{"id":7539,"date":"2018-06-01T22:49:49","date_gmt":"2018-06-01T22:49:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/blockchain\/?p=7539"},"modified":"2018-08-19T20:09:19","modified_gmt":"2018-08-19T20:09:19","slug":"the-mathcoins-decentralised-cryptocurrency-without-the-blockchain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/blockchain\/2018\/06\/01\/the-mathcoins-decentralised-cryptocurrency-without-the-blockchain\/","title":{"rendered":"The mathcoins: decentralised cryptocurrency, without the blockchain?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Proof-of-work is a horrifying disaster.<\/a> Proof-of-stake has been six months away for years.<\/a> Bitcoin failed at most of its early promises.<\/p>\n

But can we get the tantalising promises of cryptocurrency \u2014 decentralised, censorship-resistant, fast, cheap, secure \u2014 without the headaches?<\/p>\n

There’s a pile of approaches along these lines \u2014 IOTA<\/a>, Nano (formerly RaiBlocks<\/a>), Hashgraph<\/a>, MaidSafe<\/a>, the Snowflake\/Avalanche<\/a> family \u2014 that promise new consensus mechanisms.<\/em> And many don’t even use a blockchain.<\/p>\n

I’ve been calling these the “mathcoins.” They’re of varying quality, credibility and audacity of promises.<\/p>\n

You see a confusing page full of equations. Someone’s trying to sell you a token based on it. What do you do? How does a non-mathematician judge these things?<\/em><\/p>\n

The pitch<\/h3>\n

Mathcoins are marketed by someone waving a PDF at you and shouting “you can’t disprove my thesis \u2014 buy my coin!”<\/p>\n

A mathcoin will present a white paper full of equations\u00a0\u2014 written in LA<\/sub>TE<\/sup>X,<\/a> or at least Computer Modern,<\/a> to appear properly sciencey<\/a> \u2014 to justify their exciting new non-blockchain approach to the problems Bitcoin tried to solve.<\/p>\n

This is the blockchain space \u2014 so the product here is not the mathematics, but the near-magical promises.<\/em><\/p>\n

Should I buy the token?<\/h3>\n

The price of a mathcoin is completely unrelated to the maths. Ignore the white paper.<\/p>\n

If a coin exists and someone’s trying to sell you on it \u2014 treat it as you would any altcoin pump. Pump-and-dump rings and ridiculously<\/em> manipulated markets are standard in altcoins. Mathcoins are no exception.<\/p>\n

When the IOTA network was literally broken and not working at all for a few weeks in October 2017, the token price went up<\/em> 14%.<\/a> Because for trading purposes, it’s just another altcoin on an exchange.<\/p>\n

“Coming soon” is no reason to buy a token.<\/p>\n

The species of mathcoin<\/h3>\n

A mathcoin will sometimes have credible computer scientists attached \u2014 Emin G\u00fcn Sirer<\/a> advised Snowflake\/Avalanche \u2014 or at least had them take it seriously \u2014 Sirer politely critiqued<\/a> Hashgraph.<\/p>\n

Other times, it’ll attract widespread criticism of bad or obscurantist maths or cryptography \u2014 IOTA has been notorious for its utter failure<\/a> to engage reasonably with outside security researchers.<\/p>\n

The maths falls into three broad groups:<\/p>\n