Welcome Anonymous !

Login or Register

Search

User Menu

Login

AuroraSpjall

The official Auroracoin discussion board

Proof-of-Transaction

Umræður um Auroracoin tæknina og tengdum hugbúnaði
- Technical discussion about Auroracoin software and the network in general

by Soltantgris » 04 May 2015 15:42

Hey guys,

I'm not on the tech side, still I like the theorical stuff. I've been a big supporter of Fluttercoin for a while - and the main reasons was Proof-of-Transaction, and it's community.

Proof-of-Transaction is a fonction that reward on a random basis people for sending or receiving coins. How it works is out of my reach - but the theory is to induce transaction with this rewarding PoT, so merchants would actually get paid (or at least fee free) to use a coin, what is great.

Now I know what you have some step before changing anything that drastic to AUR, but I was feeling like sharing this idea with you. Our lead dev Ofeefee once told me it is not a big deal to add to POW or POS without forking the coin.

I've been told that a triple-hybrid coin like Fluttercoin was theorically more secure then a simple PoS or PoW coin. Not sure if true still, and I must add that I disliked the huge PoS reward of FLT, but maybe there is some good to considere.
Soltantgris
rookie
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Apr 2015 10:56

by Skarfurinn » 04 May 2015 16:25

This is a very good discussion and it would be good to get the community's opinion on these matters.

I've always been a fan of the PoT concept as it's encouraging people to use the coin while I'm not so sure about PoS as I think it discourages coin usage. People will try to hang on it as much as they can.
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Skarfurinn
Dev team
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 04 Dec 2014 22:30
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland

by Bimmerhead » 04 May 2015 22:23

Interesting. PoT could be marketed as a sort of affinity program like credit card companies offer (air miles etc.).

Simple for the average consumer to understand: the more you spend, the more you get back.
Bimmerhead
Dev team
 
Posts: 214
Joined: 06 Dec 2014 04:05

by BioMike » 05 May 2015 09:40

The thing I always wonder is how coin creation is restricted in these schemes (as in maximum coins ever created). Other things would be transaction abuse. Nothing limits someone to create huge amounts of transactions (especially people with lots of funds or in the way how we saw these hundreds of 0.0001 AUR transactions last few days), How would one restrict that type of abuse?
User avatar
BioMike
Dev team
 
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 18:38
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

by Skarfurinn » 05 May 2015 14:17

As I understand it the PoT gets 5% of the next PoW reward.

Regarding automation protection the witepaper only includes this.

One of the considerations in implementing something like proof-of-transaction is the fact that there are those who would seek to exploit this system for their gain “can I send coins back and forth constantly to generate rewards.” Measures were put in place to prevent such automated spamming of the blockchain for this purpose. The reward system is now mostly geared 99% towards small outputs (person to person, person to store, etc.). Large outputs to many addresses are now given a higher PoT difficulty, effectively greatly decreasing ones chances of gaming the system. These measure and all future measures with regard to proof-of-transaction seek to eliminate the possibility of simply flooding a block with transactions sending to many addresses in the hopes of mining a proof-of- transaction reward.


The whitepaper is here: http://fluttercoin.us/specifications/

Maybe we can get Ofeefee from the flutter group here to answer in more details.
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Skarfurinn
Dev team
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 04 Dec 2014 22:30
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland

by BioMike » 05 May 2015 20:13

I'll have to make a read through that (and let it sink in), because I think you can still game the system over time having sufficient funds (unless they found a way to distinguish a "real" transaction from a "fake" one, which is IMHO near to impossible).
User avatar
BioMike
Dev team
 
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 18:38
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

by Soltantgris » 05 May 2015 23:52

I pointed this topic to Ofeefee - so he may join when he see it. He worked a lot with PoT.
Soltantgris
rookie
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Apr 2015 10:56

by molecular » 07 Jun 2015 16:56

I have reservations against using anything other than PoW for the following reasons:

  • I think PoW is a good fit for AUR because Iceland has good energy infrastructure. So Icelanders can mine.
  • Auroracoin is not a technological experiment, it's a social / economic one. Best stay with proven tech, even if it's not optimal
  • It would divert attention and energy from what Auroracoin is really about to technological issues / discussions. It would 'draw the wrong crowd', so to say.
  • It's dangerous because concepts like PoT might not actually work. It would be very sad to see Auroracoin fail due to technical issues if it would've worked with simply using PoW.
  • Simplicity: PoW is simple and proven, why play with fire?

Just my 2 cents.
molecular
Lurker
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 10:27

by Skarfurinn » 07 Jun 2015 17:11

molecular wrote:I have reservations against using anything other than PoW for the following reasons:

  • I think PoW is a good fit for AUR because Iceland has good energy infrastructure. So Icelanders can mine.
  • Auroracoin is not a technological experiment, it's a social / economic one. Best stay with proven tech, even if it's not optimal
  • It would divert attention and energy from what Auroracoin is really about to technological issues / discussions. It would 'draw the wrong crowd', so to say.
  • It's dangerous because concepts like PoT might not actually work. It would be very sad to see Auroracoin fail due to technical issues if it would've worked with simply using PoW.
  • Simplicity: PoW is simple and proven, why play with fire?

Just my 2 cents.


I agree with you on this. Personally I think that PoW is the only option for Auroracoin at this time and currently there are no plans for anything else.

However I think it's good to discuss all these options. It's important to get the community's opinion. :)
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Skarfurinn
Dev team
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 04 Dec 2014 22:30
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland

by molecular » 18 Jun 2015 19:53

Skarfurinn wrote:However I think it's good to discuss all these options. It's important to get the community's opinion. :)


yes, it's always good to discuss options.

My suggestion would be to go with PoW until Ethereum or something like it is ready. Another option would be to merge-mine with bitcoin.
molecular
Lurker
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 Dec 2014 10:27

by BioMike » 23 Sep 2015 09:34

I've finally looked into this. And to be honest, there is little magic in there.

Transactions are compared with the block hash and if there is a match, coins are created at the send address that is used in the transaction.

Is it useful for Auroracoin? Yes, but not now. It does not add extra security to the network (as in PoW), but it could help in Auroracoin becoming better accepted (adjustments compared to the Whitepaper are probably needed), or as a future way to increase the amount of coins in circulation (due to loss or insufficient amount for the Icelandic economy).
User avatar
BioMike
Dev team
 
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 18:38
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

by Soltantgris » 08 Feb 2016 18:38

@BioMike : You said that PoT would be an option if Aur needed to increase it's supply. I don't get this part. I mean, if there is a need, value of each unit just rise and the supply is ''always'' matching this needs. Would always be feasable to divide aur in 10 or 1000 or 10000000, right ?

My understanding of PoT is thhat it was not intended to add any supply on top of PoW, but instead just a part of the increase.

But for the promotional aspect, i'm all in with PoT if doable ! So great to promote such feature, i don't get why it's still mostly untouched.
Soltantgris
rookie
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Apr 2015 10:56

by BioMike » 09 Feb 2016 08:54

Soltantgris wrote:@BioMike : You said that PoT would be an option if Aur needed to increase it's supply. I don't get this part. I mean, if there is a need, value of each unit just rise and the supply is ''always'' matching this needs. Would always be feasable to divide aur in 10 or 1000 or 10000000, right ?


Yes, that's why I tried to make clear that it would be a big IF. The point is if the price would rise so much that paying for a cup of coffee would be like lower than 0.000001 AUR. Just when things become impractical. Not sure if it ever will happen, so big "if".

Soltantgris wrote:My understanding of PoT is thhat it was not intended to add any supply on top of PoW, but instead just a part of the increase.


You can set the value to be paid out in PoT to any value. I don't expect it to be higher than 1 AUR if we would implement it (the PoW coinbase at that time would also be close to 0, second condition for implementing this). The charming part is that it randomly delivers coins directly into the economy (compare that with the ways how Central banks do that, they just give banks more money to get it into circulation).
User avatar
BioMike
Dev team
 
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 18:38
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

by Soltantgris » 09 Feb 2016 17:02

Got it.

Question : Is it a way to ''create'' a new unit out of AUR, the same way there is ''satoshi'' for bitcoin, but without the decimal.

Let say there is a technical way to allow people to spend one ''biomike''. 1000 ''biomike'' is equal to 1 AUR. And obviously there is another unit, the 'solt'. 1000 solt is equal to 1 ''biomike''.

So basically allowing people to remove the decimal. Instead of paying a coffee 0.001 aur, you pay 1 ''biomike''.

Anyone would be able split the AUR into 1000 biomike or 1 000 000 solt. Or the contrary.

Is it something doable ?

So maybe sometime in the future, someone with 1 complete AUR would be a rich one - most people just dealing biomike and solt :p
Soltantgris
rookie
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Apr 2015 10:56

by BioMike » 09 Feb 2016 21:17

Yes, that would be fairly easy. But my point is, is that there is a limit to moving the decimal. The same would happen if for example you could buy two kilo's of sugar for 1 Satoshi, but you want only one kilo. 0.5 Satoshi does not exist, and never will be. It is a limit of the system. A related problem is if 1 kilo of sugar would cost 1 Satoshi. How would you price one kilo of salt (which is normally much cheaper than sugar)?

Note: these are simplified examples.
User avatar
BioMike
Dev team
 
Posts: 117
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 18:38
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

by Soltantgris » 12 Feb 2016 12:55

I wish we have this problem one day !
Soltantgris
rookie
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Apr 2015 10:56


Return to Þróun (Development)

cron