Author Topic: Profits, Performance, Trust & Efficiency  (Read 33762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Recognized by algorithm.

Transactions will not get lost if they can be migrated.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 muse-umum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
  • BitShares everything
    • View Profile
Forks are a bigger problem for BTS X because of the built in market... forks must be avoided.  Using the Timekeeper eliminates forks unless the Timekeeper is hacked... but TaPOS allows us to easily resolve forks in that instance.   I was spending a lot of time trying to minimize forks... unfortunately, TaPOS takes longer to accomplish the task on its own than proof-of-work does.

For starters if the timekeeper were hacked and their keys stolen the timekeeper couldn't trick any nodes already connected to the network because they would immediately see the conflicting signature and adopt the new timekeeper (pre-arranged of course). 

So a hack of the timekeeper would introduce the potential of a fork of 1 or 2 blocks at most before the blocks propagated and everyone recognized the attack had occurred.

what will happen on the transactions contained in that one or two blocks? get lost?

will the “timekeeper” also be implemented in other bitshares dacs?

how does everyone recongnize the attack? automattically by algorithm?


Offline bytemaster

Forks are a bigger problem for BTS X because of the built in market... forks must be avoided.  Using the Timekeeper eliminates forks unless the Timekeeper is hacked... but TaPOS allows us to easily resolve forks in that instance.   I was spending a lot of time trying to minimize forks... unfortunately, TaPOS takes longer to accomplish the task on its own than proof-of-work does.

For starters if the timekeeper were hacked and their keys stolen the timekeeper couldn't trick any nodes already connected to the network because they would immediately see the conflicting signature and adopt the new timekeeper (pre-arranged of course). 

So a hack of the timekeeper would introduce the potential of a fork of 1 or 2 blocks at most before the blocks propagated and everyone recognized the attack had occurred. 
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 puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Probability of a double spend is so low that it is not even worth considering....

1) You would have to be doing business with the Timekeeper
2) The timekeeper would have to isolate you from the rest of the network
3) Given that everyone knows who the timekeeper is (likely a group of people) they would not get away with it...
4) As soon as the double spend was detected it would be very clear which chain  had the most TaPOS behind it and was public and which one was the attackers chain.

Assuming you are connected to several well known nodes in the network other than the timekeeper with cryptographic prevention of man in the middle, the probability of attack by timekeeper is 0 without collusion.

I get that.  probability is very low.  Probability must be weighed against consequences though.  if probability is high and consequences are low risky behavior is okay.  however with unknown consequences probability is a useless value.  I would like to know the consequences should a very low probability event occur.   

Consequences are one individual who is out of money and must take the Timekeeper to court for fraud.  Timekeeper would be cut off from all business relationships in the community and labeled a scammer for life.  Total amount lost?  depends upon how rich you are and how rich the timekeeper is....

Like I said, probability is 0 and consequences are near 0 damage (to the network) and perhaps some damage to *ONE* individual for *ONE* transaction.   In other words this is MUCH better than Bitcoin.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is better than bitcoin.  After all I wouldn't be moving my BTC reserves to PTS/AGS if I didn't agree.  The product is of course very different than bitcoins product.

Is the network designed to rapidly resolve forks without damage to shareholders or transactors? What happens to the transactions on a fork with fewer CDD? 

Following my prior analysis it seems to me that this recent modification of protocol is an attempt to reduce forks, which leads me to believe that forks would cause greater damage to the system than centralizing block creation.

In essence, while your security may be better than bitcoin, you are also attempting to do more than bitcoin.  If you were attempting to provide a better payment system I would be sold, but with the real time trading of bitassets I've got to be more suspicious.


**edit**  I'm also drunk and going to bed.  If you take that as a judgment on my viewpoint I woulds ask that you take a long serious look at your motivations.  If you take this as an excuse for any errors on my part, I would appreciate it.  Good night.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 05:26:11 am by puppies »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Probability of a double spend is so low that it is not even worth considering....

1) You would have to be doing business with the Timekeeper
2) The timekeeper would have to isolate you from the rest of the network
3) Given that everyone knows who the timekeeper is (likely a group of people) they would not get away with it...
4) As soon as the double spend was detected it would be very clear which chain  had the most TaPOS behind it and was public and which one was the attackers chain.

Assuming you are connected to several well known nodes in the network other than the timekeeper with cryptographic prevention of man in the middle, the probability of attack by timekeeper is 0 without collusion.

I get that.  probability is very low.  Probability must be weighed against consequences though.  if probability is high and consequences are low risky behavior is okay.  however with unknown consequences probability is a useless value.  I would like to know the consequences should a very low probability event occur.   

Consequences are one individual who is out of money and must take the Timekeeper to court for fraud.  Timekeeper would be cut off from all business relationships in the community and labeled a scammer for life.  Total amount lost?  depends upon how rich you are and how rich the timekeeper is....

Like I said, probability is 0 and consequences are near 0 damage (to the network) and perhaps some damage to *ONE* individual for *ONE* transaction.   In other words this is MUCH better than Bitcoin.
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 puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Probability of a double spend is so low that it is not even worth considering....

1) You would have to be doing business with the Timekeeper
2) The timekeeper would have to isolate you from the rest of the network
3) Given that everyone knows who the timekeeper is (likely a group of people) they would not get away with it...
4) As soon as the double spend was detected it would be very clear which chain  had the most TaPOS behind it and was public and which one was the attackers chain.

Assuming you are connected to several well known nodes in the network other than the timekeeper with cryptographic prevention of man in the middle, the probability of attack by timekeeper is 0 without collusion.

I get that.  probability is very low.  Probability must be weighed against consequences though.  if probability is high and consequences are low risky behavior is okay.  however with unknown consequences probability is a useless value.  I would like to know the consequences should a very low probability event occur.   
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Probability of a double spend is so low that it is not even worth considering....

1) You would have to be doing business with the Timekeeper
2) The timekeeper would have to isolate you from the rest of the network
3) Given that everyone knows who the timekeeper is (likely a group of people) they would not get away with it...
4) As soon as the double spend was detected it would be very clear which chain  had the most TaPOS behind it and was public and which one was the attackers chain.

Assuming you are connected to several well known nodes in the network other than the timekeeper with cryptographic prevention of man in the middle, the probability of attack by timekeeper is 0 without collusion.
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 puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Quote
So whats the worst case scenario if a trustee/notary/witness/acceptor/inscriber/signer/authenticator/watcher/super node/cute cuddly bunny goes rogue? 

Could they get a double spend off and profit from it, even if they get caught and canned immediately afterwards?  Lets say I have a million dollars worth of BTS. Could I double spend that and actually get a million dollars profit for doing it?  This would be especially attractive if I had hosted the node through tor, as then all I'd have to do is wash the BTC I double spent for. 

The only way for them to 'go rouge' and perform a double spend is if they isolated their victim from the rest of the network.   As the Notary is not anonymous and their signature would be on two blocks at the same time, there would be incontrovertible proof of intent to defraud.  So I would say that the potential for a double-spend is near 0... especially if you have your client connected to several verified and public peers (like major exchanges). 

The most the Notary could do is delay the processing of transactions. 

With respect to paying the Notary, that may be a reasonable thing to do because it would give the notary the financial resources to improve their security and provide redundancy in multiple jurisdictions.   On the other hand paying the notary would result in even greater political battles because now you have financial incentive to stir up conflict and take over the role. 

I prefer Notary to all the other terms because it conveys the role best:  they have the power to sign/witness/certify transactions (contracts) but not to determine their contents.    Operator sounds like it has too much control and witness and observer is passive.  Trustee implies too much trust.  There is no need 'trust' a notary.

In a way the notary is just a 'timestamp server' and this also avoids the notary being confused with the issuer or operator of a virtual currency.

So assuming the risk of a double spend attack is low, what would the consequences be?  How would this affect the network?  What would happen if this individual got depressed/suicidal/broke up with his GF/got hacked by .gov or for whatever reason the node did not operate as specified?

The chances of my being fooled by a transvestite and taking her home from a bar are very very low, but the consequences are so very high that you can be damn sure I have a thorough vetting process in place.

Sorry for the lewd analogy but I'm trying to express my concerns in a manner others might understand.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n


Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Assumptions:
With the shares system we have an easy way to vote on anything.
With the TaPOS system the transaction ledger becomes immutable automatically over time as the ledger is confirmed by everyone on the network.
Generating the next block should be as efficient as possible to maximize dividends.
Transaction validation should be as quick as possible.

Solution:
Shareholders vote (off chain) on a trustee.
Trustee generates blocks every 30 seconds (or at will..... no need to require any particular rate)
If trustee is compromised or shutdown, shareholders can elect a new trustee by broadcasting their vote.
Once a new trustee has 51% of the shareholders support the network continues.

As a trustee you cannot double spend (you will be caught and fired).
As a trustee you cannot perform Denial of Service without being caught and fired.
As a trustee you cannot be coerced without being let go.

As a shareholder this maximizes your value (dividends, transaction speed, no potential of forks).

A trustee is not a paid position and requires almost no resources to run.  A trustee could even operate behind a tor node.

The result is like a 'constitutional company' where the laws are entirely defined in the constitution and the 'president' can be recalled at any time and has almost no power even when in office.

This same process can be used to resolve when a hard fork goes into effect.   

Thoughts?

Does this have the potential to delay the release of ME/XTS/Lotto/DNS .? I assumed the end of March for the first DAC (ME) to be released...  :o

anyone to comment on this?

This change has accelerated the process.  I think I could release something prior to going to NYC... but don't want to launch a chain and then be gone on travel for a week.

I think I will launch the test-test prior to NYC... then the real XT network when I get back.    Of course all software development times are estimates.

Quote
test-test prior to NYC
that wouldn't yet involve the ability to claim BTS X / XTS I guess? Claiming XTS would be after NYC (7-8.4)?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 11:01:21 pm by delulo »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai


Literally the first funny meme I have seen on this forum +1 teach me

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline bobmaloney

Chronicle

Register

Scroll

...or just create a new term or name that we get to define from scratch...

Notar
Bitreg
Reggie

...or Al... We could just call him Al.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
I concur on "timekeeper" for our marketing campaign. Who said that first?  Give them a tip I say.  You guys are awesome.  And unless anybody has something more soothing, lets move on the the next item on the agenda.  Here's why you should vote for "timekeeper":

Impartiality is implied with respect to the fact that nobody can fight or win a dispute against "time."

Also, "timekeeping" or "digital syncing" is a standard technical aspect in the 20-year old worlds of digital audio/video production, and has been since the 90's.  Anybody (and probably everybody by now) who has ever worked with digital A/V equipment (do they even make analog equipment anymore) will immediately understand the need for and benefit from the implementation of a high quality master "timekeeping" device when processing their digital audio or video data bits. 

But these are not bitcoin people, but maybe 2% of the other 99% of the people who have no clue about Satoshi. In other words, this targeted marketing group should in theory be smart enough to make the technical leap necessary to grasp the benefit of Satoshi's basic concepts.  They should be early adopters.  Best of all, these people love it when their systems have a "master digital clock!"

That is because, in their digital world, the implementation of a "timekeeper" or "master clock" as they say, guarantees the highest levels of security (compatibility and sometimes increased A/V quality) for their system.  Studios and free-lancers will always advertise their use of such devices in the same way that contractors show that they are "bonded" or can afford a lawsuit if sued.  It adds a high level of DOGE-ness or assured happy secure branding where nobody could possibly hate a cute puppy, so like: relax, man we got the highest level of security on your artwork (Bitshares), because we have a "master clock" so that nothing will fail during the recording process.  Ahhhhh, thanks bro.

Also since their happy "timekeeper" is basically a computer programmed by a human.  All they will need to know to sleep soundly is how our programming process works in reverse (since we cannot have an actual computerized timekeeper).  Your marketing focus should deal with our specific instruction set that our human clock (acting as a computer clock) will carry out in every conceivable instance (order, wording, priority, etc).  That list of commands needs to be ironed out and re-worded with enough dogystyle to convert the hardline "to infinity and beyond" hardliners who demand 100% secure DACs.

To sum up, we will use a term that is a hallmark of both safety and security for a group who is larger in size than all the BTC early adopters, and whom understand technical concepts similar to Bitcoin.

"Timekeeper," is textbook propaganda of the highest level rivaling that of the "affordable care act" which caused my premiums to jump 20% this year.  What do we say about imitation here in open source land?  We love forking, and we fork only the very best!

Here is an article that was written 4 years ago showing how much the audio community was obsessing about this back then.  "Clocks" were industry standard in the video industry a decade prior to the audio industry simply because "clocks" are more necessary in more complex systems, and video is an order of magnitude more complex in production than audio:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/masterclocks.htm

How long have video scalers been around? Who has not heard of 480/720/1080P?  This stuff is pretty common nowadays to anyone who has lusted after a crisper picture on their flat screen: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_scaler

I just registered on this forum last night, and if I had done it a day later, I would have forever be known as "TIMEKEEPER" (yeah, probably in all caps too).  Fate's fickle finger.
Wow try to beat that !!! Timekeeper must win.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Metronome or metronode

Chronicle node

So far, I'd keep it simple like timestamp or clock node.

I'd separate it further "timestamp server"  The only issue I see, is that when someone realizes it really is more than that, they might feel as if the name is meant to mislead. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jbutta2k13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Metronome or metronode

Chronicle node

So far, I'd keep it simple like timestamp or clock node.