I discussed this with @anonymint in private chat and here's basically what was conveyed to me (he is in the Philippines and myself in Europe and I'm not using a VPN):
The attacker loses if 1% of the economic weight of the network chooses not to use their fork, as I already stated. If both forks continue to exist, the value of the network is split and the attacker loses some amount of value. It is distributed back to the users of the network who have increased power at the attacker's expense.
Incorrect.
Firstly, there's no zero sum game in the wealth effect of share markets (float versus marketcap, liquidity versus confidence, externalities of shorting, etc).
There’s tremendous elasticity due to speculative bubbles overshoot and then corrective crashes.
Your misunderstanding belies a correct understanding of markets and game theory as well.
There's far too many moving parts and degrees-of-freedom for there to be some sort tightly constrained mathematical relationship between minute changes in the economic weight and the attacker's loss or profit.
The Medium post that was cited explains some of the scenarios where your presumption fails.
And there are an unbounded many such scenarios.
The entropy even just on earth is not so tightly constrained as you seem to presume.
And even then arguing until you were blue in the face that every other design was massively flawed and that your way was the only way. Forgive my eternal skepticism of you.
Did you see @anonymint's face while participating in discussions with him in 2013? What shade of blue was it? Purplish, lavenderish, cerulean, or cobalt?
There
you go again with your curmudgeon demeanor injecting ad hominem personalization of what should be a factual exchange of ideas.
@anonymint can play that ad homimen game too if you prefer to continue slandering him, "that @Ix would even contemplate such an
INANE and
NAIVE concept shows that he's the one who everyone should be skeptical about. Sorry but frankly."
I've seen you mention 33% stalling, but I don't know what the rationale is. Could you expand on it?
Please kindly refer to
the discussion and links to the “math of liveness and safety” in @anonymint's latest blog and past writings.
The evil validators could ignore an honest validator, but they would have to be all of the validators immediately after that validator to do so and win undisputed. If there is any honest node, he accepts it and the honest chain continues, and it distills back to grandma again
I'm sorry but you'll need to understand the rigor of Byzantine fault tolerance and stop handwaving with ad hoc descriptions.
Point to the mathematical proof of your system, otherwise you're just trolling.
<meta>You're ostensibly pissed off at @anonymint for ad hoc discussions in 2013 about your Decrits consensus system, where you had not even published a whitepaper and he kept asking you for a more formal description of your system.</meta>
This was an error in my original design that I have since rectified. Non-responding validators are only mildly punished.
Mild punishment is still a game theory error.
And the point is since you can't punish non-responding validators, then you can't have both 100% finality and assured liveness.
And without 100% finality then there's no absolute objectivity by which all of the live users who were online at the time of the attack can accurately distinguish which fork they should choose.
Thus for this reason and the numerous degrees-of-freedom in the ways an attacker can profit, there's no actual disincentive for the attacker as you presume.
Sorry. As I said, the reality can be a bit depressing.
But blaming the reality on @anonymint is not sane. As if he has control over the reality.
Your Decrits design apparently forces new validators to queue up and be approved by many epochs before joining or leaving, but this is in essence a permissioned system,
because then 1/3 of the validators can stop the forward movement of the chain and those queued validators never become approved.
Still not clear on how.
Because you apparently don't understand the formalism of Byzantine fault tolerant systems.
Just because you wrote something doesn't make it true. You dismissed my point that the attackers lose, at least on network, no matter what, and presumed this fell back to some 50%+ majority when no such majority is required. The attackers *always lose*.
Your incorrect presumption has been refuted above.
Finality can be achieved without using the entire stake, or even a majority of it. There will just be multiple versions of finality, or voluntary hard forks. This gives the live observers the choice to choose which fork most closely resembles their own view of the network.
Multiple partial orders are ambiguous due to network asynchrony.
That is fundamental
INVIOLABLE finding of the FLP theorem from the 1980s That's the entire reason a total ordering is required in these consensus system.
The attacker can profit even in the presence of security deposits.
That was one of the main points of the Medium post.
In the case that the attacker can somehow manipulate public opinion in the face of grandma's trust.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time, ergo the attacker is guaranteed to lose something.
Network connectivity can be a thornier issue, but we will eventually have uninterruptable internet satellites and mesh networks everywhere.
Unless Russia uses a space nuke or something.
But there are always scenarios that you can degrade to the end of civilization to prove your point.
All currencies fail there.
You seem to not comprehend the formalism of Byzantine fault tolerance and the ambiguity thereof when relying on network synchrony.
Network connectivity can be a thornier issue, but we will eventually have uninterruptable internet satellites and mesh networks everywhere. Unless Russia uses a space nuke or something. But there are always scenarios that you can degrade to the end of civilization to prove your point. All currencies fail there.
You're conflating connectivity with synchrony. Too different concepts.
It's like conflating gas stations and gasoline. Exemplifies that you have no fscking clue of the subject matter.
Btw, @anonymint explained that mesh networks are fantasy that will never happen due to economics and liveness. I would have to dig up the link to that Steemit post and also I think he posted about it on the Corbett Report recently.
