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
A
22:09
ALGO
In reply to this message
Thanks for sharing!
S
22:11
SSDD
In reply to this message
u welcome 😉
MF
23:05
Mr Flintstone
why do you guys think nobody can know the result of a futarchy market?
23:05
not exactly sure I understand the argument
AK
23:10
A K
Zack said so?
MF
23:10
Mr Flintstone
I’m not sure that’s exactly what was said
23:11
the whole point of the process is to create strong evidence for making some decision for the group
AK
23:11
A K
how can one check the details of the expired market re gov oracle that according to Zack favours block increase?
MF
23:12
Mr Flintstone
sure
23:12
if you know that a trade was valid, and it was posted in a public place, and it doesn’t end up on chain
23:12
that is not hard to check
AK
23:12
A K
let's check this exact market pls?
MF
23:13
Mr Flintstone
well, the trade isn’t valid anymore, but it was posted on twitter, on zacks website, and here
23:13
we can do another one to lower the block reward again soon
AK
23:13
A K
that's circumstantial evidence )
23:13
no ?
23:14
you mean, it was posted and nobody took it? that's the argument?
MF
23:14
Mr Flintstone
the idea is that we can come to consensus about things that happened, it’s the same way the oracle works
23:14
In reply to this message
right
AK
23:14
A K
I find it super weak
MF
23:14
Mr Flintstone
this puts a bound on the possible price of the asset
AK
23:14
A K
i don't see how it can work ...
23:15
like, we here can't come to an agreement re the outcome of this trade
23:15
even if you consider me and Ben to be err not proficient enough
23:15
it just shows this system can't work
23:15
period
MF
23:19
Mr Flintstone
well if nobody was paying attention then you can’t come to agreement
23:19
if you didn’t know the rules of the game before, you can’t rly complain that the game wasn’t played fairly
B
23:20
Ben
the whole System currently is super artificial.
MF
23:20
Mr Flintstone
but now that people are more aware there isn’t a reason why it should work that way again
B
23:20
Ben
it is not even clear how to interpret the result, what is the source where we determine the price?
23:21
and think about the other gov variables, how would futarchy work there?
23:21
totaly unclear
MF
23:21
Mr Flintstone
it can be anything. if a source is bad, then the strength of evidence is lower
B
23:21
Ben
there is no evidence at all
MF
23:21
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
This is evidence
B
23:22
Ben
that is not an evidence.
MF
23:22
Mr Flintstone
yes it is. if nobody takes a trade, it means the market price of the asset being traded is bounded within the group of people that knew about this trade
23:23
I agree that the last futarchy market was not strong evidence at all, and told Zack this as soon as it “finalized”
23:23
I even tried to match the bet, but my tx got lost in the mempool
AK
23:23
A K
ah ok, if we're now discussing whether theres' 0 evidence vs some evidence - that's not what matters i guess
B
23:23
Ben
currently the whole futarchy system is so bad designed that not even a hand full of people are able to use it.
AK
23:23
A K
i can agree there's been non-zero evidence
23:24
totally not sufficient to adjust the oracle though
MF
23:24
Mr Flintstone
agreed
23:24
I have not disputed this point
B
23:24
Ben
and if we want to base the core variables of the coin on it we need to have clear boundry how that system is working.
23:25
zack made a first step in documenting an example but there is still way to go.
23:25
and the result of the futarchy has to be somehow recorded.
23:25
either via meta layer in a block or in a central place.
MF
23:26
Mr Flintstone
the community can know the result of a market just like it can know who won a football game
23:26
currently, the central place is zacks website
B
23:27
Ben
for a football game there is an results that you can query via api from the national league. only that counts as example for betting agency
23:28
zacks website is only valid as long as the market is running, right?
MF
23:28
Mr Flintstone
I think trades could be on twitter too, or on this telegram, and the market would still be valid
23:28
but yeah, I think the evidence is only strong while the market is open
B
23:29
Ben
and that is not enough
23:29
because you cannot prove that my bet in the gov oracle is false
MF
23:30
Mr Flintstone
you made it to “unchanged” right?
23:30
not “increase”
B
23:30
Ben
yeah
23:30
but then zack pressured me to change it back
23:30
which i did since he wanted to fork or steal my money
MF
23:30
Mr Flintstone
we don’t need to prove much. it seems clear to me that the standard of evidence that was used to increase the block reward was not sufficient
23:31
which can be reinforced with an additional market
B
23:31
Ben
no running the market in the current form is pointless
MF
23:31
Mr Flintstone
I don’t agree with that
23:31
you know about it now, so does A K
23:31
so do more people reading this
23:31
and understand the implications
B
23:31
Ben
it is not human understandable and we have not even defined what the source is againt we would like to resolve
23:32
i tried to create one and failed.
MF
23:32
Mr Flintstone
qtrade price seems good enough to me
B
23:32
Ben
yeah, but is that common sense?
23:32
it is nowhere mentioned.
MF
23:33
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
mentioned where? sorry
B
23:33
Ben
you think qtrade is ok, i think A1, MK Vinex. who is right (just as an example)
MF
23:34
Mr Flintstone
well, if you use those, then people may not hold your evidence in high regard so it may be difficult to change anything
23:34
it is hard to know exactly what will happen, but it is easy to say if the evidence is bad nothing should change
B
23:34
Ben
thats why i said we need boundry.
23:35
thats why futarchy in the current state is not a good idea.
23:35
+ there is no direct link to gov_oracle and we have second betting round
MF
23:35
Mr Flintstone
So you don’t think it is possible to create strong evidence, even if there are not agreed upon hard boundaries
B
23:36
Ben
i think we need more expierince and a better user interface to base our most important decisions on this System
23:36
it is possible but not in the current state
AK
23:39
A K
personally I agree with Ben, betting in the gov oracle directly is straightforward
23:40
and if a better is unsure how to bet and wants to obtain some intelligence via futarchy, it's ok for him/her to do so
23:40
and if i want to bet all my VEOs without consulting a futarchy market, which might be dumb in Zack pov, I should be allowed to
23:41
and if I still win vs a better who consulted a futarchy market, a decision must hold without any fork threats
23:41
veo talks, bullshit walks )
MF
23:41
Mr Flintstone
I think the governance oracle should only be used for reporting the outcome
Z
23:41
Zack
Futarchy is a mechanism designed to find out which choice results in a high price of Veo.
The Oracle is only for reporting our decision to the blockchain. The Oracle cannot be used to find out which choice will result in a higher price.
AK
23:42
A K
Zack, I can say I ran a futarchy market that convinced me
23:42
i just didn't share it with you
23:42
what changes...
23:43
would it be OK with you then?
B
23:43
Ben
in current state the futarchy will find out nothing, since there is no user base, nor is the user base educted enough to use the UI (or the UI need to improve) + the boundry of the futarchy are to vague
Z
23:43
Zack
Before I had made a proposal, I still think it's our best plan for now.
We should set up some reputation based servers to hold historical records.
So we can have 3.2 guarantees about the results for historical futarchy markets.
I think this will give enough security for our needs.
AK
23:44
A K
that's something at least, so discussion is productive
23:44
why centralized vs some onchain storage?
Z
23:44
Zack
This way we don't have to compromise on the scalability benefits of off chain contracts.
AK
23:44
A K
we can bet offchain and record results onchain?
B
23:45
Ben
yeah, sounds like step in the right direction
Z
23:45
Zack
Keeping it off-chain also gives us a lot more cycles to compute. We won't have issues with gas.
So we can afford to do single price batches.
23:45
Keeping it off-chain is necessary if we want to be compatible with the sortition chain plan.
23:51
I nearly bricked my computer while trying to update ubuntu to 18.04
I couldn't boot the computer, I couldn't boot from a live USB.
I had to make a live usb with a read-write file system, and rename one of the files, and then the computer would boot.

I wasted more than a day on maintenance for my laptop.
B
23:53
Ben
for that reason i use macos
31 July 2019
Deleted invited Deleted Account
YY
04:34
Ya Ya
Hi Zack, have you ever written reviews on witnet?
Z
04:38
Zack
I'm not sure. Probably not.
YY
04:46
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Ok let me know if you have, I'm curious
T
05:07
Tromp
In reply to this message
Que dice el profe
YY
05:19
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Que?
T
05:19
Tromp
In reply to this message
Uem postgrado
YY
05:20
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Si si
05:20
Yo no hablo Español
T
05:25
Tromp
In reply to this message
Saludos
Z
15:57
Zack
In reply to this message
im looking through their white paper now.
Very interesting stuff, thank you for sharing. I will make a review soon.
YY
15:59
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Great!
B
16:04
Ben
i shared that one btw. 2 month before and you said it is not worth to have a look :P
Z
16:13
Zack
haha
AS
16:16
Adán SDPC
@guideltoshi that guy is a friendly impersonator, not me haha
Z
16:17
Zack
@adansdpc can you answer my question about witnet?
AS
16:19
Adán SDPC
Sure, I'll make sure to spare some time today to answer thoroughly
Tomas invited Tomas
Z
16:21
Zack
it looks like the reveal-redeem transaction type exactly contradicts your goal that it be impossible for them to prove how they voted
16:21
by definition, the reveal-redeem transaction is them revealing how they voted.
M
16:22
M
glad to have so many oracle problem masterminds in the same chat
16:22
welcome adan :) im a huge fan of your project
P invited P
Gorka invited Gorka
Mario invited Mario
YY
16:25
Ya Ya
I have seen your work before zack regarding chainlink, and it really fits the project. Made me curious about what you think about witnet! Chainlink is a very strange solution that doesn't seem viable in the long run
16:25
Can't wait for the review
M
16:25
M
In reply to this message
i fully agree
16:26
chainlink had a partnership with some sketchy company called sillyqa today
16:26
i dont trust it
Z
17:11
Zack
In reply to this message
I mistakenly thought that all their nodes were looking up all the oracle results, and censoring block creators who reported an oracle wrong. A very exciting design, similar to what the Komodo dev is researching.
But on further reflection I see I was mistaken. This appears to be a bitcoin hivemind clone with some important security features stripped out in a misguided attempt to make it more scalable. Which is not so different from how Augur came to be.
YY
17:15
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Very nice! Reading now
17:17
Oh this is quite a letdown... Is it really this bad?
Luis Rubio invited Luis Rubio
Deleted invited Deleted Account
AS
19:03
Adán SDPC
the report is being discussed in the Witnet Community group, feel free to join!
Z
19:04
Zack
does that mean you are ready to start discussing? I thought you couldn't answer my questions and didn't have time.
Jack invited Jack
Z
19:13
Zack
podemos usar castellano si prefieras @adansdpc
19:21
I guess it is 13:20 in Spain where Witnet is located
19:23
Maybe they are all having a ciesta.
19:45
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
lmao
M
19:46
M
In reply to this message
this
T
19:51
Tromp
In reply to this message
LOL
A
19:52
Avi 🌪
In reply to this message
Wow witnet btfo by amoveo
19:52
Clearly the leading oracle network in this space.
Z
19:55
Zack
If I review them, it will help them organize their documentation and make a more straightforward case for the security of their oracle, and it will help me to understand oracles better. It helps spread ideas between our communities.
This is a socially-positive cooperative type activity.
We are all working together towards a brighter future.
A
19:56
Avi 🌪
In reply to this message
Absolutely, we are all in this together.
I'd also take this stage to say that you should never underestimate the power of positive thoughts.
M
20:02
M
In reply to this message
i agree
A
21:48
ALGO
Z
Zack 06.05.2019 05:56:28
http://139.59.144.76:8090/main.html
Here is the website so you can post channel offers and browse through existing valid channel offers.

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo you can learn more about amoveo here
DV
21:50
Denis Voskvitsov
btw, we have the same p2p derivative explorer on our node too, in case Zack's one is unavailable or so: http://amoveo.exan.tech/p2p/
lang lvzi invited lang lvzi
Z
22:08
Zack
In reply to this message
That's great :)
Thanks for testing it out. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions or difficulties
DV
22:09
Denis Voskvitsov
np, it just works :)
I guess we'll have some nice UI for that backend integrated into our web wallet soon
Z
22:10
Zack
In reply to this message
sounds great. going back and forth between that page and the light node is a pain point.
B
22:12
Ben
In reply to this message
i hope also for the mac wallet
22:12
i hate web wallet
22:13
i never trust them
Z
22:14
Zack
In reply to this message
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/light-node-amoveo you can download the light node and run it from your own computer. You can use it for cold storage.
DV
22:16
Denis Voskvitsov
In reply to this message
totally understand you. minor desktop app update that we've discussed before should be available a bit later today.
and we'll try to keep its version up to date with web one in future
B
22:33
Ben
roger that, good to hear.
22:33
Zack thanks i know that but i meant a real wallet.
MF
23:17
Mr Flintstone
cool stuff!
1 August 2019
Z9
00:33
Zackatron 9000
Did Witnet manage to rebut Master Zack's thesis, or answer his questions at the very least? All I heard was crickets and tumbleweeds after he laid waste to their chat.
Š
00:38
Šea
Can someone share witnet tg channel link pls
00:39
Or send in dm if its not allowed to post links here
YY
00:41
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Not yet, stay tuned
Š
00:44
Šea
Hm, yeah a lot of questions unanswered there
00:45
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
lmao
Š
00:59
Šea
So the guys cant answer stuff for the whole day now
00:59
And Zack wrote review about it in a day lol
Yarci 🇸🇴 invited Yarci 🇸🇴
Y
01:12
Yarci 🇸🇴
Guys, so I should not go all-in Wiznet, im confused right now? I thought Witnez was definitely superiur to Chainlin, what other uracles are there out there somewhere?
B
01:12
Ben
amoveo,augur and some other
Y
01:13
Yarci 🇸🇴
thanks Ben
B
01:13
Ben
yq
Y
01:13
Yarci 🇸🇴
Amoveo already on mainnet?
B
01:13
Ben
yw
01:13
yep
Y
01:13
Yarci 🇸🇴
Awesome!
Š
01:17
Šea
In reply to this message
Hah you are probably trolling
01:17
Good one
Y
01:17
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
why?
Š
01:18
Šea
All in, wiznet, witnez, uracles, chainlin😂
Y
01:18
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
im dislectyc
01:18
sry
Š
01:19
Šea
All good, i still think you are troll
Qurbonov Maqsud invited Qurbonov Maqsud
MF
01:37
Mr Flintstone
ledger supports veo now?
YY
01:38
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Really?
01:39
1 step ahead of witnet!
AS
01:41
Adán SDPC
Zack posted today some interesting questions about the Witnet protocol. Here you have the answers!
https://gist.github.com/girazoki/98eab6b116fc25e5d4bcd38ee7f0d5f8
I
01:42
Instinct
In reply to this message
Where'd you see that?
DV
01:57
Denis Voskvitsov
they've freezed their review process (they keep saying this to me at least), so our ledger app is still not approved.
so I'm interested too where you can see that
MF
02:08
Mr Flintstone
there are instructions on myveowallet.com
02:08
maybe I am misunderstanding
DV
02:11
Denis Voskvitsov
ah, yes, it's a bit misleading
it's needed to pass a review, but we really have to add there that the feature isn't actually available
DV
04:14
Denis Voskvitsov
DV
Denis Voskvitsov 01.08.2019 04:13:59
We've finally updated Amoveo Wallet desktop apps!

It's mostly bugfix release, so I'd suggest you to install this update.

Download links
Windows: https://myveowallet.com/desktop/win/latest
macOS X: https://myveowallet.com/desktop/osx/latest
Linux: https://myveowallet.com/desktop/linux/latest

Please note, despite there is hardware wallet option available, the Ledger app itself isn't approved and available yet.
JS
04:17
Jon Snow
Awesome!
A
04:27
ALGO
In reply to this message
Well done
Deleted invited Deleted Account
S
05:41
Sebsebzen
In reply to this message
Is it open source?
DV
05:44
Denis Voskvitsov
sure. there is github link right on the main screen.

https://github.com/amoveo-project/js-web-wallet
Z
06:21
Zack
In reply to this message
Thanks for the response Adan. I added a link to this response in the review document https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/witnet.md
YY
06:24
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Very nice collaboration guys! Would love to see Adan's view on amoveo in a similar style
Z
08:49
Zack
Looks like about 50 people from Witnet looked at Amoveo's github today. They looked at about 6 pages each on average.
Z
09:13
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/basics/blockchain_war.md
It seems like Amoveo is attacking one of the other blockchains. I wrote a report about what is happening, why it is happening, and what this means in the greater blockchain ecosystem.
09:14
It would be cool if we could find out what blockchain(s) we are attacking.
09:15
Deleted Account
hi gents
09:16
now i'm reading about bitcoin hivemind and have some questions, maybe smb knows
09:16
for a tome I thought that Hivemind uses reputation token VOT
Z
09:17
Zack
I am happy to discuss bitcoin hivemind, but you might get better info if you ask someone in that community.
I guess you could consider us to be competitors of bitcoin hivemind, and so that will give us a particular bias.
09:17
Deleted Account
however, today I've discovered that VOT is a token of another system, Votecoin
Z
09:17
Zack
Hivemind has not launched mainnet yet. there is no tradable hivemind token.
09:17
Deleted Account
https://votecoin.site/
Z
09:18
Zack
zerocoin is a completely different blockchain, they just happen to call their tokens "votecoin".
09:18
Deleted Account
I understand your bias so making some correction on it)
Z
09:18
Zack
You can't invest in Hivemind yet, except by buying Bitcoins.
09:18
as far as I know
09:20
Deleted Account
anyway, you have just answered for most important question: jivemind is still not trateable, so Paul can call his token VOT, but for exchange sites this means nothing
09:20
Project ICO did not took place too I guess
Z
09:21
Zack
yes, you got it.
09:25
Deleted Account
ochen zhal (in Russian: what a pity). Paul is well known as a very talented person
09:25
but maybe not so good businessman
Z
09:25
Zack
"votecoin" is just a name.
The bitcoin hivemind community can come up with many more names if they need to.
09:26
Deleted Account
Afaik, new projected name for token is Hive
09:27
and VOT is already here https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/votecoin/
Z
09:28
Zack
In reply to this message
this project is very small.
I think Bitcoin Hivemind could use the name "votecoin", and it wouldn't matter that this tiny project exists.
09:30
Deleted Account
when did you started to work on VEO?
Z
09:31
Zack
I started working on blockchain prediction market technology at the end of 2013.
09:32
Deleted Account
and VEO, in particular?
09:32
2017?
Z
09:32
Zack
At some point the project got named "Amoveo", but it has been the same software continuously developed since the end of 2013
09:33
We launched Amoveo mainnet on 2 March 2018
09:33
Deleted Account
I know this, yes. But when did you descided to make you own project independent from AE and Aug?
Z
09:35
Zack
I decided to make a prediction market blockchain before AE or Augur ever existed.
Each of those teams decided to help me for a while, then they decided to give up and do something different.
09:39
Deleted Account
I'm simply composing a table about various PM & similar projects, including such parameters as

Underlying Network (eg ETH for Aug)
Tokens/Currencies (eg ETH, REP)
Start of development (eg 2014 fo Augur)
ICO
Beginning of token trade
Mainnet start
Types of oracles

etc
Z
09:41
Zack
Maybe make it like a evolutionary tree.
truthcoin is the original ancestor.
Amoveo split from truthcoin in 2013.
Augur split from Amoveo in like 2014? I don't remember exactly when.
AE split from Amoveo in like 2017? I am not sure of the date.
09:42
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/why_I_left.md looks like August 2017 AE finally completely abandoned the goals of Amoveo.
09:51
Deleted Account
thank you! tree-like structure is useful
09:53
and when veo tokens were accepted to at least one exchange?
09:53
july>?
09:53
may?
Z
09:54
Zack
I think either qtrade.io or a1 exchange was first. so we can look at their historical records
09:55
17-7-2018 is when trading on qtrade started
09:56
I think qtrade was first. I cant find history on a1-exchange
09:58
Deleted Account
thatnks
09:59
If you have no objections, maybe you can tell some similar information of GNO, STO, CND and NBOT?
10:00
when were they started (main net, trades, influence of other projects etc.)?
10:01
afaik GNO was stardet in 2016
10:02
ico in 2017
10:02
but don't know under whose influence
Z
10:04
Zack
I haven't heard of CNT or NBOT.
I met some of the Gnosis team members before.
They seemed to be interested in a variety of oracle designs, without getting locked-in to any particular method.
10:04
I think they spent more time thinking about the betting side of things.
10:04
you need a betting system and an oracle system together to enable derivatives, but a lot of these projects will focus their energy on one and not put effort into the other.
10:05
Augur and Hivemind focus so much on the oracle, and they didn't put much effort into trading.
10:06
Deleted Account
CINDICATOR (CND)
10:06
NAKA BODHI (NBOT)
Z
10:06
Zack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtD0ba-hXU
I think this talk is when we started to collectively realize that the market mechanism is important to get right too, just like the oracle.
N
10:15
NM$L
How's VEO going？
Z
10:22
Zack
good.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Z
12:21
Zack
We want to have smart contracts which can be aware of the non-existence of an oracle.
Currently we can only provide positive evidence to smart contracts.
This will need to be a hard update.
We need to do this hard update first as a necessary step towards the goal of eventually being able to bet on oracles that don't yet exist.
Z
12:59
Zack
I wish we could find out which other blockchain our fpga miners are using, to confirm if an attack is happening or not.
13:00
light is waves in the electromagnetic field that carry energy.
These waves are in the blockchain difficulties and they carry value.
EA
13:01
Eric Arsenault
Maybe someone will step up if you ask
Z
13:06
Zack
I think I have seen explorers for this data before. oh, ill ask in fpga channel on discord
B
13:21
Ben
there is more to thta scenario that you don't know zack
Z
13:21
Zack
what scenario?
Deleted invited Deleted Account
B
13:23
Ben
the company that manufacture this FPGA are creating them in batches. (500 or 1000 afaik) to not jeopardize the revenue of the potential Customer and to let the profit of the FPGA look good and shiny they mine often coins that are less profitable but can sustain high hash power (like amoveo)
If you want to understand more about the profitability of the Coins for the FPGA look up this side.
https://www.hashaltcoin.com/en/calculation
13:24
there Primary goal is to sell the FPGA, but while they are waiting for the new customer they use the gear make some money.
Z
13:25
Zack
great, thank you for the information Ben
B
13:26
Ben
yw
Z
13:38
Zack
we might have to make the blocks faster to survive the blockchain war
B
13:55
Ben
no we are good i guess
13:55
we don't have the most common threat
13:56
which is still nicehash
13:56
so random joe cannot attack us and even if nicehash would be a threat to us, the current algo is adjusting fast, the potential benefit is quite small
13:57
and since amoveo is emitting currently very few coins, it even better
Z
14:09
Zack
great
Z9
14:10
Zackatron 9000
What are the odds of Witnet performing an attack vector to see if Amoveo is really up to the task?
B
14:10
Ben
and we have evidence for that, when the nethash dropped 80% recently, the blocks kept moving almost on the same pace, maybe a 10% degradation
14:11
i think they have enough to do in their own garden ;)
Z9
14:11
Zackatron 9000
😂😂😂😂😂
D invited D
Z
15:37
Zack
In reply to this message
I wrote a hard update to supply negative evidence. But I am going to clean it up and do some refactoring before I officially propose the hard update to the network.
B
15:53
Ben
interesting, can you make an example for that new type?
Z
15:55
Zack
the smart contract can ask the result of an oracle, but currently if that oracle does not exist, then it would make the smart contract crash.
The desired behaviour is that the smart contract should be able to know if the oracle is existing or not.
B
16:09
Ben
roger that
Z
18:40
Zack
In reply to this message
I was able to remove 100 lines from spk.
CD
19:06
Crypt Dweller
definitely off-topic but 4chan came up with an interesting theory about how Chainlink is quietly dumping millions of tokens on Binance disguised as sales to its "partners" via Oracle. https://boards.4channel.org/biz/thread/15062117
19:08
The Chainlink story was always too good to be true. A technically unproven philosophy major hiring a few unknown devs suddenly solving one of the most important problems in crypto? Likely story.
S
19:53
Sy
someone can close the block reward oracle...
DV
19:54
Denis Voskvitsov
its done timer set to 76332 block right now, I'm not sure it can be closed
S
19:55
Sy
really? *sigh* i have to redo the explorer soon, something broke there
19:57
i think i will take the meta block, my existing database and just write everything from scratch, too much has changed
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Z
22:55
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/issues/260 this explains hard update 25. we need to merge this soon. if you dislike it, then we can do futarchy.
A
23:04
Avi 🌪
In reply to this message
Stay poor.
Y
23:28
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
Chainlin is just a json parser
2 August 2019
M
01:43
MH
In reply to this message
many projects partnering with them....are they all wrong?
JT
01:58
Jehan Tremback
PaRtNeRsHiPssss
Y
02:00
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
Literal who´s "partnering" means nothing. Chainluink is incsecyre, Zack explained this.
EA
02:00
Eric Arsenault
Partnerships is all that matter 🤑😂
JT
02:01
Jehan Tremback
PARTTTTNNEEERRSHIPPPs
M
02:01
MH
In reply to this message
incsecyre??
Y
02:02
Yarci 🇸🇴
insecure, sry
M
02:02
MH
So all those projects partnering with Chainlink are wrong.....ok
02:02
I am not a LINK investor
Z
02:03
Zack
In reply to this message
You are free to talk about other blockchains here in comparison to amoveo, but please don't repeat yourself unnecessarily. This is a kind of spam.
We read it the first time.
M
02:06
MH
looks like too radical ppl here.....good luck with this kind of mindset!
Z
02:06
Zack
Thank you for your encouragement :)
02:07
Deleted Account
VEO is cheap, zack is constantly grinding, amoveo works
02:07
whats not to love :)
02:07
we're on our way :D
Y
02:13
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
I agree. But chainlink isnot a Blockchain, riht?
CD
03:10
Crypt Dweller
all it takes a 1 bitcoin buy order to about double the price of VEO and return it to where it was before altcapitulationszn
03:10
If and when volume moves in, price will quickly volatilize in an upwards direction, as it has demonstrated time again in the past
S
03:11
Sy
only double?
CD
03:12
Crypt Dweller
1 bitcoin is absolutely nothing relative to the ambitions and potential of the project. Have a feeling these price will be looked back on one day as incomprehensible (assuming we don't futarchy ourselves into inflation)
S
03:12
Sy
true, one btc will push it to 0.0099 from the current 0065
CD
03:12
Crypt Dweller
well you know what i mean.
S
03:12
Sy
yeah
03:12
i mean we had 100k volume days not so long ago
03:12
it can go anyway anytime
SS
05:25
Spike Spiegel
What's the status on VEO based stablecoins?
05:25
I'm willing to experiment and get people to invest in them once it's tried and tested
05:26
Offer something higher than 13.38% per annum + some risk premium = almost unlimited capital flowing into Amoveo
Z
05:27
Zack
it works now, but it will be even nicer later
05:28
Trying it out with a small amount of money could help us learn useful information
SS
05:29
Spike Spiegel
I've seen first hand that people migrated from MakerCDP to Compound for 5% less per annum fee.

But for that one has to provide interface like this
Z
05:31
Zack
I don't understand that interface, but it looks simple enough to figure out quickly
SS
05:31
Spike Spiegel
You type how much you want to transfer from one protocol to another and it's working with one MetaMask click
05:34
1. You are right that cheaper protocol will outcompete the more expensive ( already proven by Veil, Maker etc.. )
2. Informing people that better alternative is required and people aren't perfectly rational in their actions as their knowledge is imperfect and cost to learn the alternative isn't zero
Z
05:35
Zack
If we can get to the point where the cost of advertising to bring in one more user is less than how much profit we get from adding a user, then we will be able to profitably do advertising and grow very quickly.
05:36
for this to work, each user needs to stick around long enough to generate enough profit to justify the advertising cost
SS
05:36
Spike Spiegel
How can Amoveo profit?
Z
05:37
Zack
whoever is paying for the advertisement can profit
05:37
probably funded with a DAC from people who expect to profit from the advertisement
SS
05:40
Spike Spiegel
I think that selling stablecoins paying better yield than Compound would be better than ads - if you can claim that product X gives always better rates then you don't need additional advertisement
05:40
But who will pay for that?
05:40
I lost shitload of money by buying expensive Amoveo
05:41
For whales spending few % on coordinated incentive via DAC would increase VEO price by more than few %
05:41
Diff = profit
05:42
But isn't this free option?
05:42
Say how much you would pay me if I would double the current VEO price
Z
05:43
Zack
I would pay you nothing
SS
05:43
Spike Spiegel
If it would be guaranteed?
05:44
I wonder why there is close to zero funding via DAC
05:44
Is this ineffective
Z
05:44
Zack
im motivated by making a good product that can improve people's lives, not by making a number bigger.
SS
05:45
Spike Spiegel
Well - increasing VEO price = improving people's lives
Z
05:45
Zack
that isn't how I see it
SS
05:46
Spike Spiegel
I feel that no amount of development will make people willing to buy veo
05:47
It will slowly go down to zero
05:47
Veo price and it's success is directly correlated because locking it for derivatives reduces the available supply
05:48
I wish that I would never bought them
JT
06:10
Jehan Tremback
This is a pretty emo take
06:10
but I kind of agree that we need some real uses of amoveo
06:11
if it's so much more efficient than other derivative platforms there should be some way to monetize that
06:11
and make traders want to use it
MF
06:45
Mr Flintstone
let’s see what happens once making bets is practically free and instant
06:47
then iteration will be cheap and quick
Deleted invited Deleted Account
11:04
Deleted Account
hello any admin here ?
B
13:10
Ben
In reply to this message
the Problem is not the Cost, it is the usability. so lets hope that exan tech will deliver mid auf August an Front end.
Z
14:57
Zack
In reply to this message
Cost is part of usability.

Right now, if you want to change part of your bet, you have to first publish a new oracle and wait for it to get included on-chain. Then you can make the new bet.

After the next upgrade, you can keep publishing new bets instantly, for free.
So if you made a wording mistake, you can fix it instantly for free.
It is a big usability enhancement.
JS
18:30
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
I’m actually really excited for this new upgrade. Very innovative. This one would really help the usability.
Z
19:06
Zack
https://veoscan.io/blocks
for last 2 days, no pool is >50%
19:11
In reply to this message
I got the idea from talking to the UMA dev haha.
It is a fairly basic application of merkelized data structures, known since at least 1979, it is actually embarrassing it took me this long to realize. We should have had this before the genesis block.

I think adaptability is more important than being able to predict the future. As long as we can easily add these features once we realize that we need them, it isn't so bad that we didn't have them from the start.
A
19:45
ALGO
A
Amoveo News 02.08.2019 19:45:22
New blog post on Medium!📝

This week on #3Question, we hear from Stefan George, a CTO & Co-founder at Gnosis.

Read it here: https://medium.com/amoveo/3questions-the-future-of-prediction-markets-with-stefan-george-19e2d8e4e570?source=friends_link&sk=bf6ef26e828781fbb80ae4eb8575a832
Z
20:11
Zack
In reply to this message
I got the refactoring done, and am doing final testing.
The main goal of the refactoring was to remove code duplication so that you could more easily verify that hard update 25 is doing what we want it to be doing.

Now we only look up the 25 hard update height in one place in the code, instead of before it was like 8 different places.
20:13
maybe the most liquid prediction market in the world
A
20:46
ALGO
Hey everyone, I am looking for community feedback in regard to website structure. We are in the process of developing an action plan to format the website in a different mannor. Right now we want to drive users to understand Amoveo for what it is. We see that as an experimental project based on driving forward academic and community driven research and development into Prediction Markets, Futarchy Governance, etc. based on top of blockchain as the driver for innovation and change surrounding the afformentioned concepts.
20:46
The new website would be more akin to something like https://www.cardano.org/ as apposed to just another cryptocurrency project hidden within the confines of coin marketcap.
20:48
The focus would be on both the blockchain development side, 'wallet, github, etc.' aswell as the academic/philisophical side behind PM's, futarchy, smart contracts, etc. Literature may include the following:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
http://bitcoinhivemind.com/papers/3_PM_Applications.pdf
20:49
Any feedback surrounding this initiative would be welcome. If you need more clarification please feel free to ask.
Z
20:54
Zack
In reply to this message
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/commit/d6884f928b7b7bf77bc69d6086a45da59371294f Here you can see the update that is removing all that duplicate code.
G
23:49
Gregor
In reply to this message
Numerai is doing just great and it is a solid project. On the hedge fund side of the business they are very successful and have good results. Data use cases are so numerous that Erasure can be useful. Not good for Amoveo to position itself Amoveo vs X, and X sucks. Amoveo is a good project and doesn’t need it. Live and let live.
3 August 2019
?
01:50
🤠Anton
In reply to this message
🔥
Z
01:56
Zack
Blockchain are not effective for assassination or other types of criminal markets. Paul Sztorc wrote about this:
http://bitcoinhivemind.com/papers/6_Crime_Markets.pdf
Z
02:12
Zack
@denis_voskvitsov great job! :)
S
02:22
Sebsebzen
Exan is like Consensys for Amoveo
02:22
Nice
Khandiiey invited Khandiiey
Deleted invited Deleted Account
JS
10:42
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
Not sure how you define success. Numerai last year return -4%
10:48
I meant Numerai’s hedge fund
Z
18:27
Zack
The ability to use oracles that haven't been created yet, it means that oracle questions are off-chain.

So the smart contract is off-chain in the state channel, and the oracle question is off-chain.
That means we can update both the oracle and the chalang parts of the smart contract instantly, without making any on-chain txs or paying any veo.

This gives us so much control over the smart contract. Both the oracle and the chalang code are turing complete, and we can have turing complete macro systems for each.
So we can have computation happening at
1) compile time
2) run time
3) oracle reporting time

There is a 3rd kind of time when computation is happening.
18:33
Maybe we need an integrated smart contract management system that compiles from a high level language that is easier to understand, and it automatically creates oracles and chalang contracts together so that the computation is optimally spread between them.
18:41
1) compile time computation can be in whatever high-level language we like. The current compiler uses a kind of lisp.
2) run time computation is happening on the chalang VM in a kind of forth.
3) oracle reporting time is written in English, or whatever communication style oracle reporters can understand. It is a bridge between the subjective physical world, and the objective digital world.

In many cases, we can freely choose to do part of the computation at any of the 3 steps.
We could do (+ 2 3) at compile time, and it would make a chalang contract that puts a 5 on the stack.
We could do 2 3 + at run time, and it will compute the 5 on the blockchain.
We could do the sum of 2 and 3 as a scalar oracle, and our smart contract would be able to look up the 5 from the consensus state space where the oracle reported the result.
18:49
if your partner cooperates to close the channel when you finish, then all the computation is off-chain, then it makes zero difference whether you did the computation at compile time, run time, or oracle time.
G
20:51
Gregor
In reply to this message
didn’t know they also have a hedge fund (just to be clear, i’m in no way affiliated). If you have any links for me to read, I’d be grateful. What I meant is that their offering works for hedge funds, they have engaged data scientists and have quite a vast partner network. But yes, it is open question if that can work for other data domains.
20:54
still, my point was not about numeraire really. It’s more that Amoveo is a good project and doesn’t need comparisons Amoveo vs. X, imho.
Z
21:04
Zack
This is the warning for hard update 25, which will enable smart contracts to look up the fact that an oracle or account does not exist.
You need to update your Amoveo full node before height 77500, which is in about 9 days.
JS
21:09
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
Yeah, agreed.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
4 August 2019
S
00:52
Sy
Someone here "good" with 3D Models? I want to print myself a shopping cart coin with the Amoveo Logo on it 😎
Z
00:56
Zack
I think Google has a in-browser tool for making 3d models
00:57
Solid works is pretty easy, if you are willing to do some piracy.
01:00
Can you already compile a model for your printer?
01:02
If you draw a good sketch I can make the model quick.
Either 3 2d angles or 1 3d image is fine
S
01:07
Sy
i was planning to use something like this
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2471213
01:08
then "carve" the logo in and done - which is probably quite easy if you have used 3d software before ^^
01:09
like this
Z
01:09
Zack
So, not a hole all the way through. You can only see the logo on one side?
S
01:23
Sy
i think both would work
Z
02:33
Zack
looks like the free google tool isn't free any more
Z
03:19
Zack
It's too time consuming, sorry.
S
03:22
Sy
np, thats why i asked for someone who does this more often
Z
04:18
Zack
I merged hard update 25 from master branch into experimental
04:19
next ill update the smart contracts for the new way of calculating ids.
Z
04:41
Zack
ive got to rewrite the scalar contract into lisp first, it is too hard to edit and test forth.
EA
13:28
Eric Arsenault
not sure if this is in the realm of possibilities, but could we leverage whatever these guys have done to integrate amoveo into Ethereum? https://medium.com/blockadegames/using-bitcoin-lightning-network-as-an-interface-to-ethereum-smart-contracts-7cbaecd05779
Z
13:32
Zack
In reply to this message
If you send them bitcoin on the lightning network, then you can trust them to send you a worthless collectible on ethereum.

Amoveo can't use any mechanisms that depend on trusting a central authority.
Z
15:30
Zack
I didn't think through generating ids for the different bits of a scalar oracle well enough.
15:30
currently, we say which bit we are on inside the text of the oracle question.
15:31
I think it would be a bad idea to parse the english to generate the correct id securely.
15:32
one option is to merkelize the oracle question.
So the question is in pieces, and the merkel root of a tree where the leaves are the question parts is used to generate the oracle id.
15:47
oh, a simpler solution might look like this.
oracle bit zero would be like "what is the price of veo in usd from 0 to 0.05, bit 0"
And lets say the oracle id for this oracle is H.
So the next 9 bits would all be like "scalar " ++ H ++ "bit number 3"

So if we embed H in the smart contract, it can calculate the question text for the other 9 bits to calculate the oracle ids for them.

So instead of putting the merkel proof calculation at the blockchain level, we are embedding it inside the oracle text.

This should allow us to maintain simpler code for tx execution, and it would mean the txs are smaller to get included in a block.
Z
16:09
Zack
I taught chalang lisp how to read binary strings.
So we don't have to convert oracle text to base64 to put it into a smart contract.
Z
17:05
Zack
so, ideally, in the oracle question we would like the oracle id to be base64 encoded, that way it is easy to look it up.
But I don't want to teach chalang to do base64 encoding if we don't need to.

So I figure both the oracle id and the base64 encoded oracle id will need to be inputs to creating the contract, and we will hard-code both into it.
Z
17:44
Zack
I am using fold and map in the new scalar oracle contract. I think it will make the code a lot shorter, because the compiler is better at handling lots of tiny functions with few inputs.
VY
17:49
VL YGG
Hey guys, is Veo new Link?
Š
18:11
Šea
In reply to this message
No, Veo is a new standard
K
18:24
K
In reply to this message
Probably in a few months
VY
18:26
VL YGG
In reply to this message
Much more better?
Deleted invited Deleted Account
5 August 2019
JS
03:25
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
Maybe
K
03:41
K
Someone should raise money to market amoveo as a better chainlink
Z
05:42
Zack
I think I can show that bitcoin hivemind and augur are 4.2 or worse, not 3.2
It is likely that they are less secure than a centralized market.
05:45
Voting is vulnerable level 4 to bribery in because of tragedy of the Commons.
For a while we ignored this, because vitalik had a proof saying that bitcoin pow was the same, so this attack must not work for some reason.
05:50
But bitcoin is not the same.
With an Oracle there are 2 outcomes. The enemy of your enemy is always your friend. There are only 2 ways to participate.

So the attack succeeds if attacker bribes - defender bribes > value of the network / number of vote coins holders.

In pow, there are infinite ways to build the next block.
So if you are part of an attacker majority, you can form a smaller coalition with majority control of the bigger coalition to take control.
In pow, you can't trust anyone making a coalition, because the game is inside of itself recursively.
So bitcoin is not vulnerable to bribery this way.
Z
06:28
Zack
it looks like my arguments might not hold for Augur. because they can fork the rep tokens.
MF
06:55
Mr Flintstone
i think if you control enough rep, you can control where the eth goes no matter what
Z
06:56
Zack
Just for one round, and then your rep is all on the worthless side of a fork
06:56
As long as they maintain that the rep is more valuable than the money at stake in bets, it is still 3.2
MF
06:57
Mr Flintstone
I think the market for eth is much more liquid than rep
06:58
but they are just asking about market cap
06:59
In reply to this message
Like you have way better slippage selling 10mn in eth than 10mn in rep
Z
06:59
Zack
Every blockchain oracle that survives will need to switch to a 2.2 design eventually.
So 3.2 and 4.2 are equally bad in that they will both fail.
07:05
In reply to this message
The slippage can only work in Augur's favor, right?
07:10
oh, I see. the attacker could pump rep, use the inflated rep price to take a big stake in a market, then dump rep, and at that point it could be 4.2 level secure, because there is a big market and a low rep market cap.
07:11
I know in the paper the line between 3 and 4 is solid, but in reality these mechanisms are on a continuous spectrum.
Dipping your toes into level 4 is not so bad as being deeply inside of it.
07:12
Maybe we should classify them by a fraction of profitability of attacking.
07:14
So if you can destroy 2 by spending 1, it is trust level 2.
If you can destroy 1 by spending 1, it is trust level 1.
If you can destroy 1 by spending 2, it is trust level 1/2.
If you can't destroy any no matter how much you spend, it is trust level 0.
If you can steal 1 by spending 2, it is -1/2
If you can steal 1 by spending 1, it is -1
If you can steal 2 by spending 1, it is -2

but I think we still need a pair of numbers for the sealed and unsealed trust levels.
07:17
1 -> 0
2 -> (0, 1)
3 -> (1, infinity) and (-1, 0)
4 -> (-infinity, -1)

I feel like there is still a better way.
07:18
it is weird how 3 is going disjoint. I think maybe conceptualizing part as stealing and part as destroying is harmful.
07:24
the defender has a loss. the attacker has a gain or loss.
So it should be like
if you can cause them to lose 2 by spending 1, it is trust level 1/2.
if you can cause them to lose 1 by spending 2, it is trust level 2.
If you can cause them to lose 1 and you gain 1, it is trust level -1.
If you can cause them to lose 2 and you gain 1, it is trust level -1/2
If you can cause them to lose by spending none, it is trust level 0.
If you can't cause them to lose by spending any amount, it is trust level infinity. Maybe we will call that "cryptographically secure"

So this ranges from [-1, infinity]
And it maps to the old system like this:
1 -> infinity
2 -> (1, infinity)
3 -> (0, 1]
4 -> [-1, 0]
07:25
I think we should call this a "security level" this time, since it increases with the level of security instead of increasing with the level of trust.
07:29
the problem with a continuous scale is that it can be very difficult to calculate the precise value for a blockchain.
I guess we will have to use bounded ranges, where we expect that the security level is between certain limits.
07:34
Can anyone prove that proof of work has bounds more narrow than (1, infinity) ? haha
It seems like it is specific to your blockchain, and who happens to be mining.
07:39
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/bribery.md
Here is my post explaining why Augur is actually a lot more secure than Bitcoin Hivemind or UMA, and that Bitcoin Hivemind and UMA are possibly even less secure than a centralized alternative.
Taylor Jasmine invited Taylor Jasmine
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Z
17:04
Zack
the block reward is 0.16 veo
Z
20:14
Zack
In reply to this message
I think I am getting near to a proof that PoS mechanisms are all trust level 4.2 or worse.
B
21:04
Ben
that is quite interesting, also DPOS?
21:11
In reply to this message
we already knew that DPOS doesn't work.
This is a general proof that no POS mechanism could ever work.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Z
22:24
Zack
Straight up bribing validators is literally the simplest way to attack a blockchain consensus. It is humorous that this is the attack that cannot be stopped.
6 August 2019
Z
03:53
Zack
In reply to this message
This is a pretty controversial result. I wonder who I can get to review it who has some authority on these things.

Maybe the world just isn't ready to know.
M
03:56
Mike
In reply to this message
This kind of thing is exactly what I'm building idea markets for @arsena21
03:56
Disruptive results are more easily discovered and accepted when there is a financial incentive to do so
03:57
Not trying to hijack -- genuinely impressed/pleased with the work
Z
03:57
Zack
Oh right. We can make a bet that if person X reviews it, they will find it valid. And if the market gets big enough, it can cause the review to happen
M
03:57
Mike
That would be a cool idea
03:57
But that person would be vulnerable to bribery
03:57
or extortion etc
03:58
Regardless it would be a cool way to bounty someone's attention
03:58
Crowdsource putting conjecture x on person y's desk
04:00
Wonder if this could be its own platform, where influencers require a certain locked amount in a market in order to review something
04:00
like Earn.com on a macro scale
04:00
"If $1 million is bet on it, I'll review it" --Elon Musk or whatever
Z
04:02
Zack
I think you are confused about how futarchy works.
I made a video you can check out about it https://youtu.be/higdjijPP1s
M
04:03
Mike
Probably, but I thought this could be doable with just a regular prediction market.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
I
05:57
Instinct
In reply to this message
No you're not
05:58
In reply to this message
Escrow scam yeah
05:59
You could sell up to 500 Veo around that price on qtrade
MF
07:58
Mr Flintstone
do not use this channel to advertise otc trading
Y
08:31
Yarci 🇸🇴
In reply to this message
amovewo does not need marketing, it is simply superirur inm all facets , chainlink ias not secujre
12:13
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
This is a scam?
Z
12:56
Zack
In reply to this message
facebook libra doesn't have mining.
So this is also a proof that facebooks currency will be insecure.

What are the biggest POS projects?
Z
13:20
Zack
It's interesting how the proof that pos doesn't work came to me when I was studying the relative security of oracle designs.

Kind of like how the solution for sharding came to me when I was trying to make State channels more scalable.

The reason I am having success is my bottom to top research strategy.

Most projects today, they start with a high level goal, and then they try to invent pieces to make it work. They are attempting to bend nature to their will.

I instead started with little pieces that work well, and I keep trying to combine them to discover what is possible. I bend my goals to the demands of nature.
Z
13:52
Zack
I am becoming fairly confident that this proof that PoS does not work is valid.
So I guess I will write it up in a more direct way. No one wants to read through all that oracle research just for the lemma at the end about PoS.
13:54
I can bring in some historical context too.
EA
13:58
Eric Arsenault
Great idea.
13:59
Maybe you should publish an article on Medium or Hackernoon to get more publicity around it
M⛏
14:11
Moe ⛏
In reply to this message
how about hybrid DPOS/POW consensus like Decred uses?
Z
14:13
Zack
In reply to this message
usually hybrid models have the weaknesses of both, but I haven't reviewed them, so I don't know.
K
16:46
K
In reply to this message
Why didn’t you talk about the advantage of having value and security of the system being linked
Z
16:46
Zack
In reply to this message
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
K
16:46
K
If someone censors someone else on a pos chain that chain will legit die and the people with the majority coins will lose a lot of money compared to a pow attack
Z
16:47
Zack
so, if I make a tx to spend money to you on NXT, and the NXT miners don't include my tx, you are saying that NXT would "legit die" in that moment?
16:48
In reply to this message
The central thesis of this paper is that requiring validators to lock value in the system so we can punish them, this actually only can make the system less secure.
16:49
The money can only be secure if there is no way to punish validators for censorship.
K
16:49
K
In reply to this message
Yes. Why would anyone build dapps or use a chain that has a dictator? The person with majority stake will lose tens of millions of dollars attacking nxt
16:51
Because it takes so much money and risk attacking a pos chain the likelihood of it happening is so much smaller than pow
16:51
That’s why you only ever see pow 51% attacks
Z
16:53
Zack
In reply to this message
I think we can all agree that a dictator blockchain is a bad idea. I don't know why you are bringing it up.
>The person with majority stake will lose tens of millions attacking nxt
Sounds like you dont understand tragedy of the commons.

You can pay someone a bribe worth Y to cause them to participate in an attack that will destroy their tokens worth X, even if X > Y.

The only thing that matters in game theory is the expected profit. If participating in the attack is more profitable than not participating, then they will participate. Even if X > Y and they end up losing a lot of money when the attack succeeds.
K
16:59
K
In reply to this message
I’d think Y would still need to be massive for them to attack the chain
17:01
If you were to attack nxt and you had 51% stake how much would u ask for?
Z
17:01
Zack
a concrete example.
Lets say that 100 people are voting on whether to do A or B. and for this example, A is a lot better for all of them. Everyone would who is voting will be $100 richer if A wins the election instead of B.

Now B offers 51 of them a deal. If they vote for B, he will pay them $2.


So each of the 51 is making a choice. they can either vote for A or B. and the outcome of the election will be either A or B. so the decision chart is like this
you vote for:  A  B
A win:       100  102
B win:        0    2
As you can see, voting for B is always more profitable. Because 102 > 100. and 2 > 0. so everyone who is being bribed $2 would rationally vote for B.
17:03
So, for a cost of $102, B has managed to manipulate the result of the election, and destroy $10 000 of value.
K
17:08
K
Don’t you think people with large stakes would be communicating?
17:08
This is probably more true on DPOS platforms but still probably true. on pos
Z
17:09
Zack
sure. they could come up with a counter-bribe.

If the bribe - counter_bribe > (total value at risk) / (number of voters), then the attack succeeds.
17:09
so it becomes like a game of chicken. Whoever can put up more money wins.
17:10
This is still a failure mode.
K
17:10
K
In reply to this message
Eventually though because the risk of your account being censored and losing your money Y would be close to X which is still expensive af
Z
17:11
Zack
Relying on altruists to donate money every time an attack occurs is not sustainable.
The attacker can short your currency in other markets to offset the costs. the altruists can only lose.
17:11
In reply to this message
I dont know what you mean by Y and X.
K
17:16
K
Good point!
Z
17:16
Zack
Typical model of a blockchain community is 89% selfish, 10% attackers, and 1% altruists
17:17
and if those 1% altruists destroy all their currency defending your blockchain in the first attack, then in the next attack you will have 0% altruists left for defence.
K
17:18
K
In reply to this message
Wouldn’t the definition of selfish change if validators are all public and known entities like in eos?
17:18
Like in EOS?
G
17:19
Goldy
Is VEO getting trade volume anywhere ?
Z
17:20
Zack
In reply to this message
qtrade.io usually has the most volume
K
17:21
K
What about a private chain that uses proof of stake? No one can be censored just like pow
17:23
A private Caspar pos chain where if someone votes the wrong thing they lose everything seems alright
Z
17:23
Zack
In reply to this message
I don't see how it matters if they are publicly known entities.
when we are modeling the community, we call "altruists" any money that is willing to destroy itself for the good of the community. we call "attackers" any money that is willing to destroy itself to harm the community. and we call "selfish" any money that participates in an effort to make itself richer.

These are 3 mutually exclusive groups. If you aren't in one, then you are necessarily in another.
17:23
In reply to this message
what does "private chain" mean?
17:24
In reply to this message
what does "wrong thing" mean?
I don't see how this relates to the proof I made that proof of stake cannot work.
K
17:24
K
In reply to this message
Like monero, pivx, zcash where no balances or accounts can be seen
17:25
In reply to this message
Because if you can’t censor others than a coalition is less stable
17:25
In reply to this message
Tbf these privacy coins come with their own set of drawbacks such as an unauditable supply
Z
17:26
Zack
if the decision about which block is added to the chain is determined by how much value you have locked in the chain, then that means verifying that the correct block was added necessarily involves knowing how much value the validators have.
17:26
so my definition of "proof of stake" is incompatible with your definition of "private chain"
17:31
pivx is making some interesting claims. maybe they did find a way to prevent censorship
17:37
I went through the PIVX technical white paper.
They claim to be doing POS with private quantities of money, but they never explain how something that seems impossible could happen.

It seems to me that the PIVX team isn't being honest about the product that they have created.
If they really had a way to use private quantities of money to decide which block is selected, I think they would be really proud of such an achievement and they would put it front and center.
Refusing to even mention how it can be done is a bad sign.
17:42
I suspect that what they have really done, is give the ability to stake private quantities of coins, and receive rewards as if you were mining. But you don't actually have any influence over the consensus process.
Z
18:33
Zack
I bet if you have a social media audience in a particular time zone, it is easier to develop your audience westward instead of eastward.

Because the platform shares your content more when it is getting more eyes. So there is a shadow of publicity after your audience is active.
A
19:48
Alfred
Hey Zack i know you like to review projects who talk about oracles, mind if I link one here?
Z
19:48
Zack
Direct message me
A
21:03
ALGO
A
Amoveo News 06.08.2019 21:03:18
This week's newsletter covers blockchain war, an interview with Christina Scicluna from GANADO Advocates, the full video of Exantech's CEO speech at the BTC 2019 and much more.

Read more about it here: https://amoveo.substack.com/p/21-blockchain-war-interview-with?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
S
21:17
SSDD
In reply to this message
🔥👍
7 August 2019
Z
01:23
Zack
I spent thousands of hours trying to build proof of stake blockchains.
I am happy to finally have a proof that it cannot be done.
01:23
It was always so frustrating. like trying to make a perpetual motion machine.
I
01:29
Instinct
In reply to this message
So many new blockchains coming out with POS & lots of money backing them. I wonder how long it'll be until they are seen as unviable by the market.
01:32
I think beyond btc & a few exceptions the rest of the crypto market seems like a huge casino
Z
01:34
Zack
everything is like a casino if you have a short enough time horizon.
K
01:54
K
In reply to this message
Doesn’t one entity distributing all coins make them unviable anyways?
B
01:55
Ben
do we know any attack to POS Blockchain that included bribery? i don't
Z
01:56
Zack
You want to do this? Lets start with a small PoS blockchain
01:57
haha
I
01:57
Instinct
In reply to this message
Sure
Z
01:59
Zack
Actually, it doesn't matter if it is small. We want to find the PoS blockchain where control is split between the largest number of validators. That should be the easiest version to attack.
02:03
What should we do once we have control?
Should we cannibalize it to get as much value out as we can?
Have it self-destruct?
Extract a small amount of value and let them off with a warning, this time?
02:04
we could make it self-destruct, and release some manifesto explaining how this is a warning for anyone who would dare build insecure mechanisms.
02:10
oh, a fun trick would be to censor everyone from depositing to the exchange, to prevent anyone but you from selling.
Then once you have sold out and you are ready to accumulate again, suddenly give a bunch of people access to start selling on the exchange, so the price dumps and you can buy in cheap. rinse and repeat.
02:10
People would probably blame the exchange too. They wouldn't even know it is happening.
02:10
even the exchange might think it is their own fault
Enri Topciu invited Enri Topciu
Z
02:40
Zack
Amoveo's audience:

33% USA
10% California
4% New York
2% Texas
2% Florida
2% illinois

5% England
3% London

5% Germany

4% Canada
2% Ontario
1% British Columbia

4% China

4% India

3% Australia
1% New South Wales

3% Japan

2% Russia

2% France
02:41
should we bet on who can get their country to grow the most proportionately?
03:19
Deleted Account
Zack do you have a reading list of books you would suggest? Just things you personally like?
I
03:20
Instinct
In reply to this message
Wouldn't it cost a lot of money to execute?
Z
03:40
Zack
In reply to this message
The total cost of the bribe is about proportional to how much the average validator is staking
03:41
In reply to this message
Things I like recreationally?
Stuff I research related to amoveo?
What sort of suggestion are you looking for?
04:00
This is a book that I like that attempts to explain the origins of the universe https://tkececi.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/the-life-of-the-cosmos.pdf
It's explanation is based in physics and in the theory of evolution, so it relates to game theory and mechanism design.
K
05:43
K
'zPIV staking revealed the input (staked) amount, and the output (reward) amount, but nothing else. There was no address revealing/association (except for the MN reward portion of the new block).'
Z
06:48
Zack
It sounds like there is a moment in time when value and decision are in the same place. If that is the case, then it can be punished.
MC
09:41
M Chuck
Can the A1 Exchange be removed from Veoscan? Devs are inactive and zero volume
Z
10:01
Zack
I can remove them from github.
10:02
catweed controls veoscan
JS
11:20
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
Does your proof mean ETH, once switched to PoS, is destined to fail?
J
16:04
JOHNwick3's dog
^ I have the same question basically. additionally, isn't there something PoS can do to innovate and solve the problem over time? will it work for a while and then they can make it better?

Same idea with augur.. Can they upgrade eventually? right?
JC
16:37
Jan Creemers
Oh God, do they ALL have to switch to Amoveo?
Z
16:38
Zack
In reply to this message
Yes.
My expectation now is that eth will cancel the pos update.
16:39
In reply to this message
My proof works for any blockchain where the power over decision about which block to add is in proportion to some coins value.
16:41
In reply to this message
I don't know how to build a smart contract on ethereum that could be better than augur already is.
In amoveo we link the Oracle resolution to the consensus in a way that the ethereum community wouldn't approve of.
ŽM
16:42
Živojin Mirić
it would be great for marketing if you Zack debated Vitalik on PoS
16:42
:O
?
16:45
🤠Anton
In reply to this message
🔥
Z
16:56
Zack
I have spent a large portion of my life writing proofs, and looking for errors in proofs. This is something I have skill and confidence in.

I have practically zero experience in verbal debates.
I know from experience that my ability to be verbally persuasive is very limited.
16:58
Vitalik has no incentive to debate us.
Such a debate is high risk for ethereum. If I can show that pos doesn't work, it is a disaster for them.
But if vitalik wins the debate, it doesn't really benefit ethereum in any way.
ŽM
16:58
Živojin Mirić
well he has an incentive to prove that his stuff works
16:58
to defend it
16:59
maybe then write a concise paper proving what you're saying here and post it on medium and we all retweet it like hell tagging Vitalik and ETH
16:59
would it be a problem if you're in good relations with ETH team?
17:00
(maybe that's a better aproach beacuse of verbal skills)
Z
17:00
Zack
The battlefield for mechanism designers like vitalik and I isn't on a stage doing a debate. We aren't politicians.

The battle happens by writing proofs and finding errors in each other's proofs.
ŽM
17:00
Živojin Mirić
ok I mean, are you writing it anywhere besides here?
17:01
so he can see it and ETH team and supporters can see it?
Z
17:01
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/proof_of_stake.md
This is the paper I wrote to show why pos cannot work
J
17:24
JOHNwick3's dog
In reply to this message
Why don't we eventually let amoveo decide and bet on it? LOL
Z
17:25
Zack
Bet on what?
J
17:25
JOHNwick3's dog
if pos will fail on ethereum
17:25
just a joke.. kind of
Z
17:26
Zack
Amoveo's oracle needs an expiration date
J
17:26
JOHNwick3's dog
Zack, what is the timeline for product market fit for amoveo?
17:26
3 years?
Z
17:26
Zack
I wish I could know
J
17:30
JOHNwick3's dog
well it took 10 years for bitcoin to get where it is.
Exponential growth.. tends to curve up at the end.. so for anyone just investing right? probably take forever to make progress. and then it will feel like its all at once.
Z
17:33
Zack
I have a lot of confidence that the thing I am working on now is on the path to success.
Being able to bet on oracles that don't yet exist will be a huge advantage for cost and usability and scalability.

a month ago, I didn't even realize that this is something we would need.
17:33
Deleted Account
Fk u
J
17:34
JOHNwick3's dog
^lol
Z
17:34
Zack
It's hard to predict very far in the future. I think it is better to make sure we are taking full advantage of the present, using everything we have learned from the past, rather that trying to control the future.
J
17:37
JOHNwick3's dog
your twitter comment.. would it be beneficial to apply this to life in general? many people say you should have big goals.
RisiYoda invited RisiYoda
Z
17:40
Zack
I think this strategy only makes sense for doing new things that aren't yet understood.

If you want to open a McDonald's for example, i think you just follow the steps in the manual. You have a plan for what to do every step of the way.
There is so much experience with these restaurants, that they can confidently plan out their future.

But with technology startups, it is so new. If we try to predict very far in the future, we are lying to ourselves and building on false assumptions.
17:42
It is a strategy that I think makes sense for developing amoveo.
I have no idea if it is useful in other parts of your life.
J
17:42
JOHNwick3's dog
okay, so you do have a big picture idea of what amoveo could be used for.. but since its new you just focus on tinkering and exploring whats possible now.
17:43
well, amoveo is kind of like.. going on an adventure that you haven't gone before ..
Z
17:45
Zack
In many areas of life, I am a fan of tradition. It is good to respect the strategies that others have built for us.
But in startups I think this does not work. When tech startups blindly follow each other, it ends up with lots of money wasted on cargo cult behaviour.

I try to use reason to think about what actions and strategies could actually help amoveo succeed.
18:00
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/proof_of_stake.md Maybe it would be easier to get smaller PoS projects to try and refute the proof, and we can build up momentum to the point where people are doubting ethereum and demand that they respond.
S
18:03
Sy
isnt working on amoveo itself a better idea than using time for this?
Z
18:06
Zack
In reply to this message
hard to be sure.
The unknown unknowns are a huge factor.
When I manage to get another project to communicate with me, I often end up having big realizations about how to improve Amoveo.

Since we are a small adaptive project, it is easier for us to deal with advances in technology than our competitors.
18:07
so creating advances in the technology shifts the playing field in our favor.
18:09
It is also a tragedy if people are wasting time researching something that can never work.
It is hard to stand by and watch people suffer, when I could so easily rescue them.
18:09
the minds of people doing research is a precious resource for humanity.
18:13
Amoveo the software is codified knowledge. It is a code explaining our understanding of blockchain oracles.

Working harder on making the code optimized is only useful to a point. We also need to gather up knowledge about blockchain oracles so that we have something that can be codified.
18:26
In reply to this message
https://spectreproject.io/Spectrecoin_White-Paper.pdf
These guys might have found a way to use private coins for consensus.
18:32
section 11.5 is the important part
18:39
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/proof_of_stake.md
I think I found a flaw in my reasoning.

If each user splits up their value into tons of tiny accounts that each only have like $0.10 of value each, and one of the accounts is selected randomly to create the next block, and a coalition dislikes the decision that was made, the coalition is only able to link $0.10 of value to the decision that they disapprove of.
So the maximum punishment they can enact is $0.10.
18:51
but, if only $0.10 is linked to a block decision, that means this PoS design can only punish at most $0.10 for double-signing.

It is impossible to simultaneously solve the nothing-at-stake problem, and to prevent bribery attacks as described in my paper.

So we can rescue the proof. PoS is still impossible.
18:53
In reply to this message
specter's design can be secure against bribery, but it is vulnerable to nothing at stake, because validators can split their money into many tiny accounts, so the amount of money connected to a block's creation can be very small.
18:53
it can't be secure against both simultaneously.
18:59
A coalition can decide to freeze funds from every ATXO who had created blocks that they disapprove of. So the privacy system doesn't protect the consensus system from bribe attacks.
A
19:26
ALGO
A
Amoveo News 07.08.2019 19:26:18
CoinPaprika CEO Mike Grzybkowski shared his vision regarding the future of the prediction markets and pointed out the biggest risk of such technology.

Watch the interview here: https://youtu.be/9229hEyFOhc
N
19:29
NM$L
When moon
S
19:29
SSDD
In reply to this message
Soon
JS
20:05
Jon Snow
No moon. Mars only
Z
20:12
Zack
If I make a github repository to start organizing people to attack a proof of stake blockchain, is that legally risky?
A
20:13
ALGO
In reply to this message
Most likely, maybe not using the word 'attack' may provide some leeway. Not a professional legal opinion.
P
20:13
P
stresstest?
20:13
and better do it on testnet tbh
Z
20:24
Zack
a confiscatory stresstest
20:29
In reply to this message
nice interview.
I think coinpaprika is better than coinmarketcap.
it loads faster, the ads are less intrusive, the data is more accurate.
A
20:29
ALGO
In reply to this message
Many individuals have said simlar.
Z
20:30
Zack
In reply to this message
the whole point is to take the money though.

So what if we push through some updates to make the other blockchain act like Amoveo, and then we migrate all the coins from that blockchain onto Amoveo at some fixed exchange rate.
20:30
we just convert it all into Amoveo and keep going
20:31
so it is like a patch to fix their system
A
20:31
ALGO
In reply to this message
Sounds inflationary
Z
20:32
Zack
In reply to this message
at some exchange rates it would be.
Since the Amoveo community would have control, I guess we could set the exchange rate in our favor, so it would be deflationary for our side and inflationary on their side.

It is like when east and west germany reunified.
20:32
tear down that wall!
YY
20:35
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
I think you should be fine, blockchains have 0 governance anyways
20:35
Cool idea
20:35
Start with chainlink?
Z
20:35
Zack
if futarchy says that a certain unification would be good for the price of veo, how could we refuse?

Currency is valuable because of network effects.
Growing the network by cannibalizing other networks is probably more efficient than paying miners.
20:35
isn't chainlink an ethereum smart contract?
I
20:36
Instinct
In reply to this message
Lol
YY
20:36
Ya Ya
In reply to this message
Oh yes sorry
20:36
I meant eth2.0
20:36
So we have time to prepare
20:36
And chainlink will get taken down then
Z
20:37
Zack
if we make chainlink lie, a lot of people who had money on bets would be upset that the bet went the wrong way. it would make us the bad guys.

But if we can patch a proof of stake system to use amoveo instead, and rescue them from an insecure system, that could be seen as socially good.
20:38
we don't want to hurt innocent bystanders, and we want to minimize casualties.
YY
20:39
Ya Ya
Ok I see
20:39
Cool
Z
20:43
Zack
it's like how Rome conquered the Mediterranean. by offering the conquered people full citizenship, and a more stable legal system to do their business.
A
20:43
ALGO
In reply to this message
Flexing those history muscles today ;)
20:43
Solid analogies
Z
21:22
Zack
Now that both oracles and contracts are off-chain, we can update them instantly at no cost. In practice, I think this will often look like filling in the details once they become known.

Like, a contract could depend on 2 measurements made by oracles at time D1 and D2.
If the current time is > D1, then that means we can know one of the measurements that the oracle would make.
We can update the contract so that instead of using an oracle for D1, it is just hard-coded into the contract.

If we are all using the same oracle, then we are less likely to have to pay to move that oracle on-chain. So we are incentivized to do updates so that we end up on the same oracle text.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
8 August 2019
Deleted invited Deleted Account
01:06
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
this is what the americans did to Puerto Rico
K
01:48
K
In reply to this message
On DPOS chains where everything is transparent and BPs are known companies. Any of them being bribed to do something bad to the network can be met with legal action
01:49
If BPs get bribed, they hault all transactions, sell off all their coins then no doubt they’re going to jail
Z
01:51
Zack
So you are saying that there is a central legal institution that can punish the block producers to enforce them to participate honestly, and that is how the decentralized security is maintained.

If that is the case, the central institution could enforce any policy at all. Including stealing the coins.
K
01:52
K
In reply to this message
No. There are many institutions across the world that can enforce their laws and put people in jail
01:55
That must add a decent level of security that your chain isn’t gonna fuck you over.
02:01
Countries don’t need to collude to stop scammers. All countries pretty much do that to protect their citizens anyways. But if China,USA, Russia etc are all colluding to destroy a dpos chain then they could easily do the same to btc. There’s no stopping that
I
02:14
Instinct
In reply to this message
Weren't several validators on eos found of collusion? Idk about any action taken against them, I think one was huobi exchange
Mackenzie L invited Mackenzie L
Z
02:47
Zack
If you think that governments will enforce the rules you want, and they will not enforce any rules you don't want, then you are living in a fantasy.

Government survival is largely connected to their ability to counterfeit fiat currency. The existence of cryptocurrency is a threat to their job.

Expecting government officials to altruistically protect the same cryptocurrencies that are destroying their jobs is not reasonable.

Any cryptocurrency which can only survive as long as it has the support of all the governments where it is used, that is not a decentralized tool. It is indistinguishable from a centralized and regulated industry.
02:49
Centralized and regulated industries are not vulnerable to bribery the same way the proof of stake consensus mechanisms are.

That doesn't mean centralization is good. It just means that proof of stake is bad.

We should still try to achieve decentralization.
I
02:53
Instinct
In reply to this message
👌
K
03:11
K
In reply to this message
They do enforce rules. It’s wild to think that all governments are just criminals. If someone steals millions of dollars from someone else there will be lawsuits, crack downs like no other.
03:14
cryptocurrencies rely on governments allowing them.
03:15
If every country gangs up on crypto currency and mining it survive will remain small scale at best. The whole point crypto survives is that it’s decentralized and not every country has crack downs on it
03:16
Different governments have difference rules. But generally, there isn’t a government that will let people getting conned out of hundreds of millions slide
03:17
It isn’t one central authority. It’s many spread around the world that would crackdown on BPs being bribed for such a massive attack
Z
03:34
Zack
the topic has sure shifted a lot. let me restate my proposal.

I think that we should identify the least secure proof of stake blockchains, and do an exploit to push through soft forks to patch the security holes so that the value on these networks will be secure. We should migrate the value on these blockchains onto Amoveo, that way we can benefit Amoveo from network effects, and we can save the users of the insecure blockchain from being exploited.

You are talking about whether someone will get "conned out of hundreds of millions". Which is a very different scenario from the one I proposed.
Z
03:55
Zack
I agree with you that if governments are running a centralized fiat-currency, that they would be able to punish bribery.
But this is off-topic for our forum.

This is a forum to talk about Amoveo and blockchain technology.

The fact that centralized institutions are not vulnerable to the same sorts of attacks as PoS systems is not interesting to any of us who use this forum. We already decided that we aren't interested in centralized finance for other reasons.
03:57
The fact that PoS is worse than centralized alternatives means that PoS is bad and should be avoided.
This is not evidence that centralized alternatives are useful.
K
04:39
K
DPOS is a variant of POS that might not suffer through the same issues because of transparency. It is not anymore centralized than POW. It just utilities the fact that governments around the world punish bad actors
04:40
There are many governments around the world, not just one
04:43
I agree it’s sort of off topic but it’s still kinda important. It’s competing with pow
Z
04:48
Zack
it doesn't matter if they are a group of companies, or a group of governments, or a group of anonymous votecoin holders.
The game theory is the same.

Maybe the governments can enforce the rules about bribes between the institutions that are directly running the blockchain, but you are just creating the same voting game at a higher level, between governments.
So we can lobby the governments to enact policy to influence the blockchain. It is still cheap to break security.
04:55
Looking at how other international decision making works, I guess USA would have a lot of influence over decisions being made.
Maybe they would force the validators to do a soft fork that charges the entire world a tax to support the USA military.

If the DPOS currency is preventing the USA from making money from the US dollar, then the only reason they would let it live is if it is somehow more profitable than the US dollar system was to them.
04:56
This is the basic game theory that shows less secure systems are always more expensive.
If there is someone who can destroy your system, then that means we need to pay them fees to convince them not to destroy it.
04:57
The easier and more profitable it is to destroy, that means we need to pay higher fees to convince them not to destroy it.
LB
05:56
Leonhard B
In reply to this message
CC’s are very easy to shut down via the government regulated ISPs. Since there is no independent decentralized internet infrastructure there is no real decentralized CC right now in my opinion.
05:58
In reply to this message
I think centralized industries are very vulnerable to bribery, almost in the same way pos is, if not even more.
06:03
In reply to this message
we can embed a cryptocurrency protocol into the least significant bits of images people post on 4chan or imager.
LB
06:08
Leonhard B
In reply to this message
The government and central bank is not the same institution. People paying taxes legitimizing the system e.g. Governments focus on acceptable regulation, as you mentioned they would not set rules which would be unwanted, which doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t try to maximize their power to mostly maintain it.
06:09
In reply to this message
Interesting, how would that work?
I
06:09
Instinct
In reply to this message
Nice
LB
06:12
Leonhard B
In reply to this message
Of course I know the theory. I need details.
Z
06:19
Zack
ask a sci fi author I guess? haha
LB
06:28
Leonhard B
Lol, is there one you would recommend?
K
06:36
K
In reply to this message
Most of the BPs come from China ( using EOS as an example ). For any country to take control of the dpos chain, it would need support of the other countries on the list. It is still decentralized as BPs are spread around the world in different countries with different people, laws, allies etc. There is no central authority that would dictate how the chain is ran.
Z
06:36
Zack
In reply to this message
haha
I like this guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
but he is so focused on space, I doubt he would talk about steganography.
06:39
In reply to this message
having a voting system between governments vs having a voting system between coin holders vs having a voting system between institutions doesn't make a difference.

Layering a voting system of governments on top of a voting system of institutions on top of a voting system of votecoin holders doesn't bring you any nearer to a secure system.

All voting systems are insecure and expensive compared to alternatives like nakamoto consensus and futarchy.
LB
06:41
Leonhard B
Also its non trust less because you trust the validator to do their job correctly.
K
06:42
K
In reply to this message
The blockchain is transparent and there are just as many unique BPs in general on dpos than there is on pos and pow
LB
06:43
Leonhard B
What is your point?
K
06:44
K
It as as trustful as any other algo. But it’s irrelevant to the argument main argument
Z
06:45
Zack
In reply to this message
"trust less" is an expired term.
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/basics/trust_theory.md

Some people had been using it to mean 3.2, others 4.2, others 2.2, and other 1.1 level security.
Now we have a unified system so we can communicate more clearly.
LB
06:45
Leonhard B
Understood.
K
06:46
K
In reply to this message
How is POW not a voting system?
LB
06:49
Leonhard B
In reply to this message
How is it a voting system?
K
06:49
K
In reply to this message
People vote using their hash power, like people vote using coins in pos
06:49
Both are just money but in different forms
06:51
Deleted Account
Hey guys, I've lost track a long time ago of what Amoveo has evolved into. Are there any videos explaining the features and capabilities of the project? Maybe with examples?
Z
06:51
Zack
the fundamental difference that makes PoS vulnerable to the attack outlined in my paper is that POS there is a logical connection between value in the system and the consensus decisions about which blocks to add.
This means that a majority coalition can punish sub-coalitions.

In POW, majority coalitions cannot punish sub-coalitions.
06:54
Deleted Account
Thanks
K
06:54
K
In reply to this message
Chinese government punishing large mining corps that include certain transactions is punishing
Z
06:57
Zack
In reply to this message
China can attempt to use punishments to create a coalition of miners, but POW has the property that a sub-coalition to take all the profit from a coalition costs half as much to build, and earns twice as much profit per participant.

So if people go along with China's demands, pretty soon a sub-coalition will form and take away all their profits.

The only way to survive as a miner is if you can escape control of anyone who would force you to participate in their coalition.

So if China tries to control the POW miners the way you are describing, everyone that they are able to control will go out of business.
K
07:18
K
In reply to this message
Would the sub-coalition fork the chain and change the algo?
Z
07:19
Zack
the thing about soft forks in POW, is that we don't even know how many soft forks are currently in effect
07:19
Just because the sub-coalition did a fork and changed the rules, doesn't mean any of us even know it happened.
Other miners will just stop getting rewards.
K
07:27
K
In reply to this message
so sub-coalitions could also lose miners a lot of money
07:28
if they decide to mine their own version right?
Z
07:28
Zack
if a sub-coalition takes control, and you aren't in it, then you don't get miner rewards.
Z
10:05
Zack
http://139.59.144.76:8080/oracle_winnings.html I added this new page to the light node.
This allows you to get your money out of an oracle after it is closed.
10:05
so now you don't need a full node for any step of the oracle
Z
10:59
Zack
I have spent so much time arguing that PoS is possible. it is a weird feeling being on the other side of debate.
Z
11:16
Zack
I think that the only person who is convinced by my proof is me.
11:17
People just upvote it because it supports what they already believe.
A
12:49
Alfred
In reply to this message
What's your take on the PoS + PoW "hybrids" that supposedly would require big holdings + majority of hashpower to conduct an attack?
Unnecessary complexity?
Z
12:50
Zack
it seems like a hybrid system can only be less secure than a pure PoW system.
A
12:53
Alfred
Easier to attack the PoS part and then you have less hardware cost for the PoW component, makes sense
12:55
Arguably on small networks that share a same PoW algo as bigger networks, it became much easier to attack them for low cost with hashrate rental services, so in practise it makes sense for them to try hybridation
12:57
Even tho it would theoretically be less secure than pure PoW
Z
13:01
Zack
Maybe a day will come where there is one blockchain per mining algorithm, and you need to build a new kind of asic to make a new Blockchain.
A
13:04
Alfred
So there can only be so many chains surviving in practise and on the long run right? Those would require custom PoW and hardware.

A lot of the "innovation" right now just comes from people trying to circumvent the fact that they are a small insecure network that shouldn't exist in the first place 😅
Z
13:05
Zack
Practically infinite kinds of asic could be produced.
13:05
It would make it a lot more expensive to start a new Blockchain.
13:08
Drive chain is pretty cool. Maybe that is how we can do blockchain experiments without making new Asics so often.
A
13:22
Alfred
Yes, but most people know of sidechains already, yet they are not really getting a lot of adoption. Do you believe it's just a matter of time?
13:30
The only one I can think of is Liquid, based on elements and iirc it's more acting like a federation
13:33
Until weak networks get attacked regularly it seems to me that greed will prevail and people will always want to roll their "own" chain
Š
13:40
Šea
In reply to this message
Hi Zack, did you check out Nyzo's consensus, proof of diversity? One can say it's closed consensus but i believe it has edges over pow and pos
A
13:41
Alfred
Can't become the next BTC if you're a BTC sidechain 🤔
Š
13:41
Šea
In reply to this message
Nyzo also "tackles" this theory as well, cause actually the time is what counts most - not money
A
13:42
Alfred
In reply to this message
Doesn't it requires to have validators fully online 24/7? That seems like anti p2p design to me
Š
13:43
Šea
In reply to this message
Yep, it's not ideal
A
13:44
Alfred
Imo network who rely on peers being online will eventually fail to be "decentralized"
But I'd like to have zack's opinion as well
Š
14:07
Šea
In reply to this message
You mean because of a possibility of someone owning the majority of verifiers?
A
14:12
Alfred
In reply to this message
Just imagine what would happen if torrent seeds would be forced to be online all the time?
14:13
P2P doesn't guarantee uptime by design
14:14
It's also part of what makes it resilient and less centralized
14:15
I think the "nodes are free to leave and join the network" is also part of bitcoin paper
Š
14:20
Šea
In reply to this message
Yeah this is the main "issue" people usually have with it
14:21
But take this out, and it's not so secure anymore
Chris 🍞 invited Chris 🍞
C
17:18
Chris 🍞
picking up my first Blackminer F1+
It will be dedicated to Amoveo
Z
17:34
Zack
https://dusk.network/uploads/blind-bid-protocol.pdf
These guys might have figured out how to make participation in the proof of stake consensus private.
They might have found a way to make a secure PoS.
17:48
looks like Dusk is vulnerable to long-range-attacks. I could buy up all the old worthless private keys, and build a higher priority version of history from that point in time.
T
18:47
Topab
In reply to this message
I think Vlad may more easily reply than Vitalik
Z
19:54
Zack
How many people visited our github by day of the month in August
3: 17
4: 24
5: 72
6: 106
7: 166
8: 229
A
19:56
ALGO
Very cool 👍
19:57
Is that cumulative? Or day by day stats?
Z
19:57
Zack
day by day.
and the 8th is only like half over, based on when github changes date.
19:57
I think people are enjoying this content about proof of stake.
19:59
it looks like about 1/2 of the people who visit the proof of stake page today visited the main page of our github afterwards.

And almost all of them left at that point, they didn't click more links to learn more about Amoveo.
20:00
There is a lot of content on that main page though. Maybe they at least read a little before closing the tab.
20:08
http://www.jeuxvideo.com/forums/42-3011927-60441657-1-0-1-0-la-proof-of-stake-n-a-pas-d-avenir.htm
Even french people are interested in the proof of stake paper
A
20:12
ALGO
I posted the paper in https://t.me/cryptocodereviews
20:12
That may be a source of some of the traffic, I would recommend you join the telegram if you're not a participant already Zack - it seems right up your alley
Z
20:13
Zack
great
A
20:21
Alfred
In reply to this message
I'm french and I can assure you we have interest for PoS and Amoveo 😁
Z
20:22
Zack
great :)
9 August 2019
Z
01:56
Zack
So I guess the next interesting thing to prove, is limitations on how a pos mechanism can live side by side with a pow mechanism, and in what ways they can possibly benefit each other.

Amoveo's oracle could be seen as a futarchy-type proof of stake consensus mechanism that lives on Amoveo side-by-side with our POW consensus mechanism.
From that perspective, Amoveo is mixed pow/pos.
01:57
and it is even used to update the protocol via governance.
Turtle Trader invited Turtle Trader
I
05:27
Instinct
In reply to this message
So amoveo's oracle isn't secure according to your pos proof? 🤔
I
06:14
Instinct
In reply to this message
Scam
06:15
Deleted Account
why would you sell under market price?
06:16
huh?
I
06:16
Instinct
Lol
06:16
Same old story
06:17
Deleted Account
just put it on qtrade
06:17
if you arent scamming lol
06:18
In reply to this message
yeah, and i cant type
I
06:18
Instinct
In reply to this message
😂😂
MF
07:56
Mr Flintstone
banned him
JS
09:11
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
Thanks
Z
10:58
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/cosmos.md I wrote about how to attack Cosmos PoS consensus.
Z
11:15
Zack
In reply to this message
To the best of my knowledge, Amoveo's oracle is 2.2 level trust.
11:15
Amoveo's oracle is secure.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
11:22
Deleted Account
hello :D
11:30
In reply to this message
Hi, admin. May I PM regarding business proposal ?
JS
11:40
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
No
Z
11:42
Zack
I already chatted with her by PM
11:44
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
thanks👍
Z
11:52
Zack
Here are the motivations for the PoS parts of various hybrid designs that I have seen:
* oracle mechanisms. Bringing real-world data onto the blockchain. So we can bet on the outcome of sporting events for example.
* governance mechanisms. Making decisions about how to change the consensus protocol.
* faster finality without increasing the block reward.
* block creation.
* measuring the opinions/desires of the average coin holder.
11:52
Can you guys think of any more reasons that people have added PoS elements in combination with a PoW blockchain?
JS
11:57
Jon Snow
In reply to this message
What’s the proposal
Z
11:58
Zack
same as always. They want us to pay to be listed on an exchange.
A
11:58
Alfred
In reply to this message
To "protect" a PoW chain from hashrate rental attacks
Z
11:58
Zack
This happens like every other day.
11:58
In reply to this message
thank you
11:59
Deleted Account
Hy
J
12:32
JOHNwick3's dog
so someone with a lot of money can crash cosmos then?
Z
12:32
Zack
it seems like it, yes.
w
13:55
wvvw
I like the trust theory and the "audit" of a trust level of other coins/projects. Let's start a blog series, where we check the trust level of each coin of binance f.e.
13:57
On a long run to adapt a coin in the real market, the ones with a better trust level (where a lower trust is needed) will be more successful
14:01
Then there will be a grade table. Where every coin is getting a grade for the level of trust.
Z
14:25
Zack
A central chart where we grade each other would be nice.

It would be a big improvement if we could even convince mechanism designers to start quantifying what they mean when they say that their new tool is "secure".
Š
14:54
Šea
In reply to this message
In most cases the main reason was to add more security against 51% vulnerability of pure pow chains
14:54
In reply to this message
Ah yeah
S
15:38
Sy
In reply to this message
i am always wondering, is owning 51% of the coins really more expensive than getting the mining power for a 51% attack? owning doesnt cost you any upkeep, on the contrary it even earns you money...
15:39
but on the other hand, how will you dump 51% of all coins? xD
15:40
if you have to buy them first you have to dump them at least at your buy price, better higher, yes you can double spend but im not sure you will be able to even recover your investment
w
17:33
wvvw
In reply to this message
That would be a great PR move, if we start such a initiative
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
S
21:31
SSDD
A
Amoveo News 09.08.2019 21:24:53
How oracles, being a part of prediction markets, should objectively perform data scrapping and what happens if it's not so easy to determine the truth? 🧐🤔

Find out in our new blog post: https://medium.com/amoveo/the-oracle-problem-how-decentralized-platforms-decide-what-happened-part-1-4cff6d0ffc85?source=friends_link&sk=6035076f2d9146c04f4798f017a20e32
10 August 2019
Kaichao invited Kaichao
w
18:11
wvvw
Zack, what is your opinion on beam coin ?
A
18:35
Avi 🌪
In reply to this message
That's why PoS is exactly like PoW, minus the physical waste that mine it and electrical expenses
18:35
Money= stake and vote power. Doesn't matter if it's mining rigs or tokens.
Z
18:36
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/proof_of_stake.md

Stake is different from hashpower in some important ways.
A
18:38
Avi 🌪
DR ; NS
Š
18:38
Šea
😂
Z
19:08
Zack
In reply to this message
By his own admission it is vulnerable to long-range-attacks.

I can't understand why a person would waste time researching a mechanism with known vulnerabilities.
Maybe he is hopeful that someone else will fix all the vulnerabilities in his work someday, and then it will be valuable work at that point.
A
19:10
Alfred
🤷‍♀
Z
19:16
Zack
I think this problem is happening because people look at blockchain design as a creative process instead of a discovery process.

As creative engineers, they imagine a big working system, and then try to design pieces to make the system work.

The better way to design blockchain is by a process of discovery: We start with little pieces that work well, and keep combining them to find out what is possible.
A
19:21
Alfred
Keep it simple stupid
19:29
These systems definitely benefit from simplicity because of the complex nature of the environment they operate in
J
20:25
JOHNwick3's dog
In reply to this message
Its possible you could have some type of bias maybe? It would be nice to have someone else look over why you think pos will fail.
20:26
bias, error, or maybe there is a fix?
20:26
Ethereum has a lot of money on it for it to fail because of a POS vulnerability
Real invited Real
K
20:35
K
Can't sub coalitions form on POS chains by the community creating a fork and removing attacker coins?
20:36
similar to how in POW, a fork could take place to change the mining algo to take away power from the attacker
Z
20:36
Zack
In reply to this message
The only reason you would care about bias is if you are trusting my opinion based on my good reputation.
Trusting people based on their reputation is a bad strategy. It is vulnerable to retirement attacks.

Instead of using reputation to decide how to invest, I recommend that you actually read the paper and see if it makes sense to you. Try to understand it for yourself.

If you cannot take the time to try and understand these things, then my recommendation to you is that you should not get involved with investing in any cryptocurrency at this time.
The other investors are taking the time to understand. If you are less informed than the average investor, then you will lose your money to them.
20:39
In reply to this message
Any consensus mechanism has the property that if the community is able to come to some consensus external to the protocol, they can use that external consensus to make arbitrary changes to the protocol, including deleting an attackers coins. This fact has nothing to do with the attack outlined in my PoS paper.
A
21:16
ALGO
https://staked.us/
Z
21:23
Zack
In reply to this message
Do I understand this correctly?
You send them your coins, and they run your proof of stake software for you.

If so, that is a weaker version of the kind of attack I wrote about in the proof of stake paper. haha
Z
21:42
Zack
In reply to this message
I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't meant it is better.
There is a lot of necessary complexity in blockchain design.
A
21:44
Alfred
In reply to this message
Necessary complexity != striving to keep it as simple as it could possibly be
21:50
What I see most of the time is people trying to add layers of complexity to build a "better" system when they don't even fully grasp all parts of the more simple alternative
Turing complete contracts is a good example of this imo
22:00
Amoveo's API responses is a good example of going straight to the point and not adding a single unnecessary byte of data 😂
I'd even argue that it's too extreme ahah
11 August 2019
Z
00:11
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/security_model.md

I wrote about why each blockchain needs to have exactly one security model, and why having multiple security models makes it impossible to calculate how secure a blockchain is.
Z
07:24
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/pow_pos_hybrid.md
Looks like PoW/PoS hybrid cannot prevent hashrate rental attacks.
07:25
I feel like the current explanation is too long, but im not sure which parts to remove
K
07:27
K
In reply to this message
Check out decreds implementation
07:28
Also it does make it more expensive still right?
Z
07:29
Zack
it makes hashrate rental attacks cheaper to pull off.
07:43
In reply to this message
https://docs.decred.org/proof-of-stake/overview/ Looking at this page.
At the top of that page, they listed 5 reasons that they incorporate PoS elements into their blockchain.
1) Allowing stakeholders to vote for or against proposed changes to the Decred blockchain. This means that Decred is not secure, because it is cheap to bribe the voters to make an upgrade that would destroy Decred https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/design/voting_in_blockchains.md

2) Providing a mechanism for stakeholders to influence Proof-of-Work (PoW) miners. Stakeholders can vote to withhold a miner’s reward even if the block conforms to the consensus rules of the network.
This means that once a coalition takes control of the PoS side, their control is very stable. They can block anyone else from being paid mining rewards, so only their coalition can profitably mine.

Again, this is a voting mechanism. Which means it is cheap to bribe the voters to manipulate the vote to break the blockchain.

3) For a block to be valid, it has to be signed by at least 3 of the 5 tickets that are called to vote in that block. This makes the Decred blockchain more robust to certain kinds of attack, such as those which rely on secret mining.

This means that if you can bribe >about 40% of the stake, then you can freeze the blockchain.
I say "about" because there is a little freedom to re-mine blocks to get a new random selection of 5 ticket holders, and there is the fact that even if my coalition only has 35%, sometimes we will still control >2 of the 5 tickets for that block.
So it is hard to calculate the exact number, but I think it is pretty near to 40%.
Similarly, if you can bribe > about 60% of the stake, then you can take complete control of the consensus and pass any soft for upgrades that you want.

4) resistance to "contentious hard forks". PoW Miners are unable to build on a chain without the Votes of the tickets that are called.

If PoS voters can censor miners, then that means a coalition of the PoS voters could censor anyone outside the coalition from mining any blocks.
I don't know what "contentious hard fork" means, but I do know that a rule like this results in an insecure blockchain.

5) Snap voting of live tickets is used to make decisions about the project treasury. Again, voting cannot be secure. see (1) and (2).
Z
14:49
Zack
I interviewed the decred team on their discord, and updated the review based on what I learned.
A
17:34
Alfred
In reply to this message
Oh you made a paper about that, pretty cool!
SP_ invited SP_
Z
22:05
Zack
Twitter really is fueled by outrage
Z
22:24
Zack
I think we might see some good results if we try doing the thing that professional wrestlers do in the USA/Mexico.
Where the fight is fake, it is all an act for show.

If we could present some rivalry in the right way, I think it would bring a lot of viewership.

It isn't just about outrage, it is about feeling like you are a part of a group. It is about showing your loyalty to your team, and not feeling so alone.
22:32
Maybe it would make the math more engaging, so you can follow along.
Z
23:54
Zack
We didn't learn much about this from decred, so I set up a thread on R/cryptocurrency

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/coy9la/powpos_hybrid_is_more_vulnerable_to_hashrate/
12 August 2019
Pedro Gracia invited Pedro Gracia
01:19
Deleted Account
Hello everyone
Z
01:20
Zack
People seem happy to be aware of problems with PoS, but PoS/PoW hybrid is a sensitive subject for a lot of people. They don't want to know it could have problems.
01:21
r/cryptocurrency at least is responding very differently
Š
02:33
Šea
Ban
Z
02:40
Zack
I think this is probably because my explanation is less clear this time.
02:41
Maybe I can do the same proof without using all those advanced algebra tricks.
02:42
An earlier version of the proof actually had a bunch of partial derivatives. I wonder if I should bring those back.
Z
09:34
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/design/pos_research.md
I wrote about my historical involvement with researching PoS technology.
Z
09:54
Zack
Part of the reason I stopped pursuing a career in physics research is because a friend of mine.
There was an experiment, and the result of the experiment would determine whether the last few years of his work are valuable or worthless.
His career was totally dependent on something outside his control.

But I had the same fate happen to me in blockchain.
Years of research on my part is basically worthless, now that we know pos is impossible.
09:56
Well, maybe all that work helped me to come up with the proof that PoS is impossible. So in that way it isn't a waste.
Z
10:28
Zack
It is very unfortunate that PoS and PoS/PoW hybrid don't work.

I fear we are headed towards a future where launching a new blockchain necessarily means manufacturing new ASICS first.
10:32
We are lucky to live in this tiny window of time where it is cheap to launch new blockchains.
Z
12:11
Zack
I guess things like drivechains or sortition chains will exist eventually, and it will be even easier to build whatever you want on that instead of launching a blockchain today.
12:30
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
cant they choose algos that support existing asics
Z
12:30
Zack
In reply to this message
then the existing blockchain using that algorithm would be bigger. the miners from the big blockchain could attack.
Z
13:21
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/pow_pos_hybrid.md

I found a way to make this proof like 3x shorter, and far simpler
13:26
I used a proof by contradiction to make is so short
Динара Вязьмина invited Динара Вязьмина
w
16:53
wvvw
In reply to this message
To proof that something is not working is often more worth, than expecting a result / hoping that something is working or should work. So ppl doesn't build on something that doesn't work at the end of the day.
16:54
So it's often a better result than a "correct" result
16:57
You spent your time in proofing that PoS is not working on the end of the day. So someone have to proof the opposite.
Z
19:09
Zack
https://twitter.com/pulte/status/1160167954220277760?s=19
I wonder if this would be an effective way to advertise amoveo.
19:09
He got a lot of retweets.
ŽM
19:27
Živojin Mirić
Zack I see that you recently started thinking about marketing Amoveo
19:28
That is good in my opinion
A
19:30
Alfred
In reply to this message
Giveaways are quite "cheap" marketing techniques and don't really attract interested people (equivalent to having a lot of views but very few conversions)
19:32
It's just a way of buying followers that is not forbidden by twitter TOS really
Z
19:33
Zack
Right, makes sense.
Better to have one person who actually cares instead of thousands of meaningless clicks.
A
19:37
Alfred
yes, if you are willing to give away money might as well setup a bounty system for actually providing value (rewarding a pull request or some graphic creations etc)
19:37
or make a bet contest on Amoveo or so
D
20:00
Devender
In reply to this message
+1
Z
20:38
Zack
Sy and I just fixed a major bug that was preventing Amoveo from recovering from certain kinds of random forks.

This solved the problem we had that was making integration testing fail sometimes. Now it passes on the first try.
I
20:44
Instinct
In reply to this message
Great
Scrypte invited Scrypte
Š
22:43
Šea
In reply to this message
Yo scrypte
22:46
In reply to this message
👆
S
22:51
Scrypte
Sup
Z
22:59
Zack
In reply to this message
No. Amoveo is fine.
23:00
In reply to this message
Hello. Are you the guy from reddit who shared that paper?
Are you one of the team members from zano?
Š
23:00
Šea
In reply to this message
How did you find out about amoveo sir
23:00
Yeah he is
A
23:01
Aries
In reply to this message
This is one of the most serious projects in crypto wake the hell up
I
23:01
Instinct
In reply to this message
He's just a troll
A
23:02
Aries
The hell
23:02
Go back to your pump and dump World
S
23:02
Scrypte
No i am not a team member of zano, i just been following for 3 years. @shea0 i already knew about amoveo for maybe a year i also hold 0.16 (lol) at that time there was no exchange and a white page light node wallet (too techy for me) so i moved away