Jump to content
NEWS

C.M

MEMBER
  • Content count

    1,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    1h 3m 36s

About C.M

  • Rank
    Crypto-Laird

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Scotland
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Contact Methods

  • Website
    http://www.gridcoin.us
  1. Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) What are you going to call your new altcoin? Since Gridcoin Research will most likely continue existing after you fork away (and we can't have two tokens both calling themselves "Gridcoin").. It's disappointing to see that you've removed yourself from most of the developer channels on slack :( Edit: Also, why more invalid forum polls?
  2. GRIDCOIN 3 BLOCK DISTRIBUTION POLL

    Gridcoin client polls > Forum polls. Forum polls hold no valid network consensus.
  3. Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    It doesn't require fundamentally changing server software, it involves adding 2 new PHP pages (one with a public form, one with the back-end PHP openssl signing function), generating a new openssl key pair & making their openssl public key publicly accessible. It doesn't require recompiling the BOINC server code from scratch, it doesn't involve storing any external system data on their servers (Something which they explicitly rejected in the workshop) and has the added benefit of forcing them to update their openssl version. Projects which do not have active administrators/developers are a major risk for being hacked and used as an attack vector against the Gridcoin network. Any project which we couldn't establish such communications with could be eligible for whitelist polling due to owner absenteeism. Even if all projects didn't inherit the 2 PHP pages, we could assume ownership if you validate an userID with cpid x and other projects share cpid x. Are you aware that the project admins explicitly stated that they do not want any external system data stored within BOINC project servers? It makes their projects a target for attack, plus it doesn't reduce load being placed on BOINC project servers for account ownership proof (where as userID ownership via openssl has zero checks against the project server, just against their public openssl key which we would cache). It would mean tracking 30+ userIDs against each staking address, rather than verifying one CPID, however I don't agree that bases are being covered given the lack of github wiki documentation.
  4. Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    These are not unique proposals - my proposal (https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/wiki/DEV-CPID-Ownership#cms-proposal) also: Removes the need for such private/public keys being stored in the conf file Proposes replay protection (both intra and inter network replay attacks) Proves absolute account (userID, not CPID) ownership (since you will need to log into your BOINC account) Enables users to update their registration without third party involvement (removing the need for centralized beacon maintenance) Encourages the removal of the mandatory team requirement. Doesn't require local BOINC client checks. Can you please publish your proposal in the Gridcoin-Research wiki 'DEV-CPID-Ownership' page in depth, alongside the alternative beacon proposals so that the community can more thoroughly understand your proposal? Thanks
  5. Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Forum polls are not superior to client polls, the exploit you talk of is simply deleting the poll - if the poll doesn't get deleted then there's no reason not to use the voting mechanism. Forum polls can be easily manipulated with sock puppet accounts - anyone could create 100 accounts to force the vote outcome, besides 100 users is a tiny portion of the Gridcoin network - whilst the nodes online may be in the lower 4 figure range, there are approx 13,852 users in the team (https://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/team/detail/118094994/overview), 2,863 /r/gridcoin subreddit subscribers, 431 members in Slack & 676 users in Telegram. 100 users voting in a poll is simply not grounds for claiming network consensus on any matter in the GRC network. There are still problems with the poll you created within the client: It's biased, it mentions only your proposal and maintaining the current code base as an alternative. There are many alternative codebase proposals which you have omitted intentionally. 1 month duration is insufficient - the precedent set with the POSv3 & Fixed Block polls were 2-3 month poll duration lengths for substantial development proposals. One could be away for longer than one month, or miss your announcement entirely due to the lack of community involvement. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) I doubt that upon hearing the use of invalid terminology they would approve, it doesn't involve machine learning nor actual neural networks and in its current state relies on a centralized statistics proxy. So our two individual votes on this matter are compared to the entire network, yet your proposal only needs 100 to vote in a poll? Lol.. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) If the minimum quantity of GRC to run a masternode is 400k, then we'd have approx 180 eligible addresses - how many of them will actually run a full masternode? Not likely. https://gridcoinstats.eu/address How can you claim your simulations are 'very very accurate' when they aren't open source nor public? You cannot claim speculation as fact. So the cost to attack the network would be 91*400k = 36 million GRC. There already exists an user 'philld' who owns 55m+ GRC and is not a known entity. https://gridcoinstats.eu/cpid/9ce6f19e20f69790601c9bf9c0b03928 @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Given the multiple recent exploits against your homebrew consensus/hashing mechanisms within the Gridcoin network, perhaps it's not wise to create a new hashing algorithm from scratch given you're not a cryptographer? @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Perhaps a problem the community is facing is the lack of advantages/disadvantages that masternodes have in your documentation, compared to the adv/dis-adv of using alternative codebases? From your documentation, there is no evidence of investigating codebases outwith Dash. @Quez Perhaps there would be a marketing advantage to inheriting some of the existing technology name recognition, however out of ETH/Dash/Graphene, the Graphene token communities (BTS/Steem/Peerplays/Golos/...) would be far friendlier to us inheriting their codebase. I'd imagine that inheriting the latest Dash or ETH codebase and becoming their competitors (especially with zero sharedrop onto ETH/DASH holders) would be met with hostility and a greater likelihood of malicious attack (of which would actually follow through in performing said attacks, rather than just publicly expose issues). Graphene is a toolkit, it is intended for creating new graphene based cryptocurrencies where as ETH and Dash are not intended for this functionality (however it's entirely possible). @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) 'Researching' just the 'top 20 cryptocurrencies' for viable alternative codebases is not appropriate; a large market cap is not an indication of superior technology. @huppdiwupp 1. Graphene witnesses & committee members only need to have funds to register their intent to become a witness or committee member. You do require an investment in witness hardware & potentially redundant servers in case of downtime, however this is far less than a masternode investment. Witnesses are likely to be the most trusted individuals in the community. 2. Same privacy concerns can be made for masternodes, pos and other algorithms - they all trust anonymous entities in maintaining their network. It's likely that non anonymous witnesses would be voted in faster than anonymous individuals, however a large quantity of Gridcoin devs/members maintain personas/aliases instead of using their real identities (there's no team page with identities on the gridcoin website). 3. Similar to how you can change the quantity of possible masternodes via changing the leasing fee (larger leasing fee the less masternodes), it's fairly trivial to change the quantity of witnesses in a graphene network. Steem has 50, BTS has 25, we could have a few or many - a design decision which can be altered by the committee at a later time (unless it requires a hardfork - needs clarification in this area). @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) To be fair, the vulnerabilities were created by you in the first place (let's put email data plaintext in the blockchain, great idea haha!), they had weaponized exploits created by multiple third party entities (some of whom you disregarded their communications - not very 'CTO' like behaviour) and they (the weaponized exploits) were never utilized past the 8 blocks generated over the 1m block period. Thankfully the Gridcoin network survived past this point, but any skript kiddie could have generated 10k blocks sequential blocks for a week or two. Thomas may have been a dick in weaponizing the exploit, but he stood up and solved multiple vulnerabilities in the gridcoin network which he and others identified. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) 3 users in an email chain, not much community outreach effort on your part. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Stop trying to make this a Rob vs Brod scenario, it's simply not reality. Whilst there are multiple proposals to improve the current gridcoin network systems, there are also multiple codebase migration proposals of which support is not split between two groups. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Generating a snapshot from the GRC network and issuing a sharedrop via private key import is fairly trivial for Graphene networks, the process is likely very similar for both Eth and Dash, assuming you intend to import private keys instead of being a centralized issuer middleman again? @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) If your lack of energy applies to porting to Eth, then surely it applies to your Dash proposal thus it's DOA ? It was only last week where you were complaining that you were planning to entirely quit and that if future versions of GRC struggled you'd try to perform an aggressive takeover - are you going to stick around for the long term given this recent incident? Would it be alright if I share the email snippet in question?
  6. Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Hey Rob, Long time no see - sorry I've not had the time to respond to your emails, but I replied quite negatively to your proposals and email snippets in the private OPs slack private channel - you really aught to be more visibly present in Slack rather than just emails (which can be a bit of an echo/isolation chamber). In terms of calling yourself the CTO - there technically isn't a Gridcoin company thus there is no such role, parts of your email on this topic which I found quite disconcerting/disturbing especially the 'firing/taking-over' terminology/intentions being thrown about by yourself - not confidence inspiring given the increased power you'll have in a masternode environment compared to the power you yield in the current network. The github repo ownership could be viewed as a CTO role, except the community has already begun working around this centralized repo for non-core-client work: https://github.com/gridcoin-community I don't believe that a forum poll is appropriate for making this decision, it doesn't involve the Gridcoin network (coins/magnitude) and is vulnerable to being manipulated very easily. Forum polls back in 2014/2015 were rushed in the panic move from classic to research and led to a low quality economic policies being implemented (30* reduction, etc). The precedent for serious development polls has been 2-3month duration 'both por/pos' type within the Gridcoin network. I have thus voted to abstain from this poll. Speaking of the forum poll, it's unfortunately biased in that it only provides the choice between your proposal & maintaining the current codebase - there have been alternative proposals for the last few months: https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Tasks/issues/183 (Please accept your invite to the Gridcoin-Community organization) updated post: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jringo/gridcoin-research-4-0-2018-roadmap-progress-report#@cm-steem/re-jringo-gridcoin-research-4-0-2018-roadmap-progress-report-20171111t133914323z (being somewhat active on steemit would be cool too) ---------------------- Directly responding to your proposal document: Segwit and larger blocks are not being combined in the one codebase, it has split into Bitcoin Core (segwit) and Bitcoin Cash (Larger blocks - superior). Likewise, a large market cap does not mean technology is superior - there are many scamcoins worth far more than Gridcoin currently is worth, that does not mean they're better than GRC. Segwit isn't desirable technology neither, haha! Quote In addition, the blockchain balances and wallets are more compatible, so I propose we stay with Bitcoin. Snapshotting a bitcoin codebase coin distribution for claiming coins via private key import has been proven possible by multiple Graphene projects who each created a custom genesis.json file which contained their userbase's public keys (donation addresses | snapshot addresses) & allocated balance. Generating this file would be a compute intensive process, however its use after generated is simple for kickstarting a new blockchain's initial distribution. It's the same process which would be required for any codebase snapshot/sharedrop, we cannot repeat the classic -> researcher burning process as it was an unnecessarily centralized issuance which resulted in a significant sum of funds going unclaimed (foundation funds). The wallets are more compatible, sure - moving to graphene would result in a loss of current UI, but it would yield an easily customizable UI: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@cm-steem/gridcoin-s-customised-bitshares-web-wallet-dex What other cryptocurrency toolkits/codebases did you evaluate? Do you have notes of feature comparisons? Do you not think that privacy focused cryptocurrencies are going to be heavily regulated in the near future? What about graphene, dragonchain, hyperledger, other proposals, etc? I'm concerned that your proposal for moving to Dash involved very few community members, the only masternode thread outwith here has zero replies in the development subforum & the community based alternative codebase threads/github-issues lack your involvement. If we do end up going down the route of masternodes, throwing away their technologies brand recognition doesn't sound beneficial - likewise we shouldn't be using the terminology "Nerual Network" because it isn't a neural network, "Gridcoin statistics mechanism" or something functional/realistic would be more honest/accurate. Graphene also funds witness positions at a rate controlled by the committee, I don't think that having to fork up hundreds of thousands of GRC to provide critical network functionality is going to yield many participants - the majority of the Gridcoin userbase does not have the 100k required to create a poll nevermind 400k to destroy for a network role. Masternodes entrench power to the wealthy, as participants have to pay a large sum of GRC for the right to run a masternode where as with Graphene there is not an up front investment required to become a witness/committee member and those who are voted in will have had to campaign to the community & hopefully be the most trusted entities from the community (Benefit being you can vote them out with DPOS, where as you're potentially stuck with masternode operators permanently). Rather than paying all users via large superblocks, would it not be better to investigate the 'Manual Reward Claim (MRC)' proposal suggested by the community? Steemit has the ability to access your rewards with the click of a button, coincidentally a Graphene crypto. If MRC was/is made possible, this would apply to multiple codebase proposals. Can you provide any documentation on this proposal? I don't see it alongside the other legitimate CPID/Beacon improvement proposals: https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/wiki/DEV-CPID-Ownership My beacon proposal: https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/wiki/DEV-CPID-Ownership#cms-proposal TL;DR: CPID is not a good unique identifier, it can merge/split and be maliciously/accidentally changed. Verifying userID ownership is an improvement over CPID verification, as userID is an unique id which never changes on an individual BOINC project basis (no matter what happens to your BOINC account). BOINC web code done: https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/pull/2134/ https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/2118 2 new PHP pages, only WCG and perhaps Einstein would be incompatible due to homebrew BOINC web server codebase implementations. For projects which don't immediately implement the above PR, we could fall back on CPID onwership proof if an userID which shares the same CPID is successfully validated. No need for a centralized entity moderating/maintaining the beacon system - users could create a new key to reclaim ownership of their BOINC account. Inter/Intra crypto replay protection (can't steal registration here and register elsewhere, likewise replaying my beacon on the GRC network wouldn't work). Cache project's public openssl key & verify userID ownership without contacting the BOINC project once (massive reduction in scraping projects). Requires: Peer review Project admins to perform minimum project maintenance (2 new PHP pages & new openssl keypair). Once implemented in BOINC projects, implementation within Gridcoin/Any-Crypto. NN isn't a desirable branding (it isn't a neural network) & branding not a feature. This is a substantial economic policy change proposal which should not be taken lightly. How long does 'leasing' last for? What happens to the paid funds (burn or centralized fund?) Will neural network leasers be forced to use the one neural network statistics gathering implementation (security risk) or will third party scripts be possible? Why bring mining/pow back into the equation after a long period of POS? What happens to the foundation funds in your proposal? Graphene too would eliminate interest payments on the core GRC asset. Graphene doesn't require this, witnesses are largely not publicly visible - users connect to the network via their light/web wallets which interact with full nodes which don't participate in the consensus mechanism. Reintroducing proof of work is a huge step back technologically; POW is responsible for significant amounts of pollution, it will negatively impact BOINC computations (mind we saw a huge increase in computing power pointed at BOINC after we left Scrpyt for POS?). Any future proposed codebase should not involve proof of work (IMO). I completely object to this, we already see almost nobody making polls because of the local 100k balance requirement, now imagine poll participation if the required balance was 4 times the current amount? It'd be pushing many voices entirely out of the picture within the Gridcoin network, further empowering the rich in the GRC network. Graphene has coin based voting for committee and witness members; the committee then have the abiltiy to vote amongst themselves the network rules (changing witness payouts, block timings) and with the gridcoin graphene proposal would be responsible for maintaining the list of whitelisted BOINC projects in a majority vote basis manner. How we'd go about implementing casual polls or community project polls (for the committee to act upon) would require some original development - see: https://github.com/FollowMyVote/StakeWeightedVoting One cannot evaluate the security of a system prior to its implementation, as far as recent history goes security is not your strong point (not try to be a dick, rather making an accurate observation given the last 3-5 months history). Graphene has 2-3 second block times (which can be tweaked to reduce blockchain bloat) point is that fast payments aren't unique to dash & TBH not a problem right now in Gridcoin. Applicable to any C++ ported NN replacement, though is it neccessary to track history before the previous payout if we're able to achieve 100% accuracy of payments? 'Unlimited scalability' is likewise achievable with the userID ownership beacon proposal, a reduced NN participation rate and the suggested manual reward claim functionality. I'm not massively confident in daily superblock payouts given recent historical insecurity of superblocks and the old cryptolottery system (which aimed to reward many users in the one block a couple years back). Repeating myself here, but CPID isn't a perfect identifier - userID beacon proposal > CPID. I'd love to see some public documentation/proposals to peer review this new CPID associator system. New codebase wise yes, but any changes we make to the dash codebase invalidate this claim until we have a professional security audit - like the recent security audit made entirely public except performed internally/privately at our discretion. The proposed short/concentrated development (and closed participation planning) period likewise does not inspire confidence in the security of the proposed network. Sounds good, moving away from RAC based magnitude towards total credit delta is a great proposal for any codebase. Certainly a legitimate advantage, there are many bitcoin based libraries which the current gridcoin codebase is entirely incompatible with. That said, there are several Graphene based libraries which we can benefit from too.
  7. DrugDiscovery@Home

    I spoke with the DD@H project admin & the CEO at the 2017 BOINC Workshop in Paris, they have separated from SONM and are now focused on making DD@H production ready & back to pre-sonm activity.
  8. Climate Prediction

    I talked to the CPDN project admin at the 2017 BOINC workshop who showed an interest in fixing the statistics dump frequency problem in return for whitelisting. This will require some follow-up to make sure they do in fact change the frequency of dump creation.
  9. Updated website & pushed live: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@cm-steem/gridcoin-us-website-overhauled
  10. The website is fully open source on github: https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Site/ The latest preview of the website update: https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Site/issues/9
  11. New Coin Launch Announcement - GRC - GridCoin

    "Typically, when security vulnerabilities are disclosed by security researchers this is done in private and patched before being publicly disclosed within update release notes (so that it's not abused in production by malicious actors). There has been no intentional deceit against Gridcoin users, the security researcher's work was news to the majority of the community (due poor communication)." If this is the case why were the 'security vulnerabilities' disclosed by security researchers not publicly disclosed in some other way. You say they were disclosed in the update release notes I haven't checked that so I can't vouch for that. Considering that these 'security vulnerabilities' are of concern to all users, new and old, why wasn't a public statement released in September 2016? Why the security researchers didn't disclose the information in another way was because the breakdown in communication met their personal disclosure due diligence requirements (and because there wasn't a thorough process for security researchers to report such issues), their main focus was on their high quality research paper. Public hangout statements regarding the mandatory upgrade (You attended the GRC hangouts): 14th hangout 15th hangout BeyondBitcoin 181 Mandatory upgrade release notes: v3.5.8.2-Mandatory (CPID keys introduced to help prevent theft of CPIDs). "That's entirely up to you and frankly we can't provide you financial advice; there are always other BOINC teams to crunch for and very similar cryptocurrencies like foldingcoin/curecoin which could use your computing power if you desire rewards. You should always diversify your investments (monetarily, emotionally and time wise), rather than put all your eggs in a single basket." Your sarcasm here, considering you know me fairly well, is obviously not unintentional. I could be be equally sarcastic but I won't lower myself to your level. No sarcasm intended, you're welcome to diversify your monetary/emotional/time investments away from Gridcoin at your discretion. "Such individuals have severely degraded their own reputation by repeatedly creating poor quality content (It’s often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). I have seen zero complaints about reddit posts being downvoted, only steemit posts because there is a loss of potential rewards behind poor quality content being flagged by the community. I'd suggest that such users rather than regurgitating information they don't understand to the public, that they spend some time performing analysis on the topics to create quality content that people actually want to reward. If you disagree with downvotes, acquire more steem power to negate downvotes. Steemit != Gridcoin" This statement certainly lays out your 'modus operandi'. Flippant denigration seems to be your mainstay. I certainly hope that one day you will see that intelligent rebuttal, if you disagree with someone or think that a post is of low quality, will serve you far better than name calling or imposing your 'power'. I suppose this comes with maturity. I'll continue to utilise the full functionality of Steemit as I desire, it has zero relevance to operations of the Gridcoin network and the simple solution to negating downvotes is to acquire more steem-power. I have however muted & unfollowed the individual who 'denigrates' themselves, and now only flag their content when multiple users complain about said content. On the topic of rebuttal, why is said user not representing themselves (instead of yourself acting as their proxy) and disregarding 'intelligent rebuttals' on reddit/steemit?
  12. New Coin Launch Announcement - GRC - GridCoin

    Typically, when security vulnerabilities are disclosed by security researchers this is done in private and patched before being publicly disclosed within update release notes (so that it's not abused in production by malicious actors). There has been no intentional deceit against Gridcoin users, the security researcher's work was news to the majority of the community (due poor communication). This has never been an official Gridcoin 'ethos/statement', just a snippet which you began posting everywhere. How are you supposed to be trusted if you're a new user in the first place? It's an exclusionary stance and I don't stand by it; cryptocurrency is trustless by design for a reason. Likewise, life isn't fair, you don't need to be tolerant of everything, people can be who they want to be, they can be as private as they individually wish and they don't need to refrain from anything. That's entirely up to you and frankly we can't provide you financial advice; there are always other BOINC teams to crunch for and very similar cryptocurrencies like foldingcoin/curecoin which could use your computing power if you desire rewards. You should always diversify your investments (monetarily, emotionally and time wise), rather than put all your eggs in a single basket. Such individuals have severely degraded their own reputation by repeatedly creating poor quality content (It’s often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). I have seen zero complaints about reddit posts being downvoted, only steemit posts because there is a loss of potential rewards behind poor quality content being flagged by the community. I'd suggest that such users rather than regurgitating information they don't understand to the public, that they spend some time performing analysis on the topics to create quality content that people actually want to reward. If you disagree with downvotes, acquire more steem power to negate downvotes. Steemit != Gridcoin
  13. DPOS/Bitshares tool kit

    I threw together this brainstormed doc regarding the use of Graphene for Gridcoin:
  14. DEVELOPER COMPENSATION

    Pool users have no say in polls, this is a downside of using a pool.
×

Important Information

By using CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK.COM, you agree to our Terms of Use.