4 ms·

How do you deal with spam tx? In other words pretending to use your stake but you’re not actually? The same issue as what i’ve encountered when trying to imagi

How do you deal with spam tx? In other words pretending to use your stake but you’re not actually? The same issue as what i’ve encountered when trying to imagine a cryptocurrency that is slightly inflationary, like 1% yearly. There is no objective way to decide how much the money supply should grow, as far as I can tell, because there is no way to separate “real” from “fake” usage.

jacoblambda 8y ago
One aspect that wouldn't eliminate the issue of "useless" or fake tx would be to have the liquidity aspect be a modifier where stakes being il-liquid devalue but over some threshold, the stake modifier is at a constant 1x. Another potential mitigation tool would be to have the protocol look for tight tx loops (i.e. Naive liquidity falsifying) and either negate or reduce their influence on the liquidity calculation. Whether this is actually possible I have absolutely no idea. If I was to have any real trust in this idea I would have to look for/develop either formal proofs or some real demonstrable examples of it working. Beyond that I think it boils down to game theory and economics. If it could work, it would likely require careful calibration to minimise the benefit of gaming the system or otherwise being a bad actor.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  My brain isn't working very well right now so I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying, but is what you're getting at similar to the metric of "coin days destroyed"? (ie if you send 5 BTC to address foo and those 5 BTC haven't been moved for 365 days then you've destroyed 365*5 coindays
  - jacoblambda 8y ago
    More or less ya that is about right. Now that would still only be part of the overall calculation as I think that assets such as loans and smart contracts should be considered in the calculation. The money from loans and such is in use by people on the network but its owner should still be able to claim it for staking purposes.

jacoblambda 8y ago

One aspect that wouldn't eliminate the issue of "useless" or fake tx would be to have the liquidity aspect be a modifier where stakes being il-liquid devalue but over some threshold, the stake modifier is at a constant 1x. Another potential mitigation tool would be to have the protocol look for tight tx loops (i.e. Naive liquidity falsifying) and either negate or reduce their influence on the liquidity calculation. Whether this is actually possible I have absolutely no idea. If I was to have any real trust in this idea I would have to look for/develop either formal proofs or some real demonstrable examples of it working. Beyond that I think it boils down to game theory and economics. If it could work, it would likely require careful calibration to minimise the benefit of gaming the system or otherwise being a bad actor.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
My brain isn't working very well right now so I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying, but is what you're getting at similar to the metric of "coin days destroyed"? (ie if you send 5 BTC to address foo and those 5 BTC haven't been moved for 365 days then you've destroyed 365*5 coindays
- jacoblambda 8y ago
  More or less ya that is about right. Now that would still only be part of the overall calculation as I think that assets such as loans and smart contracts should be considered in the calculation. The money from loans and such is in use by people on the network but its owner should still be able to claim it for staking purposes.