Idea that just came to me to deal with the problem of micropayments

[Ander]

Regarding the once a day vote compilation, that seems like a problem to me.  If there is a problem, people need to be able to vote a bad actor out as soon as possible, not in 24 hours.  (maybe it doesnt need to be in 1 second, but it needs to be sooner than a day). 

If you only tally votes once a day, an attacker could have an entire day to sell off their stake and then execute an attack, increasing the vulnerability to a nothing at stake attack.  (You can get a lot more value back selling over a day than you can in only 15 minutes). 

[monsterer]

Is there any further danger or possible damage due to the bad-actor remaining a witness for up to another 24 hours?
Why will they/not repeatedly attempt their 'attack' every 101 seconds when it is their turn again?

That is the scope of their attack. They remain capable of performing it repeatedly every round until they are voted out.

[Murderistic]

price stable assets makes our job easier for sure, on top of other features like referrals, etc

[Ander]

So it seems that the current Bitshares 2.0 chain that is handling all the financial aspects is beyond brilliant, the code is beautiful, the functionality is going to be amazing. The only thing that it inherently cannot handle is micropayments. Combined with the recent licensing this creates a problem for people who love the technological capabilities of bitshares but who need to have low fees in order for their applications to work. So it got me thinking. Why doesn't cryptonomex just release a second chain that is fully geared towards micropayments and allow us to build our ecosystem out of there? It would seem that the work would not double, it would merely be changing a couple files in the codebase, (one of those files being the one where people are fiddling with the "fee dials" so to speak) and the devs could go ahead and keep a large chunk of the incoming fees to maintain the engine that makes this entire system work. From there, you can create full integration of trade between the micropayments channel and the BTS channel, and even make it so that you can charge high fees on the micropayments channel. Micropayments are a huge segment of what cryptocurrency is trying to accomplish. While I'm all for shrinking the scope of a project to focus and get more actual work done, I do think it would be short sighted to not bring this area of the industry into our own as there are so many markets that could open up for these services in the coming years. Could call it MicroBTS for the currency....

Idk, what do you guys think? Idea just came to me...it could be a good way to solve this issue.

I have been working on this with a few companies in that space, most are apprehensive to do it...but I think they will come around in the future. 

Met with a few of them actually, and have been working to educate them on the new 2.0 structure.

In the end, if Bitsahres is successful, people will create micropayments solutions for it. 
After all, Bitcoin isnt good for micropayments, but companies like Xapo are making it work.  They can do the same for bitshares.

[Permie]

Bitcoin is trustless, bitshares is not.

That quote is IMHO not correct ...
BitShares makes a trade-off .. it reduces the trustlessness and gains efficiency ..
but when you compare the "trustlessness" of bitcoin you will notice that pooled mining killed it for bitcoin ..
if everyone was solo-mining bitcoin would be unbeatable in terms of trust ..

How many entities do you trust to sign half the blocks?

Bitcoin:                  3 self-appointed, CEO's for life
BitShares:           51 elected delegates you can fire in 10 seconds
BitShares 2.0       N elected witnesses you can fire in 1 second where voters choose N

Which is more trustless?

Unless something has changed since it was announced by BM, the highlighted statement is INCORRECT.

BM said that the cost of voting is so high that voting results in BitShares 2.0 will only be compiled once a day. It was when I reviewed the recording (I think it was the mumble on 6/8, but not positive) the impact of that statement registered with me.  I recall bringing this up in a conversation with fuzzy also. That is a major shift in policy and security, if you want to factor in voting as a short term security measure as you did here. Voting for real time security concerns has been thrown out - another unilateral decision that was made by Cryptonomex without community consensus.

That said, if you want to argue the merits of that decision based on what has been learned about voter apathy, I think you can make a defensible case, especially for real time problems. Nevertheless, you should stop making claims like this for BiitShares 2.0 because they just aren't true.

Thanks for pointing things like this out, Thom

Could delegates be given the authority to call a vote immediately given x% agree that a bad actor needs ousting asap?
If witnesses will not build on an invalid block, the bad-actor has only a 1 second window. Is there any further danger or possible damage due to the bad-actor remaining a witness for up to another 24 hours?
Why will they/not repeatedly attempt their 'attack' every 101 seconds when it is their turn again?

I understand that witnesses signing blocks are deterministic and a bad-actor couldn't (or findit very hard) to reliable ensure that his bad-actor accomplises would be next in line to sign a block (and therefore be able to continue the attack for longer than 1 second).

Why is it safe to only vote once per day? If trivial, please explain, and if not trivial why aren't members being consulted for a vote?

[Murderistic]

So it seems that the current Bitshares 2.0 chain that is handling all the financial aspects is beyond brilliant, the code is beautiful, the functionality is going to be amazing. The only thing that it inherently cannot handle is micropayments. Combined with the recent licensing this creates a problem for people who love the technological capabilities of bitshares but who need to have low fees in order for their applications to work. So it got me thinking. Why doesn't cryptonomex just release a second chain that is fully geared towards micropayments and allow us to build our ecosystem out of there? It would seem that the work would not double, it would merely be changing a couple files in the codebase, (one of those files being the one where people are fiddling with the "fee dials" so to speak) and the devs could go ahead and keep a large chunk of the incoming fees to maintain the engine that makes this entire system work. From there, you can create full integration of trade between the micropayments channel and the BTS channel, and even make it so that you can charge high fees on the micropayments channel. Micropayments are a huge segment of what cryptocurrency is trying to accomplish. While I'm all for shrinking the scope of a project to focus and get more actual work done, I do think it would be short sighted to not bring this area of the industry into our own as there are so many markets that could open up for these services in the coming years. Could call it MicroBTS for the currency....

Idk, what do you guys think? Idea just came to me...it could be a good way to solve this issue.

I have been working on this with a few companies in that space, most are apprehensive to do it...but I think they will come around in the future. 

Met with a few of them actually, and have been working to educate them on the new 2.0 structure.

me too. Hence why I am proposing the idea. I think it would be a long term benefit to this platform.

yes, it is a great idea and I think one of the best ways to get adoption of our technology outside of crypto.  And it provides an amazing amount of volume to our network.  Then once that happens I think people will realize they can just leave it in their wallet and not send it and bam - we just became their bank account.  Tie it with Nanocard and we are now a bank without being one.

[VoR0220]

So it seems that the current Bitshares 2.0 chain that is handling all the financial aspects is beyond brilliant, the code is beautiful, the functionality is going to be amazing. The only thing that it inherently cannot handle is micropayments. Combined with the recent licensing this creates a problem for people who love the technological capabilities of bitshares but who need to have low fees in order for their applications to work. So it got me thinking. Why doesn't cryptonomex just release a second chain that is fully geared towards micropayments and allow us to build our ecosystem out of there? It would seem that the work would not double, it would merely be changing a couple files in the codebase, (one of those files being the one where people are fiddling with the "fee dials" so to speak) and the devs could go ahead and keep a large chunk of the incoming fees to maintain the engine that makes this entire system work. From there, you can create full integration of trade between the micropayments channel and the BTS channel, and even make it so that you can charge high fees on the micropayments channel. Micropayments are a huge segment of what cryptocurrency is trying to accomplish. While I'm all for shrinking the scope of a project to focus and get more actual work done, I do think it would be short sighted to not bring this area of the industry into our own as there are so many markets that could open up for these services in the coming years. Could call it MicroBTS for the currency....

Idk, what do you guys think? Idea just came to me...it could be a good way to solve this issue.

I have been working on this with a few companies in that space, most are apprehensive to do it...but I think they will come around in the future. 

Met with a few of them actually, and have been working to educate them on the new 2.0 structure.

me too. Hence why I am proposing the idea. I think it would be a long term benefit to this platform.

[Murderistic]

So it seems that the current Bitshares 2.0 chain that is handling all the financial aspects is beyond brilliant, the code is beautiful, the functionality is going to be amazing. The only thing that it inherently cannot handle is micropayments. Combined with the recent licensing this creates a problem for people who love the technological capabilities of bitshares but who need to have low fees in order for their applications to work. So it got me thinking. Why doesn't cryptonomex just release a second chain that is fully geared towards micropayments and allow us to build our ecosystem out of there? It would seem that the work would not double, it would merely be changing a couple files in the codebase, (one of those files being the one where people are fiddling with the "fee dials" so to speak) and the devs could go ahead and keep a large chunk of the incoming fees to maintain the engine that makes this entire system work. From there, you can create full integration of trade between the micropayments channel and the BTS channel, and even make it so that you can charge high fees on the micropayments channel. Micropayments are a huge segment of what cryptocurrency is trying to accomplish. While I'm all for shrinking the scope of a project to focus and get more actual work done, I do think it would be short sighted to not bring this area of the industry into our own as there are so many markets that could open up for these services in the coming years. Could call it MicroBTS for the currency....

Idk, what do you guys think? Idea just came to me...it could be a good way to solve this issue.

I have been working on this with a few companies in that space, most are apprehensive to do it...but I think they will come around in the future. 

Met with a few of them actually, and have been working to educate them on the new 2.0 structure.

[Thom]

Bitcoin is trustless, bitshares is not.

That quote is IMHO not correct ...
BitShares makes a trade-off .. it reduces the trustlessness and gains efficiency ..
but when you compare the "trustlessness" of bitcoin you will notice that pooled mining killed it for bitcoin ..
if everyone was solo-mining bitcoin would be unbeatable in terms of trust ..

How many entities do you trust to sign half the blocks?

Bitcoin:                  3 self-appointed, CEO's for life
BitShares:           51 elected delegates you can fire in 10 seconds
BitShares 2.0       N elected witnesses you can fire in 1 second where voters choose N

Which is more trustless?

Unless something has changed since it was announced by BM, the highlighted statement is INCORRECT.

BM said that the cost of voting is so high that voting results in BitShares 2.0 will only be compiled once a day. It was when I reviewed the recording (I think it was the mumble on 6/8, but not positive) the impact of that statement registered with me.  I recall bringing this up in a conversation with fuzzy also. That is a major shift in policy and security, if you want to factor in voting as a short term security measure as you did here. Voting for real time security concerns has been thrown out - another unilateral decision that was made by Cryptonomex without community consensus.

That said, if you want to argue the merits of that decision based on what has been learned about voter apathy, I think you can make a defensible case, especially for real time problems. Nevertheless, you should stop making claims like this for BiitShares 2.0 because they just aren't true.

[cylonmaker2053]

Bitcoin is trustless, bitshares is not.

That quote is IMHO not correct ...
BitShares makes a trade-off .. it reduces the trustlessness and gains efficiency ..
but when you compare the "trustlessness" of bitcoin you will notice that pooled mining killed it for bitcoin ..
if everyone was solo-mining bitcoin would be unbeatable in terms of trust ..

How many entities do you trust to sign half the blocks?

Bitcoin:                  3 self-appointed, CEO's for life
BitShares:           51 elected delegates you can fire in 10 seconds
BitShares 2.0       N elected witnesses you can fire in 1 second where voters choose N

Which is more trustless?

Interesting point...I hadn't thought of it that way before wrt the BTC cartel

[xeroc]

but I agree .. the difference is whether you can spend the funds after 1 confirmation (normal operations) or after x confirmations (network under attack) where x denotes the distance to the first honest delegate to take your tx ..

The trouble is, you cannot tell the network is under attack until is it too late if you follow the protocol and take confirmation as 1 block. You would need to wait 2 blocks minimum.

to be absolutely sure you need to wait (as indicated by @stan above)  .. 51 'confirmations' ..

Ok .. i think I get your point here ... the recommendation of 1 confirmation requires trust ..
point taken ..

[monsterer]

but I agree .. the difference is whether you can spend the funds after 1 confirmation (normal operations) or after x confirmations (network under attack) where x denotes the distance to the first honest delegate to take your tx ..

The trouble is, you cannot tell the network is under attack until is it too late if you follow the protocol and take confirmation as 1 block. You would need to wait 2 blocks minimum.

[xeroc]

You're thinking only inside the bitshares chain. If you take the network's advice about 1 block confirmation and then take irreversible action based on that advice, the damage is unrecoverable.

I do know .. but a valid transaction will make it into a block eventually ... as you can read from my previous post .. the most important thing is to get the FIRST tx into a block in case of a double spend ..

but I agree .. the difference is whether you can spend the funds after 1 confirmation (normal operations) or after x confirmations (network under attack) where x denotes the distance to the first honest delegate to take your tx ..

[monsterer]

if a misbehaving delegates takes your transactions and puts it into a malformed block .. the subsequent delegates ignores the block and puts your transaction into a new .. valid block ..
transactions that have been broadcast and are valid will end up in a block no matter what ..
the only thing you can do to double spend is to send the double spending transaction the the subsequent delegate faster than the original tx .. however .. the subsequent delegate sees your original tx in the invalid block and can resolve the double spend attack .. problem solved

You're thinking only inside the bitshares chain. If you take the network's advice about 1 block confirmation and then take irreversible action based on that advice, the damage is unrecoverable.

[xeroc]

Undoing bad things is automatic, as long as 51% of the delegates are not under control of the same attacker.

A different name for 51% "attacks" would be "new consensus" .. it's a inherent issue of resolving a conflict through consensus and thus holds true for any decentralized consensus scheme

However, as a merchant, if you accept and process transactions during the period in which a delegate is attacking the network, you can be exposed to loss - especially entities such as shapeshift.io, metaexchange and blocktrades which take the network's advice on 1 block confirmations.

if a misbehaving delegates takes your transactions and puts it into a malformed block .. the subsequent delegates ignores the block and puts your transaction into a new .. valid block ..
transactions that have been broadcast and are valid will end up in a block no matter what ..
the only thing you can do to double spend is to send the double spending transaction the the subsequent delegate faster than the original tx .. however .. the subsequent delegate sees your original tx in the invalid block and can resolve the double spend attack .. problem solved