Difference between revisions of "Comparison"
From IridiaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 37: | Line 37: | ||
* Send one transaction each time a robot enters the dissemination state, include amount of ether that is proportional to the quality of the opinion |
* Send one transaction each time a robot enters the dissemination state, include amount of ether that is proportional to the quality of the opinion |
||
* Expected behavior: Should be very similar to the non-secure version; the last two votes in the blockchain |
* Expected behavior: Should be very similar to the non-secure version; the last two votes in the blockchain |
||
+ | * Disadvantage: None. Should be directly comparable to the DC strategy |
||
=== Strategy 3: Mining time === |
=== Strategy 3: Mining time === |
Revision as of 17:40, 30 January 2017
Problem
"How to transfer the sensors readings (quality of the opinion) into a secure dissemination strategy that is similar to the existing approach?"
Comparison
Feature | Classical approach | Blockchain approach |
---|---|---|
Number of used opinions for voting strategy | Last 2 opinions in robot's memory | Last 2 opinions in robot's blockchain |
Dissemination State |
Time: proportional to sensor readings p, using a sample from an exponential distribution with pg, g = 10 Broadcasting: During the entire phase Listening: Only in the last 3s of the phase Peers: Send opinions to peers if distance is below 50 cm |
Dissemination strategy: see strategies below Dissemination time: see strategies below Peers: Connect to peers (i.e., to their Ethereum process) if distance is below 50 cm |
Exploration State | Time: Sample from an exponential distribution with σ = 10 | Time: Sample from an exponential distribution with σ = 10
Peers: Not connected to any peers |
Strategies
Strategy 1: Amount of transactions
- Send a transaction with 1 ether in each timestep of the dissemination state
- Expected behavior: The stronger the opinion, the more transactions will be sent; therefore it is more likely that one of these transactions belong to the last two in the blockchain
- Disadvantage: Is this strategy close enough (amount of votes vs. time of dissemination) to the other approach?
Strategy 2: Direct modulation
- Send one transaction each time a robot enters the dissemination state, include amount of ether that is proportional to the quality of the opinion
- Expected behavior: Should be very similar to the non-secure version; the last two votes in the blockchain
- Disadvantage: None. Should be directly comparable to the DC strategy
Strategy 3: Mining time
- Make mining time proportional to the quality of the opinion
- Expected behavior:
Strategy 4: Hash-puzzle
- Robots have to solve a (hash-based) puzzle, whose difficulty is proportional to the quality of the opinion they want to send
- Expected behavior:
Strategy 5: Most similar
- Only connect to neighbors in the dissemination state
- The longer a robot is in the state, the more other robots will receive its opinion
- Problem: When do robots mine? Only in the last x seconds (fixed)? Or for a time proportional to their opinion?
- Expected behavior:
Alternative
- Use an alternative approach that is not similar to Gabri's approach
- Expected behavior:
- Advantages: Can tailor approach to the blockchain
- Disadvantages: Might be harder to compare the approach and show its advantages