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.


Messages - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 64
391
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:15:57 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 05:47:01 pm
If we come to the problem from another side...

Let's assume that 20 honest delegate is indeed enough to outweigh the other 81 ones. Then we should agree that in situation when 61 delegates vote for no change, 20 delegates vote for scenario A and 20 delegates vote for scenario B we will be completely confused what branch to follow - A or B. Hence this can be used to fragment the network. It's so obvious that I can't even provide a formal proof (trivial things are very hard to prove).
The only flexibility the delegates have is to ignore valid transactions or to ignore valid blocks and make their own fork.

If all the block signers in any blockchain network decide to ignore all other signers' blocks, then sure, they'll create lots of equally illegitimate forks and make a mess of things.

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.

392
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:05:03 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 05:37:20 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 02, 2015, 04:31:24 pm
But it won't be, because every time an honest delegate's turn comes around, the votes will be included and the longest chain will be an honest chain again.

Blocks of honest delegates will be excluded completely. Bitcoin Selfish Mining attack uses exactly the same trick.
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.

393
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 04:37:20 pm »
Quote from: cube on February 02, 2015, 04:34:16 pm
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 04:14:16 pm
Quote from: svk on February 02, 2015, 04:06:40 pm
So then what would be the point of doing all this?

The point is just to show that power that controls election will stay on the top forever. This is what we observe in a lot of dictatorship countries where elections are faked.

Nicely derived argument.
Except that the delegates can't falsify votes, and thus don't actually control the election. They can't even conceal the existence of the votes. They can only exclude them from their blocks.

394
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 04:31:24 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 04:23:27 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 02, 2015, 04:17:47 pm
Ignoring legitimate blocks makes your chain shorter than including them does...

It's fine as long as your chain is still the longest.
But it won't be, because every time an honest delegate's turn comes around, the votes will be included and the longest chain will be an honest chain again.

395
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 04:17:47 pm »
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 02, 2015, 04:07:55 pm
How about a penalty for delegates not including transactions that the network has seen for 30 secs and are valid? Penalty would be to deny 2-10 rounds of payment.
Would that help in this case?
This would be difficult to implement and is unnecessary. Ignoring legitimate blocks makes your chain shorter than including them does...

396
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 03:51:54 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 03:44:34 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 02, 2015, 03:34:41 pm
How will their chain be shorter, when they have 101 delegates and the attackers only have 51?  The attackers can't replace the honest delegates without shareholder support, so their branch will be crippled.

This is why the title of this thread is "Consensus on the list of delegates". Consensus can be achieved only via blockchain. If 51 delegates control information that is stored on the blockchain then there is no a way to replace them with other delegates in a reliable manner. You inevitably come to necessity to make a centralized decision.
You're missing the point here. The fork is created by some delegates ignoring transactions and blocks that include votes that take away their power.  The other fork therefore includes those votes. Therefore the honest fork automatically heals itself, and the dishonest fork cannot.

397
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 03:34:41 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 03:18:35 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 02, 2015, 02:38:29 pm
1 delegate can ignore blocks from the other 100 and thus fork the network without bribing anyone, but that doesn't gain him anything.

51 delegates all ignoring blocks from the other 50 doesn't gain them anything either. Their fork will have 51 delegates, but the honest fork will quickly replace them and have 101 delegates.

Chain of 1 delegate will be very short and ignored.

51 delegates ignoring blocks from other 50 get the bribery money. How the honest fork can win if its chain is shorter?
How will their chain be shorter, when they have 101 delegates and the attackers only have 51?  The attackers can't replace the honest delegates without shareholder support, so their branch will be crippled.

398
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 02:38:29 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 01:52:56 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 02, 2015, 01:43:53 pm
The point is that being "rational" he thinks that all 101 delegates would immediately accept payment from the smart contract, and reject any new voting transactions that would replace any delegate.  He's basically asserting that the BitShares network would be unable to find even 1 out of the 101 delegates who would refuse to sabotage the network if offered a 1% pay raise as a bribe to sabotage it:

Not all 101. 50 is enough, because with 1 briber this group gets majority and can ignore blocks of other 50 delegates.
1 delegate can ignore blocks from the other 100 and thus fork the network without bribing anyone, but that doesn't gain him anything.

51 delegates all ignoring blocks from the other 50 doesn't gain them anything either. Their fork will have 51 delegates, but the honest fork will quickly replace them and have 101 delegates.

399
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 01:43:53 pm »
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 02, 2015, 11:55:29 am
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 10:44:22 am
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 02, 2015, 09:43:23 am
So what happens if less than 101 people pay into the smart-contract? The smart contract still pays to all 101 delegates?

Even 1 person is enough. The SC does pay to all 101 delegates. We can make it worse if some shareholders want to keep delegates the voted-for in top 101. These shareholders just need to send money to the balance of the SC.
I don't get it ..
In order for that to work, those that want the current 101 delegates to stay where they are, they need 51% of the stake. Else the others (majority) can simply vote them down. The SC would than pay to new people being independent from the attacker, won't they?

The point is that being "rational" he thinks that all 101 delegates would immediately accept payment from the smart contract, and reject any new voting transactions that would replace any delegate.  He's basically asserting that the BitShares network would be unable to find even 1 out of the 101 delegates who would refuse to sabotage the network if offered a 1% pay raise as a bribe to sabotage it:

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 02, 2015, 09:05:21 am
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 02, 2015, 08:48:43 am
You don't need a smart contract. Delegates get all payed already. Depending on their payrate 0%-100%, they get x% of 50BTS per block that is signed.
That also leads to an incentive to stay honest.

I don't see how a smart-contract would change anything. BTW, who pays for the smart-contract?

I used the smart contract to get a cryptographically reliable bribery. 0.4 BTS is a nice bonus to 50 BTS, isn't it? Any delegate can afford to pay this amount to others and still keep 50 - 0.4*100 = 10 BTS. Being a dishonest is still profitable if none of the delegates can be kicked off.

A delegate that wants to stay in top 101 forever pays for the smart contract. This can be done via a sockpuppet account.

If he actually believes this would work, he has my sympathy, and I hope he can spend more time around here in the future and get to know some of us and our delegates.

400
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 02, 2015, 12:08:02 am »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 01, 2015, 11:40:01 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 01, 2015, 11:15:20 pm
The non-colluding delegates would include the vote transactions in blocks...

Would they still include these transactions if the delegate who is being voted out promised to pay 1 milion dollars if they didn't?

I'm analyzing a situation when delegates bribe other delegates in exchange of keeping their position in top 101. Every rational delegate will accept the money. There can be some delegates who will reject the money but depending on the offered amount the number of such delegates can be less than 10-20-30. In this case the other (majority) will ignore their blocks if these blocks contain voting-out transactions.

What do we get here? We get that if mining is too profitable then delegates may get enough money to "buy" permanent position in top 101. Any expert in Game Theory here?

So you've gone from requiring 51 colluding delegates elected to 101 delegates who will eventually collude.  Assuming the 101 delegates all trust each other and don't betray one another after striking their agreement, they still aren't going to be able to keep their alliance a secret.  That fact that they're ignoring transactions to vote them out will be quickly observed and brought to public attention, which will destroy the value of their fork of the chain, and with it the value of the delegate positions for which they've worked so hard.  This is basically a worst case scenario, in which a single malicious group takes over all delegate positions, and I think it would likely require a hard fork maintaining current balances but resetting the elected delegates.

Since this sort of hostile takeover leaves the target chain basically worthless, I don't think it would be worth the cost and effort for anyone to seriously attempt, unless a competitor to BitShares was truly desperate.  Even for a competitor, the cost to recruit all 101 delegates would probably exceed the cost to the BitShares community of forking to resolve the issue.

The assertion that every rational delegate will accept the money also implies that every delegate values reputation very little, and short term monetary gain very highly, but which value systems are objectively the most rational is a discussion for another time.

401
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 01, 2015, 11:15:20 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 01, 2015, 10:15:15 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 01, 2015, 08:54:58 pm
it would be completely apparent what they were doing.

This what I'm asking - how is it possible? It may be apparent for 100 shareholders who saw their votes not included into the blockchain but not for the other 900.

The non-colluding delegates would include the vote transactions in blocks, and the colluding delegates would then have to ignore those blocks and create their own fork of the chain, same as a mining pool could fork the bitcoin chain by ignoring everyone else's blocks.

Anyone who initially ended up on the hostile fork would see delegate participation drop because none of the honest blocks were being included and would thus know something was wrong, and further investigation would reveal that the other fork had the hostile delegates voted out.  If the user doesn't investigate and just waits, the fork should resolve because the honest fork will be able to replace the non-participating delegates, while the hostile fork has no such ability.

402
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:54:58 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 01, 2015, 08:09:24 pm
Votes are included into the blockchain by delegates. I'm curious what may happen if votes are about to fire 51 delegates...

If 51 delegates colluded to block any vote transactions that would take away any of their positions, and ignored the blocks created by the minority honest delegates, it would be completely apparent what they were doing.  They could fork the network, but they would have no special ability to gain more than 51 positions in their branch, so its speed and delegate participation rate would be cut in half.  In the honest branch the colluding delegates would be quickly replaced and normal operation would continue.

403
General Discussion / Re: Consensus on the list of delegates
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:06:39 pm »
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 01, 2015, 03:50:28 pm
I'm trying to find out how BitShares work but some things are not clear to me. Unfortunatelly, these things are fundamental and I can't move ahead without understanding them. Could anyone answer two simple questions, please?

Do the shareholders have the same list of the delegates? If they do then how the consensus is achieved?

Welcome Come-from-Beyond.

A 'delegate' is just a username registered on the blockchain with a public flag set announcing that it's a delegate and a requested pay percentage.  Everyone who has the blockchain has the same list of registered accounts, including the delegates, but they don't all vote to approve the same subset of those delegates.  Each stakeholder votes with his/her stake to approve certain delegates, and the active delegates are the 101 with the most stake approving them.  Only the active delegates produce blocks, but which delegates are active can change as rapidly as people can change their votes.  The votes are on the blockchain, so everyone knows the consensus of which delegates are active, even if they aren't voting for those delegates.

404
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Cryptohedge Financial Services soft launch
« on: February 01, 2015, 05:41:12 am »
I'm finding it fine in GUI with a search for CFSGOLD:BitGold.

EDIT: I'm on 0.5.3, Linux QT wallet.

405
Random Discussion / Re: Why aren't there many women in crypto?
« on: January 31, 2015, 10:49:29 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 31, 2015, 10:34:31 pm
Quote from: jae208 on January 31, 2015, 10:30:57 pm
What are your thoughts?





I think the reason there aren't many women in crypto land is because they simply don't care.  It seems like many women are usually more interested in fashion and gossip. Plus, if the woman is pretty she will have hordes of men trying to give her everything she wants in hopes of 'winning her.' So there is no incentive for her to create and build things that will make her rich, powerful or admired. Men are already doing that.

Sexist stereotyping probably isn't going to help...

Indeed, if you're going for sexist stereotyping, at least phrase it as a challenge.  If you said women were incapable of understanding crypto, and if any women actually cared what you had to say on the matter, then I'm sure they'd be here in an instant to prove you wrong.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 64

Page created in 0.201 seconds with 23 queries.