|
julian071
|
 |
January 03, 2021, 04:54:54 PM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
Seems just that some speculators noticed that Bitcoin is pumping, so they just dumped their GBYTE to get more GBYTE. The amount of GBYTE on Bittrex hot wallet has not changed much recently, so these probably were never Obyte users anyways. Bonded Stablecoins and Oswap.io liquidity distribution on the other hand has more and more GBYTE value deposited. Just more people needs to know about it, it's difficult to reach new people when nobody cares to spread the news. I'd love to help. however I find this whole Stablecoin thing way to complicated. If I can in anyway help please DM me. |
=P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 03, 2021, 04:56:58 PM |
|
Seems like a lot of people are abandoning ship. I've decided to go down with it (or weather the storm), even though I've got some serious money in it. The tech is just to awesome and it's been a great adventure up till now, even though the financial gain isn't there.
Hope the dev team hangs in there, let us know!
Seems just that some speculators noticed that Bitcoin is pumping, so they just dumped their GBYTE to get more GBYTE. The amount of GBYTE on Bittrex hot wallet has not changed much recently, so these probably were never Obyte users anyways. Bonded Stablecoins and Oswap.io liquidity distribution on the other hand has more and more GBYTE value deposited. Just more people needs to know about it, it's difficult to reach new people when nobody cares to spread the news. I'd love to help. however I find this whole Stablecoin thing way to complicated. If I can in anyway help please DM me. |
|
|
|
|
|
maxvall
|
|
January 08, 2021, 06:44:09 AM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 08, 2021, 07:47:31 AM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 08, 2021, 11:36:19 AM |
|
Hey there.
Could anybody explain why there are just 12 witnesses or about within the network?
Thx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maxvall
|
|
January 08, 2021, 12:15:41 PM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. What can gives the initiative to buy governance tokens in such cases? Capacitor may be almost empty when all previous trades was near optimal (bought/sold both t1&t2 with target proportion). |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 08, 2021, 12:24:16 PM |
|
Another stablecoin: GB2. It represents a 2x leveraged position in GBYTE vs USD. The price of the token is currently about 23 GBYTE, the same as the price of GBYTE in USD. That is, the price in USD is 23-squared now and is pegged to (GBYTE/USD) 2. Try it out https://ostable.org/trade/MCZAGO47NLPO25KOOJHN22PNKEGLQ6XV#buy. If 2x leverage is too small for you, feel free to create a 10x, just specify the desired leverage on the create page https://ostable.org/create. Warning: trading with leverage is dangerous as leverage multiplies your losses (and gains). Hmm... Last three days GB2 price is 15-30% below target. Is it broken? Nope, there was just pump in price, so there is now opportunity to fix the peg by buying more governance tokens or redeeming GB2 tokens. Fixing the peg would give reward from fast capacitor. What can gives the initiative to buy governance tokens in such cases? Capacitor may be almost empty when all previous trades was near optimal (bought/sold both t1&t2 with target proportion). GB2 is a 2x leverage of GBYTE/USD price. If the price is going up in bull market, more people are likely to buy more GB2 to profit from the increase of price. The more GB2 is bought/issued the more valuable GRGB becomes (it's price is calculated by the bonding curve) and more fees go to both capacitors (because buying GB2 right now would make the peg even worse). The fast capacitor is emptied only when somebody fully fixes the peg. Partially making the peg more closer only takes some of the reward from fast capacitor. There is also reward in slow capacitor, from which 10% can be moved to fast capacitor. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 07:00:59 PM
Last edit: January 09, 2021, 07:41:51 PM by 3DPass |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restrictions about it, especially, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 07:47:19 PM |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restriction about it, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. What makes it look completely centralized? Order Providers are not block producers or any other way between you and the network. There is an explanation on Medium blog article, I recommend to read it: Order providers are selected by users and every user includes a list of order providers he trusts in every transaction he posts. The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12, and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers.
The lists of order providers can vary from user to user but the lists in the neighboring transactions can only differ by one position.
|
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 08:56:58 PM
Last edit: January 09, 2021, 09:38:29 PM by 3DPass |
|
Oh, thank you very much.. I've learned a lot about how it works from WP and from source code trying to find out. And I sourced no one real cause why they're just up to 12, despite all the explanations over there. Technically, there is definitely no one fundamental restriction about it, in terms of consensus. So, my question was what that magical restriction rule of 12 for? Why they're not 120 or not 1200? According to the White Paper, the majority of witnesses has the power over the network. And if there are just 12, it looks like completely centralized, doesn't it? Please, correct me in case I was wrong explaining at least one real cause of that design. I'm not against it, I'm just trying to figure it out from risk perspectives of using. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me if those 12 public decent persons or not. What makes it look completely centralized? Order Providers are not block producers or any other way between you and the network. There is an explanation on Medium blog article, I recommend to read it: Order providers are selected by users and every user includes a list of order providers he trusts in every transaction he posts. The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12, and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers.
The lists of order providers can vary from user to user but the lists in the neighboring transactions can only differ by one position.
Thanks, I've read it, as well. Unfortunately, I'm not satisfied by that, though. ..and the number is large enough so that the system survives random failures of a minority of the order providers. This one is the vital and understandable requirement and there is no questions with it.
The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12
This is the really weird one... There is no consistency at all. imho If users are that bounded to check they're not going to be able to get the identity of 13 or 14 or 50 witnesses? That's not true, from my point of view, until I haven't got any evidence of vice versa stuff. And, I guess, so much people really don't care if those witnesses are identified or not. What makes it look completely centralized? For some reasons, actually. 1. All of those 12 were declared by dev at the time of the system was first published (WP) years ago, so it's not a tough issue to realize them to be somehow related to one another. 2. It's described the case of attack in the WP as the only majority of witnesses are able to distinguish the main chain using their data. Certainly, we're talking about just 12 people or organizations somehow interested in keeping the network healthy. And they're have the real power. And they're interested in getting commissions, as well. 3. There is the rule of the protocol saying the new witnesses might be added just after old 12 witnesses have approved the new one. There is no way they would have done that. They haven't any reason for that. But they've got all the reasons not to do it. "Rule 4. the stability point advances only when the current witnesses (as defined in
the current stability point) post enough units after the current stability
point" These rules are designed to protect against malicious and accidental forks. At the same time, they imply that any changes of the predominant witness list have to be gradual, and each step has to be approved by the majority of the current witnesses. (From the WP, page 21)That's my personal opinion. I can see a lot of risks... Because protectability of the network depends on 12 people. --- So, please, answer my question about the other real reason in case I was wrong. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 09:36:09 PM |
|
The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12
This is the really weird one... There is no consistency at all. imho If users are that bounded to check they're not going to be able to get the identity of 13 or 14 or 50? That's not true, from my point of view, until I haven't got any evidence of vice versa stuff. And, I guess, so much people really don't care if those witnesses are identified or not. What makes it look completely centralized? For some reasons, actually. 1. All of those 12 were declared by dev at the time of system was first published (WP), so it's not a tough issue to realize them to be somehow related to one another. 2. It's described the case of attack in the WP as the only majority of witnesses are able to distinguish the main chain using their data. Certainly, we're talking about just 12 people or organizations somehow interested in keeping the network healthy. And they're have the real power. And they're interested in getting the commissions, as well. 3. There is the rule of the protocol saying the new witnesses might be added just after old 12 witnesses have approved the new one. There is no way they would have done that. They haven't any reason for that. But they have all the reasons not to do. That's my personal opinion. I can see a lot of risks... Because protectability of the network depends on 12 people. --- So, please answer my question of the real reason if I was wrong. Thanks Each transactions having 12 witnesses attached to it is consistent. What is not consistent would be having variable amount of witnesses on each transaction. There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent. If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it. 1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made. 2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness. 3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that Obyte consensus mechanism works. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 09:58:17 PM
Last edit: January 10, 2021, 07:21:35 AM by 3DPass |
|
The list includes 12 order providers, the number is small enough so that users can realistically know the identities of all 12
This is the really weird one... There is no consistency at all. imho If users are that bounded to check they're not going to be able to get the identity of 13 or 14 or 50? That's not true, from my point of view, until I haven't got any evidence of vice versa stuff. And, I guess, so much people really don't care if those witnesses are identified or not. What makes it look completely centralized? For some reasons, actually. 1. All of those 12 were declared by dev at the time of system was first published (WP), so it's not a tough issue to realize them to be somehow related to one another. 2. It's described the case of attack in the WP as the only majority of witnesses are able to distinguish the main chain using their data. Certainly, we're talking about just 12 people or organizations somehow interested in keeping the network healthy. And they're have the real power. And they're interested in getting the commissions, as well. 3. There is the rule of the protocol saying the new witnesses might be added just after old 12 witnesses have approved the new one. There is no way they would have done that. They haven't any reason for that. But they have all the reasons not to do. That's my personal opinion. I can see a lot of risks... Because protectability of the network depends on 12 people. --- So, please answer my question of the real reason if I was wrong. Thanks Each transactions having 12 witnesses attached to it is consistent. What is not consistent would be having variable amount of witnesses on each transaction. There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent. If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it. 1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made. 2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness. 3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that the consensus method works.
There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent.
If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it.
Only in case the amount of witnesses such small.
1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made.
Why the amount is still just 12? Apparently, users haven't made any significant changes in years... They couldn't have made much because of the rules.
2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness.
Who decides whether it would be a shitty witness or normal? The answer is: majority of old witnesses which too small bunch of people to be a real majority. Let's just imagine that I was right about dev related to the witnesses. That would've meant he might decide every stability point to be shitty or not... That's too high risk to me.
3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that the consensus method works.
From WP (page 21): "1. best parent is selected only among parents whose witness list has no more
than 1 mutation;
2. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness list of the
last ball unit;
3. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness lists of all
the unstable MC units up to the last ball unit;
4. the stability point advances only when the current witnesses (as defined in
the current stability point) post enough units after the current stability
point.
These rules are designed to protect against malicious and accidental forks. At the same time, they imply that any changes of the predominant witness list have to be gradual, and each step has to be approved by the majority of the current witnesses." |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 10:30:14 PM |
|
There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent.
If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it.
Only in case the amount of witnesses such small. No, if you have 120 anonymous witnesses and majority of them are actually the same person, you have Sybil attack. If all the 12 witnesses have been identified then there is no Sybil attack because you know that each one is unique.
1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made.
Why the amount is still just 12? Not sure if you are now trolling, this was already answered. I am sorry if you still don't get it.
2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness.
Who decides whether it would be a shitty witness or normal? The answer is: majority of old witnesses which too small bunch of people to be a real majority. Let's just imagine that I was wright about dev related to the witnesses. That would've meant he might decide every stability point to be shitty or not... That's too high risk to me. But you were not right, you made it up. And witnesses don't decide stability point, it's just that once they have posted enough transactions on top of other transactions that they know about, the stability point appears on unit, which order is impossible to change without breaking the rules. Everybody can do that, witnesses just add their transactions also there. Witnesses can't exclude any transactions because others will choose these transactions as parents. If they would want to censor one transaction, they would need to stop the posting altogether and censor every transaction, which results a hard-fork by community again. I think you skipped reading this https://medium.com/obyte/dag-vs-blockchain-6d2d99f10bd9There is no such thing as shitty stability point, the witness who doesn't run their node can be considered shitty because they are not doing what they were suppose to do - run the node.
3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that the consensus method works.
From WP (page 21): "1. best parent is selected only among parents whose witness list has no more
than 1 mutation;
2. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness list of the
last ball unit;
3. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness lists of all
the unstable MC units up to the last ball unit;
4. the stability point advances only when the current witnesses (as defined in
the current stability point) post enough units after the current stability
point.
These rules are designed to protect against malicious and accidental forks. At the same time, they imply that any changes of the predominant witness list have to be gradual, and each step has to be approved by the majority of the current witnesses."Not sure how that proves your point that witnesses have no reason to choose a new witness? The data on DAG proves that they have done exactly what you say they would not do. Also, you are forgetting that it's users who signal the witnesses by changing their witness list in their wallet app. If majority of the witnesses don't change the witness that users want then the community can always hard-fork the project. Feels to me that you are trying to apply your blockchain understanding of how consensus works onto DAG consensus and you are assuming things. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 10:41:07 PM |
|
There can be more than 12 at the same time, but each transaction need to have 12 witnesses. That's consistent.
If you don't have identified witnesses then you could Sybil attack it.
Only in case the amount of witnesses such small. No, if you have 120 anonymous witnesses and majority of them are actually the same person, you have Sybil attack. If all the 12 witnesses have been identified then there is no Sybil attack because you know that each one is unique.
1. No, the network launched with all witnesses belonging to founder, in past 2-3 years, there has been interviews, polls and users have replaced majority of witnesses with new ones. Witnesses have followed the changes that users have made.
Why the amount is still just 12? Not sure if you are now trolling, this was already answered. I am sorry if you still don't get it.
2. The only power that witnesses have is stopping the network from finding the stability point when majority of witnesses collude and turn off the node, but even then, the community can hard-fork. There is no real power for witnesses (they can't censor) and the commissions barely cover fees for new transactions. Yes, it is interest of all witnesses that majority of witnesses keep running their nodes and if some won't, majority of witnesses or even users can signal to replace a shitty witness.
Who decides whether it would be a shitty witness or normal? The answer is: majority of old witnesses which too small bunch of people to be a real majority. Let's just imagine that I was wright about dev related to the witnesses. That would've meant he might decide every stability point to be shitty or not... That's too high risk to me. But you were not right, you made it up. And witnesses don't decide stability point, it's just that once they have posted enough transactions on top of other transactions that they know about, the stability point appears on unit, which order is impossible to change without breaking the rules. Everybody can do that, witnesses just add their transactions also there. Witnesses can't exclude any transactions because others will choose these transactions as parents. If they would want to censor one transaction, they would need to stop the posting altogether and censor every transaction, which results a hard-fork by community again. I think you skipped reading this https://medium.com/obyte/dag-vs-blockchain-6d2d99f10bd9There is no such thing as shitty stability point, the witness who doesn't run their node can be considered shitty because they are not doing what they were suppose to do - run the node.
3. Not sure what you are talking about, each time there was a witness change, all the witnesses and users changed their witness lists, but actually only majority is needed. There is years of public DAG data that the consensus method works.
From WP (page 21): "1. best parent is selected only among parents whose witness list has no more
than 1 mutation;
2. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness list of the
last ball unit;
3. there should be no more than 1 mutation relative to the witness lists of all
the unstable MC units up to the last ball unit;
4. the stability point advances only when the current witnesses (as defined in
the current stability point) post enough units after the current stability
point.
These rules are designed to protect against malicious and accidental forks. At the same time, they imply that any changes of the predominant witness list have to be gradual, and each step has to be approved by the majority of the current witnesses."Not sure how that proves your point that witnesses have no reason to choose a new witness? The data on DAG proves that they have done exactly what you say they would not do. Also, you are forgetting that it's users who signal the witnesses by changing their witness list in their wallet app. If majority of the witnesses don't change the witness that users want then the community can always hard-fork the project. Feels to me that you are trying to apply your blockchain understanding of how consensus works onto DAG consensus and you are assuming things. Not sure how that proves your point that witnesses have no reason to choose a new witness? The data on DAG proves that they have done exactly what you say they would not do. The point might be the commission divides equally among witnesses? Thanks for your answers. |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 09, 2021, 10:51:34 PM |
|
Not sure how that proves your point that witnesses have no reason to choose a new witness? The data on DAG proves that they have done exactly what you say they would not do.
The point might be the commission divides equally among witnesses? Thanks for your answers. Payload fees are divided by all the witnesses that posted in last 100 MCI. Header fees go to any address who chose the transaction as parent. Again, these fees are not a big deal, they barely cover the new transactions that witnesses make. Or if the witness is also oracle then they don't even cover those, but since making transactions on Obyte is so cheap, $1 worth of bytes lasts for 50 000 transactions. Running a witness node is not done for earning $1 of bytes in maybe 10 years. If any at all. Your assumption that witnesses would not want to give up their role is not correct and not even remotely valid. Witnesses are replaced 1 by 1 gradually, it takes time and only majority is needed. And on top of that, if that doesn't align with what users want, community can hard-fork the shitty behaving witnesses out. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 09, 2021, 11:50:18 PM
Last edit: January 10, 2021, 07:36:08 AM by 3DPass |
|
Not sure how that proves your point that witnesses have no reason to choose a new witness? The data on DAG proves that they have done exactly what you say they would not do.
The point might be the commission divides equally among witnesses? Thanks for your answers. Payload fees are divided by all the witnesses that posted in last 100 MCI. Header fees go to any address who chose the transaction as parent. Again, these fees are not a big deal, they barely cover the new transactions that witnesses make. Or if the witness is also oracle then they don't even cover those, but since making transactions on Obyte is so cheap, $1 worth of bytes lasts for 50 000 transactions. Running a witness node is not done for earning $1 of bytes in maybe 10 years. If any at all. Your assumption that witnesses would not want to give up their role is not correct and not even remotely valid. Witnesses are replaced 1 by 1 gradually, it takes time and only majority is needed. And on top of that, if that doesn't align with what users want, community can hard-fork the shitty behaving witnesses out. I'm not quite sure if I'm right about it, but I can't then realize what they're running witnesses for if it's that disadvantageous? I can't believe in they're just bunch of altruists, aren't they? How many witnesses have been replaced with new ones that way since the project got started, btw? Regarding to the witnesses, I'm not going to argue... For now, I'm still have my own opinion about the risks. I agree that community can hard-fork etc, but they, unfortunately, won't turn the transactions back if that collapse had suddenly happened. I also agree that new witnesses have to grow 1 by 1. But I disagree to the point that old witnesses have to approve new ones to add... and that personal identity thing really has to play any significant role in consensus. I will learn more about it. Thanks a lot, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 10, 2021, 12:29:17 PM |
|
I'm not quite sure if I'm right about it, but I can't then realize what they're running witnesses for if it's that disadvantageous? I can't believe in they're just bunch of altruists, aren't they? How many witnesses have been replaced with new ones that way since the project got started, btw?
Regarding to the witnesses, I'm not going to argue... For now, I'm still have my own opinion about the risks. I agree that community can hard-fork etc, but they, unfortunately, won't turn the transactions back if that collapse had suddenly happened. I also agree that new witnesses have to grow 1 by 1. But I disagree to the point that old witnesses have to approve new ones to add... and that personal identity thing really has to play any significant role in consensus. I will learn more about it.
Thanks a lot, anyway.
Obviously, one shows interest to become a Order Provider when they are interested that the network keeps running (transactions become stable). They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know, so they could be replaced without downtime. So far, none of the new Order Providers have been replaced, but each new Order Provider has been replacing the old founder's address with the new Order Provider's address. Order Providers that are being used by users in almost real-time, can be seen from there https://stats.obyte.org/witnesses.phpCandidate interviews and poll result can be seen from there https://medium.com/obyte/decentralization/homeNot all candidates had polls, some earlier candidates were only chosen when stats.obyte.org showed support for new candidate, but even with polls, Order Providers replaced their witnesses when users replaced theirs in the app. What transactions need to be turned back? Order Providers ARE NOT gatekeepers who mark one transaction valid or other invalid - all full nodes do that and they all follow the same rules in the code (if you change the rules, you hard-fork). It does not matter whose transactions they choose parent because it will cause all the other transactions below it to become stable eventually too. There is no re-orgs or rollbacks, once certain part of the DAG is stable then all those transactions are confirmed, but it's not because somebody marked them confirmed - they are confirmed because order of transactions in that part of the DAG cannot change anymore (majority of Order Providers have posted and cannot have best parent in that part of DAG). None of these rules have picked randomly, they are there for reason: * fixed number of Order Providers - whether it's 6, 12, 24 or 100, it would be so much more difficult if each user could have variable number of Order Providers and it would have 0 benefits. * 12 Order Providers - that's a number big enough to avoid failures, but small enough so users could remember those entitites. there can be unlimited amount of Order Providers on the network because each user can change one in their list if the 11 other stay the same as others. * publicly known entities for Order Providers - if they are not identified, then attacker could spawn hundreds of Order Providers and announce hundreds of candidates. if majority of even 200 total Order Providers are by single attacker, you have Sybil attack. * if there is Sybil attack or majority of different Order Providers collude then they can either do a invalid transaction, which will stop the network (unless there is hard-fork to change that rule) or just stop running the nodes (no more stable part of DAG) or not replacing Order Providers based on how users signal them. In a way, it has similar balance like there is between Bitcoin full nodes and Bitcoin miners. Both have to run the same software, because if they don't then once produces blocks to full nodes, which nobody else but them run, but at the same time full nodes with different software doesn't get any blocks because nobody runs miner for that fork. On Obyte, there is no middlemen who control what can go to block, but Order Providers and have the same relationship with users, one can't be without the other. Neither of them have the absolute control. |
|
|
|
|
3DPass
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 142
Merit: 5
|
|
January 10, 2021, 09:11:17 PM
Last edit: January 10, 2021, 09:44:09 PM by 3DPass |
|
I'm not quite sure if I'm right about it, but I can't then realize what they're running witnesses for if it's that disadvantageous? I can't believe in they're just bunch of altruists, aren't they? How many witnesses have been replaced with new ones that way since the project got started, btw?
Regarding to the witnesses, I'm not going to argue... For now, I'm still have my own opinion about the risks. I agree that community can hard-fork etc, but they, unfortunately, won't turn the transactions back if that collapse had suddenly happened. I also agree that new witnesses have to grow 1 by 1. But I disagree to the point that old witnesses have to approve new ones to add... and that personal identity thing really has to play any significant role in consensus. I will learn more about it.
Thanks a lot, anyway.
Obviously, one shows interest to become a Order Provider when they are interested that the network keeps running (transactions become stable). They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know, so they could be replaced without downtime. So far, none of the new Order Providers have been replaced, but each new Order Provider has been replacing the old founder's address with the new Order Provider's address. Order Providers that are being used by users in almost real-time, can be seen from there https://stats.obyte.org/witnesses.phpCandidate interviews and poll result can be seen from there https://medium.com/obyte/decentralization/homeNot all candidates had polls, some earlier candidates were only chosen when stats.obyte.org showed support for new candidate, but even with polls, Order Providers replaced their witnesses when users replaced theirs in the app. What transactions need to be turned back? Order Providers ARE NOT gatekeepers who mark one transaction valid or other invalid - all full nodes do that and they all follow the same rules in the code (if you change the rules, you hard-fork). It does not matter whose transactions they choose parent because it will cause all the other transactions below it to become stable eventually too. There is no re-orgs or rollbacks, once certain part of the DAG is stable then all those transactions are confirmed, but it's not because somebody marked them confirmed - they are confirmed because order of transactions in that part of the DAG cannot change anymore (majority of Order Providers have posted and cannot have best parent in that part of DAG). None of these rules have picked randomly, they are there for reason: * fixed number of Order Providers - whether it's 6, 12, 24 or 100, it would be so much more difficult if each user could have variable number of Order Providers and it would have 0 benefits. * 12 Order Providers - that's a number big enough to avoid failures, but small enough so users could remember those entitites. there can be unlimited amount of Order Providers on the network because each user can change one in their list if the 11 other stay the same as others. * publicly known entities for Order Providers - if they are not identified, then attacker could spawn hundreds of Order Providers and announce hundreds of candidates. if majority of even 200 total Order Providers are by single attacker, you have Sybil attack. * if there is Sybil attack or majority of different Order Providers collude then they can either do a invalid transaction, which will stop the network (unless there is hard-fork to change that rule) or just stop running the nodes (no more stable part of DAG) or not replacing Order Providers based on how users signal them. In a way, it has similar balance like there is between Bitcoin full nodes and Bitcoin miners. Both have to run the same software, because if they don't then once produces blocks to full nodes, which nobody else but them run, but at the same time full nodes with different software doesn't get any blocks because nobody runs miner for that fork. On Obyte, there is no middlemen who control what can go to block, but Order Providers and have the same relationship with users, one can't be without the other. Neither of them have the absolute control. They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know That's all they have given as a pledge? Why they have to be interested in witnessing? What are their independent benefits from that? Neither of them have the absolute control. They are called Order Providers, right? They're designed to keep an order. Disorder means devastating for the network stability the utilizing which is impossible without. For that reason they must be independent but they aren't by now, right? They might will have got independent in unknown time in the future... Their amount is 13 and 6 of them represent Tony personally, right? So, I'm not going to rant any more. Sorry, if I bothered you. You guys have done a great work, but seems like there is a fundamental mistake in those rules. I'm not going neither to strict them nor to teach you. You know better about true decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
|
tarmo888
|
|
January 10, 2021, 09:43:31 PM |
|
They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know That's all they have given as a pledge? Why they have to be interested in witnessing? What are their independent benefits from that? Neither of them have the absolute control. They are called Order Providers, right? They're designed to keep an order. Disorder means devastating for the network stability the utilizing which is impossible without. For that reason they must be independent but they aren't, right? They might will have got independent in unknown time in the future... Their amount is 13 and 6 of them represent Tony personally, right? So, I'm not going to rant any more. You guys have done a great work, but seems like there is a fundamental mistake in those rules. I'm not going neither to strict them nor to teach you. You have to know better issues of true decentralization  Best Order Provider candidates are those who have some other benefit for having the Obyte network properly functioning, so they don't have to receive any funds from undistributed funds or network fees, but rather their everyday business. Others just want to be early adopters of new technology, latest Order Provider said they do it for education and research purposes. Witnesses is bad name because other blockchain witnesses do different things. Order Provider is bad name too because the word "order" has many meanings. Sure, there would be disorder if Order Providers would stop posting, but I have a feeling that you have not properly read the Medium blog because they are not Order Keeper, but Order Providers. Another proposed alternative was also call them as Lighthouses, but I guess that would not help to understand them either. Not sure what you mean that they are not independent, all non-founder Order Providers are independent. There can be unlimited amount of Order Provider candidates, 12 can be for each transaction, 11 in a transaction must be same as others, majority is 7 out of 12 and there are 7 independent non-founder Order Providers. The 13 you saw is probably Order Providers that some user has different than other because they haven't updated their list. Thank you for trying to understand, but you fundamentally still don't understand the basics, so I laugh at your attempt to teach about things you don't understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
