Messages

this might be of interest for you:

Code Select Expand


martin@martin-VirtualBox:~/Truthcoin-POW-master$ ./truthd.py my_balance
17900000
martin@martin-VirtualBox:~/Truthcoin-POW-master$ ./truthd.py spend 1000 113dARdhbwSrbohSWoahQhKEyDZcoas
None
martin@martin-VirtualBox:~/Truthcoin-POW-master$ ./truthd.py my_balance
truthcoin api main failure : (<type 'exceptions.TypeError'>, TypeError("'int' object is not iterable",), <traceback object at 0x7f5701471b48>)



I played around with it - I will look deeper into it tomorrow, however some quick remarks:

Could get python threads.py get started on my mac. However when I tried to use thuthd.py it gave me:

Code Select Expand


response was: {'error': 'cannot connect: 127.0.0.1'}
truthcoin is probably off. Use command: "python threads.py" to turn it on. (you may need to reboot it a couple times to get it working)


any idea? How can I test what is running?

On ubuntu everything worked as expected. I could mine and was rewarded some coins.
However - I could not spend them.

Code Select Expand


./truthd.py spend 100 113dARdhbwSrbohSWoahQhKEyDZcoas

returned "None" and it did not changed my balance.

However, I started to write down what I did - mainly to get an overview for myself: http://piratepad.net/3o3xK3yje0


One thing from an architecture perspective I already noticed: running threads.py is comperable of running a bitcoin/truthcoin node?
Why does the node hold your private key? Wouldn't it be better to have it as slim as possible? You wallet/brainwallet/privatekeys obv. needs to be stored somehow on the disk - but it does not need to be in the running node. If you create a transaction for example you run the function and then pass the signed transaction to the node?
Just an idea...

is there a easy option that I am connected to the network? (is the network running?) And if not - does the client start creating its own blockchain?

I am running it now for a few hours and turned mining on.
The blockcount command returned in the beginning 0 and now -1.

I am not sure what you mean by 'demo'

well, just a list list of "demo" commands. Sure you can look them up in the help but directly running a demo is often the easiest way to get started.

I did not managed to run it. I also used a fresh Ubuntu but pip (and other methods) fail to install numpy. Numpy is awesome but I guess I can not count the hours I spend compiling it...

One small mistake in your installation description:

Code Select Expand

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install python-leveldb
pip install -r requirements.txt
wget https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/Truthcoin-POW/archive/master.zip
unzip master.zip
cd Truthcoin-POW-master

pip install -r requirements.txt should be the last step.

And by the way: if you don't read the whole forum it is relative hard to find this thread and the https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/Truthcoin-POW. Maybe Zack, you should start a new thread "Python implementation" in the Development section.

Welcome to the truthcoin forum!

b) How Votecoins' value could be measured?

The initial distribution of votecoins is not set yet. However, one it is done further distribution is done a) by normal trades/ transactions of them. And b) by RBCD (reputation based coin distribution). A process after every voting period that rewards all that votes close to the consensus and that gives the strong incentive not to cheat on your vote.

b) How Votecoins' value could be measured?

First of all they can be traded like ever crypto coin - and the price will set the value. However, since voters (votecoin owners) get part of all the fees that needs to be paid for trading and creating a market, the value is connected to the value of this fees or the future expectation of this fees.

I am currently looking for a topic for my master thesis. I finished the taught part of the Master of "IT Systems Engineering" at the Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of Potsdam two years ago. I subsequently worked on startups and founded Fairlay (Bitcoin prediction market). At our institute we do not have a research group that would lend itself to a thesis on truthcoin. However, if I were to find a co-advisor I could submit it at my university, and spend a lot time on the engineering and development of truthcoin. I have done a lot of work with python (e.g. programmed a poker bot and Fairlay) I could step in and work on zacks implementation. Do any of you know of a suitable advisor (must have PhD and work at a university).

I don't know who reserved r/truthcoin. However, I reserved r/predictionmarket some time ago. If anyone is interested in the use of it, let me know...

I am curious what subsidy Robin Hanson thinks it necessary to get such a market working:

https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/510561329195667456

Of course, but not with Monte Carlo tree search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search It is a heuristic that does not converge to the perfect game.

Yes, it does, if you think about how it works, it converges on perfect play, and your link says so: "it has been proven that the evaluation of moves in MCTS converges to the minimax evaluation" ("with "average" back-up and UCT move selection, the root evaluation converges to the "min-max" evaluation when the number of simulations goes to infinity").

Well - a Monte Carlo tree search consist of two parts. The tree search and a Monte Carlo simulation. A tree is build up until a certain point. Now this nodes are evaluated by a monte carlo simulation where stones are placed randomly until the board could be evaluated. Now we have two options to spend additional computer power. Expanding the tree search and/or expanding the monte carlo simulation. If we expand the tree search to all the leaves of the game tree we basically end up with a min/max approach since the monte Carlo simulation part is not necessary. However, if you use the additional computing power on more monte carlo simulations it does not converge always.
The part your cited is only true for games with random turn order - that is obv. not the case for Go.

"It converges to perfect play (as k tends to infinity) in board filling games with random turn order, for instance in Hex with random turn order"

Lots of branches open:


1. go solvable with infinite computing power?
Of course, but not with Monte Carlo tree search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search It is a heuristic that does not converge to the perfect game.
But with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax it clearly is but Zack is right: the numbers are gigantic. (That is why the heuristic is used.


2. Could the futarchy concept be used for games (with moves ahead)

Very clearly: If it is not usable than futarchy simply does not work! Every political decision highly interferes with parallel/future decisions. It is way more complex then the closed world of a game.


3. What brings good PR.
a) Sport does not. There is already betfair.com (of course, it is not crypto and it is not decentralized - but this is not enough for PR)
b) recent news: we try to do it all the time:
https://www.fairlay.com/predict/registered/new/message-from-satoshi-nakamoto-1/
https://www.fairlay.com/predict/registered/new/mh370-plane-found-in-april/
https://www.fairlay.com/predict/registered/new/mtgox-will-find-50-000-more-btc
sure, we are not decentralized yet - the design of our site is obv. not prefect - but: you should not expect people getting very curious just because you offer such events. (However, they always bring a few 1000 clicks)




So - that is why I really like zacks idea of such a "show game" for futarchy.
As a "proof of concept" I could start a simpler version and start a game of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four
In theory it is known that the first mover can always win the game. To get the game started we would predict against it and then let the crowd play against the strongest bot we can find.
Should be fun.
Afterwards it could be extended to Go on a 9*9 (that is still far away from being solved completely)

If we asked the prediction market which move is best, and each move was well funded, we could play the best game of go that has ever been played in history.

Existing Go AIs are embarassingly-parallel Monte Carlo trees with anytime properties where the more computing power you invest the better each move is, and the ratings are based on relatively quick matches (maybe an hour per move at most?); so if anyone cared about creating the best game ever, all you have to do is is buy something like a 64-core machine and run two copies against each other for a year or three. That no one has done this, or has repeated 'Kasparov vs the Internet', suggests there's not a whole lot of interest in such games. As Hanson might 'gameplaying isn't about winning'.

Actually the capability of Monte Carlo tree search are provable limited. Infinite computing power would not lead in all cases to the perfect game.

If the state you buy shares in never happens, then those shares are worthless. no refund.

Thanks for the links, Zack. But from what I have read a two dimensional would be used. For each move a binary decision is sold (could be even better a scaled claim with the number of stones won or lost as "n") Now all this market are traded and the move where the winning shares have the highest price will be chosen. All other trades on the moves that did not where chosen would get reverted (refunded).

Good idea!

But I think the question is wrong. The question could not be - which move is best, because this can not be answered. The question can only be: will this move lead to victory, right? But if this is the case - all predictions on the other moves will be refunded? (Or will they loose the money?) Anyways, in both scenarios every player tries to pick the move of the majority - and than the incentive structure is broken, isn't it?

(But maybe I just need to read the futarchy proposal)

Well done!
I am looking forward to the presentation on Tuesday.

There is no incentive to report cheaters.

There is a incentive. You can either change the vote to exactly what you are voting on to make it to the majority or if you are very confident that you vote together with the majority you can change the votes to the exact opposite. This would make the colluder loose votecoins and you would profit (at least a little bit, since coins are distributed aver all how profit from RBCD

Even if you did turn them in, they would know exactly who did it. They would stop attempting to collude with you, and would focus their energy on the other voters instead.

This is not different from your solution. Once a attempt failed the colluder get no 2nd chance since he lost control over his votes. The difference is - that he looses all his votecoins in your solution and in my only what you loose if you vote the complete opposite to the average vote. (I don't no details about RBCD - but I could imagine that such a vote lets you loose near to 100% of the coins?)


However - you convinced me, that your solution has a higher incentive to "break a colluding alliance".
 

This solution seems valid to me but to me this solution: http://forum.truthcoin.info/index.php/topic,128.msg527.html#msg527

It achieves the same goals and this additional phase is not needed. The only difference is that the penalty is a little bit less strong. In my solution a voter who reveals their votes early only looses control over them in this single vote.