Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
  1. Outlined the notion of a blockchain and the key notion of ’proof of work’ that underlies it, along with some criticisms.

    v1, current

  2. I have a few thoughts on how one could tweak the notion of proof of work to avoid use of massive amounts of computational resources; I can try to write something about that here later.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2018
    • (edited Oct 16th 2018)

    Proof of work is past. Modern blockchains use proof of stake or other algorithms. Look at Durov’s TON paper.

    Blockchain is invented in Wei’s 1998 paper. Nakamoto rediscovered it in 2008.

    Ideally, in future public blockchain products lattice cryptography should be used to ensure staying well after quantum computing becomes reality.

  3. Hi Zoran, please feel free to update the references :-).

    Proof of work is past. Modern blockchains use proof of stake or other algorithms. Look at Durov’s TON paper.

    I am not an expert, but I am far from sure that this is the case, neither in practise nor theoretically. There are numerous problems with proof of stake as well, and I have not seen any alternative that is as secure as proof of work. This is precisely because proof of work, in its crudeness, relies on something that is impossible to get around without expenditure, i.e. actual computational power (and attendent electricity, etc).

    As I say, I do have some ideas on how to tweak proof of work to avoid the resource burning. But if you can convince me that some version of proof of stake is already superior, I would be very happy to hear your arguments :-).

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2018

    I will elaborate on this in near future. Surely, I agree that PoS algorithms are not solving all the balance problems in blickchajn ecosystems. But in most cases it is not the security which is the critical loss when passing to proof of stake. The fact that in addition to straightforward mining there are also useful and unavoidable comoutations, like confirming the validity of transactions, smart contract execution and alike, one can measure contributions of those performing these community service operations and allow those contributors, in respective proportions, to ALLOW to mine. In other words, you set mining problems computationally easier to solve (hence avoiding ASIC competition, but still nontrivial to solve) but you allow only some amount of new mined tokens to those authorized. On the other hand, even being one of validator nodes, is also preselected using say currency stake, rotating orders anx consensus.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2019

    I expanded the entry a bit and crosslinked it, including with my own bibliography entry and new stub smart contract.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)