Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2020, 04:42:56 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 [221] 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 ... 1118 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1218672 times)
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 06:08:56 PM
 #4401

Witnesses are the single point of failure of the system. They essentially control the network and there are only 12 of them. You can imagine that if the rogue government (bankers or whoever) wants to take down the byteball system all they have to do is to take controll over 12 computers running witnesses nodes. This seems to be rather easy to do, especially at gunpoint. Moreover - this can be done without the rest of the network to even notice - if witnesses after being taken over by the rogue party are operated without interruption. Anybody who controls the 12 witnesses can do whatever he wants with the network - for example censor certain type of transactions. All of this is a contradiction to censor resistant trustless network that bitcoin is.

I can follow your arguments and respect your opinion. Bitcoin was created as a decentralized platform and that was a great invention - in the old days when everybody could easily take part in the consenus with their CPU or GPU miners, this system was still intact. But nowadays bitcoin has become a total different thing. Expensive asic miners drive bitcoin to centralization and the need for low energy costs favor some countries.

I will ask you a question: how many mining pools do you need to cross the 50% consensus barrier in bitcoin? I guess it's a lot less than 12.

It's not so simple as you imply. Mining pools does not necessarily decide about the state of the network (that power lies in miners hands). Let's assume that a rogue party took control over mining pools controlling +51% of the hashrate. If these mining pools would try to impose their will over miners (e.g. implementing changes to the protocol not supported by miners) miners would quickly drop those pools and switch to other ones which would lead to the rogue party loosing control over 51% of the hashrate. The bottom line is - to take over bitcoin the rogue party would have to take control over 51% of miners calculated as hashrate. It's not the same as 51% of mining pools as mining pools are not the same as miners. For example F2pool one of the biggest mining pools does not have its own mining hardware - it only facilitates mining for hardware operators (miners). Consequently it's much more difficult to control bitcoin because miners are more dispersed than mining pools. There are many more miners than mining pools. Definitely more than 12.

Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jwinterm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436
Merit: 1070



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 07:31:45 PM
 #4402

I'm not really a fan of byteball consensus model, but I think there is a problem with your mining pool argument in favor of BTC consensus model: Bitmain produces almost all of the mining hardware used to mine, and there is speculation that not only antpool is a Bitmain in house mining pool, but that f2pool, viabtc, gbminers, and BTC.top are all basically just Bitmain mining with their own hardware under the guise of decentralization. This is only speculation, except for the bit about Bitmain producing almost all the hardware which is fact, but if true there is really a single entity dominating the Bitcoin network.
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 07:57:27 PM
 #4403

Anyone able to access the deposit or withdrawal menus right now on cryptox.pl?

metamorphin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004


No risk, no fun!


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2017, 07:58:25 PM
 #4404

Anyone able to access the deposit or withdrawal menus right now on cryptox.pl?

everything is fine here
nillohit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100

***crypto trader***


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
 #4405

Anyone able to access the deposit or withdrawal menus right now on cryptox.pl?

I just login and yes everything is working fine  Grin

П    |⧛ ☛  Join the signature campaign and earn free PI daily!  ✅ |⧛    П
|⧛         ☛  PiCoin - get in now  ✅     ☛ No ICO!  ✅          |⧛
escapefrom3dom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 266



View Profile WWW
February 06, 2017, 08:00:27 PM
 #4406

Anyone able to access the deposit or withdrawal menus right now on cryptox.pl?

everything is fine here

there were some problems earlier, but now – everything works fine.

wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:04:16 PM
 #4407

Clicking on withdrawals does nothing for me.  Ive tried on two computers.

tortellino
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 506
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:07:01 PM
 #4408

how can i link a new BTC address?

▄█████████████████▄▄▄
███████████████████████▄
██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████████  ▄▄▄▄
█████              ▀█████████▀
█████                ██████▀
█████             ▄██████▀
█████         ▄▄██████▓▀   
█████      ▄▄███████▀   ▄▓██
█████   ▄▄███████▓▀   ▄▓████
█████▄█████████▀   ▄▓██████▌
████████████▓▀   ▄▓████████
██████████▀   ▄▓██████████
████████▀   ▄███████████▀
 ▀███▓▀   ▄▓███████▀▀▀┘
.DEVAULT.     
  ●   

.COMMUNITYE
.GOVERNANCE.
████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
.
.
  .ICOEE
PREMINE
████
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
████
████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
▄▄████████▄▄
▄████████████████▄
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀  █████
████████████▀▀      ██████
▐████████▀▀   ▄▄     ██████▌
▐████▀▀    ▄█▀▀     ███████▌
▐████████ █▀        ███████▌
████████ █ ▄███▄   ███████
████████████████▄▄██████
▀████████████████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀████████▀▀
████
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
████
vlom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:13:19 PM
 #4409

how can i link a new BTC address?

just ask the bot... open the app and talk to the bot. thats all.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:19:57 PM
 #4410

I'm not really a fan of byteball consensus model, but I think there is a problem with your mining pool argument in favor of BTC consensus model: Bitmain produces almost all of the mining hardware used to mine, and there is speculation that not only antpool is a Bitmain in house mining pool, but that f2pool, viabtc, gbminers, and BTC.top are all basically just Bitmain mining with their own hardware under the guise of decentralization. This is only speculation, except for the bit about Bitmain producing almost all the hardware which is fact, but if true there is really a single entity dominating the Bitcoin network.

Both bitcoin and byteball have their strengths. Different consensus, yet advantage for both.

With bitcoin, it is technically true that if you really want to you can run your own miner, buy it develop it, however you like, mine. Disadvantage is of course, only rich people can afford it. So you as normal user are left to trust the miners and rely on their service, for which they take a fee, which they set.

With byteball, if you want to run a witness, you can, but you have to convince politically other people to use it, otherwise its gonna cost you money for nothing in return. As a normal user, you can use byteball however you like and you/we choose who will be witness and receive the network-decided amount of fees.

What I have learned from following bitcoin since 2010, is that no matter how decentralized and distributed a software is, (bitcoin wins in this regard its software/protocol/consensus is more decentralized, more distributed), there is still a politically self-imposed leadership of highly authoritarian style who try to rule it and possibly harm it for their own gain. The guardinas of the software, the custodians of the forums.

With byteball this human nature is set in the consensus of the software - witnesses. We users choose them, we pick them, and if they misbehave, we remove them.

So, the "more centralized", yes, only 12 instead of 10000x miners (not mining pools), the strength is, they are easier to change and adapt to users. Despite being a weakness as well in case of hostile governements around the world - global adversary.

But, I think the global adversary would also find more use of Byteball than try to forbid it, like money is useful.
tortellino
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 506
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:20:23 PM
 #4411

@vlom: i tried, he said me every time my linked address...what do i have to type in?

▄█████████████████▄▄▄
███████████████████████▄
██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████████  ▄▄▄▄
█████              ▀█████████▀
█████                ██████▀
█████             ▄██████▀
█████         ▄▄██████▓▀   
█████      ▄▄███████▀   ▄▓██
█████   ▄▄███████▓▀   ▄▓████
█████▄█████████▀   ▄▓██████▌
████████████▓▀   ▄▓████████
██████████▀   ▄▓██████████
████████▀   ▄███████████▀
 ▀███▓▀   ▄▓███████▀▀▀┘
.DEVAULT.     
  ●   

.COMMUNITYE
.GOVERNANCE.
████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
.
.
  .ICOEE
PREMINE
████
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
████
████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████
▄▄████████▄▄
▄████████████████▄
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀  █████
████████████▀▀      ██████
▐████████▀▀   ▄▄     ██████▌
▐████▀▀    ▄█▀▀     ███████▌
▐████████ █▀        ███████▌
████████ █ ▄███▄   ███████
████████████████▄▄██████
▀████████████████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀████████▀▀
████
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
  ██
████
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:22:59 PM
 #4412

Witnesses are the single point of failure of the system. They essentially control the network and there are only 12 of them. You can imagine that if the rogue government (bankers or whoever) wants to take down the byteball system all they have to do is to take controll over 12 computers running witnesses nodes. This seems to be rather easy to do, especially at gunpoint. Moreover - this can be done without the rest of the network to even notice - if witnesses after being taken over by the rogue party are operated without interruption. Anybody who controls the 12 witnesses can do whatever he wants with the network - for example censor certain type of transactions. All of this is a contradiction to censor resistant trustless network that bitcoin is.

I can follow your arguments and respect your opinion. Bitcoin was created as a decentralized platform and that was a great invention - in the old days when everybody could easily take part in the consenus with their CPU or GPU miners, this system was still intact. But nowadays bitcoin has become a total different thing. Expensive asic miners drive bitcoin to centralization and the need for low energy costs favor some countries.

I will ask you a question: how many mining pools do you need to cross the 50% consensus barrier in bitcoin? I guess it's a lot less than 12.

It's not so simple as you imply. Mining pools does not necessarily decide about the state of the network (that power lies in miners hands). Let's assume that a rogue party took control over mining pools controlling +51% of the hashrate. If these mining pools would try to impose their will over miners (e.g. implementing changes to the protocol not supported by miners) miners would quickly drop those pools and switch to other ones which would lead to the rogue party loosing control over 51% of the hashrate. The bottom line is - to take over bitcoin the rogue party would have to take control over 51% of miners calculated as hashrate. It's not the same as 51% of mining pools as mining pools are not the same as miners. For example F2pool one of the biggest mining pools does not have its own mining hardware - it only facilitates mining for hardware operators (miners). Consequently it's much more difficult to control bitcoin because miners are more dispersed than mining pools. There are many more miners than mining pools. Definitely more than 12.
Indeed.

It is easier to take over Byteball - if you are a global adversary, global power.

That is also its strength, that we the users can replace witnesses, and  that there are few of them. Because we cannot replace the miners. We cannot even compete with them at all. But in this network, a few clicks away for any users aaaaand you're gone.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 08:24:20 PM
 #4413

@vlom: i tried, he said me every time my linked address...what do i have to type in?
Type in your bb or btc address.
CryptKeeper
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1994
Merit: 1026


bitcoin and altcoin enthusiast


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2017, 10:23:51 PM
 #4414

an other connection. this one if funny a tiny picture.

i.ytimg.com

Quote
wants to connect to i.ytimg.com on TCP port 443 (https)

   IP Address   172.217.22.174
   Reverse DNS Name   arn09s11-in-f14.1e100.net
   Established by   /Applications/Byteball.app/Contents/MacOS/nwjs
   Process ID   3668

something googelish according the IP


i will no stop reporting. because i think it is clear that nwjs thing is the reason. dev will know what to do.

Thanks for reporting.  As other people said here and in a few github issues, it is some (supposedly dead) code in nwjs making connections to google properties.  These connections will be blocked in the next release.  If you want to block them now, edit your package.json by adding this proxy setting:

https://github.com/byteball/byteball/commit/dfdd00808e3ac8f3268e7e346c2009bb403260f5

The location of package.json on Mac is /Applications/Byteball.app/Contents/Resources/app.nw/package.json.

Vlom, great finding!  Smiley

We need more people like you to test the software. Even with careful developing, such privacy leaks can creep in. Better to eliminate leaks and bugs right from the start!

You have earned a bounty of 1 GB for finding this leak, thank you!

Please post your address here or PM me if you don't want to make it public, thanks.

Follow me on twitter for the latest news on bitcoin and altcoins and I'll follow you back the same day!
Obyte - An open cryptocurrency platform ready for real world adoption
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
 #4415

an other connection. this one if funny a tiny picture.

i.ytimg.com

Quote
wants to connect to i.ytimg.com on TCP port 443 (https)

   IP Address   172.217.22.174
   Reverse DNS Name   arn09s11-in-f14.1e100.net
   Established by   /Applications/Byteball.app/Contents/MacOS/nwjs
   Process ID   3668

something googelish according the IP


i will no stop reporting. because i think it is clear that nwjs thing is the reason. dev will know what to do.

Thanks for reporting.  As other people said here and in a few github issues, it is some (supposedly dead) code in nwjs making connections to google properties.  These connections will be blocked in the next release.  If you want to block them now, edit your package.json by adding this proxy setting:

https://github.com/byteball/byteball/commit/dfdd00808e3ac8f3268e7e346c2009bb403260f5

The location of package.json on Mac is /Applications/Byteball.app/Contents/Resources/app.nw/package.json.

Vlom, great finding!  Smiley

We need more people like you to test the software. Even with careful developing, such privacy leaks can creep in. Better to eliminate leaks and bugs right from the start!

You have earned a bounty of 1 GB for finding this leak, thank you!

Please post your address here or PM me if you don't want to make it public, thanks.
Can a brother get a kilo for suggesting the fix?  Cool

Think he posted his address up there, I tipped him a few mb.
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:30:37 PM
 #4416

Witnesses are the single point of failure of the system. They essentially control the network and there are only 12 of them. You can imagine that if the rogue government (bankers or whoever) wants to take down the byteball system all they have to do is to take controll over 12 computers running witnesses nodes. This seems to be rather easy to do, especially at gunpoint. Moreover - this can be done without the rest of the network to even notice - if witnesses after being taken over by the rogue party are operated without interruption. Anybody who controls the 12 witnesses can do whatever he wants with the network - for example censor certain type of transactions. All of this is a contradiction to censor resistant trustless network that bitcoin is.

I can follow your arguments and respect your opinion. Bitcoin was created as a decentralized platform and that was a great invention - in the old days when everybody could easily take part in the consenus with their CPU or GPU miners, this system was still intact. But nowadays bitcoin has become a total different thing. Expensive asic miners drive bitcoin to centralization and the need for low energy costs favor some countries.

I will ask you a question: how many mining pools do you need to cross the 50% consensus barrier in bitcoin? I guess it's a lot less than 12.

It's not so simple as you imply. Mining pools does not necessarily decide about the state of the network (that power lies in miners hands). Let's assume that a rogue party took control over mining pools controlling +51% of the hashrate. If these mining pools would try to impose their will over miners (e.g. implementing changes to the protocol not supported by miners) miners would quickly drop those pools and switch to other ones which would lead to the rogue party loosing control over 51% of the hashrate. The bottom line is - to take over bitcoin the rogue party would have to take control over 51% of miners calculated as hashrate. It's not the same as 51% of mining pools as mining pools are not the same as miners. For example F2pool one of the biggest mining pools does not have its own mining hardware - it only facilitates mining for hardware operators (miners). Consequently it's much more difficult to control bitcoin because miners are more dispersed than mining pools. There are many more miners than mining pools. Definitely more than 12.
Indeed.

It is easier to take over Byteball - if you are a global adversary, global power.

That is also its strength, that we the users can replace witnesses, and  that there are few of them. Because we cannot replace the miners. We cannot even compete with them at all. But in this network, a few clicks away for any users aaaaand you're gone.


As far as I understand it if a rogue party takes over all 12 witnesses it can prevent anybody from changing witnesses by more than 1. If you can't change more than 1 witness you can't change the rogue party from controlling the 11 remaining. That's called a cartel in the byteball white paper. The only way to get out of this situation is to make a "schism" - which essentially is the same as hard fork in bitcoin. We actually have this kind of cartel run by tonych at the moment... Seemingly out of necessity and presumably in good faith but you need to coerce only one person to overtake byteball at the moment. And tonych can keep this situation as long as he please until users realize it and form a schism (hard fork).

Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:37:06 PM
 #4417

Witnesses are the single point of failure of the system. They essentially control the network and there are only 12 of them. You can imagine that if the rogue government (bankers or whoever) wants to take down the byteball system all they have to do is to take controll over 12 computers running witnesses nodes. This seems to be rather easy to do, especially at gunpoint. Moreover - this can be done without the rest of the network to even notice - if witnesses after being taken over by the rogue party are operated without interruption. Anybody who controls the 12 witnesses can do whatever he wants with the network - for example censor certain type of transactions. All of this is a contradiction to censor resistant trustless network that bitcoin is.

I can follow your arguments and respect your opinion. Bitcoin was created as a decentralized platform and that was a great invention - in the old days when everybody could easily take part in the consenus with their CPU or GPU miners, this system was still intact. But nowadays bitcoin has become a total different thing. Expensive asic miners drive bitcoin to centralization and the need for low energy costs favor some countries.

I will ask you a question: how many mining pools do you need to cross the 50% consensus barrier in bitcoin? I guess it's a lot less than 12.

It's not so simple as you imply. Mining pools does not necessarily decide about the state of the network (that power lies in miners hands). Let's assume that a rogue party took control over mining pools controlling +51% of the hashrate. If these mining pools would try to impose their will over miners (e.g. implementing changes to the protocol not supported by miners) miners would quickly drop those pools and switch to other ones which would lead to the rogue party loosing control over 51% of the hashrate. The bottom line is - to take over bitcoin the rogue party would have to take control over 51% of miners calculated as hashrate. It's not the same as 51% of mining pools as mining pools are not the same as miners. For example F2pool one of the biggest mining pools does not have its own mining hardware - it only facilitates mining for hardware operators (miners). Consequently it's much more difficult to control bitcoin because miners are more dispersed than mining pools. There are many more miners than mining pools. Definitely more than 12.
Indeed.

It is easier to take over Byteball - if you are a global adversary, global power.

That is also its strength, that we the users can replace witnesses, and  that there are few of them. Because we cannot replace the miners. We cannot even compete with them at all. But in this network, a few clicks away for any users aaaaand you're gone.


As far as I understand it if a rogue party takes over all 12 witnesses it can prevent anybody from changing witnesses by more than 1. If you can't change more than 1 witness you can't change the rogue party from controlling the 11 remaining. That's called cartel in the byteball white paper. The only way to get out of this situation is to make a "schism" - which essentially is the same as hard fork in bitcoin. We actually have this kind of cartel run by tonych at the moment... Seemingly out of necessity and presumably in good faith but you need to coerce only one person to overtake byteball at the moment.  
If you take over all 12, everybody can still make the 1 witness change. And when that is stabilized, the MainChain is moved some amount of set points (think this is a constant in the code), the next witness can be replaced.

The wallet/user is always able to change 1 witness.

Yes the schisms, mentioning it in the whitepaper shows honesty, that is a fork indeed, when enough is enough - users can fire up a new byteball network and transfer/link their funds to the new network - as we are doing today.  Cheesy

EDIT: Why I like this despite the schisms mentioned, because we are humans we will fuck up. Totally fuck up, and the best way forward is to move away sometimes. No software and no organization and trust-exchange mechanism will ever be perfect, since human needs will also change. The best ones allow grade change, and are open for schisms.
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:40:22 PM
 #4418

If you take over all 12, everybody can still make the 1 witness change. And when that is stabilized, the MainChain is moved some amount of set points (think this is a constant in the code), the next witness can be replaced.

I think it can't because it would make the witness list differ by 2 with regard to the remaining 11 witnesses. Otherwise there would be no way to form a cartel and no reason for schism. You would just change all witnesses one by one. But this can't be done as I mentioned and that's why schism is necessary.

Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:48:24 PM
Last edit: February 06, 2017, 11:23:44 PM by SatoNatomato
 #4419

If you take over all 12, everybody can still make the 1 witness change. And when that is stabilized, the MainChain is moved some amount of set points (think this is a constant in the code), the next witness can be replaced.

I think it can't because it would make the witness list differ by 2 with regard to the remaining 11 witnesses. Otherwise there would be no way to form a cartel and no reason for schism. You would just change all witnesses one by one. But this can't be done as I mentioned and that's why schism is necessary.

A cartel / collusion, I think is if some of the 12 witnesses would cooperate behind the scenes. That is ground for schism. Because then it would take too long time to change them. If 6 witnesses are in collusion and are actually acting as 1, they can deny any forward movement at all on the network - breaking it.

edit: THIS BELOW IS INCORRECT.
All 12 can be replaced, it just takes longer time, exactly to prevent changing all 12 at once to "Great Enterprise Censored Network". This is the point schisms addresses in the whitepaper.

Just a moment Ill find whitepaper reference to how more than 1 witness can be changed - there is a rule, when 1 witness changed becomes stable enough for the others to be allowed to change. EDIT: 1 at a time can be changed when no majority of witnesses are evil.
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 10:54:21 PM
Last edit: February 06, 2017, 11:10:18 PM by davidoski
 #4420

A cartel / collusion, I think is if some of the 12 witnesses would cooperate behind the scenes. That is ground for schism. Because then it would take too long time to change them. If 6 witnesses are in collusion and are actually acting as 1.

All 12 can be replaced, it just takes longer time, exactly to prevent changing all 12 at once to "Great Enterprise Censored Network". This is the point schisms addresses in the whitepaper.

Just a moment Ill find whitepaper reference to how more than 1 witness can be changed - there is a rule, when 1 witness changed becomes stable enough for the others to be allowed to change.

This is indeed an interesting aspect of the system. How a new witness can be introduced - does the whole network (all full nodes) need to accept it (include in its witness list) or 51% (?) and whether remaining 11 witnesses have the veto power to prevent it from happening? This is not clearly explained in the whitepaper. I think tonych would be helpful in clarifying this issue as it is of paramount importance to the security of the system.

Let's imagine that 12 witnesses formed a cartel. They will not change their own witness list. The rest of the network decided to change 1 witness (they are only allowed to change just 1). Now how there can be a second witness changed? If any user tries to change the second witness in its list it will cause its list to differ by 2 with regard to the remaining 11 witness own witness list. Remember that there's a cartel - remaining 11 witnesses won't allow the second witness to be changed (they will not allow their own witness list to be changed). I think this prevents the second witness from being introduced.

Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
Pages: « 1 ... 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 [221] 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 ... 1118 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!