Author Topic: Consensus on the list of delegates  (Read 35117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

So 1000 people with 25% total stake notice that their transactions are not confirmed for a long time. Votes of these people are enough to replace 51 delegates. How will they notify the others that something went wrong?

The same concern has been shared by Vitalik - https://www.zapchain.com/a/FRsI5InA2e
Quote
DPOS: not too comfortable with people voting honestly as a security assumption (as I recall, there was an empirical result that showed that due to the mass of people non-voting you only need ~8% of stake to perform a "51% attack"), would prefer it used a more standard BFT algo between the delegates, but otherwise makes sense.

Except a 51% attack can only basically be used to collectively cease signing blocks. That means that it will be an expensive and likely ineffective attack in the medium to long run.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Tobo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
So 1000 people with 25% total stake notice that their transactions are not confirmed for a long time. Votes of these people are enough to replace 51 delegates. How will they notify the others that something went wrong?

The same concern has been shared by Vitalik - https://www.zapchain.com/a/FRsI5InA2e
Quote
DPOS: not too comfortable with people voting honestly as a security assumption (as I recall, there was an empirical result that showed that due to the mass of people non-voting you only need ~8% of stake to perform a "51% attack"), would prefer it used a more standard BFT algo between the delegates, but otherwise makes sense.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Maybe the email system can come to use here
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
The same way you inform others that GHash is doublespending on a gambling site ... you make a post in the community, news, forums ....

We can't make shareholders re-vote, why can we make them read the forum? Also, what should be used as a proof of the words?

As we grow, we'll have more ways to 'get the word out' and collect information on delegates for use by the commuity. So far, the forum and Mumble sessions have been enough.

Offline Come-from-Beyond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
The same way you inform others that GHash is doublespending on a gambling site ... you make a post in the community, news, forums ....

We can't make shareholders re-vote, why can we make them read the forum? Also, what should be used as a proof of the words?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Does game theory account for people that can't be bought?

No, but game theory is constantly misapplied now that the concept has become mainstream and perhaps taught to some degree in numerous undergrad classes.

Game theory can account for this, it just has to place a large amount of utility for those people on not defecting, due to their desire for reputation or ideals.   You need to build an accurate payoff matrix in order for game theory to tell you the correct outcome, and for most Bitshares delegates they probably place a lot more utility on their reputation and future potential gain from being a delegate than they do for the bribe money.

Sure, but when you say 'game-theory dictates ' to come to a conclusion which largely ignores very difficult to measure values which have just as much importance, then 'game-theory dictates' is being misapplied or simply incorrect. It often becomes an argument from authority which people use to support their view.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
You would run a node that gathered statistics about transactions that are delayed in their inclusion from the time they were received.

So 1000 people with 25% total stake notice that their transactions are not confirmed for a long time. Votes of these people are enough to replace 51 delegates. How will they notify the others that something went wrong?
The same way you inform others that GHash is doublespending on a gambling site ... you make a post in the community, news, forums ....

Offline Come-from-Beyond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
You would run a node that gathered statistics about transactions that are delayed in their inclusion from the time they were received.

So 1000 people with 25% total stake notice that their transactions are not confirmed for a long time. Votes of these people are enough to replace 51 delegates. How will they notify the others that something went wrong?

Offline bytemaster

Its a block chain. Everything is public

I mean what protocol should I follow to detect misbehavior.

You would run a node that gathered statistics about transactions that are delayed in their inclusion from the time they were received.
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.

Offline Come-from-Beyond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Its a block chain. Everything is public

I mean what protocol should I follow to detect misbehavior.



Offline Come-from-Beyond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
There are those forging pools or whatever NXT calls them.  So we  realize you don't call them Delegates, but what happens if 51%+ of them are malicious and ignore the blocks of the minority?  Can the rest of the network recover?

Max period for delegation of power is 32767 blocks.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Does game theory account for people that can't be bought?

No, but game theory is constantly misapplied now that the concept has become mainstream and perhaps taught to some degree in numerous undergrad classes.

Game theory can account for this, it just has to place a large amount of utility for those people on not defecting, due to their desire for reputation or ideals.   You need to build an accurate payoff matrix in order for game theory to tell you the correct outcome, and for most Bitshares delegates they probably place a lot more utility on their reputation and future potential gain from being a delegate than they do for the bribe money. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
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.

With DPoS, I think that we are beyond this.

The Separation of Powers into multiple branches has served an important function, basically to ensure that no one person or group has total control. There is a functional aspect to this also, because each branch is handling different work (e.g. legislative branch as lawmaker, executive as day-to-day operator and enforcer, and judiciary as arbiter of disputes). And in a modern parliamentary system, many of these functions are fused together anyway. But in a trustless DAC community, a lot of these typical functions are moot.

BitShares delegates are elected independently. There is no traditional election cycle, so they can be voted out at any point if they abuse the community's trust. Each of them handles differing functions, depending on their utility, in addition to their core function of verifying blocks. So one could say that it's a single-branched system, but really it is a decentralized (101-branched) structure where no one delegate must answer to any other. The notion of a conspiracy of bribery between a majority of delegates is as far-fetched as a conspiracy between multiple branches of a traditional government. One could just as easily buy of a majority of a nation's legislature and of its highest court in order for them to agree with the executive 100% of the time.

And, unlike those branches of human government, delegates have limited power and misbehavior can be detected.  Further, if a corrupt government somehow emerged, it would immediately be competing against an honest fork of itself. 

(This is where the expression "go fork yourself" comes from.)

Then market forces would drive the dishonest branch out of business. 
If not, then the market approves of the new branch and gets what it demands.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.