The CYPHERPUNK, a F/oss monthy "A zine about internet culture, urban nomadism, and post-industrial life (via radical sustainability and low-watt FM radio). Taking back the internet commons from the large-media conglomerates, providing recipes for mental liberation, and strapping down the inhuman machine that has become the American populace, putting on a harness, and riding it like a bucking cowboy. If you know how to code, this zine is for you. For those who are neophytes, Floss stands for “free, libre, open-source software”. The computer is a lawmaker, this is for the liberators of the machine."
Anyone interested in writing an article? \0xd On 12/31/17, \0xDynamite <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a killer app though. > > On 12/31/17, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/31/2017 10:01 AM, Steven Schear wrote: >>> I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined >>> miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 >>> paper I've mentioned here. >> >> I cannot immediately find your link to your paper. >> >> Obviously, at full scale we are always going to have immensely more >> clients than full peers, likely by a factor of hundreds of thousands, >> but we need to have enough peers, which means we need to reward peers >> for being peers, for providing the service of storing blockchain data, >> propagating transactions, verifying the blockchain, and making the data >> readily available, rather than for the current pointless bit crunching >> and waste of electricity employed by current mining. >> >> The power over the blockchain, and the revenues coming from transaction >> and storage fees, have to go to this large number of peers, rather than, >> as at present, mostly to four miners located in China. >> >> Also, at scale, we are going to have to shard, so that a peer is >> actually a pool of machines, each with a shard of the blockchain, >> perhaps with all the machines run by one person, perhaps run by a group >> of people who trust each other, each of whom runs one machine managing >> one shard of the blockchain. >> >> Rewards, and the decision as to which chain is final, has to go to >> weight of stake, but also to proof of service - to peers, who store and >> check the blockchain and make it available. >> >> All durable keys should live in client wallets, because they can be >> secured off the internet. So how do we implement weight of stake, since >> only peers are actually sufficiently well connected to actually >> participate in governance? >> >> To solve this problem, stakes are held by client wallets. Stakes that >> are in the clear get registered with a peer, the registration gets >> recorded in the blockchain, and the peer is gets influence, and to some >> extent rewards, proportional to the stake registered with it, >> conditional on the part it is doing to supply data storage, >> verification, and bandwidth. >> >
