wildbunny

Joined 15 years ago

Karma
467
Submissions
92
Member since
Apr 11
A games industry veteran of ten years, seven of which spent at Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, he has had key technical roles on triple-A titles like the Bafta Award Winning Little Big Planet (PSP), 24: The Game (PS2), special effects work on Heavenly Sword (PS3), some in-show graphics on the BBC’s version of Robot Wars, the TV show, as well as a few more obscure projects.

Now joint CEO of Wildbunny, he is able to give himself hiccups simply by coughing.

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 5 years ago
You don't need to 'claim' anything. It's written into the rules of the blockchain. You cannot change the rules like that and expect to have your blocks appended to the canonical chain.
Comment · 5 years ago
I suppose you might argue that the amiga paved the way for the architecture of the PS2 - the copper chip ran a rudimentary display list, the blitter hardware accelerated graphics operations. But I wouldn't say there is a direct relationship... wait you're not talking about the CDTV, are you?
Comment · 5 years ago
The GS (graphics chip) in the PS2 had a great hardware bug whereby if you turned off the z-test, it would never come back on again. You had to change the z mode to always pass to get around it.
Comment · 5 years ago
It's gone down
Comment · 6 years ago
404
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Agree completely. Nice paper, utterly useless in practice due to sybil attack.

edit: not only that, but it will be vulnerable to all kinds of history attacks for bootstrapping nodes

Comment · 8 years ago
Can't read it due to their pay-wall, anyone post the copy?
Comment · 8 years ago
It requires a majority of trustworthy nodes to be online - it cannot deal with a force majeure, such as a massive power cut.
Comment · 8 years ago
Sorry, no it is not. There is no nash equilibrium in PoS at all. The only thing preventing it from collapsing completely is hidden centralisation in all the PoS protocols.
Comment · 8 years ago
Not to mention that the central consensus mechanism is completely broken.

You cannot have a trustless consensus without a mining incentive:

Quoted from my post linked below:

o) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block.

o) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward for doing so. Slower miners lose out to faster miners, but they still participate in the competition to produce a block because they stand a chance of winning occasionally.

o) This mining subsidy provides a positive incentive to miners to play by the rules, and encourages them not try to double spending, because they might as well claim the mining reward instead of trying to double spend which is often much more difficult than producing a single block.

o) The mining subsidy also encourages all miners to participate in the mining process, which gives an overall metric for total network hashing power, which you can then use to give an estimate of when it is safe to accept a transaction of a given size, as confirmed, because (on average), the block reward is equal to the electricity cost of mining that block. That means that when your transaction has been buried under enough blocks that the mining subsidy equals the transactions size, it is more or less safe to accept that transaction as confirmed.

Now, imagine the situation with no mining reward.

o) Instead of participating in a competition to win the block reward, miners have no positive incentive to participate anymore. They now are left with the negative incentive to try and double spend.

o) Since these miners are not contributing their hashing power to the network anymore, the overall hashrate of the network in unmeasurable, since these miners are quite likely to leave their ASICs in sleep mode until they want to double spend

o) With the network hash rate unmeasurable, there is no way to put an estimate on when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed.

When there is no way to estimate when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed, that currency is now useless because any transaction can potentially be reversed.

This is why both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network, but at that point, you might as well be using VISA.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799665.msg20108439#...

Comment · 8 years ago
Isn't stellar's consensus still the 'consensus' of one node owned by the company due to the fact that the design is totally broken?
Comment · 8 years ago
I found that proof of burn actually was exactly equivalent to proof of stake in terms of overall security. I.e. not good enough.
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
The easy way to express this is: cryptocurrencies are true, digital cash

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton