Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 01:55:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1082 1083 ... 1090 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1164724 times)
barborrico
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 104
Merit: 2


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 08:01:06 AM
 #20641

 This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Very interesting post. In the case of a small group of miners, they has a lot of incentives to keep up the system. If they are not doing what they have to do, we change PoW and they lose all mining investments. I am quite sure they will do what they have supposed to do even with that emergent centralization.

In the case of a small group of witnesses... someone say I don't have to trust them. In fact, this is what I am doing: I don't care about witnesses selection.

Troll-mode: Choose them and advance few years to the future, please. I trust your choices since 25-dec-2016, and I think all actual bb users would if they were asked.


Of course, you can slice their head, and you have sucessfully decentralized a witness.


Looks like you are still trying to make fun of the phrase "decentralized witness".  Maybe not the best way to say it, "independent witness" would sound better but I bet you understood it anyway.
Way better. I understand that you are now the center, but when you distribute the witnesses left, you will have moved the centers, no destroyed them. Decentralization means "without center", at least in theory.

Let there be light!
Crypto Casino Since 2014
Level Up & Get Even More Rewards!
Daily Treasure Chest
& Much More
Roll Hunt
Rakeback
Blackjack
Jackpot
Dice
Slots
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558403742
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558403742

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558403742
Reply with quote  #2

1558403742
Report to moderator
barborrico
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 104
Merit: 2


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 04:03:32 PM by barborrico
 #20642

Well, I am not sure why would somebody brag about fact like that, sounds pretty bad if somebody could rewrite 2 days of transactions. It sounds pretty bad if somebody could rewrite even last 1 hour, so kind of ridiculous to waste so much energy on something so uncertain.

You know, when you need infinite energy to redo the PoW, transaction finality happens. But even then, you can sure of transaction finality with only 1 confirmation because no miner will shoot to their foot. If he tries to, it will be prohibitely expensive.

I read in Byteball whitepaper that bitcoins transactions have probabilistic finality, not deterministic. Well, that is the theory. The practice is another thing. It is the same as miners. Miners get specialized, and entry barriers to mining appears. But the protocol itself does not impose restrictions on who can mine, and that is what matters. Equally, theorically any transaction can be reverted (probabilistic finality). In practice, only 2 days.

Theory -> Anybody can be a miner, protocol says.
Practise-> Mining gets specialized, so entry barriers appears. Miners also has something to lose: their mining investments. Incentives balanced.

Theory-> Anybody can be a witness, protocol says.
Practise-> In order to be a witness (I mean, receiving payload bytes, not only paying them to actual witnesses), every node (or at least the nodes which add the most quantity of units) has to write your address in theirs witnesses lists AKA ask for permission to these nodes. Anybody could not be a witness. If you want to remain anonymous, you can't -> entry barrier. Sure you can try to, but it will be useless. Would you choose an anonymous witness? Of course not.
A witness also has something to lose -> their reputation. But I am not sure of the value of that.

I am confused. If witnesses are so powerless, why not impose them? (and now I am not trolling). Community claimed a lot for going back to airdrops, but you imposed your view. Why not doing the same now that we all want to see witnesses distributed?

Don't you realize that we are coordinating through byteball team for changing witness, because we can't do it in a decentralized way?

Let there be light!
Jace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 288
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 10:45:24 AM
 #20643

How can one prevent the state power from simply eliminating the witnesses?
The network would very rapidly notice whenever a witness stops posting units. Since witnesses are publicly known, they can be contacted, and if no satisfactory explanation is given (or the problem is not solved) the community at large will decide to replace that particular witness address for someone else's.

So no matter what the state power does, or a hacker, or just a witness turned malicious by himself, Byteball is not vulnerable.

So in that sense I'd argue we don't even have to "trust" these witnesses.

Feel free to send your life savings to 1JhrfA12dBMUhcgh85wYan6HL2uLQdB6z9
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 11:06:24 AM
 #20644


You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Quote
...Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I can't see how this statement is accurate.


I understood it as Bitcoin becomes more and more centralized as bigger miners get more powerful. You don't know when it is happening because these few people are decentralizing their mining operations, so it would not be too obvious that they have the most power. Sounds nuts, but hashrate of Bitcoin network is steadily going up. Who are they, we don't know, but I doubt they are Venezuelans or Iranians who don't have enough money even for food, let alone buying ASICs. https://news.8btc.com/bitcoin-hashrate-increases-in-a-bear-market-investors-are-still-optimistic-in-the-long-term
Byteball on the other hand, becomes more decentralized as more witness candidates and better witness candidates will join and since they are public, they can't be the same rich person.

Think of this way, you kind of know who are the rich guys today, but you can't do anything about it, they rule the world and the banks and the real-estate and the companies. You can't even vote them off from lobbying to the government because they will lobby to whoever is currently in parliament. Just check what's happening in EU with upload filters, that's Facebook and Google lobbying result.
With Bitcoin, you don't know who the rich guys are and you don't know how many rich guys are there, there could be 10, but there could also be only 1. And you can't do anything about it, you could fork and make their hardware useless, but you probably don't get the miners because the rich guys are becoming the majority of the miners.
Byteball moves in the opposite direction, eventually there will be so many witness candidates that if they breach your trust, you replace them and if enough people feel the same, better witness gets elected.

If one day, all Byteball current witnesses are replaced then your only hope that Bitcoin is more decentralized is because you think that the big miners are not the same people, but you can't be sure. Also, if some of those people become so powerful that they could pull off 51% attack, your hope is that they will not do it because it will destroy the value of their holdings, but you don't know how much they hold BTC by that time, they could have been planning for exit or fork for very long time.

Hmm, dPOS actually totally makes sense. I am not saying don't invest into BTC, it will still for sure have nice returns, but it will not be nr1 forever.

Ok, so still talking about Bitcoin rather than Byteball. What's up with that?


Quote
Hmm, dPOS actually totally makes sense.

DPoS is one of the most broken consensus mechanisms out there.
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 11:19:37 AM
 #20645

How can one prevent the state power from simply eliminating the witnesses?
The network would very rapidly notice whenever a witness stops posting units. Since witnesses are publicly known, they can be contacted, and if no satisfactory explanation is given (or the problem is not solved) the community at large will decide to replace that particular witness address for someone else's.

So no matter what the state power does, or a hacker, or just a witness turned malicious by himself, Byteball is not vulnerable.

So in that sense I'd argue we don't even have to "trust" these witnesses.
I see it from the perspective of a simple consumer. He certainly does not feel assigned to any "community". He expects his money to be safe and transactions to be handled reliably. If his witness (presumably the one who is preset after downloading the app) fails, he probably doesn't even notice it consciously. Result: nothing works anymore => panic.

A concept of randomly rotating anonymous witnesses who would route their technique over Tor/i2p would be much more convincing and above all safer. Especially as EVERYONE can be a witness to this. To get a permission from the dictator before would not be necessary at all. - That would be real decentralization.

Bite ball started out very promising, but the really important developments will be neglected.
Months ago I stopped my efforts to bring this project forward. One does not make friends with his customers.
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 01:02:19 PM
 #20646

Twitter message of another Crypto Currency:
"Centralized businesses and governments tend to have interests that are in conflict with the individual. Here at [xxx], we fight against that. Read more here: [xxx]

THIS is marketing, and also reaches the right target group.

Bite ball, on the other hand, develops in the opposite direction: KYC is the Holy Grail here.
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 01:49:54 PM
 #20647

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.


You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.
tonych i'm so glad you're back. Where have you been all these years?
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 02:41:27 PM
 #20648

How can one prevent the state power from simply eliminating the witnesses?
the community at large will decide to replace that particular witness address for someone else's.

hmm Rogier Eijkelhof 5% support... Community can't cooperate to replace witnesses Sad
julian071
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 895
Merit: 543



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 03:43:29 PM
 #20649

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.


You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

This.

The irony of BTC and its clones is that the goal is to break free of control by large corporations (and the governments which support them), as demonstrated by the BTC whitepaper and the date it was published. However, we might end up having BTC controlled (= determined in which direction the code develops) by more and more centralised entities. Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

=P
Thul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 04:00:34 PM
 #20650

How can one prevent the state power from simply eliminating the witnesses?
the community at large will decide to replace that particular witness address for someone else's.

hmm Rogier Eijkelhof 5% support... Community can't cooperate to replace witnesses Sad

That is quite clear. A witness is as bad or as good as any other. One can also stay where one is.

If bite ball were a company that first has to earn its money instead of simply "printing" it itself, it would already be broke.

The bite ball dictatorship ticks however completely special. According to their agenda the user has to follow the given ideas. Criticism is either ignored or embellished.
Oh, not to forget some fanboys who also cheer this attitude on.
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 04:24:39 PM
 #20651

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.
julian071
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 895
Merit: 543



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 04:29:39 PM
 #20652

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.

I stongly disagree with that statement too!

I said purely monetary.

=P
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 05:36:11 PM
 #20653


I understood it as Bitcoin becomes more and more centralized as bigger miners get more powerful. You don't know when it is happening because these few people are decentralizing their mining operations, so it would not be too obvious that they have the most power. Sounds nuts, but hashrate of Bitcoin network is steadily going up. Who are they, we don't know, but I doubt they are Venezuelans or Iranians who don't have enough money even for food, let alone buying ASICs. https://news.8btc.com/bitcoin-hashrate-increases-in-a-bear-market-investors-are-still-optimistic-in-the-long-term
Byteball on the other hand, becomes more decentralized as more witness candidates and better witness candidates will join and since they are public, they can't be the same rich person.

Think of this way, you kind of know who are the rich guys today, but you can't do anything about it, they rule the world and the banks and the real-estate and the companies. You can't even vote them off from lobbying to the government because they will lobby to whoever is currently in parliament. Just check what's happening in EU with upload filters, that's Facebook and Google lobbying result.
With Bitcoin, you don't know who the rich guys are and you don't know how many rich guys are there, there could be 10, but there could also be only 1. And you can't do anything about it, you could fork and make their hardware useless, but you probably don't get the miners because the rich guys are becoming the majority of the miners.
Byteball moves in the opposite direction, eventually there will be so many witness candidates that if they breach your trust, you replace them and if enough people feel the same, better witness gets elected.

If one day, all Byteball current witnesses are replaced then your only hope that Bitcoin is more decentralized is because you think that the big miners are not the same people, but you can't be sure. Also, if some of those people become so powerful that they could pull off 51% attack, your hope is that they will not do it because it will destroy the value of their holdings, but you don't know how much they hold BTC by that time, they could have been planning for exit or fork for very long time.

Hmm, dPOS actually totally makes sense. I am not saying don't invest into BTC, it will still for sure have nice returns, but it will not be nr1 forever.

Ok, so still talking about Bitcoin rather than Byteball. What's up with that?

Maybe you didn't notice, but I compared not only Bitcoin and Byteball, but also current monetary & power system.


It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…
Ever heard what comparison is? Oh, right, it is too difficult for some because Byteball is not a fork of Bitcoin and the consensus mechanisms are totally different, so it much easier to just look the amount of validators and yell: this is not decentralized.
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 05:39:15 PM
 #20654

Months ago I stopped my efforts to bring this project forward. One does not make friends with his customers.

Don't leave us hanging just like that, would love to know what were your efforts to bring this project forward.
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
 #20655

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.

I stongly disagree with that statement too!

I said purely monetary.

It is not a first time by ttookk for not understanding the whole sentence, he jumped to my "not comparable" too, ignoring that i said "not DIRECTLY comparable". Attention span nowadays Tongue
But could be language issue too, don't know.
julian071
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 895
Merit: 543



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 06:15:09 PM
 #20656

It's funny how no one really talks about Byteball, but rather about Bitcoin…

(…)

Only a different consensus mechanism then one purely based on monetary gain can solve this, otherwise the process towards total centralization is automatic.  

I strongly disagree with this. If you have no built-in reward, the ones running the system will eventually make damn sure that they get rewarded in some other way.

I stongly disagree with that statement too!

I said purely monetary.

It is not a first time by ttookk for not understanding the whole sentence, he jumped to my "not comparable" too, ignoring that i said "not DIRECTLY comparable". Attention span nowadays Tongue
But could be language issue too, don't know.

Could be. Also, I'd like to hear if he/she or someone else disagrees with the more interesting part of that statement, namely that basing a consensus mechanism purely on monetary reward will automatically lead to total centralization.

Just like totally free (unregulated) capitalism in a market will automatically lead to a monopoly.

=P
tarmo888
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2018, 07:07:44 PM
 #20657

You are right about incentives.  But there is something else.  PoW mining is an economic activity.  You have capex, you have opex, almost all your profits are burned in your huge costs, and you have to care about efficiency in order to stay in the game.  And in any economic activity, you have economy of scale.  As your mining farm gets bigger, it becomes more efficient and stands better against the competition.  You get volume discounts for miners, you will be the first in line for the new generation of miners, you can get cheaper electricity when you buy wholesale, it becomes worthwhile to relocate to a more favorable location, and you can hire the best talent in the industry.  It doesn't matter if the PoW algorithm is ASICable or not, the economy of scale is universal.  It might be not very important in the growing market when everyone, even a smaller and weaker miner, gets a portion of the growing pie, but nothing lasts forever and as the market matures and gets more competitive, the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.  Miners, not mining pools.  This looks like an end-game of any PoW based blockchain, because it has a heavy "hook" into the economy, and the economy favors scale.  You can call it emergent centralization.  Incidentally, Byteball moves in the opposite direction.

Bitcoin is not run by miners, it's run by a community. (If miners were in charge, we would have big blocks right now.)
This in the beauty and strength of bitcoin. It is multi-leveled, > full nodes, miners, devs and community all able to check each other and keeping each other honest.

I like byteball as a concept but critisism must be taken seriously if you want to improve.
Imo, not being able to run a Byteball full node on a desktop computer is a massive problem.

What you are saying it totally true about the community. Yes, there is not only miners, but miners have the upper hand.
You say that without full nodes there would be bigger blocks, but you are forgetting that BCH is still alive. We don't know if it ever take over BTC, but the ball is rolling.
I guess people are already starting to forget empty or full blocks and $50 transaction fees too. Your full node is useless without the block producers.

And it is not only weaker miners who get darwinized, weaker full nodes too because not everybody can keep up with the growing size of the blockchain, especially Ethereum, which grows crazy fast. Big miners doesn't mind about bigger blockchain, they have to run a full node either way. Mass adoption happens with light clients, not with full nodes.

It is great that community has still some power over miners, but it could be what dooms Bitcoin if it takes so long to adopt SegWit and Lightning or whatever sharding method is needed in the future to scale full nodes. If it takes Ethereum for another 2 years for that, I wonder how much it will take for Bitcoin.

On Byteball, there is no empty blocks because there is no blocks and it doesn't matter how much you pay for fees, your transactions will be confirmed in 5-15 minutes. Even faster the more popular it gets. And once it is confirmed, it will be final, no way to rewrite it. Also, Byteball has evolved so much in past 2 years that when it finally actually needs layer-2 solutions or sharding then these improvements can be introduced more easily because if the witnesses don't agree with it then they can be replaced with those who do (gradually, giving the other witnesses the time to re-think).
pineapple express
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 102



View Profile
October 26, 2018, 07:17:31 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 07:27:52 PM by pineapple express
 #20658

byterbal community can't change even one witness. Rogier 5% support Cry
we are passive hamsters with balls
can i buy something on Amazon with my balls?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1248


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 08:16:58 PM
 #20659

If miners were in charge really wanted big blocks , we would have big blocks right now.

^^^FTFY

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
sefirotius
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 102


POS+MN


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 08:23:47 PM
 #20660

I had coins, it’s a pity that I lost access to my wallet
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1082 1083 ... 1090 »
  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!