Topic: [ANN][LSK] Lisk | Blockchain Application Platform for JavaScript Developers - page 2126. (Read 3074169 times)

Did you create a new forum account only to write this post ? awesome  !

this message is aimed to the founders of lisk- max and oliver-

I'm invested in LISK, mainly because i think the team is enthusiastic, ran a good ico compaign and have a good idea to invest in.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE COIN GOES OUT TO THE MARKET RIGHT AFTER THE ICO ENDS. WHICH MEANS- NOT MUCH DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COIN ATTRACTIVE.

MY SUGGESTION-

1. DELAY THE DATE IN WHICH THE COIN GOES OUT TO THE MARKET IN A FEW MONTHS.
2. IN THE MEANWHILE- HIRE A GOOD TEAM WITH WELLKNOWN FACES AS ADVISORS.
3. START BUILDING THE PROJECT WITH GOOD PR.

OTHERWISE- im sure the coin value will drop once it goes out- AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN.

TNX!

Let me put it this way, if hand full of whales combine their weight to take the 49th delegate spot, they are guaranteed all the spots bellow that, wich means the remaining 52 spots.

Visitors ≠ ICO participants

Only if you hold 51% of the total coin supply can you guarantee control of the delegates.

Other than this, it is just pure speculation. Your scenario where a whale may control 30 or maybe 40 percent of the total coin supply, and by plurality (or relative majority) they may take over the delegates is a possibility, but highly unlikely as he would have to create 101 personalities over night (unless he has been prepared for this in the past months and has created multiple identities). Although, how would this be beneficial for the whale? He would be sinking his own ship by the upcoming FUD and the possible demise of the cryptocurrency he is so invested in.


Personally, if the scenario above were to develop, Lisk would need cooperation from most of the Lisk accounts to swap out the delegates. Furthermore, having accounts split their voting weight would mean little to this whale, as he could create 101 delegates and spread his wealth throughout them, and would likely beat most if not all the delegates who are voting for themselves (almost the same scenario as above, give or take a few delegates).

Nonetheless, it is important that the potential security flaws of Lisk are being questioned, and these should not be easily dismissed. Reminder to all, Lisk is an experiment with blockchain technology, such as every other cryptocurrency projects. I am certain that future improvements to the Lisk protocol will be implemented if a potential security flaw is deemed a serious threat.

You should be good.  I download the text file and take screeshots.

We didn't realize your problems are so much more significant than potential security flaws in the coin you have bought. Notice how no one has a good reply to my analysis. You may want to take some time to understand what you read. I mean, you can't even figure out how the ICO site works.

Either way, you can just open it on a desktop browser. The keys are not tied to your device. Go to your exchange and generate keys.

You are welcome.

You can't sell them right now.
How can a buyer make sure you don't have a copy of the passphrase?

Can someone help me out with this please?  The troll below my post totally derailed everything  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lisk

Okay this isn't fud but Lisk means groin?  

I really like the ideas for the project but this thing here...

Was this name choice deliberate? Why was this name chosen? What is a lisk?

I was under the impression that supply vote weight would at least be split between selected delegates.
If not, than couple of whales can easily circle  jerk their weight and control entire 101 delegate spots.

I seriously hope the above suggestion by bitseedmike is considered.

I agree that allowing up to 101 votes from the same Lisk is kind of screwy - never liked it in Crypti either. I would rather see votes from an account balance split their weight. It would also be nice if the voting interface allowed assigning a percentage to each delegate voted for, so a vote from an account with 100 Lisk for 4 delegates would default to 25 votes for each delegate, but could be set to 70%, 10%, 10%, 10% so the delegates would receive 70, 10, 10, and 10 votes.

No one has made any statement that remotely proved the impossibility of control by a mere plurality of the vote. I'm not talking about a plurality of all the LISK in existence. I'm talking about a plurality of the vote.



The part in red is not the problem. The problem is that in delegate staking, control can be owned by someone who has a plurality of the vote. Not "majority of LISK" or "majority of vote", but mere plurality of the vote.

You can explain to me how it works all day long, but this is the weakest type of block chain security ever conceived.

Security is a property of the protocol. The delegated staking protocol does not provide security from a "plurality attack". I've shown this is the case by giving the example of an entity that holds a plurality of the vote, voting for each of it's delegates with a plurality of the vote and winning every one. Show me what in the protocol prevents this from happening.

I agree that 51% attacks are possible with other security systems. In comparison to those however, LISK is much weaker.

Just face it, its impossible.

The balance in a voting account is not split among the people who that account votes for.  Everybody that person votes for gets the full balance of the voting account added into their vote total from all other accounts.

Yes, the whole network could be controlled by someone who holds a majority of Lisk.  This is equivalent to a 51% percent mining attack in Bitcoin.

Max, please correct me if what I have said here is wrong.  Also, please edit the phrase in red above to "At launch this 1% of votes would be 1,000,000 LISK (later more, due to inflation) or 100,000,000,000,000 votes." This change helps to clarify the big numbers are referring to "1%" and not "all LISK in the network".  I was a little confused the first time I read this.

I'll accept that this is a reasonable system if a balance vote is split among the 101 delegates. For example if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, each would get 1 LISK worth of vote.

However, the way the above reads is that if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, they each get 101 LISK worth of votes. If this latter case is true, then the whole network could be controlled by someone who simply holds a plurality of LISK.

Let me first re-direct you to the Lisk Delegate Handbook:

https://lisk.io/documentation?i=lisk-handbooks/DelegateHandbook

There are some discrepancies in your understanding of how voting works, I would advise to read the recently drafted Delegate Handbook for a detailed explanation.

Now, to explain it as best as I can in my own words.

Your account has a voting presence that equals the amount of funds you have in your wallet. The more funds you have in your wallet, the higher voting presence it has. This account can vote for 101 different delegates, you cannot stack voting. Here's an example:

John's account has 15M LISK, he has a voting presence of 15% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

James account has 10M LISK, he has a voting presence of 10% (out of the possible voting presence total of 100%)

If John and James were to vote on delegates, they would account a total of 25% vote presence on the chosen delegates. Keep in mind again that they may not vote twice on the same account, they must either a) not vote b) vote on the desired accounts only.

A simpler way to view this is, if one person holds all of the funds (100M), he has 100% voting presence, and has complete dictatorship over who will be the 101 active delegates. However, as stated previously, you don't need 100%, 51% is enough to rule the other half of voters.

This brief explanation may not be the best, so I would advise you to read the Delegate Handbook thoroughly. Your concerns should be answered.

In this situation, the solution is for the true owners of the Lisk to pull their holdings out of the exchange.  Once that Lisk is transferred from the exchange back to the true owners, the votes it was used for are voided.  

Now, if you have an exchange that doesn't give the Lisk back to its owners, then you've got a bigger problem than voting - you've got Mt. Gox.

That's a weakness that all blockchain security systems can't solve : out-and-out theft.

The real solution is to write a dapp that allows swapping of other cryptocoins in exchange for Lisk and so allow Lisk to become its own exchange.

Walking down the street is a risk. Eating food is a risk. Are you going to sit in a bubble waiting for old age because of risk? No, you take risk to reap reward. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.

Anyone interested in buying my Lisk ?

I'll settle for 1 BTC + just 5%.