Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2020, 04:02:22 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 ... 1118 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments  (Read 1218672 times)
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 11:22:18 PM
 #4421

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.
Reading whitepaper again.

That seems to be correct, if 6 of the witnesses collude/cartel they can prevent others from changing their witness list, and they can censor transactions. Then schism.

Page 20-21 explains Choosing witnesses.
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
1603339342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603339342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603339342
Reply with quote  #2

1603339342
Report to moderator
realbigs21024
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 11:24:22 PM
 #4422

i need more of these in a bad way i only have 1,500 bytes lol
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 06, 2017, 11:43:04 PM
 #4423

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.
Reading whitepaper again.

That seems to be correct, if 6 of the witnesses collude/cartel they can prevent others from changing their witness list, and they can censor transactions. Then schism.

Page 20-21 explains Choosing witnesses.

I expect this kind of schism happening pretty frequently. Even simply as a way to disrupt the system by whoever dislikes byteball. Whitepaper says its possible:

Quote
If someone just wants to start a new coin to experiment with another set of protocol rules, he can also use the ‘alt’ field to inherit everything from the   old coin, make the switch comfortable for users, and   have   a large set   of users with balances from day one.

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

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2017, 11:52:50 PM
 #4424

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.
Reading whitepaper again.

That seems to be correct, if 6 of the witnesses collude/cartel they can prevent others from changing their witness list, and they can censor transactions. Then schism.

Page 20-21 explains Choosing witnesses.

I expect this kind of schism happening pretty frequently. Even simply as a way to disrupt the system by whoever dislikes byteball. Whitepaper says its possible:

Quote
If someone just wants to start a new coin to experiment with another set of protocol rules, he can also use the ‘alt’ field to inherit everything from the   old coin, make the switch comfortable for users, and   have   a large set   of users with balances from day one.
Choosing witnesses should be done carefully.

I expect schisms as frequently as collusion happens between 6 of the witnesses. Not often, but every 10-20 years, depending on how Byteball is used, and maybe it would survive even that if its used very widely. It will be hard to pick the good initial ones, but seeing as people here are crying over their exchanges not having Byteball - trusting a third party with their bitcoins a coin whose whole purpose was that no third party should hold your coins - I am convinced we will find the trustful witnesses, because people are willing to trust. Its the slow collusion thats bad, the "power corrupts" effect.

New altballs as often as someone is willing to experiment.
tonych
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 911
Merit: 867


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2017, 11:55:51 PM
 #4425

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.

You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them.  But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

Simplicity is beauty
forzendiablo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1000


the grandpa of cryptos


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 12:05:10 AM
 #4426

why this coin is only on some strange exchange?

yolo
davidoski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 12:10:05 AM
 #4427


You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them.  But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

"Prominent industry leaders" sounds a bit to me like "to big to fail banks". This inherent trust that users have to have in third parties makes me uneasy about the system design and its resilience to abuse. It additionally requires constant attention to the witness list issue and the danger of cartel forming behind the scenes. But I might be wrong and it will work well. Let's hope it will.

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

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 12:34:22 AM
 #4428


You are correct, if 12 witnesses so decide, they can block all attempts to replace them.  But this is exactly what they were expected not to do when they were added themselves.  If a minority of witnesses appears untrustworthy, they can be promptly replaced before they reach majority.

I discuss in the whitepaper a mechanism which helps make the behavior of witnesses more predictable and earlier detect any breaches of trust:  a would-be witness pledges to follow the witness lists of a few (possibly larger than 12) prominent industry leaders.  The pledge is not enforceable in the protocol but publicly auditable, any breach of the pledge would immediately make the witness a candidate for removal.

"Prominent industry leaders" sounds a bit to me like "to big to fail banks". This inherent trust that users have to have in third parties makes me uneasy about the system design and its resilience to abuse. It additionally requires constant attention to the witness list issue and the danger of cartel forming behind the scenes. But I might be wrong and it will work well. Let's hope it will.
Indeed, trusting third-parties just like trusting bitcoin developers, miners, full node operators, and exchanges.

There was a recent medium article by Vitalik, discussing decentralization, bitcoin is technically decentralized, but it doesnt stop humans from forming groups - which we are naturally inclined to do - and groups tend to be centralized.

Byteball has a very novel balance between technical and social de/centralization - which makes it a great success.

https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274#.ezsb3lcnx
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 513


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 01:08:42 AM
 #4429

I got a really, really stupid question regarding the 12 witnesses:

Are we necessarily talking about one individual per witness? Or could there be the possibility of "witness pools", as in a group of people cooperating to "form" a single witness? If yes, I can see this as a community approach to decide whether or not they think 12 individuals suffice.

Just a thought.
SatoNatomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 01:24:51 AM
 #4430

I got a really, really stupid question regarding the 12 witnesses:

Are we necessarily talking about one individual per witness? Or could there be the possibility of "witness pools", as in a group of people cooperating to "form" a single witness? If yes, I can see this as a community approach to decide whether or not they think 12 individuals suffice.

Just a thought.
Its one entity, one key-pair, one node in the network.

The entity can be represented by an organization, a foundation, a corporation, or a sleepless person.

The 12 witnesses will most probably include all types, and the bestest witnesses will have clear policies to the public and internal policies and rules of governance - like any good foundation and organization has.

@tonych have you contacted the EFF or Free Software Foundation to see if they want to run a witness?
realbigs21024
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 01:33:07 AM
 #4431

could someone be so kind and help me out please send me a little love to #KWGIYJOT4AHXTEJQUGFDTO3R4XDEKZOO     help me get going if not i do understand, sorry if not allowed no harm meant by this. I was hacked not long ago and they took almost everything i had. I started trading alts a few years ago with $5.68 i made from faucets and traded all the way up to 0.88 BTC that was the highest i ever made it, my goal was 1 Btc. I know it may not be much to some of you but to me that is alot. Thanks and sorry if this is not allowed or makes someone angry, I always helped people when i could when i was doing well because in the beginning i had a few people help me by teaching me the ropes a little
John_Paul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 269
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 02:09:26 AM
 #4432

What is the current blackbyte price? Where can I trade blackbyte?
btw50
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 02:15:10 AM
 #4433

What is the current blackbyte price? Where can I trade blackbyte?

https://byteball.slack.com/messages/trading_blackbyte/
btw50
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 02:17:08 AM
 #4434


In the second round, we'll distribute as much as is linked and calculated by the above rules, the exact % is not known in advance.

could it be 10% at second round ?
No

1. BTC -> Byte 
=> estimated ~100000 BTC linked (at 2. round) => 6250 GByte distributed

2. Byte -> Byte
=>  100000 GBytes (10% from the first round) => 10000 GBytes  distributed

3. Total
Total: 16250 GBytes distributed at 2. round => 16250/1000000 = 1,6 %

4. Total distributed 1. + 2. round
11.6 % or 100000 (1. round) + 16250 (2. round) = 116250 Gbytes

thanks
windjc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1061


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
 #4435

Last month someone was kind enough to give a step by step for using the blockchain.info wallet to sync with the byteball issuance. Could someone again please outline the step by step?

Thanks

escapefrom3dom
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 266



View Profile WWW
February 07, 2017, 06:58:35 AM
 #4436


In the second round, we'll distribute as much as is linked and calculated by the above rules, the exact % is not known in advance.

could it be 10% at second round ?
No

1. BTC -> Byte  
=> estimated ~100000 BTC linked (at 2. round) => 6250 GByte distributed

2. Byte -> Byte
=>  100000 GBytes (10% from the first round) => 10000 GBytes  distributed

3. Total
Total: 16250 GBytes distributed at 2. round => 16250/1000000 = 1,6 %

4. Total distributed 1. + 2. round
11.6 % or 100000 (1. round) + 16250 (2. round) = 116250 Gbytes

thanks

if i got it right there is current total supply of 100 000 Gb.

how come it turns into ammount (116 250 Gb) that exceed this given (100 000 Gb) maximum?

am i rigth that at some moment (when will it come?) total supply will rise to 1 000 000 Gb (10^15 bytes).

megashira1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 07:01:51 AM
 #4437

Large buywall at 0.08 liftoff time!

bcmine
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1015
Merit: 1055


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 08:05:58 AM
 #4438

Large buywall at 0.08 liftoff time!

didnt need polo to reach 10 Mill.
vlom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 08:37:50 AM
 #4439

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.

@CryptKeeper
thank you very much.

you can send me the bytes to this address: 62VPG77DWEHUIDCWJG7BLZFRDUKDI22U
vlom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 08:45:31 AM
 #4440

here a summery about the connections of the OSX Wallet.

a part of the OSX app (nwjs) connects to several addresses. dev will fix this and a workaround is already posted.

here the connections i found:

Quote
wants to connect to redirector.gvt1.com on TCP port 443 (https)

   IP Address   172.217.22.174
   Reverse DNS Name   arn09s11-in-f174.1e100.net

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





SatoNatomato helps with this:

Quote
Seems to be nwjs, the component used by Byteball. Maybe it means NodeWebKit.js and is the browser-bundled up.

Google is known for adding a bunch of shit in every source-code they touch to "resolve" something on their servers. This could be information leakage, especially when using it over Tor - who knows what it sends to Google even if it is the hostname and datetime its too much.

@tonych, maybe see if there is a default option which has to be turned off when importing/using nwjs?

edit: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/issues/5343 just one issue, expect 100 more "accidents" by google. edit2: if using the chromiu-args proxy workaround, make it something else than 127.0.0.1, like 127.6.6.6 to avoid more other problems.


tonych will fix it:
Quote
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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 ... 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!