Anyone to help develop a Open Source Project?
Looking for some help in a blockchain project of mines which is aimed at advancing the protocol level of blockchains, such as being the first blockchain to be on track in implementing zero-confirmation transactions through a secured network, while at the same time, creating a new quantum resistant signature based algorithm which a non-complex solution thus equalling to minimal work from nodes in transaction verification.
Here is the Github for the project https://github.com/UnruffledST/Scroda/blob/master/README.md
Would love to get 2-4 contributors on board helping out, I am wanting to work on Stage #1 right now and focus on the first task which is implementing the Two-Factor Proof Of Knowledge which is a new quantum resistant signature based algorithm.
Was thinking the easiest way to do so is to create a bitcoin clone and then modify the code from the in the way transactions work and then we can move on to modifying it through each task??
Here is a github of a ETH project that uses a commit and reveal type scheme for validator selection still it does not use it for the purpose that we want which is a signature based scheme still it is useful to take some notes if needed.
https://github.com/randao/randao
Also here is a github of a project that uses relay streams/chains? I believe? To get some notes on relaying the transaction in the same Network? I believe this is shown in the randao github still another source just in case.
https://github.com/paritytech/parity-bridge
Here is the Github for the project https://github.com/UnruffledST/Scroda/blob/master/README.md
Would love to get 2-4 contributors on board helping out, I am wanting to work on Stage #1 right now and focus on the first task which is implementing the Two-Factor Proof Of Knowledge which is a new quantum resistant signature based algorithm.
Was thinking the easiest way to do so is to create a bitcoin clone and then modify the code from the in the way transactions work and then we can move on to modifying it through each task??
Here is a github of a ETH project that uses a commit and reveal type scheme for validator selection still it does not use it for the purpose that we want which is a signature based scheme still it is useful to take some notes if needed.
https://github.com/randao/randao
Also here is a github of a project that uses relay streams/chains? I believe? To get some notes on relaying the transaction in the same Network? I believe this is shown in the randao github still another source just in case.
https://github.com/paritytech/parity-bridge
Last edited on
1. Is this a for-profit company? It takes some balls to go online and ask people to donate their time to your company for free, I'll give you that.
2. My day job is this industry and I understand maybe 40-50% of what you're talking about. An average programmer would be even more lost than me. A few definitions would go a long way.
3. I tried reading your, ahem, "whitepaper", but there's non-technical details mixed in with technical details. I'm not going to expend the effort separating the chaff. Please first decide the target audience for the document and whether you're going to write a commercial brochure or a technical paper, then write either one or the other. Don't amalgamate both into the same document. You're going to confuse non-technical people and frustrate technical people.
As a software developer, here's what I expect from a whitepaper:
a. Get rid of superfluous images and bitmap backgrounds; it's just BS that I have to scroll through. If it doesn't convey any information it doesn't belong, but diagrams to help explain concepts are acceptable.
b. Get rid of anything non-software and non-cryptography related. I don't care about "governance" or your custom EEG hardware. If you want to mention the hardware you can say something like "private keys can be securely derived using biometrics hardware". For a specification of the software implementation that's enough.
c. The references are broken. To check a reference (e.g. [14]) I have to end of the document, manually search the reference, and hope I can find my way back to where I was reading. Software such as LaTeX or wikis can generate references that are direct links to the sources. If your going to use such software to generate the document, just link to the source inline. For example,
Also, please get someone to proofread the document. It looks unprofessional when I can count ten errors in a single page; some are typos and some happened because the writer is not a native English speaker.
4.
What does that mean? I looked in the paper and the phrase doesn't appear once.
Intuitively, to me it means that a transaction is valid the moment the spender signs it, even before it's been included in a blockchain (since a single-confirmation transaction would be valid as soon as a block has included it, which is seen in PoS networks such as Algorand).
However, if that's what it means, I have no idea how something like that could be implemented, even at a theoretical level.
5.
Reading the paper, section 6.1, it seems that "two-factor PoK" means
signature = hash(message + private_key)
However, the text doesn't make it clear what the roles of H1, H2, H3, and H4 are in the scheme. That aside, a hash function is technically quantum-resistant, but it's not more secure than elliptic-curve cryptography. ECC and RSA are secure because it's know that the discrete logarithm problem and the prime factorization problem are difficult problems with no (publicly) known fast solutions. On the other hand, there's no theoretical basis that makes any hash function secure (in particular, for the purposes of this discussion, collision-resistant). Hash algorithms are designed such that they're difficult to reverse, but eventually they're weakened and broken. See for example MD5 and SHA-1.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood the text.
2. My day job is this industry and I understand maybe 40-50% of what you're talking about. An average programmer would be even more lost than me. A few definitions would go a long way.
3. I tried reading your, ahem, "whitepaper", but there's non-technical details mixed in with technical details. I'm not going to expend the effort separating the chaff. Please first decide the target audience for the document and whether you're going to write a commercial brochure or a technical paper, then write either one or the other. Don't amalgamate both into the same document. You're going to confuse non-technical people and frustrate technical people.
As a software developer, here's what I expect from a whitepaper:
a. Get rid of superfluous images and bitmap backgrounds; it's just BS that I have to scroll through. If it doesn't convey any information it doesn't belong, but diagrams to help explain concepts are acceptable.
b. Get rid of anything non-software and non-cryptography related. I don't care about "governance" or your custom EEG hardware. If you want to mention the hardware you can say something like "private keys can be securely derived using biometrics hardware". For a specification of the software implementation that's enough.
c. The references are broken. To check a reference (e.g. [14]) I have to end of the document, manually search the reference, and hope I can find my way back to where I was reading. Software such as LaTeX or wikis can generate references that are direct links to the sources. If your going to use such software to generate the document, just link to the source inline. For example,
| Predicted in 1916 (Einstein, A. (1918) "Über Gravitationswellen". part 1: 154–167) by Albert Einstein, there are gravitational waves |
Also, please get someone to proofread the document. It looks unprofessional when I can count ten errors in a single page; some are typos and some happened because the writer is not a native English speaker.
4.
| zero-confirmation transactions |
Intuitively, to me it means that a transaction is valid the moment the spender signs it, even before it's been included in a blockchain (since a single-confirmation transaction would be valid as soon as a block has included it, which is seen in PoS networks such as Algorand).
However, if that's what it means, I have no idea how something like that could be implemented, even at a theoretical level.
5.
| creating a new quantum resistant signature based algorithm |
| Two-Factor Proof Of Knowledge which is a new quantum resistant signature based algorithm |
signature = hash(message + private_key)
However, the text doesn't make it clear what the roles of H1, H2, H3, and H4 are in the scheme. That aside, a hash function is technically quantum-resistant, but it's not more secure than elliptic-curve cryptography. ECC and RSA are secure because it's know that the discrete logarithm problem and the prime factorization problem are difficult problems with no (publicly) known fast solutions. On the other hand, there's no theoretical basis that makes any hash function secure (in particular, for the purposes of this discussion, collision-resistant). Hash algorithms are designed such that they're difficult to reverse, but eventually they're weakened and broken. See for example MD5 and SHA-1.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood the text.
1. Yes, still I see it as a investment not free work.
2. I didn't state much only stated zero-confimation transactions and quantum resistant signatures didn't think the need of defining was necessary as I didn't want to make the starting post to long, still I am always happy to define anything if needed
3. Yes my target was to hit the spot right in the middle to target both audiences, the whitepaper really isn't considered technical as it doesn't get into the code side of things, it just touches up on general definitions, which I find imporant to be included in the whitepaper as they serve as a point of reference for people, anyone in the cryptocurrency field knows of all the scams that have happened the past couple of years and I feel as if anyone that is to get confused on the general terms to be found in the blockchain field should not be investing into the project, also I am a native english speaker still I never paid attention in Grammar class when in school which is a mistake that I made so one may find many grammar errors(Also I have paid about 4 proofreaders on different occasion but there is alot of changes being made to the whitepaper, a lot of money has gone into proofreading still as you see more updates need to be done)
4. Yes before being included in the blockchain permanently, it is possible through the use of relay chains, also Algorand isn't such a good project IMO and others just hype. They have many attack vectors and little ways to prevent it such as not allowing forks so attacks are permanent.
https://medium.com/@scroda/zero-confirmation-transactions-transaction-relay-verifications-and-relay-chains-all-providing-f071de2b9723
5. You can read more about the Two-Factor Proof of Knowledge on Medium below as again the WhitePaper has to be updated
https://medium.com/@scroda/scroda-busts-the-myth-that-public-key-cryptography-on-the-blockchain-is-more-secure-9dba7c33959e
Still the signature scheme is collision-resistant to some extent as it ties back to each other,
X+E=Y
X+Y=Z
Both the X and Y tie back to each other thus greatly and I say greatly preventing the chance of a collision happening so if a collision hasn't been found in SHA256 it is to say that it for sure will never be found in the signature scheme as it takes a even greater length to prevent it.
Did you happen to read our Medium page? Many of your questions would of easily been answered just by reading the blog.
2. I didn't state much only stated zero-confimation transactions and quantum resistant signatures didn't think the need of defining was necessary as I didn't want to make the starting post to long, still I am always happy to define anything if needed
3. Yes my target was to hit the spot right in the middle to target both audiences, the whitepaper really isn't considered technical as it doesn't get into the code side of things, it just touches up on general definitions, which I find imporant to be included in the whitepaper as they serve as a point of reference for people, anyone in the cryptocurrency field knows of all the scams that have happened the past couple of years and I feel as if anyone that is to get confused on the general terms to be found in the blockchain field should not be investing into the project, also I am a native english speaker still I never paid attention in Grammar class when in school which is a mistake that I made so one may find many grammar errors(Also I have paid about 4 proofreaders on different occasion but there is alot of changes being made to the whitepaper, a lot of money has gone into proofreading still as you see more updates need to be done)
4. Yes before being included in the blockchain permanently, it is possible through the use of relay chains, also Algorand isn't such a good project IMO and others just hype. They have many attack vectors and little ways to prevent it such as not allowing forks so attacks are permanent.
https://medium.com/@scroda/zero-confirmation-transactions-transaction-relay-verifications-and-relay-chains-all-providing-f071de2b9723
5. You can read more about the Two-Factor Proof of Knowledge on Medium below as again the WhitePaper has to be updated
https://medium.com/@scroda/scroda-busts-the-myth-that-public-key-cryptography-on-the-blockchain-is-more-secure-9dba7c33959e
Still the signature scheme is collision-resistant to some extent as it ties back to each other,
X+E=Y
X+Y=Z
Both the X and Y tie back to each other thus greatly and I say greatly preventing the chance of a collision happening so if a collision hasn't been found in SHA256 it is to say that it for sure will never be found in the signature scheme as it takes a even greater length to prevent it.
Did you happen to read our Medium page? Many of your questions would of easily been answered just by reading the blog.
Last edited on
1. It's important to make that clear, then. Nothing in the OP indicates that.
4. Why is a blockchain necessary, then? If all it takes to prove to someone that money has been sent to them is to show them the transaction bytes, any one-to-one communication channel works. A public ledger (or any kind of public database for that matter) seems unnecessary.
5. Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't mean collision-resistant, I meant non-invertible. For example, MD5 has been inverted; a single desktop computer can find a collision in seconds. SHA-256 is secure now, but it's likely to become vulnerable due to cryptanalitic efforts much sooner than are ECC or RSA to become vulnerable due to quantum computers being realized. An attacker capable of producing SHA-256 collisions cheaply can impersonate anyone who's ever published a transaction signed a message like this.
No, I didn't. Was I meant to guess that I would find such information there? I looked in the whitepaper and didn't find a technical specification, so what do you want from me?
4. Why is a blockchain necessary, then? If all it takes to prove to someone that money has been sent to them is to show them the transaction bytes, any one-to-one communication channel works. A public ledger (or any kind of public database for that matter) seems unnecessary.
5. Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't mean collision-resistant, I meant non-invertible. For example, MD5 has been inverted; a single desktop computer can find a collision in seconds. SHA-256 is secure now, but it's likely to become vulnerable due to cryptanalitic efforts much sooner than are ECC or RSA to become vulnerable due to quantum computers being realized. An attacker capable of producing SHA-256 collisions cheaply can impersonate anyone who's ever published a transaction signed a message like this.
| Did you happen to read our Medium page? Many of your questions would of easily been answered just by reading the blog. |
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.