76
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:01:20 am »How does NXT fix this 51% problem ?
Nxt doesn't have delegates. A briber have to pay to almost everyone.
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.
Nxt doesn't have delegates. A briber have to pay to almost everyone.
77
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:22:39 pm »
Well, with 200 ms latency you still get 10 sec blocks.
No idea how to fix 51% stake requirement though.
No idea how to fix 51% stake requirement though.
78
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:11:12 pm »I could be wrong, but I think a widened block timing would negatively affect the on-blockchain BTS/BitAsset exchange by matching orders less often.
If you include 51x more transactions then tx/sec ratio will be the same.
79
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:59:53 pm »
The easiest part is to increase interval between blocks 51-fold. Then to make majority of delegates to sign every single block together. => 1 confirmation is as reliable as 51 confirmations in old design, but as a free bonus you are now protected against network fragmentation because if you don't see the next superblock for a long time then you are eclipse-attacked or delegates can't find each other.
Next step is setting a requirement to "refresh" votes every week with the quorum set to 51% of the stake. If less than 51% of the stake takes part in the voting then network stalls automatically. => DACs should be happy + employees can't abuse their power.
PS: This is just suggestions, without modelling I can't say if this will work as intended.
Next step is setting a requirement to "refresh" votes every week with the quorum set to 51% of the stake. If less than 51% of the stake takes part in the voting then network stalls automatically. => DACs should be happy + employees can't abuse their power.
PS: This is just suggestions, without modelling I can't say if this will work as intended.
80
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:24:57 pm »
Can't you guys just change the rules slightly and get rid of the issue?
81
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:42:52 pm »If an honest delegate signs a block that elects one or more new delegates, the newly elected delegates will clearly prefer that fork over the one in which the votes that elected them were ignored.
I suspect this will lead to fragmentation of the network which is very bad because it makes possible to do double-spending almost for free.
82
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:39:59 pm »Really? How is this true in the United States?
The USA has weird laws, I'm talking about the rest of the world.
83
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:04:41 pm »...and then just start a new fork.
What will happen to DACs in this case?
84
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 08:56:13 pm »Basically, it's possible for any election on the planet earth to be "bought" in one way or another. So you're saying that elections are always suspect? That BitShares delegates will care more about a potential small bribe than about their longer term financial interest and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of BitShares? I certainly don't see this as a solid possibility.
Modern election systems are more secure because the branch of the state that supervises election process is not controlled by another branch which is being elected.
85
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 08:17:34 pm »Come-From-Beyond has been explaining for 6 pages, haha. I'll summarize:
- 51 of 101 delegates decide they never want to be fired (via bribery, for example).
- These delegates ignore all blocks from the other 50 delegates. Their chain is longest, so it is accepted. The 50 are powerless.
- The 51 delegates ignore all transactions that vote them out, but they still produce blocks without these transactions.
- In the end, the accepted longest chain never votes them out. They can sell all BTS and maintain control of the chain.
Do I understand correctly?
Yes.
86
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:26:00 pm »If I'm an honest delegate, and I see that the longest chain is the hostile chain, I just have to sign my honest vote including block on the end of that formerly hostile chain, and at that point my honest chain is now the longest chain.
Then hostile delegates ignore your block and extend their chain with 2 blocks making shareholders to pick theirs.
87
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:23:23 pm »In the BitShares network, as long as there are some delegates who continue building on the longest valid chain, and including valid transactions, that group will have an advantage over any group that ignores valid blocks. Even if they start out outnumbered, they can replace delegates by including votes, while hostile groups can only ignore honest delegates.
We assume that majority is bribed. Hence even if honest delegates build one chain and dishonest ones build another, the latter will be longer.
88
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:18:27 pm »In the BitShares world, delegates are not government representatives, they are employees of a company. If your scenario happens, what is the actual harm done?
You call them employees but this doesn't change the fact that they can exclude those employees who try to publish orders leading to their firing.
The harm is this - the employees will be employed forever and here we come to a work-around - noone should be a delegate indefinitely. Isn't it why the USA president can't be elected more than twice?
89
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:16:17 pm »Sure, they'll be excluded from confirmation in the hostile chain, but they'll still be the leaf blocks in that chain after every honest delegate turn. Each such honest leaf block can include votes that replace the hostile delegates and heal the chain.
...and heal a shorter chain. I don't get why someone would adopt a shorter chain. What lines of the code will make them do so?
90
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 05:58:05 pm »Are you trying to figure out how to hack the network? Just read the source if so?
Reading the source won't help much because I can't get the idea. Common sense says that if a government controls election process then this government can't be voted-out if it doesn't want this. In the real world we have separation of powers. What do we have in BitShares to avoid abuse of power? I already knew that the shareholders can fire delegates, bad thing is that they have to do it only with help of these delegates and the delegates may refuse to do so by pretending that they don't see voting-out transactions.
