Yes of course. Just because one guy is making crazy claims here doesn’t mean all PoST is broken now.
Yes it is either bullshit or PoST is broken without doing what spacemesh is doing. If it is true then MMX will have the same issue. It should be impossible to profitably grind Chia.
First you say FPGA, then you claim Xeon.
Which is it?
- What better space chain?
- How does your claimed 70someodd compression even match the current PROVEN DrPlotter (even if you’re figuring it as 70some smaller file size, DrPlotter STILL gets a little smaller).
Spacemesh is doing what they are doing because of a shortcoming in their own scheme. Their proofs are easily re-computable on the fly with very little storage required. It’s like Chia with just table 1.
Hence they need to rehash their “commitments” periodically to incentivize storing the actual proof. Otherwise you just store the output “ticket” which is quite small. It would be like very high compression in Chia, more than Pro4x.
I wouldn’t say that. I pretty much changed everything. None of the hash functions are even the same. The only thing that’s still the same is the table method.
Spacemesh started development around the same time as Chia but didn’t launch mainnet until years after Chia. They could have simply copied Chia and used tables like MMX and Chia. Why did they make their chain so difficult to use and plot? They saw something Bram missed. You can’t build a house on a broken foundation.
You changed the details to optimize the difficulty plotting vs security vs compression. You are still using the same framework.
nah, spacemesh just envisioned and built for a very different goal. their “no pooling and everyone gets fair rewards every two weeks” idea. that goal lead them to a different design, not some discovery of some fundamental flaw in chia-style plots.
Came back today and thought likely be ded topic. Nope. Much, much spicier now.
2 Likes
Still no proof from Dr Yang? Pure drivel.
I wouldnt expect proof if someone wanted to keep something private and profitable only for themselves either. The second fellow claiming its stolen IP. Could just be an elaborate concern trolling exercise, but I am interested in what spacemesh is proposing here as well. I have reached out to them directly on this to validate they are indeed team spacemesh, not to seek details.
1 Like
Not invented here. It’s not proof of space anyways, more like a mix between proof of work and proof of stake.
Nobody said the Chia format is flawless. But at the same time there’s no evidence it’s completely broken where you can easily grind proofs without storage.
Ohhh shit! NOT AGAIN!!! 
I’m not asking for a hint. I am asking for proof you are who you say you are. That is very easy to do. @gospaceport on twitter.
**EDIT ADDED: Since it looks like you are a new account here, you may not know this place is rife with crazy folks making wild claims all the time. So validating you are on team spacemesh is something I am happy to do for you, lest you appear to be another person making spurious claims. There is no validation method on these forums of who someone is.
**EDIT ADDED AGAIN SINCE YOU DELETED YOUR POST: This is going in a video that is going ON TWITTER that will be tagging publicly team spacemesh to ask about this. I note you have left all the prior up, this entire thing has already been recorded. Tell the person I messaged on twitter they need to respond there.
2 Likes
What did the spacemesh guy delete?
EDIT:
found in post history:
sorry I will give you one hint at the problem since the team is aware of it now. You don’t have to predict the next challenge, only the probability distribution of challenge groupingsremove this post. You cannot predict the future challenge, but with the statistical probability you can do partial pregrinds before the real grindnot acting in official capacity.
Nothing of it makes any sense.
Challenges are 100% random through the VDF, there’s nothing to group or estimate or anything. And doing work in advance wont improve efficiency.
Regarding “partial grinds”, even if you only drop half of table 1, you will end up with 2^32*0.5^(2^6) = 0.0000000002147 proofs at the end. So it’s completely pointless to do anything partial. Unless you have pre-plotted information from compressed plots, but then it’s not grinding.
That’s the main selling point of Chia’s format, that you cannot do anything partial, you need to do a full phase 1 to get any proofs out of it.
And you cannot predict in advance which inputs will yield an output that will match the challenge. That’s only possible with (compressed) pre-plotted plots.
I give the guy credit for his creativity though. It’s like in the movies where they talk fluid technical stuff, but if you’re working in the field it’s obvious nonsense.
7 Likes
this thread is a larp, but has been fun to side larp on.
2 Likes
you are the one that caused them to delete their messages because you were hostile to them.
you could have just went to the discord and ask “this u?” politely instead of threatening them and their families.
GrinderPro not using the same method or FPGAs. We not steal anything.
Need partner access to Virtex VU13P FPGA. We supply gerber file and you have the boards made.
3 FPGA stack per server use one 1500W supply. Server use 1000W. You calculate system TiB per watt. No problem make money.