Author Topic: [RESOLVED] Running multiple delegates in one physical server  (Read 2346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
it's more of a social problem than technical. Just don't elect delegates that run multiple instances on the same machine.

I am interested to learn how one may evaluate the block generation and/or network propagation data to determine that multiple delegates are producing blocks from a distinct instance.

the network is kind of designed to make that hard. That's why I was thinking it's more of a social problem and a possible solution is to vote for delegates one at a time, as individuals that you've come to trust/know. You can do that by people signing their forum messages with gpg keys in the web of trust, that will show it's only one person at a time. If bitshares becomes huge, delegates will pretty much have to be identified and will be operating like the board of a corporation, making it easy to know who are duplicates.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
it's more of a social problem than technical. Just don't elect delegates that run multiple instances on the same machine.

I am interested to learn how one may evaluate the block generation and/or network propagation data to determine that multiple delegates are producing blocks from a distinct instance.

the best way to find it out, is when they are missing blocks... So when I see a couple of times that when  "fox" are missing blocks  the same period of time "lion" misses blocks too, then I am quite sure it is the same individual... so the only way for the individual to hide is to use different servers (VPS or normal) for each delegate... not good enough but a little bit better security wise...  ;)

Offline Fox

it's more of a social problem than technical. Just don't elect delegates that run multiple instances on the same machine.

I am interested to learn how one may evaluate the block generation and/or network propagation data to determine that multiple delegates are producing blocks from a distinct instance.
Witness: fox

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile


[No protocol can enforce this.

but it can encourage / motivate to this direction...  (?)

it's more of a social problem than technical. Just don't elect delegates that run multiple instances on the same machine. Running multiple instances on the same machine helps the delegate but doesn't help the network. There is something too about not electing single delegates than run multiple instances. You don't want one person running multiple delegates getting hit by the proverbial truck, although that's less likely than a single machine failing that runs multiple delegates.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani


[No protocol can enforce this.

but it can encourage / motivate to this direction...  (?)

Offline bytemaster

For the sake of decentralization and network propagation, I feel each delegate should run on a unique physical instance.  Yes, I fully understand the current Bitshares protocol does not enforce this.

No protocol can enforce this.
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 Fox

For the sake of decentralization and network propagation, I feel each delegate should run on a unique physical instance.  Yes, I fully understand the current Bitshares protocol does not enforce this. 
Witness: fox

Offline maverica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Yes I think that was the obvious answer. Thanks for pointing it out.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I think it is not possible. But why should you do that?
You can have multiple delegates active on the same server without problems after all...
You enable delegate block production for the delegates you want and that's it...Am I missing something?

Offline bytemaster

You can have one client with more than 1 active delegate key.   No need for more than one instance.

I would say that if you do run more than one instance then you need 2 data dirs.

./bitshares_client --data-dir Delegate1
./bitshares_client --data-dir Delegate2


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 bytemaster

You can have one client with more than 1 active delegate key.   No need for more than one instance.
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 maverica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Hello,

I have been trying to setup a few more bitsharesx delegates on our physical sever to no avail. What I have tried so far is to install bitsharesx in a new location, compile it but when it is ready to run it says that the database is in use (while the first instance of bitsharesx is using it on a process run in screen). I am using Ubuntu.

I was wondering can I change the location of bitsharesx database on the second installation so I can run concurrently multiple bitsharesx clients without having to virtualize new server instances?

Thanks in advance,
-D
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 03:39:16 pm by maverica »