Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network  (Read 989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile

DOPS: Couldn't an attacker that controls 51% of a DPOS network mine blocks in disguise and this way double spend coins when his hidden chain has caught up?
Contra argument: When 51% of the delegates mine a hidden chain they can't mine the currently longest chain. This would lead to them being "unvoted" (based choice of words for approval voting i can think of).

POW: If the Ghash mining pool operator begins to mine a hidden chain he couldn't mine for profit in the mean time and all miners with Ghash would jump off the Ghash pool.
Correct?

Is mining a hidden chain the only way to double spend?
 

Offline bytemaster

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 12:12:18 PM »
Double spend requires anonymity and if 50% of shares are owned by one person you can bet your bottom bitshare they are not anonymous because the users if the network would simply hard fork them out long  before a double spend.

Double spending is not a problem if you wait for 30 minutes which most will do for large trx.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 12:53:54 PM »
So the reason that this practically isn't possible with DPOS is that "When 51% of the delegates mine a hidden chain they can't mine the currently longest chain. This would lead to them being 'unvoted'"?

I guess the same applies to POW. Could the Ghash operator double spend without all his miners running away from his pool because of the same reason quoted above? I guess no.

Any difference therefore in what miners/mining pool operators and delegates can do harmful to the network?

Offline bytemaster

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2014, 02:24:39 PM »
The primary difference is that mining power cannot be taken away from those with the actual hardware and that you can purchase the hardware in secret.

Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted. 

You only have to worry about a double spend when doing business with a delegate or someone in partnership with the delegate.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2014, 05:06:01 PM »
The primary difference is that mining power cannot be taken away from those with the actual hardware and that you can purchase the hardware in secret.

Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted. 

You only have to worry about a double spend when doing business with a delegate or someone in partnership with the delegate.

If it is only one delegate it wouldn't matter much though i guess.

Now is that
Quote
So the reason that this [a double spend] practically isn't possible with DPOS is that "When 51% of the delegates mine a hidden chain they can't mine the currently longest chain. This would [go public and] lead to them being 'unvoted'"?
true? And is there any difference in this respect compared to POW? I guess that this public exposure is the reason that double spending is hardly possible for delegates/mining pool operators...

Offline yellowecho

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2014, 01:45:03 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?
696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline bytemaster

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2014, 02:26:08 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?

Yes
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline puppies

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2014, 02:41:28 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?

Yes

I have been thinking about this since bitsapphire posted in the most recent test net thread.  What is the balance we as a community want to strike between public entities like bitsapphire and private individuals.  Is anyone else concerned about the p2b bringing pressure to bear against legitimate businesses?  I realize that bitsapphire is not US based, and that helps.  I am just concerned that most corporations would not have the willpower to do what lavabit did.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline yellowecho

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2014, 02:47:19 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?

Yes

I'm excited to hear this as it'll be a very refreshing shift from the current crypto-paradigm!  How much of its design concept was inspired by a representative democracy-style voting system similar to the USHOR and how do we translate that type of system to our Chinese friends?  :)
696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline onceuponatime

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2014, 03:04:33 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?

Yes

I have been thinking about this since bitsapphire posted in the most recent test net thread.  What is the balance we as a community want to strike between public entities like bitsapphire and private individuals.  Is anyone else concerned about the p2b bringing pressure to bear against legitimate businesses?  I realize that bitsapphire is not US based, and that helps.  I am just concerned that most corporations would not have the willpower to do what lavabit did.

I share your concern that public delegates in some jurisdictions will be very vulnerable to hostile regulatory forces. "Cease and desist" orders anyone?

Offline yellowecho

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2014, 03:36:53 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?


Yes

I have been thinking about this since bitsapphire posted in the most recent test net thread.  What is the balance we as a community want to strike between public entities like bitsapphire and private individuals.  Is anyone else concerned about the p2b bringing pressure to bear against legitimate businesses?  I realize that bitsapphire is not US based, and that helps.  I am just concerned that most corporations would not have the willpower to do what lavabit did.

I share your concern that public delegates in some jurisdictions will be very vulnerable to hostile regulatory forces. "Cease and desist" orders anyone?

Cease and desist for what exactly?  And if that occurred, wouldn't the system almost automatically vote against that delegate thus removing any issues with the network?
696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline puppies

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2014, 03:41:01 AM »
Except where silly little laws like the patriot act explicitly prevent the organization from warning users.   There could possibly be hope in a dead man's switch whereby every day you log in and post a message such as "I have not been contacted by any government agency seeking information today"  assuming you trust the poster not to give up their login info for at least 24 hours.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline toast

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2014, 03:49:42 AM »
Except where silly little laws like the patriot act explicitly prevent the organization from warning users.   There could possibly be hope in a dead man's switch whereby every day you log in and post a message such as "I have not been contacted by any government agency seeking information today"  assuming you trust the poster not to give up their login info for at least 24 hours.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Warrant canaries will still get you in trouble... however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline toast

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2014, 03:51:00 AM »
Except where silly little laws like the patriot act explicitly prevent the organization from warning users.   There could possibly be hope in a dead man's switch whereby every day you log in and post a message such as "I have not been contacted by any government agency seeking information today"  assuming you trust the poster not to give up their login info for at least 24 hours.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Warrant canaries will still get you in trouble... however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature

Actually IDK how that would solve the problem since it doesn't reveal who... but you'd bet all the rest of the delegates would immediately publish a notice like "it wasn't me!" and give the remaining delegate a chance to not do anything in a more convincing way
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline onceuponatime

Re: POW vs. DPOS - the worst miners / delegates could do to the network
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2014, 04:01:02 AM »
Delegates have to have support from shareholders, are likely very public and trusted.
This is interesting- does that mean you foresee the best, most trusted delegates being public rather than anonymous entities?


Yes

I have been thinking about this since bitsapphire posted in the most recent test net thread.  What is the balance we as a community want to strike between public entities like bitsapphire and private individuals.  Is anyone else concerned about the p2b bringing pressure to bear against legitimate businesses?  I realize that bitsapphire is not US based, and that helps.  I am just concerned that most corporations would not have the willpower to do what lavabit did.

I share your concern that public delegates in some jurisdictions will be very vulnerable to hostile regulatory forces. "Cease and desist" orders anyone?

Cease and desist for what exactly?  And if that occurred, wouldn't the system almost automatically vote against that delegate thus removing any issues with the network?

The current world monetary system, as becomes increasingly apparent, controls political systems and not the other way around. Bitshares is a threat to the status quo monetary systems - and politicians will be pressured by banking lobbyists to put a stop to Bitshares in any way possible. Public delegates, in some or many jurisdictions, will be vulnerable to regulatory control. (or assasination  :) )

 

Google+