Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2019, 02:47:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 [1031] 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 ... 1091 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1165337 times)
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 25, 2018, 09:56:08 AM
 #20601

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.
indeed substitution of concepts does more harm than good
please:
distributed trust system instead of decentralized
anything over 17 tps lead to denial of service instead of scalable DAG





1558882063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558882063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558882063
Reply with quote  #2

1558882063
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558882063
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558882063

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558882063
Reply with quote  #2

1558882063
Report to moderator
Random-String-Symphony
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71
Merit: 25


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 10:04:57 AM
 #20602

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.

⚪ Byteball     ❱❱❱     I T   J U S T   W O R K S .    ❱❱❱
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 10:22:23 AM
 #20603

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.
That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 10:23:31 AM
 #20604

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.
Random-String-Symphony
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71
Merit: 25


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 10:49:32 AM
 #20605

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.
That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.

Thousands are not needed, we need enough to replace a compromised witness, or somebody / a business who wants to quit being one. A few dozen would be sufficient.
Fiat also has a growing market for weapons, drugs, etc. We'll have to find out how law enforcement treats "witnesses", they don't actually do anything that breaks the law you know.

⚪ Byteball     ❱❱❱     I T   J U S T   W O R K S .    ❱❱❱
Random-String-Symphony
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71
Merit: 25


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 10:53:46 AM
 #20606

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.

⚪ Byteball     ❱❱❱     I T   J U S T   W O R K S .    ❱❱❱
joe1823
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 11:16:41 AM
 #20607

 ?
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 11:25:50 AM
 #20608

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.


This is no answer to my original point, which is "a single witness is not decentralized unless the witness consists of multiple entities".

You are trying to make it your point so that you can fire off what you have said earlier, so I'll play along:

Users having the real power sounds nice, but has some serious flaws. I'm too lazy to go into this, but very simplified, choosing witnesses is not much different than choosing delegates in a DPoS system. Go take a look at Lisk and EOS to see how that is going.
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 25, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
Last edit: October 25, 2018, 11:53:56 AM by pineapple express
 #20609

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? Sad.  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1130

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
 #20610

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.
That would have to be thousands. - How realistic is that?

Just imagine via black bites a growing market for weapons, drugs, child pornography develops...
In connection with this, high-profile entities as witnesses? Seriously?

In the future, every witness would have to fear being overrun by the henchmen of state power.

This is kind of a serious concern.

What can be done to shield witnesses from this? mask their id or perhaps 12 pools of witnesses that are on random rotation

I mean if there was super serious opposition regarding anon cc then blackbytes could be dropped to preserve the project

tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2018, 12:15:33 PM
 #20611

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? Sad.  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

What are you talking about? It has been repeatedly told that witnesses don't have such powers as miners do.
If one of the witnesses would do that then other witnesses would notice that because it goes against the protocol rules and this witness would be kicked out from those other witness list of their witnesses. So, only thing that witness can censor is themselves out of the witness list, it is not the users who have to take action whether they approve such transactions or not.

Your scenario can happen if all witnesses are corrupt and that would result a hard-fork by the community, same way it would happen with Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 12:18:18 PM
 #20612

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? Sad.  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?
Is that really the case?!  Shocked

Then one should not be surprised that bite ball is falling further and further behind in the ranking.
PinchClock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 12:32:10 PM
 #20613

23% of transactions included the first decentralized public witnesses address over the past 12 hoursCool
Freefactomizer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 345
Merit: 107


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 12:36:41 PM
 #20614

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? Sad.  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?

You clearly don't understand how DAG works, a witness cannot cherry pick the units it contributes to confirm. If he tries to do that, all children units from other user wouldn't be confirmed too.

🏀 - ⚾ - ⚽ - ❄ - 🏈 -  Byteball Sport Betting Bot - 🏀 - ⚾ - ⚽ - ❄ - 🏈
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2018, 01:34:07 PM
 #20615

My concerns are that witnesses can blacklist some users and block outgoing transactions. In this case, most users will not be affected and will not have the motivation to change witnesses.
For example some guy will open SilkRoad and accept balls. Witnesses will decide to block all outgoing transactions from the seen addresses. Most of users will not be affected and SilkRoad users will not be protected from witnesses attack.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions from the whale address to prevent the dump.
Another example: witnesses can block outgoing transactions for all transactions over $10k. Users will need to pass a KYC, fill in the declaration, indicate the origin of the money for making such transactions.
hmm maybe this is why Byterbal integrate all this KYC solutions? Sad.  Byterbal is Putin's answer to Satoshi?
Is that really the case?!  Shocked

Then one should not be surprised that bite ball is falling further and further behind in the ranking.

It is not the case https://wiki.byteball.org/Witness#FAQ_about_witnesses.2C_double_spending.2C_finality
barborrico
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 104
Merit: 2


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 03:27:56 PM
Last edit: October 25, 2018, 04:49:57 PM by barborrico
 #20616

(…)

Decentralized? He looks pretty "in-one-piece-ish" to me...

12 public witnesses, explained in whitepaper

Yes, I am aware of that and that's exactly what I was getting at.

The witnesses themselves are not decentralized; they are anything but. You have a maximum of 12 very "central" entities securing the network. And while I believe that the witnesses do not have the same amount of power as, say, EOS delegates have, it is at the very least intellectually dishonest to speak of "decentralized witnesses".

Now, maybe you could actually decentralize a witness, by making it a group of entities, playing merry-go-round or something. I think this has been discussed before.

TL;DR:
Calling a single person a "decentralized witness" is misleading.

I spare us all an inappropriate joke about certain news items and the decentralization of a human being, for obvious reasons.

We could also have 100 or 1000 witnesses but the platform will become less secure if you have more witnesses. A single witness has no power at all and can easily be replaced by users. Users have the real power in the Byteball network, not witnesses. Only when 6 or more witnesses collude they can harm the network, but they still can't change anything in the past. In fact they have very limited options for abuse.


This is no answer to my original point, which is "a single witness is not decentralized unless the witness consists of multiple entities".

You are trying to make it your point so that you can fire off what you have said earlier, so I'll play along:

Users having the real power sounds nice, but has some serious flaws. I'm too lazy to go into this, but very simplified, choosing witnesses is not much different than choosing delegates in a DPoS system. Go take a look at Lisk and EOS to see how that is going.
It is like talking with a wall, right?

Byteball is not decentralized. I am not fudding, only telling facts.

If I could choose my witness truly freely, maybe it could be called decentralized witnesses election... but I can only freely choose 1 witness. I am obligated to trust the witnesses already chosen if I am a new user, or I can't send transactions in a easy way. Of course I can pick any unit compatible with my list (afaik), but normal people won't do that.

This doesn't have to be a bad thing. The bad thing is the people who can't accept the truth, and seems more a hooligan than a person argumenting.

Yes, a witness has little power in the network. Yes, even if majority of witnesses collude, they can't rewrite the past or move funds which not belongs to him or harm deeply the network. Yes, there are no differences between a normal unit and a witness one.
But all above does not change the fact that A WITNESS IS A CENTRALIZED ENTITY AND WE NEED TO TRUST IT.

Seriously byteball, 2nd time I say this: Don't pretend to be what you are not.

Let there be light!
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 05:02:14 PM
 #20617

Management and development prefer to keep silent about the problems reported instead of taking a concrete position.

Bite ball is not decentralised. That is clear.
Is development willing to change anything about this? I have no idea. The community is in the dark. The Bite ball dictatorship leaves its followers, as usual, in the fog.
A random rotation among hundreds of witnesses sounds good and would probably be a solution. Is it technically feasible? Sure, where there is a will...

I am still waiting in vain after months for corresponding feedback on the requirements I have presented.

The development produces past the demand, the marketing has no idea what this designation means at all and the management boasts with fog bombs and speech bubbles.
barborrico
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 104
Merit: 2


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 05:14:57 PM
 #20618

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.
Netflix is not decentralized. But Netflix uses decentralized technologies in order to reduce bandwidth costs.

Byteball is not decentralized. But Byteball uses decentralized technologies in order to coordinate admision of new units in the database and distribute it to all full nodes.

You can use decentralized technologies without forming a decentralized consensus. But that does not make platform consensus "magically decentralized".

Let there be light!
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2018, 06:30:06 PM
 #20619

I encourage whole Byteball team to see some Antonopoulos videos to know why byteball is not decentralized, and why you should not market the platform focusing on that. Because it is not true.

12 witnesses = 12 central points of failure but, of course, with the same power of another node (no absolute power like dpos crap) and marked as trustable by majority of users.

Byteball distributes trust amongst 12 witnesses. It is a distributed trust system, not a decentralized one. Decentralized implies no single point of failure, and this is not the case.

I think new platform name should reflect all those things.

What is the single point of failure then? There is none. In fact, I would argue that Byteball  is more decentralized by design than Bitcoin or Ethereum. When we have a lot more than 12 different witnesses to choose from it will also be more decentralized in practice.
Netflix is not decentralized. But Netflix uses decentralized technologies in order to reduce bandwidth costs.

Byteball is not decentralized. But Byteball uses decentralized technologies in order to coordinate admision of new units in the database and distribute it to all full nodes.

You can use decentralized technologies without forming a decentralized consensus. But that does not make platform consensus "magically decentralized".

You know what also doesn't invalidate something being decentralized?
* The fact that witnesses can be only replaced gradually 1-by-1, this doesn't mean that it is not decentralized. This rule is there not just for fun.
* Only 12 witnesses doesn't also mean that it is not decentralized because 12 witnesses are not same as 12 validators or 12 miners or 12 representatives or 12 stakers or 12 coordinators.
* More than 12 witnesses doesn't make it more decentralized either, only thing that makes it more decentralized is replacing current witnesses with other more reputable persons and companies. Also, running a witness full node will make it more decentralized, even if you are not picked as a witness on anyone's list https://github.com/byteball/byteball-witness

And that is the process that Byteball is currently on, getting more decentralized with every new replaced witness.
When half of the Byteball witnesses get replaced then Byteball will be more decentralized than Bitcoin because these witnesses don't have the power that Bitcoin miners have and because you will never know how much Bitcoin hashpower belongs the same people because these are just some anonymous machines in mining pools, that Bitcoin full node that you might be running doesn't make it more decentralized because your input is minuscule compared to those who have big serverfarms with almost free electricity.

Byteball consensus is not directly comparable with other blockchain consensuses because Byteball is not just another Bitcoin fork.
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 25, 2018, 07:07:22 PM
 #20620

(…)

… Byteball will be more decentralized than Bitcoin because …

(…)

Byteball consensus is not directly comparable with other blockchain consensuses because Byteball is not just another Bitcoin fork.

*compares Byteball with Bitcoin* --> "Byteball isn't directly comparable with other blockchains"

This doesn't add up, does it.


Btw., this whole "it's more decentralized than Bitcoin" is factually wrong. I am not interested in theories about the future, but in facts. Currently, Byteball is more centralized and I doubt that spreading the 12 witnesses geographically and over different entities will not change that much. But since you seem to like theories, let's talk about that:

The way Byteball selects witnesses, as well as their functions, is roughly comparable to DPoS systems. I mentioned that before, but I'll state it again. So, if you want to take a look into Byteballs future, you can take a look at DPoS projects, such as Lisk, EOS, Tron, Ark and so on.

DPoS has a pretty big problem: due to its structure, it is

a) not as permissionless as mining is (and to a lesser degree staking in traditional PoS; both obviously have financial barriers) and

b) it invites collusion (see EOS and Lisk for prime examples), while PoW invites competition.

What that means in practice is that is way more profitable for delegates/witnesses to work together and vote for each other than it is for miners, because miners are basically stuck in a big prisoners dillemma. There is no inherent incentive to work together as miners, and if there is, a group of miners has no in-system way to punish miners who do not behave as the group wants them to.

Which sounds good at first glance ("they are working together, great!") is a huge problem for a trustless and permissionless system. In a trustless system, you don't want people to work together; in fact, it should not play a role whether people work together or not, at least on a protocol level that is. If the protocol layer itself cares about people working together (or not), it most likely means this layer is not as trustless/permissionless as it claims to be.
Pages: « 1 ... 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 [1031] 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 ... 1091 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!