Initial Witness Pay & Number of Witnesses

[Spectral]

actually bitcoin is controlled by top 5 mine pool ,   do you remember  5 mine pool in china refuse update the max block size
and most of miner don`t take care of chain

That is a decision-making issue, not a security issue. As soon as it turns into a security issue, miners leave. Remember that miners have a huge economic incentive to keep Bitcoin safe and prosperous, just like whales in BitShares have a huge economic incentive to keep BitShares safe and prosperous.

Even so, decisions are made very slowly in Bitcoin. The agile DPOS decision-making mechanism is one of BitShares' main selling points.

[onceuponatime]

how about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?

For example:
17 witness when 2.0 lunch.
if feed_price > 0.1, witness_number = 33
if feed_price > 0.2, witness_number = 51
......

if the system is strong, we don't need to worry about this delution and we can even set more than 101 witness, but the reality is we're still a little baby, we need to make us strong step by step

This is an excellent idea.

[wallace]

how about set a minimum number first such as 17 then increase the number according to the feed price(acutally this is the paramater of marketing cap)?

For example:
17 witness when 2.0 lunch.
if feed_price > 0.1, witness_number = 33
if feed_price > 0.2, witness_number = 51
......

if the system is strong, we don't need to worry about this delution and we can even set more than 101 witness, but the reality is we're still a little baby, we need to make us strong step by step

[BTSdac]

The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.

This. 

There is no doubt that Bitcoin has its weaknesses in both decentralization and security (those are not always the same). But anyone claiming that BitShares, as it stands today, has security anywhere near that of Bitcoin is in need of a serious reality check. If you want to attack the Bitcoin network directly (disable it), you need to attack ~6000 full nodes and disable a good chunk of the mining power so that block processing is effectively disabled. With pool-miners essentially able to switch pools at a whim, this must be an extremely difficult operation. If it was feasible (with Bitcoin's 3-4 billion USD market cap) it would have been done already. Let's not arrogantly dismiss Bitcoin's proven security.

As far as I can tell, one of the real dangers to Bitcoin right now is someone controlling a majority of the core devs and driving opinion that way (opinion influences nodes and miners). The recent block size debate has taught us that is still a weakness of Bitcoin. Taking control of mining power is extremely expensive, and can today only be done by huge actors that are good at staying hidden for an extended period of time.

BitShares may be be doing things more efficiently than Bitcoin, but I'm struggling to see how a big actor will have any problem whatsoever taking down 17 witnesses running on 300$ a month. Now I'm not a hacker or security expert, but I've seen how something so small as the newly set up Norwegian Pirate Party DNS server (combatting Pirate Bay censorship) may quickly find itself under heavy DDOS fire. Why would something like this not pose a danger to the BitShares network, with our portfolio of powerful enemies?

I'm thinking that if there is a possible attack vector into BitShares, it will be used. Distributing witness control over several 100 will make it more robust. We need to be proactive with BitShares security, better too much than too little. If the BitShares network is only once attacked and driven to a halt, the crypto community will nod their heads and go "Mhm, that's what we thought. Game over."

actually bitcoin is controlled by top 5 mine pool ,   do you remember  5 mine pool in china refuse update the max block size
and most of miner don`t take care of chain

[Spectral]

The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.

This. 

There is no doubt that Bitcoin has its weaknesses in both decentralization and security (those are not always the same). But anyone claiming that BitShares, as it stands today, has security anywhere near that of Bitcoin is in need of a serious reality check. If you want to attack the Bitcoin network directly (disable it), you need to attack ~6000 full nodes and disable a good chunk of the mining power so that block processing is effectively disabled. With pool-miners essentially able to switch pools at a whim, this must be an extremely difficult operation. If it was feasible (with Bitcoin's 3-4 billion USD market cap) it would have been done already. Let's not arrogantly dismiss Bitcoin's proven security.

As far as I can tell, one of the real dangers to Bitcoin right now is someone controlling a majority of the core devs and driving opinion that way (opinion influences nodes and miners). The recent block size debate has taught us that is still a weakness of Bitcoin. Taking control of mining power is extremely expensive, and can today only be done by huge actors that are good at staying hidden for an extended period of time.

BitShares may be be doing things more efficiently than Bitcoin, but I'm struggling to see how a big actor will have any problem whatsoever taking down 17 witnesses running on 300$ a month. Now I'm not a hacker or security expert, but I've seen how something so small as the newly set up Norwegian Pirate Party DNS server (combatting Pirate Bay censorship) may quickly find itself under heavy DDOS fire. Why would something like this not pose a danger to the BitShares network, with our portfolio of powerful enemies?

I'm thinking that if there is a possible attack vector into BitShares, it will be used. Distributing witness control over several 100 will make it more robust. We need to be proactive with BitShares security, better too much than too little. If the BitShares network is only once attacked and driven to a halt, the crypto community will nod their heads and go "Mhm, that's what we thought. Game over."

[mint chocolate chip]

If 17 takes us a big step closer to profitability, I am all for it.


"Described at MIT as 'the least random number', according to hackers' lore. This is supposedly because in a study where respondents were asked to choose a random number from 1 to 20, 17 was the most common choice."

[kenCode]

Static is fallible and corruptible. 
Dynamic is much more difficult to take down.
Let the code decide, see my post above for details.

[roadscape]

BTS: 17 delegates @ $300/mo is $61,200 per year to protect $15,000,000 of tokens = "annual 0.4% security fee".

That means if someone want's to heart bts he can easier give for example $200K (or whatever) to 5-9  "corrupted" witnesses instead of $millions....
I think the annual security fees must be higher than that and of course lower than for the  bitcoin chain.... Let the shareholders decide dynamically how much security they want over time and let them adjust it accordingly... The circumstances are changing every minute on our world don't make the same mistake like with the static 101 delegates, it make no sense.

The job of a delegate is to publish tx's on time and without censorship. Wouldn't corrupt witness behavior be detectable?

[wuyanren]

I think we should have a vote.

[Empirical1.2]

So I agree with Riverhead that Bitcoin security is very weak.

The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.

You would only need to elect 9 witnesses to have a majority however the cost of such an election would be huge. Currently the 8th ranked delegate has about 440,000,000 BTS voting for them so to displace them you'd need to vote with at least that much. That's a little over $2.5MM in BTS (assuming you could buy that much without moving the price - or you already have it). That's a huge amount of money to throw away just to bring down BTS.

Or you could bribe 9 people earning $300 each with $X? 9 people can also easily collude for a much larger gain.  Via Interpol, 9 people could easily be arrested or 'turned'.

I have no idea how "the market" will perceive 17 witnesses but I personally see no problem with it. Since the number of witnesses is dynamic, shareholders can vote for increased security if and when it's needed. How many bouncers does a little mom and pop business need? Not many. Wait until the little business turns into something huge before adding all those redundant expenses up-front. I don't think this community should let irrational perception guide it, even if it means a smaller market cap for now.

A mom and pop business needs no bouncers. A new, complicated, risky, blockchain that aims to disintermediate centralised exchanges and handle tens of millions in financial transactions needs whatever security measures are necessary for investors and customers to TRUST it with their funds.  If you're not perceived as secure, no investment, no customers.

Also it's not irrational perception there are valid reasons for a much larger number as mentioned throughout thread.

However even where market perception is irrational, many of the most successful businesses in the world are still smart enough to acquiesce to those perceptions, because they like making money.

Number 4 (四; accounting 肆; pinyin sì) is considered an unlucky number in Chinese because it is nearly homophonous to the word "death" (死 pinyin sǐ). Due to that, many  product lines skip the "4". In Hong Kong, some high-rise residential buildings omit all floor numbers with "4", in addition to not having a 13th floor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_in_Chinese_culture

[monsterer]

You would only need to elect 9 witnesses to have a majority however the cost of such an election would be huge. Currently the 8th ranked delegate has about 440,000,000 BTS voting for them so to displace them you'd need to vote with at least that much. That's a little over $2.5MM in BTS (assuming you could buy that much without moving the price - or you already have it). That's a huge amount of money to throw away just to bring down BTS.

I've just realised that it doesn't matter how many witnesses you have, voting them all in, or all out takes the same amount of stake no matter how many there are. Once you have control of 440M BTS, the world is your oyster.

That being said, 17 is a much lower number for a social engineering attack to work on. For example 1 guy (impersonating 17 guys) presents 17 compelling arguments to have his witnesses voted in is much easier than 101 compelling arguments.

[Riverhead]

So I agree with Riverhead that Bitcoin security is very weak.

The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.

You would only need to elect 9 witnesses to have a majority however the cost of such an election would be huge. Currently the 8th ranked delegate has about 440,000,000 BTS voting for them so to displace them you'd need to vote with at least that much. That's a little over $2.5MM in BTS (assuming you could buy that much without moving the price - or you already have it). That's a huge amount of money to throw away just to bring down BTS.

[liondani]

BTS: 17 delegates @ $300/mo is $61,200 per year to protect $15,000,000 of tokens = "annual 0.4% security fee".

That means if someone want's to heart bts he can easier give for example $200K (or whatever) to 5-9  "corrupted" witnesses instead of $millions....
I think the annual security fees must be higher than that and of course lower than for the  bitcoin chain.... Let the shareholders decide dynamically how much security they want over time and let them adjust it accordingly... The circumstances are changing every minute on our world don't make the same mistake like with the static 101 delegates, it make no sense.

[roadscape]

The bitcoin network spends 25 BTC every 10 minutes on security, that's $33k per day. How much does it cost to elect 17 witnesses? ...Once one person does that, it's goodbye chain.

Actually, BTC spends $900,000 per day on security.

BTC: $328,500,000 per year to protect $3,400,000,000 of tokens = "annual 9.7% security fee".

BTS: 17 delegates @ $300/mo is $61,200 per year to protect $15,000,000 of tokens = "annual 0.4% security fee".

[roadscape]

I have no idea how "the market" will perceive 17 witnesses but I personally see no problem with it. Since the number of witnesses is dynamic, shareholders can vote for increased security if and when it's needed. How many bouncers does a little mom and pop business need? Not many. Wait until the little business turns into something huge before adding all those redundant expenses up-front. I don't think this community should let irrational perception guide it, even if it means a smaller market cap for now.

 

If 17 witness is down , I don't think the network is capable of electing new witness to keep the network running . (unless there is something magical I don't know about . )

I too would like to know what would happen in this scenario.
Would we be out of luck until the next maintenance window?
How much would it cost to attack 17 dedicated servers all at once?