User:Ids - Revision history

Ids: contact details meta-notes

2018-06-24T22:18:37Z

contact details meta-notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 24 June 2018
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.		I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

			''[To H...4 on localbitcoins: I haven't forgotten you said you wanted to see some titbits of research in progress... if you contact me at the above, I can reply with things you may find interesting... (you could of course use a throwaway e-mail address, if you don't want me to know your "real" e-mail address!)]''

			''[To, uh, everyone I suppose: yes, I know the above stuff is now very out of date. And, in fact, my opinions have changed about some of it. I'll try to update it all real soon now. (Famous last words!)]''

Ids: "hard-fork" -> just "fork" (we're talking the code, not the running of it...)

2013-12-15T20:48:14Z

"hard-fork" -> just "fork" (we're talking the code, not the running of it...)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 15 December 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)		You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)

	I've just begun development of [[Splash]] - a ~~hard-~~fork of [https://ripple.com/ Ripple] where the built-in currency is mined by proof of work a la Bitcoin, rather than just magicked into RippleLabs's ownership by software fiat at the start. Forum announcement to follow shortly I hope.		I've just begun development of [[Splash]] - a fork of [https://ripple.com/ Ripple] where the built-in currency is mined by proof of work a la Bitcoin, rather than just magicked into RippleLabs's ownership by software fiat at the start. Forum announcement to follow shortly I hope.

	Last but, I hope, not least: I offer [[Proof_of_burn\|proof of burn]] as an alternative to both proof of work and proof of stake (though perhaps closer in spirit to the latter), with many interesting properties and economic consequences, the exploration of which has barely begun.		Last but, I hope, not least: I offer [[Proof_of_burn\|proof of burn]] as an alternative to both proof of work and proof of stake (though perhaps closer in spirit to the latter), with many interesting properties and economic consequences, the exploration of which has barely begun.

	I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.		I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

Ids: added Splash! (but explaining it's barely begun of course...)

2013-12-15T20:45:32Z

added Splash! (but explaining it's barely begun of course...)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 15 December 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)		You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)

			I've just begun development of [[Splash]] - a hard-fork of [https://ripple.com/ Ripple] where the built-in currency is mined by proof of work a la Bitcoin, rather than just magicked into RippleLabs's ownership by software fiat at the start. Forum announcement to follow shortly I hope.

	Last but, I hope, not least: I offer [[Proof_of_burn\|proof of burn]] as an alternative to both proof of work and proof of stake (though perhaps closer in spirit to the latter), with many interesting properties and economic consequences, the exploration of which has barely begun.		Last but, I hope, not least: I offer [[Proof_of_burn\|proof of burn]] as an alternative to both proof of work and proof of stake (though perhaps closer in spirit to the latter), with many interesting properties and economic consequences, the exploration of which has barely begun.

	I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.		I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

Ids: advertised Meni Rosenfeld's proposal, now that I see how similar our ideas are!

2012-12-16T23:10:56Z

advertised Meni Rosenfeld's proposal, now that I see how similar our ideas are!

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 16 December 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I am especially interested in helping to improve Bitcoin's usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.		I am especially interested in helping to improve Bitcoin's usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.

	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this~~. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page~~. Comments and feedback welcome. ~~(Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof~~-of-~~work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is~~ ''~~unfinished~~'', and ~~the formulae are of indicative status only~~.~~) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)~~''		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. Comments and feedback welcome. ''['''EDIT 2012-11-22:''' [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79837.0 Meni Rosenfeld's adaptive difficulty proposal] effectively contains and subsumes mine. Please give comments and feedback there.]''

	You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)		You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)

Ids: advertised proof of burn page

2012-12-16T23:02:59Z

advertised proof of burn page

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 16 December 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''

	(You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". - That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)		You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". (That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)

			Last but, I hope, not least: I offer [[Proof_of_burn\|proof of burn]] as an alternative to both proof of work and proof of stake (though perhaps closer in spirit to the latter), with many interesting properties and economic consequences, the exploration of which has barely begun.

	I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.		I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

Ids: capitalisation of Bitcoin when it means the system as a whole

2012-11-25T02:47:55Z

capitalisation of Bitcoin when it means the system as a whole

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 25 November 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	I worked as a computing lab assistant at Imperial College, London, U.K. from 1991-2011.		I worked as a computing lab assistant at Imperial College, London, U.K. from 1991-2011.

	I am especially interested in helping to improve ~~bitcoin~~'s usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.		I am especially interested in helping to improve Bitcoin's usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.

	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''

Ids: proof of blockchain fair sharing has had its own page for some time - linked to it! (and mentioned "broader approaches" forum post.)

2012-11-23T09:06:17Z

proof of blockchain fair sharing has had its own page for some time - linked to it! (and mentioned "broader approaches" forum post.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 23 November 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''

	(You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! A teaser ~~for it~~, ~~just~~ sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks~~, is down at~~ the ~~end of the [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]] page~~.)		(You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! I call it "[[Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing\|proof of blockchain fair sharing]]". - That page is currently just a teaser description, sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks; followed by a forum post where I speculate on possible broader approaches to the >50% attack problem.)

	I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.		I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

Ids: advertised teaser for stake-based system which, amazingly, seems to stand up to a >>50% attack! and gave my e-mail address, in hopefully spam-resistant form.

2012-05-21T02:28:14Z

advertised teaser for stake-based system which, amazingly, seems to stand up to a >>50% attack! and gave my e-mail address, in hopefully spam-resistant form.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 21 May 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''

			(You might also be interested in a proof-of-stake-based system which I at least provisionally believe can be made extraordinarily robust! A teaser for it, just sketching the idea and why it doesn't contradict an "obvious" theorem on >50% attacks, is down at the end of the [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]] page.)

			I can be contacted at iain dot david dot stewart at gmail dot com.

Ids: added my name - it doesn't seem to appear by default

2012-05-07T20:23:35Z

added my name - it doesn't seem to appear by default

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 7 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''(real name: Iain Stewart)'''

	I worked as a computing lab assistant at Imperial College, London, U.K. from 1991-2011.		I worked as a computing lab assistant at Imperial College, London, U.K. from 1991-2011.

Ids: apology for adaptive difficulty stub nature while I get my head around wiki-maths-speak

2012-05-06T22:44:02Z

apology for adaptive difficulty stub nature while I get my head around wiki-maths-speak

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 6 May 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	I am especially interested in helping to improve bitcoin's usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.		I am especially interested in helping to improve bitcoin's usability from a non-tech-savvy user's perspective. By this I don't just mean GUI improvements and the like - plenty of people far more talented than me are working on that - but changes to the network protocol itself that will help with responsiveness from a merchant's or customer's point of view, while not compromising cryptographic security, decentralization, or the strength of the blockchain.

	I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.)		I have a provisional proposal, which I call [[Adaptive_difficulty\|adaptive difficulty]], which I believe will help with this. I'm hoping to eventually put it up as a BIP. For now I'll work on it at that non-BIP page. Comments and feedback welcome. (Remember that for now, the Bayesian analysis of what proof-of-work is deserved by what difficulty-sequence is ''unfinished'', and the formulae are of indicative status only.) ''(in fact the whole page is just a stub for now - I must first master mathematical wiki-speak!)''