31
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 11, 2015, 06:45:46 am »Since when did Supernet become a competitor? How is James going to use the trinary product?
They are developing features similar to ones in BitShares.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
They are developing features similar to ones in BitShares.
32
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 08:39:59 pm »I do not believe that is still accurate. A lot of the wiki is very outdated.
Specifically, I think this part is wrong:
" This happens by behavioural confirmation - all traders in the blockchain expect BitUSD to peg to the dollar, which leads them to trade in ways that reaffirm that expectation. If traders start to see Bitshares rising in value relative to dollars, this will result in lower bids being put in for BitUSD because of the expectation of seeing lower asks from the shorts. "
Back in august/september time frame, this was discussed a lot and it was pretty clear to many that this plan would not work. Specifically, there was no reason for the peg to hold, the price could simply go to 0.
The solution to this was to implement:
* Feeds. Delegates provide feeds to the system, telling the blockchain how much BTS each asset is worth.
* Forced covering after 30 days. In order to prevent the asset price from going to 0, shorts (who created the asset), are forced to cover after 30 days, at the feed price. This assures that a bitasset holder will get fair value for their bitasset with a 30 day or less wait.
* Margin calls enforced by the blockchain. In order to ensure that sufficient collateral always exists in order to pay asset holders, any time a short has insufficient collateral to cover 200% of the value of the assets, they are issued an automatic margin call. This liquidates the asset and gives the fair value of the asset to the holder (in BTS).
This ensures that bitAsset holders can always receive fair value of the asset if they are willing to wait up to 1 month.
The only way this fails is an extreme black swan event which causes the price of BTS to fall 66% in hours, and doesnt recover. (A flash crash with no bounce back).
In the case where demand for a bitAsset dries up and no one wants it at all anymore, all of the asset will end up being liquidated within 30 days, and the holders will have been given fair value worth of BTS in exchange. The market cap of the aset (bitUSD or whatever) will then be 0, with 0 of the asset existing, but holders of the asset will nto have lost their money, they will have sold them for equivalent value in BTS.
Thank you. Looks like this can't be attacked at the technical level (assuming that channels the delegates get info about USD price from do not belong to BitShares protocol).
33
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 08:12:33 pm »
Does http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/BitShares/Market_Peg contain actual info?
34
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:52:34 pm »Isn't that the whole point of consensus mechanics to solve the Two-Generals problem?
Two Generals problem is unsolvable IIRC.
35
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:45:42 pm »
A double-spending attack has come to my mind but it requires a sybil attack to conduct an eclipse attack... Heh, without ability to control the communications it's quite hard to do something hostile.
36
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:33:20 pm »Hold on. Can that be mitigated by making changes to the software codes?
Yes.
37
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:25:40 pm »They are not interesting anyway...
Anyone could create such hardware and require users to purchase it in order to use the system.
It is useless for bitshares as its goals are WIDE adoption and custom hardware prevents that.
Right. Let's assume that Sybil attack is mitigated and look for other weak spots.
38
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:19:53 pm »Who is the competitor and what is your coy name?
The both are NDA'ed
39
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:18:26 pm »Your proprietary solution require users to purchase your hardware.
This is the first case.
Your proprietary solution involves POW .
This is the second one.
40
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:16:46 pm »Am I sensing a product promotion opportunity here?
I don't promote our product. We have already sold this tech to one of your competitors and not interested in selling it to someone else.
41
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:13:18 pm »And what is that company ? You can PM me the name...
The same company that is developing the hardware that supports blockchain tech.
42
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:05:03 pm »Right. Can you give an example?
EDIT: Reminds me when you look up 'beautiful' and the definition is 'full of beauty'
I can't give an example. I know 2 effective solutions, but one of them can't be used in BitShares and another is a proprietary tech of our company.
43
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:02:39 pm »It would be difficult (or restrictive for end users) to implement such solution for bitshares.
This world is not ideal, it's full of trade-offs...
44
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:01:35 pm »What is an "anti-sybil solution"? I know what sybil attacks are.
Anti-sybil solution is something that mitigates sybil attacks.
45
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 03:51:46 pm »Similar method to your next attack scenario is used to identify TOR nodes. It might work provided you have enough nodes and/or the "victim" is connected to one of them.
Ok, but it's easily fixable with an anti-Sybil solution. Just add it to the schedule if TITAN is vulnerable to such kind of attack.
Edit: Actually anti-Sybil protects against a lot of attacks, I need some time to devise something that doesn't use a Sybil attack as an opening move.
