[ANN][LSK] Lisk | Blockchain Application Platform for JavaScript Developers

[Bubba-Gump]

The exchange would have enough of the money supply to control all the delegates. They wouldn't need votes from the people.

If they control delegates proportional to their holdings, that's one thing. But with delegates, they don't even need a majority if the rest of the vote is split.

There is nothing in the protocol to prevent full control by a minority holder. No other blockchain security system has this sort of weakness.

This 51% attack can occur with any cryptocurrency. Lisk, as with all other cryptocurrencies, is fully dependent on their base users.

If the majority (> 50%) of Lisk owners choose to use unregulated Somalian exchanges to trade, it is the end-users fault if the unregulated Somalian exchange decides to control the Lisk network by using end-user funds for voting their own delegates into the active delegation.

Fortunately, exchanges are fairly regulated these days. These exchanges do not use funds for voting or staking.

It doesn't have to be an exchange.

Also, it's not a 51% attack. It is a 100% attack by a minority holder. A minority holder can control 100% of the security mechanism. That can't be said of Bitcoin or any PoS system.

[Bubba-Gump]

This is a story about an exchange

It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.

Everyone else is fucked.

Discuss

Exchanges do not use any of the current crypto wallets with funds to vote or to stake coins.

If they do this, it would not be considered an exhange anymore and could be liable for huge legal repercussions.

With all due respect, relying on an exchange to obey the laws of some arbitrary jurisdiction is a pretty weak argument. What if they operate in Somalia where there is no functional government?

the fact is that the exchanges cant have all the nodes because they would have to be voted in by the people.  Gawd your Fkn stupid.

The exchange would have enough of the money supply to control all the delegates. They wouldn't need votes from the people.

If they control delegates proportional to their holdings, that's one thing. But with delegates, they don't even need a majority if the rest of the vote is split.

There is nothing in the protocol to prevent full control by a minority holder. No other blockchain security system has this sort of weakness.

Dude, if that happens they could just get kicked off the delegate list and a new person gets a chance. Fucking turd.

They will kick themselves off?

with nodes costing like $50 I think anyone can afford to become one.  You're just worrying about absolutely nothing and trying to cause a scene also for no real reason.  Or your reason is fucking greed.

How are all the nodes going to reach consensus to kick off the hundred delegates fully validated and supported by the protocol?

[Bigcabrito]

This 51% attack can occur with any cryptocurrency. Lisk, as with all other cryptocurrencies, is fully dependent on their base users.

If the majority (> 50%) of Lisk owners choose to use unregulated Somalian exchanges to trade, it is the end-users fault if the unregulated Somalian exchange decides to control the Lisk network by using end-user funds for voting their own delegates into the active delegation.

Fortunately, exchanges are fairly regulated these days. These exchanges do not use funds for voting or staking.

It doesn't have to be an exchange.

Also, it's not a 51% attack. It is a 100% attack by a minority holder. A minority holder can control 100% of the security mechanism. That can't be said of Bitcoin or any PoS system.

The vote is equivalent to the amount of coins in your wallet (e.g one account with 51,000,000 LISK has a vote presence of 51% of the possible 100% votes). A minority holder cannot gain control of all the 101 delegates, that is unless no one decides to vote.

Holding 51% of the total coin supply is the only guaranteed way to take control of the network.

[Bubba-Gump]

This 51% attack can occur with any cryptocurrency. Lisk, as with all other cryptocurrencies, is fully dependent on their base users.

If the majority (> 50%) of Lisk owners choose to use unregulated Somalian exchanges to trade, it is the end-users fault if the unregulated Somalian exchange decides to control the Lisk network by using end-user funds for voting their own delegates into the active delegation.

Fortunately, exchanges are fairly regulated these days. These exchanges do not use funds for voting or staking.

It doesn't have to be an exchange.

Also, it's not a 51% attack. It is a 100% attack by a minority holder. A minority holder can control 100% of the security mechanism. That can't be said of Bitcoin or any PoS system.

The vote is equivalent to the amount of coins in your wallet (e.g one account with 51,000,000 LISK has a vote presence of 51% of the possible 100% votes). A minority holder cannot gain control of all the 101 delegates, that is unless no one decides to vote.

Holding 51% of the total coin supply is the only guaranteed way to take control of the network.

That's not how I understand it. Each wallet gets 101 votes. If a wallet has a plurality of the weight, it can vote for its own nodes with that plurality.

What you say would be true if each wallet got only 1 vote. A big wallet could vote for itself or another single wallet once and the blockchain security would be split accordingly.

With delegated staking, it would take a coordinated effort to undermine the big wallet.

All other block chain security systems rely on the opposite, which is a lack of coordination.

[MGM]

Anyone interested in buying a Lisk ICO account with 1 BTC?  

I purchased during 10% period, but I'll settle for less than that.

I believe in Lisk for long term, but I must admit that I didn't read throughly before investing and I'd like to have my BTC in hand for trading.

lol just ask them for a refund turd

There are no refunds. Unless he traded XCR equivalent to 1BTC. He would then be eligible to a refund of his XCR.

Anyone interested in buying my Lisk ?

I'll settle for 1 BTC + just 5%.

[kidyubyub]

lisk = risk

Walking down the street is a risk. Eating food is a risk. Are you going to sit in a bubble waiting for old age because of risk? No, you take risk to reap reward. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.

[MalReynolds]

This is a story about an exchange
It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.
Everyone else is fucked.
Discuss

Exchanges do not use any of the current crypto wallets with funds to vote or to stake coins.
If they do this, it would not be considered an exhange anymore and could be liable for huge legal repercussions.

With all due respect, relying on an exchange to obey the laws of some arbitrary jurisdiction is a pretty weak argument. What if they operate in Somalia where there is no functional government?

the fact is that the exchanges cant have all the nodes because they would have to be voted in by the people.  Gawd your Fkn stupid.

The exchange would have enough of the money supply to control all the delegates. They wouldn't need votes from the people.
If they control delegates proportional to their holdings, that's one thing. But with delegates, they don't even need a majority if the rest of the vote is split.
There is nothing in the protocol to prevent full control by a minority holder. No other blockchain security system has this sort of weakness.

In this situation, the solution is for the true owners of the Lisk to pull their holdings out of the exchange.  Once that Lisk is transferred from the exchange back to the true owners, the votes it was used for are voided.  

Now, if you have an exchange that doesn't give the Lisk back to its owners, then you've got a bigger problem than voting - you've got Mt. Gox.

That's a weakness that all blockchain security systems can't solve : out-and-out theft.

The real solution is to write a dapp that allows swapping of other cryptocoins in exchange for Lisk and so allow Lisk to become its own exchange.

[Bigcabrito]

This 51% attack can occur with any cryptocurrency. Lisk, as with all other cryptocurrencies, is fully dependent on their base users.

If the majority (> 50%) of Lisk owners choose to use unregulated Somalian exchanges to trade, it is the end-users fault if the unregulated Somalian exchange decides to control the Lisk network by using end-user funds for voting their own delegates into the active delegation.

Fortunately, exchanges are fairly regulated these days. These exchanges do not use funds for voting or staking.

It doesn't have to be an exchange.

Also, it's not a 51% attack. It is a 100% attack by a minority holder. A minority holder can control 100% of the security mechanism. That can't be said of Bitcoin or any PoS system.

The vote is equivalent to the amount of coins in your wallet (e.g one account with 51,000,000 LISK has a vote presence of 51% of the possible 100% votes). A minority holder cannot gain control of all the 101 delegates, that is unless no one decides to vote.

Holding 51% of the total coin supply is the only guaranteed way to take control of the network.

That's not how I understand it. Each wallet gets 101 votes. If a wallet has a plurality of the weight, it can vote for its own nodes with that plurality.

What you say would be true if each wallet got only 1 vote. A big wallet could vote for itself or another single wallet once and the blockchain security would be split accordingly.

With delegated staking, it would take a coordinated effort to undermine the big wallet.

All other block chain security systems rely on the opposite, which is a lack of coordination.

Let me first re-direct you to the Lisk Delegate Handbook:

https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-handbooks/DelegateHandbook

There are some discrepancies in your understanding of how voting works, I would advise to read the recently drafted Delegate Handbook for a detailed explanation.

Now, to explain it as best as I can in my own words.

Your account has a voting presence that equals the amount of funds you have in your wallet. The more funds you have in your wallet, the higher voting presence it has. This account can vote for 101 different delegates, you cannot stack voting. Here's an example:

John's account has 15M LISK, he has a voting presence of 15% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

James account has 10M LISK, he has a voting presence of 10% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

If John and James were to vote on delegates, they would account a total of 25% vote presence on the chosen delegates. Keep in mind again that they may not vote twice on the same account, they must either a) not vote b) vote on the desired accounts only.

A simpler way to view this is, if one person holds all of the funds (100M), he has 100% voting presence, and has complete dictatorship over who will be the 101 active delegates. However, as stated previously, you don't need 100%, 51% is enough to rule the other half of voters.

This brief explanation may not be the best, so I would advise you to read the Delegate Handbook thoroughly. Your concerns should be answered.

[Bubba-Gump]

Let me first re-direct you to the Lisk Delegate Handbook:

https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-handbooks/DelegateHandbook

There are some discrepancies in your understanding of how voting works, I would advise to read the recently drafted Delegate Handbook for a detailed explanation.

Now, to explain it as best as I can in my own words.

Your account has a voting presence that equals the amount of funds you have in your wallet. The more funds you have in your wallet, the higher voting presence it has. This account can vote for 101 different delegates, you cannot stack voting. Here's an example:

John's account has 15M LISK, he has a voting presence of 15% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

James account has 10M LISK, he has a voting presence of 10% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

If John and James were to vote on delegates, they would account a total of 25% vote presence on the chosen delegates. Keep in mind again that they may not vote twice on the same account, they must either a) not vote b) vote on the desired accounts only.

A simpler way to view this is, if one person holds all of the funds (100M), he has 100% voting presence, and has complete dictatorship over who will be the 101 active delegates. However, as stated previously, you don't need 100%, 51% is enough to rule the other half of voters.

This brief explanation may not be the best, so I would advise you to read the Delegate Handbook thoroughly. Your concerns should be answered.

In order to determine the delegate rank position, Lisk has a decentralized voting mechanism built directly into the client. Users can vote for any delegates registered on the network. One vote equals 0.00000001 LISK, and a user can only vote with his entire LISK balance. One vote costs the user 1 LISK and he can vote for 33 delegates in one go. He can vote for 101 delegates in total, for this he needs to initiate 4 votes (33+33+33+2 = 101). It is not possible to vote for the same delegate twice.

The number of votes are represented as an “Approval” within the client, and is shown as a percentage. An approval of 1% equals 1% of all LISK in the network. At launch this would be 1,000,000 LISK (later more, due to inflation) or 100,000,000,000,000 votes.

I'll accept that this is a reasonable system if a balance vote is split among the 101 delegates. For example if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, each would get 1 LISK worth of vote.

However, the way the above reads is that if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, they each get 101 LISK worth of votes. If this latter case is true, then the whole network could be controlled by someone who simply holds a plurality of LISK.

[MalReynolds]

In order to determine the delegate rank position, Lisk has a decentralized voting mechanism built directly into the client. Users can vote for any delegates registered on the network. One vote equals 0.00000001 LISK, and a user can only vote with his entire LISK balance. One vote costs the user 1 LISK and he can vote for 33 delegates in one go. He can vote for 101 delegates in total, for this he needs to initiate 4 votes (33+33+33+2 = 101). It is not possible to vote for the same delegate twice.

The number of votes are represented as an “Approval” within the client, and is shown as a percentage. An approval of 1% equals 1% of all LISK in the network. At launch this would be 1,000,000 LISK (later more, due to inflation) or 100,000,000,000,000 votes.

I'll accept that this is a reasonable system if a balance vote is split among the 101 delegates. For example if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, each would get 1 LISK worth of vote.

However, the way the above reads is that if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, they each get 101 LISK worth of votes. If this latter case is true, then the whole network could be controlled by someone who simply holds a plurality of LISK.

The balance in a voting account is not split among the people who that account votes for.  Everybody that person votes for gets the full balance of the voting account added into their vote total from all other accounts.

Yes, the whole network could be controlled by someone who holds a majority of Lisk.  This is equivalent to a 51% percent mining attack in Bitcoin.

Max, please correct me if what I have said here is wrong.  Also, please edit the phrase in red above to "At launch this 1% of votes would be 1,000,000 LISK (later more, due to inflation) or 100,000,000,000,000 votes." This change helps to clarify the big numbers are referring to "1%" and not "all LISK in the network".  I was a little confused the first time I read this.

[rezilient]

-Snip-

Just face it, its impossible.

[Bubba-Gump]

-Snip-

Just face it, its impossible.

No one has made any statement that remotely proved the impossibility of control by a mere plurality of the vote. I'm not talking about a plurality of all the LISK in existence. I'm talking about a plurality of the vote.

The balance in a voting account is not split among the people who that account votes for.  Everybody that person votes for gets the full balance of the voting account added into their vote total from all other accounts.

Yes, the whole network could be controlled by someone who holds a majority of Lisk.  This is equivalent to a 51% percent mining attack in Bitcoin.

Max, please correct me if what I have said here is wrong.  Also, please edit the phrase in red above to "At launch this 1% of votes would be 1,000,000 LISK (later more, due to inflation) or 100,000,000,000,000 votes." This change helps to clarify the big numbers are referring to "1%" and not "all LISK in the network".  I was a little confused the first time I read this.

The part in red is not the problem. The problem is that in delegate staking, control can be owned by someone who has a plurality of the vote. Not "majority of LISK" or "majority of vote", but mere plurality of the vote.

You can explain to me how it works all day long, but this is the weakest type of block chain security ever conceived.

Security is a property of the protocol. The delegated staking protocol does not provide security from a "plurality attack". I've shown this is the case by giving the example of an entity that holds a plurality of the vote, voting for each of it's delegates with a plurality of the vote and winning every one. Show me what in the protocol prevents this from happening.

I agree that 51% attacks are possible with other security systems. In comparison to those however, LISK is much weaker.

[bitseedmike]

I agree that allowing up to 101 votes from the same Lisk is kind of screwy - never liked it in Crypti either. I would rather see votes from an account balance split their weight. It would also be nice if the voting interface allowed assigning a percentage to each delegate voted for, so a vote from an account with 100 Lisk for 4 delegates would default to 25 votes for each delegate, but could be set to 70%, 10%, 10%, 10% so the delegates would receive 70, 10, 10, and 10 votes.

[Kushedout]

I agree that allowing up to 101 votes from the same Lisk is kind of screwy - never liked it in Crypti either. I would rather see votes from an account balance split their weight. It would also be nice if the voting interface allowed assigning a percentage to each delegate voted for, so a vote from an account with 100 Lisk for 4 delegates would default to 25 votes for each delegate, but could be set to 70%, 10%, 10%, 10% so the delegates would receive 70, 10, 10, and 10 votes.

I was under the impression that supply vote weight would at least be split between selected delegates.
If not, than couple of whales can easily circle  jerk their weight and control entire 101 delegate spots.

I seriously hope the above suggestion by bitseedmike is considered.

[dzimbeck]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lisk

Okay this isn't fud but Lisk means groin?  

I really like the ideas for the project but this thing here...

Was this name choice deliberate? Why was this name chosen? What is a lisk?

[Arrakeen]

Hi guys,

Glad to finally be a part of Lisk

Quick question: what now?!



Per OP, I've documented & saved the three phrases/keys/what have you that were generated for this purchase.  Now do I just...wait until ICO is over?  When hopping on the lisk train, I didn't realize my ICO buy also came with a bonus: a free, lingering feeling of anxiety as my funds are floating around somewhere out of my grasp   

Not that I expect to be scammed - the only thing that had me worried was that, although I used a mobile device to purchase LISK, there was no option to 'download keys' as seen in this image.  Despite this, I do have the 'Keys have been accepted' status upon receiving my three different keys/ten word phrase/whatever the last one is (hash?)

Just making sure I'm not missing anything here.  Just want to see that gray arrow turn blue!  Thanks in advance

Can someone help me out with this please?  The troll below my post totally derailed everything  

[MaGNeT]

Anyone interested in buying a Lisk ICO account with 1 BTC?  

I purchased during 10% period, but I'll settle for less than that.

I believe in Lisk for long term, but I must admit that I didn't read throughly before investing and I'd like to have my BTC in hand for trading.

lol just ask them for a refund turd

There are no refunds. Unless he traded XCR equivalent to 1BTC. He would then be eligible to a refund of his XCR.

Anyone interested in buying my Lisk ?

I'll settle for 1 BTC + just 5%.

You can't sell them right now.
How can a buyer make sure you don't have a copy of the passphrase?

[Bubba-Gump]

Hi guys,

Glad to finally be a part of Lisk

Quick question: what now?!

https://i.imgur.com/dbuvWyw.png

Per OP, I've documented & saved the three phrases/keys/what have you that were generated for this purchase.  Now do I just...wait until ICO is over?  When hopping on the lisk train, I didn't realize my ICO buy also came with a bonus: a free, lingering feeling of anxiety as my funds are floating around somewhere out of my grasp   

Not that I expect to be scammed - the only thing that had me worried was that, although I used a mobile device to purchase LISK, there was no option to 'download keys' as seen in this image.  Despite this, I do have the 'Keys have been accepted' status upon receiving my three different keys/ten word phrase/whatever the last one is (hash?)

Just making sure I'm not missing anything here.  Just want to see that gray arrow turn blue!  Thanks in advance

Can someone help me out with this please?  The troll below my post totally derailed everything  

We didn't realize your problems are so much more significant than potential security flaws in the coin you have bought. Notice how no one has a good reply to my analysis. You may want to take some time to understand what you read. I mean, you can't even figure out how the ICO site works.

Either way, you can just open it on a desktop browser. The keys are not tied to your device. Go to your exchange and generate keys.

You are welcome.

[just2laff]

Hi guys,

Glad to finally be a part of Lisk

Quick question: what now?!



Per OP, I've documented & saved the three phrases/keys/what have you that were generated for this purchase.  Now do I just...wait until ICO is over?  When hopping on the lisk train, I didn't realize my ICO buy also came with a bonus: a free, lingering feeling of anxiety as my funds are floating around somewhere out of my grasp   

Not that I expect to be scammed - the only thing that had me worried was that, although I used a mobile device to purchase LISK, there was no option to 'download keys' as seen in this image.  Despite this, I do have the 'Keys have been accepted' status upon receiving my three different keys/ten word phrase/whatever the last one is (hash?)

Just making sure I'm not missing anything here.  Just want to see that gray arrow turn blue!  Thanks in advance

Can someone help me out with this please?  The troll below my post totally derailed everything  

You should be good.  I download the text file and take screeshots.

[Bigcabrito]

We didn't realize your problems are so much more significant than potential security flaws in the coin you have bought. Notice how no one has a good reply to my analysis. You may want to take some time to understand what you read. I mean, you can't even figure out how the ICO site works.

Either way, you can just open it on a desktop browser. The keys are not tied to your device. Go to your exchange and generate keys.

You are welcome.

Only if you hold 51% of the total coin supply can you guarantee control of the delegates.

Other than this, it is just pure speculation. Your scenario where a whale may control 30 or maybe 40 percent of the total coin supply, and by plurality (or relative majority) they may take over the delegates is a possibility, but highly unlikely as he would have to create 101 personalities over night (unless he has been prepared for this in the past months and has created multiple identities). Although, how would this be beneficial for the whale? He would be sinking his own ship by the upcoming FUD and the possible demise of the cryptocurrency he is so invested in.

I agree that allowing up to 101 votes from the same Lisk is kind of screwy - never liked it in Crypti either. I would rather see votes from an account balance split their weight. It would also be nice if the voting interface allowed assigning a percentage to each delegate voted for, so a vote from an account with 100 Lisk for 4 delegates would default to 25 votes for each delegate, but could be set to 70%, 10%, 10%, 10% so the delegates would receive 70, 10, 10, and 10 votes.

Personally, if the scenario above were to develop, Lisk would need cooperation from most of the Lisk accounts to swap out the delegates. Furthermore, having accounts split their voting weight would mean little to this whale, as he could create 101 delegates and spread his wealth throughout them, and would likely beat most if not all the delegates who are voting for themselves (almost the same scenario as above, give or take a few delegates).

Nonetheless, it is important that the potential security flaws of Lisk are being questioned, and these should not be easily dismissed. Reminder to all, Lisk is an experiment with blockchain technology, such as every other cryptocurrency projects. I am certain that future improvements to the Lisk protocol will be implemented if a potential security flaw is deemed a serious threat.