3 ms·

Although just saying that doesn't really tell anyone much, who doesn't already know. A Sybil attack is the creation of a bunch of identities to subvert a syste

Although just saying that doesn't really tell anyone much, who doesn't already know. A Sybil attack is the creation of a bunch of identities to subvert a system that is attempting to distribute power amongst a bunch of participants. The Sybil resistance of these schemes comes from allocating power in proportion to some form of commitment of a scarce resource, which could be indigenous to the system (e.g. proof of stake, proof of burn) or exogenous (e.g. proof of work, proof of storage). I think it's noteworthy that all of these systems are plutocratic. They will all effectively redistribute wealth upward, because anything that doesn't would encourage the creation of more identities.

dolmen 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
ItsMonkk 5y ago
Exactly. The current techniques to Sybil resistance directly leads to plutocracy because of economies of scale. I think the solution is fees based on transaction expediency. If I want a transaction to go through for the minimum possible fee I could schedule it for a year in advance. In one years time, the money would be available. If I wanted it sooner, say instantly, that transaction would cost say, 1x. So if it was a $100 transaction, the fee would be $100. Maybe 1 day is 0.1x, 1 week is 0.01x and 1 month is .001x. If you want the best odds of double spending and choose to pick instantly, the fee is equivalent to the transaction, so you don't actually end up gaining anything. Smart merchants will start essentially doing futures. I am going to need corn in one year, I setup the deal today, when it goes onto the chain I transact my corn. Better still, we can use these fees to add to the supply. The only reason that a transaction would go through with a fee is if the profit of the transaction from both sides was above 0, so we can directly track a portion of the surplus of our currency. We can calculate how much security we need based on the available currency at a certain time, and mostly the miners only earn enough of the fees such that we can ensure that we won't be harmed by a malicious attacker who does not care that they aren't getting anything. So the difficulty is based not on mining power, but on exploitability. So what do we do with the rest of the fees including the new coins generated through those fees? We give them to people who have actively locked up coins as we want to encourage people locking up their coins, as the more they have locked up, the less risk there is that a double spend can occur. So that means if you know that you will not transact your coins for one year, you will transact with yourself and lock in, and essentially you get yourself a CD. This is all super preliminary, and I am looking for problems with this setup, but it seems to work.

dolmen 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

ItsMonkk 5y ago

Exactly. The current techniques to Sybil resistance directly leads to plutocracy because of economies of scale. I think the solution is fees based on transaction expediency. If I want a transaction to go through for the minimum possible fee I could schedule it for a year in advance. In one years time, the money would be available. If I wanted it sooner, say instantly, that transaction would cost say, 1x. So if it was a $100 transaction, the fee would be $100. Maybe 1 day is 0.1x, 1 week is 0.01x and 1 month is .001x. If you want the best odds of double spending and choose to pick instantly, the fee is equivalent to the transaction, so you don't actually end up gaining anything. Smart merchants will start essentially doing futures. I am going to need corn in one year, I setup the deal today, when it goes onto the chain I transact my corn. Better still, we can use these fees to add to the supply. The only reason that a transaction would go through with a fee is if the profit of the transaction from both sides was above 0, so we can directly track a portion of the surplus of our currency. We can calculate how much security we need based on the available currency at a certain time, and mostly the miners only earn enough of the fees such that we can ensure that we won't be harmed by a malicious attacker who does not care that they aren't getting anything. So the difficulty is based not on mining power, but on exploitability. So what do we do with the rest of the fees including the new coins generated through those fees? We give them to people who have actively locked up coins as we want to encourage people locking up their coins, as the more they have locked up, the less risk there is that a double spend can occur. So that means if you know that you will not transact your coins for one year, you will transact with yourself and lock in, and essentially you get yourself a CD. This is all super preliminary, and I am looking for problems with this setup, but it seems to work.