6 ms·

The Fifth Protocol (2014)

72 points by IA21 9y ago

kurthr 9y ago
Of course there will be DOS attacks on the currency protocol too... unless we design it just so.
lerie 9y ago
It's in the app layer, we dont need a "fifth" layer.
- _pius 9y ago
  It's in the app layer, we dont need a "fifth" layer. That's raised in the first comment, by Fred Wilson. Naval's response was: You are correct in that it’s technically another set of application layer protocols – I was just being provocative with the title Although in theory it could be a resource allocation layer on top of SMTP, HTTP, etc. Semantics…
- uiri 9y ago
  There are seven layers according to the OSI model. The TCP/IP model simplifies this into "above layer 4", layer 4, layer 3, and "below layer 3". In practice, TLS/SSL is an implementation of the session layer (layer 5) with other protocols run on top in the application layer. The data link and physical layers don't map particularly well to LLC, MAC, and physical transmission technologies but they serve as a reasonable approximation. The presentation layer (layer 6) doesn't really exist but neither did the session layer until a need for encryption inside of TCP came along. Onion routing could be argued to be another session layer technology. The real world is messy and simplifying it into four (or five) layers of nested protocols puts TCP/IP on a pedestal. So take the title with a grain of salt. The original article argues that cryptocurrencies are a layer of protocol, wrapping those above it. Looking at NameCoin, it isn't an argument that should be dismissed out of hand.
  - incidentnormal 9y ago
    I find the concepts of session and presentation layers within the OSI model to be quite nebulous today, especially when you try to map TCP/IP concepts onto them - because it's not a like-for-like comparison. I think I prefer the '5th layer' concept - an extension of the TCP/IP stack between 'Transport' and 'Application'.
  - smoyer 9y ago
    While the OSI model is commonly referenced it's pretty rare to see the Internet Protocol Suite. In this case, I'd argue the author could have said we need an alternate transport protocol but with his argument I don't think you can say that crypto-currencies aren't just another application (as noted elsewhere). Bonus points for the Snow Crash quote though - one of my favorite authors!
mechanical_berk 9y ago
> Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are already trustless – any machine can accept it from any other, securely. They are (nearly) free. I believe it currently costs ~$1.50 in fees for a single Bitcoin transaction, assuming you want it confirmed reasonably quickly. Not what I would call nearly free!
- hdhzy 9y ago
  Could you tell where did you get that fee from? According to this thread [0] the recommended fee is 0.0001 BTC that'd be $0.20. Of course if you have a non standard transaction the recommended fee will vary. [0]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245552.msg2618635#msg2618635 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245552.msg2618635#ms... > assuming you want it confirmed reasonably quickly Generally it takes 10 minutes to mine a block so even with a very high fee you won't have it accepted in seconds (except for a pure luck situation where you send a transaction, miner takes it and immediately finds a block). Personally I wouldn't think fees are a big deal now that miners rely mainly on coinbase transactions (getting BTC just for mining a block). Fees will play a big role when miners stop creating BTC out of thin air and will have to survive on fees only.
  - BillinghamJ 9y ago
    See e.g. https://estimatefee.com https://estimatefee.com If this continues as it is now, once mining blocks no longer creates new bitcoins, we'll surely be looking at fees of $100+ for confirmation within 24 hours.
    - emagdnim2100 9y ago
      This may be a misconception - a decrease in the rewards paid to miners wouldn't obviously be "made up for" by an increase in transaction fees. The fee is basically a bid to be included in the next 1MB block, so it should be a pure product of transaction volume (and, of course, the BTC/USD exchange rate by extension). However, I agree that both the transaction volume and the exchange rate are likely to continue increasing. But, if I'm missing something, it would be interesting to know!
b1daly 9y ago
I can't see how this squares with the scalability problems of proof-of-work systems. Given the big problems with these limits currently happening with bitcoin, this seems impossible to use in a high bandwidth system. Already bitcoin transactions are shockingly expensive, with the bulk of the cost hidden from the user by the payout of coins to the miners.
moomin 9y ago
This sounded like a good idea, until I remembered most spam bandwidth was stolen.
neilk 9y ago
I agree with the part where he calls cryptocurrencies a religion.
- normalocity 9y ago
  Right? The author seems to take the matrix way too seriously. You're not Morpheus trying to convince everyone to see the truth of the currency savior. You're just a little over enthusiastic.
johnnydoebk 9y ago
Do we have a week of cryptocurrencies on HN?
bascule 9y ago
What I would like to see is an openly federated payments network that functions more like the Internet (and runs on top of the Internet): https://interledger.org/ https://interledger.org/
bmcusick 9y ago
Basically still correct it's just taken longer to get scaling solutions like SegWit/Lightning into production. One the Lightning Network is up you just pay one BTC transaction to establish a channel with the network, then all subsequent LN transactions are cheap and instantaneous.

72 points by IA21 9y ago

kurthr 9y ago

Of course there will be DOS attacks on the currency protocol too... unless we design it just so.

lerie 9y ago

It's in the app layer, we dont need a "fifth" layer.

_pius 9y ago
It's in the app layer, we dont need a "fifth" layer. That's raised in the first comment, by Fred Wilson. Naval's response was: You are correct in that it’s technically another set of application layer protocols – I was just being provocative with the title Although in theory it could be a resource allocation layer on top of SMTP, HTTP, etc. Semantics…
uiri 9y ago
There are seven layers according to the OSI model. The TCP/IP model simplifies this into "above layer 4", layer 4, layer 3, and "below layer 3". In practice, TLS/SSL is an implementation of the session layer (layer 5) with other protocols run on top in the application layer. The data link and physical layers don't map particularly well to LLC, MAC, and physical transmission technologies but they serve as a reasonable approximation. The presentation layer (layer 6) doesn't really exist but neither did the session layer until a need for encryption inside of TCP came along. Onion routing could be argued to be another session layer technology. The real world is messy and simplifying it into four (or five) layers of nested protocols puts TCP/IP on a pedestal. So take the title with a grain of salt. The original article argues that cryptocurrencies are a layer of protocol, wrapping those above it. Looking at NameCoin, it isn't an argument that should be dismissed out of hand.
- incidentnormal 9y ago
  I find the concepts of session and presentation layers within the OSI model to be quite nebulous today, especially when you try to map TCP/IP concepts onto them - because it's not a like-for-like comparison. I think I prefer the '5th layer' concept - an extension of the TCP/IP stack between 'Transport' and 'Application'.
- smoyer 9y ago
  While the OSI model is commonly referenced it's pretty rare to see the Internet Protocol Suite. In this case, I'd argue the author could have said we need an alternate transport protocol but with his argument I don't think you can say that crypto-currencies aren't just another application (as noted elsewhere). Bonus points for the Snow Crash quote though - one of my favorite authors!

mechanical_berk 9y ago

> Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are already trustless – any machine can accept it from any other, securely. They are (nearly) free. I believe it currently costs ~$1.50 in fees for a single Bitcoin transaction, assuming you want it confirmed reasonably quickly. Not what I would call nearly free!

hdhzy 9y ago
Could you tell where did you get that fee from? According to this thread [0] the recommended fee is 0.0001 BTC that'd be $0.20. Of course if you have a non standard transaction the recommended fee will vary. [0]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245552.msg2618635#msg2618635 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245552.msg2618635#ms... > assuming you want it confirmed reasonably quickly Generally it takes 10 minutes to mine a block so even with a very high fee you won't have it accepted in seconds (except for a pure luck situation where you send a transaction, miner takes it and immediately finds a block). Personally I wouldn't think fees are a big deal now that miners rely mainly on coinbase transactions (getting BTC just for mining a block). Fees will play a big role when miners stop creating BTC out of thin air and will have to survive on fees only.
- BillinghamJ 9y ago
  See e.g. https://estimatefee.com https://estimatefee.com If this continues as it is now, once mining blocks no longer creates new bitcoins, we'll surely be looking at fees of $100+ for confirmation within 24 hours.
  - emagdnim2100 9y ago
    This may be a misconception - a decrease in the rewards paid to miners wouldn't obviously be "made up for" by an increase in transaction fees. The fee is basically a bid to be included in the next 1MB block, so it should be a pure product of transaction volume (and, of course, the BTC/USD exchange rate by extension). However, I agree that both the transaction volume and the exchange rate are likely to continue increasing. But, if I'm missing something, it would be interesting to know!

b1daly 9y ago

I can't see how this squares with the scalability problems of proof-of-work systems. Given the big problems with these limits currently happening with bitcoin, this seems impossible to use in a high bandwidth system. Already bitcoin transactions are shockingly expensive, with the bulk of the cost hidden from the user by the payout of coins to the miners.

moomin 9y ago

This sounded like a good idea, until I remembered most spam bandwidth was stolen.

neilk 9y ago

I agree with the part where he calls cryptocurrencies a religion.

normalocity 9y ago
Right? The author seems to take the matrix way too seriously. You're not Morpheus trying to convince everyone to see the truth of the currency savior. You're just a little over enthusiastic.

johnnydoebk 9y ago

Do we have a week of cryptocurrencies on HN?

bascule 9y ago

What I would like to see is an openly federated payments network that functions more like the Internet (and runs on top of the Internet): https://interledger.org/ https://interledger.org/

bmcusick 9y ago

Basically still correct it's just taken longer to get scaling solutions like SegWit/Lightning into production. One the Lightning Network is up you just pay one BTC transaction to establish a channel with the network, then all subsequent LN transactions are cheap and instantaneous.