ConwayLife.com - A community for Conway's Game of Life and related cellular automata
Home  •  LifeWiki  •  Forums  •  Download Golly

CAcoin

For general discussion about Conway's Game of Life.

Re: CAcoin

Postby dvgrn » February 27th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Majestas32 wrote:I mean for rules with >100million or 10 billion objects we can easily algorithmically produce a rare patterns list

Yes, but maintaining a distributed rare patterns list for a large set of rules would quickly start to be a problem. The list would have to be copied and agreed on by all the nodes in the distributed network, and it would presumably have to be adjusted every time a new rare object was discovered.

Basically, people can talk about a multi-rule CACoin if they must, but until they go ahead and solve all the very detailed problems involved with supporting large numbers of rules, a LifeCoin restricted to plain B3/S23 searches seems much much more likely to actually get implemented.
User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: CAcoin

Postby Majestas32 » February 27th, 2018, 12:20 pm

Yeah. I was thinking of having it automatically processed based on previous lifecoin/catagolue searches at every block but Hey calcyman is literally God so...
Please, stop spam searching Snowflakes.
User avatar
Majestas32
 
Posts: 524
Joined: November 20th, 2017, 12:22 pm
Location: 'Merica

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » June 17th, 2018, 5:22 pm

Majestas32 wrote:Yeah. I was thinking of having it automatically processed based on previous lifecoin/catagolue searches at every block but Hey calcyman is literally God so...


The approach I've settled upon is:

  1. Initialise difficulties according to the output of Catagolue. This gives a good estimate for medium-rare objects (say, difficulty < 50000 or so), but is too noisy in the tails.
  2. When the difficulty target of the cryptocurrency first exceeds the difficulty (exactly 38347, as calculated in step 1) of xp15_4r4y14r4z4r4y14r4, update the difficulty estimates (in a precise way) of anything rarer than xp15_4r4y14r4z4r4y14r4.
  3. When the difficulty target of the cryptocurrency first exceeds the difficulty (calculated in step 2) of xq16_gcbgzvgg826frc, update the difficulty estimates (in the same manner) of anything rarer than xq16_gcbgzvgg826frc.
  4. When the difficulty target of the cryptocurrency first exceeds the difficulty (calculated in step 3) of xq7_3nw17862z6952, update the difficulty estimates (in the same manner) of anything rarer than xq7_3nw17862z6952.

If Step 2 ever happens, it would take about 15 times as much computational power as Catagolue's last peak (of roughly 10^12 objects per day). By this point, the initial segment of blockchain will have a more accurate estimate of difficulty than Catagolue ever did, having amassed an entire Catagolue-volume every 2 weeks.

As for Step 3, that would only happen when the total hashrate is about 10^15 objects per day, amassing a Catagolue-volume every 6 hours (!). I'm making the implicit assumption that several loafers will have emerged by this point, and that I can therefore use that as the standard for Step 4. Not that we're ever likely to need to invoke Step 4, as that would only occur when we're producing loafers-or-beyond every 10 minutes!
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby dvgrn » September 3rd, 2018, 12:23 pm

testitemqlstudop wrote:How about search for a pattern that stabilizes in at least D generations where D is the difficulty?

[Deleted another post to get rid of the toxic sig line.]
User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: CAcoin

Postby KittyTac » September 3rd, 2018, 12:38 pm

Don't use Aidan Mode in sigs.
User avatar
KittyTac
 
Posts: 533
Joined: December 21st, 2017, 9:58 am

Re: CAcoin

Postby cordership3 » September 9th, 2018, 8:23 pm

@calcyman: What is the current progress on the CACoin implementation? I know a lot of progress has been made since you last posted about the proof-of-work system, but the lifecoin branch is already available for use and there seems to be nothing different about it.
All hail WADUFI our king.
User avatar
cordership3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 8:53 am
Location: haha long boy

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » September 10th, 2018, 7:29 am

cordership3 wrote:@calcyman: What is the current progress on the CACoin implementation? I know a lot of progress has been made since you last posted about the proof-of-work system, but the lifecoin branch is already available for use and there seems to be nothing different about it.


To summarise:

Digital signatures/addresses: implemented
Proof-of-work system: implemented
Blockchain headers: implemented
Difficulty calculations: implemented
Networking: not yet implemented
Transactions: not yet implemented

Once the networking is implemented, we'll have a usable decentralised blockchain (and online mining will become possible), but it won't be a currency until there's support for transactions.

I tested offline mining (and mined the first 100 blocks in a day, saving them to disk) a while ago and tested the output against an independent Python 3 script to ensure the cryptographic primitives have been correctly implemented. I haven't mined any more blocks since that day, because I don't want too much of a headstart.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » October 22nd, 2018, 9:43 am

honglei (now banned for Sri Lanka travel-visa spam in sig line) wrote:Well considering that long time search is actually translated into a value of a coin, I think most search time in GOL went into spaceships search. So having some new p7 and higher period spaceships could be considered as a cryptocoin.

That may have been the case when simsim314 originally wrote the paragraph you've just shamelessly plagiarised, but now it's been far surpassed by the (estimated) 3 million CPU-hours that have gone into Catagolue.
Last edited by dvgrn on October 22nd, 2018, 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: clarify why original post has disappeared...
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby 77topaz » October 22nd, 2018, 5:25 pm

Yeah, copying earlier posts in a thread to appear legitimate is a common tactic of those sig-line-advertising bots.
User avatar
77topaz
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 9:19 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby testitemqlstudop » February 27th, 2019, 6:27 pm

calcyman wrote:The approach I've settled upon is:

<snip>



The first thing that came to mind when I saw the difficulties file is that the difficulty of objects were not linearly distributed - in fact, there were only three or four objects for each ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. This creates great problems:
difficulties.inc wrote:
difficulties[                               "xp14_j9d0d9j"] =         903.6111;
difficulties[                           "xp8_wgovnz234z33"] =        3345.3205;


This quite literally implies that there will be NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a difficulty of 904, 907, 1907, or 3345. In cryptocurrencies, the targets move in correspondence to (total hashspace size/difficulty). In SHA256, where the total hashspace size is 0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. If the difficulty was 1M hashes, the target would be 0x000010c6f7a0b5ed8d36b4c7f34938583621fafc8b0079a2834d26fa3fcc9ea9, if the difficulty was 2M hashes, the target would be 0x000008637bd05af6c69b5a63f9a49c2c1b10fd7e45803cd141a6937d1fe64f54. On the other hand, in Lifecoin, if the difficulty was 1000 CPU-minutes, the target would be "rarer than xp8_wgovnz234z3", and if the difficulty was 2000 CPU-minutes, the target would still be "rarer than xp8_wgovnz234z3"!
SEARCH SNOWFLAKES
--------------------------------------------------
ln(2) = 0.4^0.4 + (e-pi/10)*10^-6
User avatar
testitemqlstudop
 
Posts: 589
Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
Location: very very very very boats

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » February 27th, 2019, 7:28 pm

What you say is correct, but I'm unconvinced by your claim that:

This creates great problems


The only 'problem' that imposes is that there will be (for instance) a discontinuity between blocks lasting 5 minutes and blocks lasting 20 minutes. This discrete jump between block difficulties isn't problematic; in any case (including Bitcoin), block times are exponentially distributed, so you can't rely on differences between block timestamps being uniform. Indeed, Bitcoin timestamps aren't even required to be monotonic (!!!)*, so much worse things are allowed than a mere fourfold jump in block difficulty.

* reference: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/915/why-dont-the-timestamps-in-the-block-chain-always-increase

So I'd agree that this creates irregularities, but these irregularities in no way actually weaken the blockchain, so they're not problems per se.

Also, this fourfold jump is quite an isolated occurrence; beyond it, the jumps appear to be much smaller.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby testitemqlstudop » February 27th, 2019, 8:30 pm

calcyman wrote:The only 'problem' that imposes is that there will be (for instance) a discontinuity between blocks lasting 5 minutes and blocks lasting 20 minutes.


Well, what I thought was instead of blocks lasting 5 minutes blocks last 1 or 2 minutes -

testitemqlstudop wrote:if the difficulty was 1000 CPU-minutes, the target would be "rarer than xp8_wgovnz234z3", and if the difficulty was 2000 CPU-minutes, the target would still be "rarer than xp8_wgovnz234z3"!


I was thinking that this problem could be partially alleviated by including difficulty for more objects, e.g. including SLs >= 30 bits or having a higher cutoff for "***_rare" objects.

Networking: not yet implemented


I REALLY think an HTTP server for each node is enough.
SEARCH SNOWFLAKES
--------------------------------------------------
ln(2) = 0.4^0.4 + (e-pi/10)*10^-6
User avatar
testitemqlstudop
 
Posts: 589
Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
Location: very very very very boats

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » February 27th, 2019, 8:59 pm

testitemqlstudop wrote:
Networking: not yet implemented


I REALLY think an HTTP server for each node is enough.


I agree -- but there's still a huge amount of work to implement all of the endpoints necessary: for starters, there needs to be some interaction between nodes to determine the most recent common block where their chains agree, so that everything beyond that can be transmitted to the other node. And it's also necessary to ensure that this is robust against a malicious agent controlling one end of the communication channel and trying to DDoS you. So whilst this will all be built upon a stock HTTP server (e.g. libmicrohttpd, which I've used in other projects), that's only a vanishingly small fraction of the total effort involved in establishing a communication mechanism between nodes.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: CAcoin

Postby testitemqlstudop » February 27th, 2019, 9:04 pm

There comes the problem again.

Bitcoin has the advantage of "follow the chain with the most work" - the sum of 1/(sha256 hash) for each block. However, Lifecoin treats blocks with the same rarest object equally. Shouldn't there be some kind of "tiebreaker" function so that two xp8_wgovnz234z33 (say) blocks won't be weighted equally if one attacker mined a malicious block and tried to fork the chain?

And I bring up another problem: There is no function for block verification.

Am I the only person who wants to bring back the v1 soup scoring system?
SEARCH SNOWFLAKES
--------------------------------------------------
ln(2) = 0.4^0.4 + (e-pi/10)*10^-6
User avatar
testitemqlstudop
 
Posts: 589
Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
Location: very very very very boats

Re: CAcoin

Postby calcyman » February 28th, 2019, 5:55 am

testitemqlstudop wrote:There comes the problem again.

Bitcoin has the advantage of "follow the chain with the most work" - the sum of 1/(sha256 hash) for each block.


No it doesn't; Bitcoin simply follows the chain with the most blocks.

And I bring up another problem: There is no function for block verification.


Good point. I've added a function now:

https://gitlab.com/apgoucher/apgmera/commit/0cadb0e31d10954cda98a6cd09081dccc58c450b

Run ./lifecoin verify [sequence of block files]. This will check that:

  • The hash* of each block is correctly included in the next block;
  • The difficulty is adjusted correctly according to the timestamps;
  • The soup from a block produces a rare object surpassing the difficulty target;

* SHA256 concatenated with SHA3-256, just in case one of these (two very different) algorithms has a vulnerability.

The return code is equal to the number of errors (blocks which fail).
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
User avatar
calcyman
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests