Author Topic: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining  (Read 37091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JoelKatz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • Ripple Labs
Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #135 on: February 14, 2014, 01:02:56 am »
So effectively a single node can hold out and say... sorry I am not including any transactions until everyone agrees with me not to include any transactions?  The entire network would then halt....  I am assuming this is NOT the case which means there exist cases where consensus is reached by many but not all and the guy who is out voted must accept it or move on....   
Right, but that's fine. The consensus process can fail and no harm is done except there's no consensus. It causes a tiny spike in transaction validation time. Who cares. (Think of a result of a consensus round being like a mined block. They can be orphaned or abandoned. Either they survive or they don't.)

Quote
If the UNL nodes are public, the government could pass a law requiring filtering and then what?
The same thing could happen with any scheme. Transactions are public. Say the goverrnment passes a law prohibiting people from accepting Bitcoin transactions on any chain that included specific transactions. Business would know who sent them Bitcoins and could tell if those Bitcoins passed through the prohibited transactions.

Quote
How many nodes are currently participating in the UNL consensus aspect of the Ripple network?   Has anyone produced a network topology of a directed graph of UNL lists?
We're hoping to have a transition to a large number of distributed validators well underway around June. Currently, Ripple Labs runs five validators and pretty much everyone just uses those five.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 01:04:28 am by JoelKatz »
I am an employee of Ripple Labs, but my opinions are my own.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #136 on: February 14, 2014, 01:14:48 am »
Quote
How many nodes are currently participating in the UNL consensus aspect of the Ripple network?   Has anyone produced a network topology of a directed graph of UNL lists?
We're hoping to have a transition to a large number of distributed validators well underway around June. Currently, Ripple Labs runs five validators and pretty much everyone just uses those five.

I see, this is much how I was planning on using consensus to launch BitShares X.  Start with a few nodes and then grow to be more distributed.    Good to know that a fully distributed Ripple system is still in development.   

From my perspective I just need a way to agree on a transaction set... this consensus could be entirely generic based upon blobs of data.   

I am sure in the future the best of these techniques will find a home in BTS/AGS/BitShares X systems.
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.

clout

  • Guest
Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #137 on: March 10, 2014, 06:12:29 pm »
Why can't coin days be capped by less than 365 days?

Offline bytemaster

Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #138 on: March 10, 2014, 07:05:21 pm »
Why can't coin days be capped by less than 365 days?

365 Days is the inactivity period. 
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.

clout

  • Guest
Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #139 on: March 10, 2014, 08:58:06 pm »
Why can't coin days be capped by less than 365 days?

365 Days is the inactivity period. 

If that period is reduced is the network more secure?

Or can capping cdd by any one node make the network secure?

Also if you use unl does that mean that block production and confirmation from cdd would be more immediate?

Lastly in the unl systems do u essentially vote with your cdd for which un you want to produce the next block and whichever un is the most trusted gets the most cdd's or is it that once un are selected into the list they are chosen in a lottery fashion to produce next block?

I'm trying to understand the consensus technology better. Sry if these are silly/trivial questions.

Offline alkan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« Reply #140 on: December 03, 2016, 10:48:04 pm »
I am really looking for attacks on my pos system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
can we develop a system to avoid the 51% attack totally , I have some thinking , in democratic society, one person have  larger  power and he only have one vote,  a node have larger power of hash ,it is only mean  he have the larger capacity for mining,  not the larger power of main chain,
we can think as following
1. one node cannot find two continuous bolck
2. the difficulty of every node is different,  for example if the node not find the bolck in 10min , the difficulty is same as the normal  difficulty, but if the node can one bolck in 10 min the difficulty become the 2*normal difficulty ,  if find 3 bolck in 10min ,the difficulty become the 4*normal difficulty , and so on ,   if we need to 6 bolck confirm , though a man have 51% power of hash , he also cannot carry out 51% attack.

There is no way to identify nodes, all we have is 'information'.   Difficulty is irrelevant because proof-of-stake determines longest block and nodes cannot cheat this.   Just like any company where a shareholder who owns 51% of the stock can do anything they want (more or less), the same applies to DACs.   There is no way around the 51% ownership attack in a world subject to sybil attacks.

It seems that individual difficulty can indeed be used to avoid sybil attacks, as I decribe in my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702796.0. While you cannot prevent an 51% ownership attack under any circumstances, you can make it economically unattrative so that no rational attacker would attempt it.