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

[Kushedout]

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

I hope you saw my post on the last page?

I did, there was nothing in-regards to my statement above.  My concern is not for a "51%" attack. Its the fairness of delegation system.

If a group of whales coordinate and put all their voting weight on a specific delegate to get him spot #80, that means they have the ability to do the same for spot 81-101.  The closer they get to #1 spot the more delegate spots they will own.

so even if this would happen. those people would own a huge stake in lisk and a profound interest in its success.

If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success.  lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.

[1714880608]

1714880608

[1714880608]

1714880608

[1714880608]

1714880608

[someonesomeone]

I think that we should figure out how to use this tech to brake into two of the biggest industries in the world. Gambling and porn. Porn drove bitcoins very high because many people want to stay anonymous when they pay for porn... Anyone have any ideas in regards to these tow industries?

I think you guys should stop speculating on the price and future prices and start focusing on the tech behind it and why you invested. Of course price is important in the long run but speculating right now doesn't do anything to benefit anyone involved. If the tech is there the value/price will follow.

[Bubba-Gump]

How we get more people voting:

We will introduce a "Forging Pool" in the future (as a dapp). Delegates can run them on their nodes and register their delegate account on the sidechain. With this pool the delegates can then distribute a part of their earnings to the voters automatically every X days.

This will create an incentive for users to withdraw funds from the exchanges and vote for trusted individuals. In order to confirm trusted individuals, we will introduce an "Identity Dapp" in the future, in which people can associate their account with an username, real name, social media profiles, photo, and much more.

Let me get this straight. Fairness will be ensured by linking a specific identity to the ability to sign a distributed ledger.

This is not a good idea. Several countries are beginning to enact serious legislation and take serious interest in distributed ledgers. In Russia, for example, they will send someone to prison simply for using it. Who knows what will happen to a signatory.

In the US, it has been suggested that current laws make signatories liable for filings with the SEC, CFTC, and likely any other agency that unilaterally declares its own jurisdiction.

Fairness must come from game theory, not by exposing the signatories to massive liability. The latter is a way to ensure the absence of fairness.

If game theory means that someone may control a delegate indefinitely, I don't see how that's a problem.

[LiskHQ]

Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.

I hope you saw my post on the last page?

I did, there was nothing in-regards to my statement above.  My concern is not for a "51%" attack. Its the fairness of delegation system.

If a group of whales coordinate and put all their voting weight on a specific delegate to get him spot #80, that means they have the ability to do the same for spot 81-101.  The closer they get to #1 spot the more delegate spots they will own.

Yes. If they come to the 50th delegate, they can make a 51% attack. If we now assume the 50th delegate only has an approval of 40%, then an attack indeed only need 40% of all LISK. But 40% is already a big sum, not easy to acquire. And then they have a financial incentive to secure the network.

These "groups" you describe fits very well into the picture for Bitcoin mining and Nxt forging pools I described earlier. If a large enough group of people come together they can attack any system.

If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success.  lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.

That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.

I will think more about it with Oliver.


Edit:

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

[Kushedout]

If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success.  lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.

That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.

I will think more about it with Oliver.

If someone owns 1% Lisk and he grabs sit #80 he will also be able to grab all the sits 81-100 without additional investment.  I dont see a single benefit to this.

[LiskHQ]

If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success.  lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.

That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.

I will think more about it with Oliver.

If someone owns 1% Lisk and he grabs sit #80 he will also be able to grab all the sits 81-100 without additional investment.  I dont see a single benefit to this.

That's not true. If he owns 1% he can't do anything. At Crypti you needed about 20% of all XCR to be at #80 without any other votes. Due to the forging rewards at Lisk, I suspect this number to be higher in our case.

It seems like you not entirely understand our system. Please read https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-docs/README.

[Kushedout]

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots

Edit: the percentage i mention is only example, it not based on actual supply in circulation.

[LiskHQ]

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots

Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.

[Kushedout]

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots

Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.

I hope I am, I will read the docs again. My numbers might be off, but I think I am not off on the concept. Never the less, please do not take this as FUD, as I am heavily invested and am interested in grabing a delegate spot, hence why I am concerned that the delegate system might be taken "advantage off".

Thanks for answering my questions.

[LiskHQ]

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots

Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.

I hope I am, I will read the docs again. My numbers might be off, but I think I am not off on the concept. Never the less, please do not take this as FUD, as I am heavily invested and am interested in grabing a delegate spot, hence why I am concerned that the delegate system might be taken "advantage off".

Thanks for answering my questions.

Also take a look at our blockchain explorer for Crypti: https://cryptichain.lisk.io/delegateMonitor

There you see that even though we own over 62% of all Crypti you will still need about 10M XCR to get control over the Crypti network.

[tyz]

So, that means that you guys have already set up arrangements with exchanges to add Lisk?

I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?

Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)

We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.

[LiskHQ]

So, that means that you guys have already set up arrangements with exchanges to add Lisk?

I understand when you do not want to announce it before coin release. However, when will this information be officially announced?

Which will be the exchange where Lisk will be available? (exchange with BTC for example)

We can't disclose this information. It's a matter of the exchanges if they want to announce it already or not.

It's not like I don't "want" to disclose the information. I just "can't". We will announce it as soon as possible.

[Bubba-Gump]

One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.

Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.

Yes you are right, but the cost would be 20% of Lisk to grab 20 spots, instead of 1% to grab 20 spots

Please see my post above. It seems you don't understand our current system. With 1% you will never grab any seat at Lisk. Not if you are on your own and alone to vote for yourself.

How is anyone going to get votes? What's in it for the voters? Is this a popularity contest?

Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?

This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.

In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.

You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.

[LiskHQ]

How is anyone going to get votes? What's in it for the voters? Is this a popularity contest?

Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?

This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.

In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.

You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.

Voters will vote, because 1. they might get LISK and even more importantly 2. they secure the whole network with their votes.

Why do we exclude entire countries? Where did I say you MUST join a pool? People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.

[Bubba-Gump]

Voters will vote, because 1. they might get LISK and even more importantly 2. they secure the whole network with their votes.

#2 is altruism and will not be a motivation. #1 is the right answer.

Why do we exclude entire countries? Where did I say you MUST join a pool? People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.

Usernames are not worth more than real identities. That's why the LISK development team used their real identities for this ICO.

Real identity is more legitimate than a user name, but it is going to exclude a lot of people and undermine the robustness of the system.

[Arrakeen]

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

Thanks a lot. Might just buy more

[MalReynolds]

How is anyone going to get votes?

People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.

  

Please vote for me when the time comes!

[cannabanana]

How is anyone going to get votes?

People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.

  

Please vote for me when the time comes!

hmmm you know a lot of math.  I think you might try and do a 69% attack on the network.  No vote.

[tuvok007]

How is anyone going to get votes?

People don't need to be completely public, a well known username is often more worth than a real identity.

  

Please vote for me when the time comes!

Will do

[gravitate]

From the ICO I have like 150k coins or something.. How will I get my coins when the time comes?