226
General Discussion / Re: BitShares French ConneXion wish you a UIA Merry Christmas !!!
« on: December 27, 2015, 05:14:43 pm »
It's the thought that matters.
Thanks!
Thanks!
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.
inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!" It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
Thanks.. I was beginning to lose faith in this community.
A good point to provide 'warning/disclaimer'. But why are you losing faith? The software is still new and it needs time to iron out the glitches.
That would required the MUSE chain to also validate transactions of the BTS chain to use the hash of the right fork.Well, yeah... that's the point of the proposal. Each Bitshares chain would work together to make each separate chain more resilient.
Furthermore, BitShares already favours the longest leg (which happens to be the leg with highest witness participation and thus "highest degree" of consensusSo does Bitcoin/Litecoin (for which the idea was originally conceived for)... the idea is that when an attacking fork occurs that there be an option to NOT favor the longest leg and instead favor the honest leg that is recorded on the other chains.
Maybe I still don't get the magic behind the idea
51% is a gross overestimate. Try a 13% attack; that's what bitshares is currently vulnerable to.Well, duh.... but if I say 13% attack hardly anyone knows what I'm talking about, yet if I say 51% attack then everyone knows what I am talking about.
A General Overview:
I believe I have thought of an idea that would make each Bitshares chain more secure, and far more important & relevant in the Bitshares/cryptocurrency ecosystem... by each Bitshares chain being ready in wait in case any certain Bitshares chain experiences a 51% attack. Add a mandatory "merge-mining" feature to each Bitshares chain so that it is always "merge-mining" all other Bitshares chains. All chains should have the option of "let's subscribe to a different Bitshares chain(s)" as a secondary means of block validation, which in turn would be a way to resolve future 51% attack on any certain Bitshares chain.
How It May Work:
1. Add a new requirement to all Bitshares chains, such that a valid Bitshares chain's block must contain either a record of the most recent block header hash of all other Bitshares chains, or a repeat of the hash found in the prior Bitshares chain's block (with a limit of repetitions.) Bitshares blocks that contain outdated Bitshares chains' intelligence should be disfavored by nodes and/or delegates capable of detecting that. Further impose the requirement that all Bitshares chains' block headers must be represented contiguously in each Bitshares chain. Each Bitshares chains' blocks cannot be skipped by all other chains and must be recorded in each chain's blockchain.
2. In the event there is an active block chain fork on any certain Bitshares chain, the requirement is loosened such that the block header hash requirement of the Bitshares chain under attack can be satisfied by any leg of the chain, not just the leg that the Bitshares chain under attack considers valid.
3. Add a feature to all Bitshares chains' clients that allow Bitshares users to decide to prefer or not-prefer branches of a certain Bitshares chain's fork (while one is in progress.) The default for this should always favor the Bitshares leg with the most longevity, and should disfavor long chains that suddenly appear to replace a large amount of the known Bitshares chains' block chain that's under attack. The stakeholders/delegates should always have an easy way to have the final say, such as by pasting in a preformatted message either exiling or checkpointing a certain Bitshares chains' blocks.
Anticipated Benefits:
1. Each Bitshares chains' stakeholders would have a ready made remedy to a 51% attack that they can switch to, and thus be far more resilient to 51% attacks.
2. Each Bitshares chain would be seen as far more important and valuable (by those who do not see it that way.)
This is a ponzi scheme.
No, it's not. From a certain angle, any kind of insurance is a ponzi scheme of sorts. You have people paying into it, and those continued payments being required so that others can get payouts. But insurance, benefit societies, and community rainy day funds have been around for thousands of years, and their models are not pponzis.
The difference between insurance and Ponzis is that insurance companies can invest and build up the money they get from premiums. Their businesses can sustain themselves based on returns from their investments and current policyholders paying premiums. If they needed to attract new pay-ins in order to have the money to pay claims, etc., then they would be Ponzis.
The GUI is improving daily. Thanks to those working on it. The core programmers certainly know what they are doing, but with respect to the GUI fixes, it feels like BitShares finally has some first-class project management that is geared towards user-friendliness. Very gratifying.
#sharebits "CoinHoarder" 2000 SPERM