Hi There
I wanted to do all in on XRB so i made some research and i came accross all these posts
What are your thoughts please on this ?
It appears (from the writeup) that you are unaware of sybil attacks?
The graph of transactions in bitcoin already functions like what you describe (except 'accounts' are single use txouts); Bram Cohen likes to call Bitcoin without the blockchain "bitpeso". In Bitcoin the blockchain is overlaid on top of "bitpeso" to resolve "complex forks" (using your language) in a manner that allows someone to join the network and know which resolution is authoritative in a way which is both robust to sybil attacks and does not require membership (because a membership process would create control over the system).
In your description you appears to liberally conflate forks and double-spending. In Bitcoin, double spending a traditional txout requires malicious behavior, just as you describe. Blockchain forking in the absence of double spending is benign and no different to the "multiple resolution rounds" you mention from your resolution protocol but fail to describe detail sufficient to permit any analysis.
afaics you have not definitively stated the frame-of-reference—employed by your ("every UTXO output has its own block chain")
Those words are in quotes though it is not factually a quotation.
Perhaps American English is not your native language? I did not quote you. If I did, I would have used the normal forum quoting as I always do. Placing a phrase between double quotes can also mean that the quoted description is an example of how someone might say it (not specifically any person, since the quote was not attributed to any person)
According to the writer's handbook
https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_quoting.html Quotations are literal quotations and should cite references, Adding Clarification, Comment, or Correction requires square brackets around what you're modifying.
I'm sure you'll have no problem writing up another post
I warned you not to write condescendingly to me again. Now I will more forcefully state the facts.
I can see I am dealing with a pedantic Dunning-Kruger jackass who has too limited understanding of the technical field to discern technobabble from expertise.
Arguing with someone who is not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whey are acting as a Dunning-Kruger jackass, ends up being an enormous waste of time and effort for the expert.
When you are ready to come down from your ignorant high horse and learn, let me know.
Note most readers here are not knowledgeable enough to discern that you are not an expert. Thus you can probably convince them to invest in your project. The proof of failure will come down the line. No need for me to educate you beforehand, given your attitude.
I'm afraid I largely agree with TPTB_need_war; without a voting history, I find it hard to see how there can be a reliable, unforgeable consensus for 'now'.
That's not correct, the consensus now is all that matters. For instance as humans we don't have a record of all governments and all decisions going back to the beginning of time yet we have a consensus about what we agree to at this moment. A historical record can be interesting but the only thing that matters is consensus at this current point in time, only historians care about anything else and currency isn't about a history lesson.
This is true in the real world because time travel is impossible. Cryptocurrencies must strive to make time travel, voting on past history, or presenting fraudulent histories very hard, or the 'now' won't be reliable or consistent.
As monsterer and I have been alluding to up thread
Monsterer and I have been having discussions and you may not be in as much agreement as you believe.
I will wait to see a public post from monsterer if he disagrees with my assessment. Are you referring to private discussions with him? Because in my quick perusal of his public posts in this thread, they seem to be congruent with my points. Feel free to point out a case where you think his points are not congruent with mine.
afaics you have not definitively stated the frame-of-reference—employed by your ("every UTXO output has its own block chain")
Those words are in quotes though it is not factually a quotation.
Perhaps American English is not your native language? I did not quote you. If I did, I would have used the normal forum quoting as I always do. Placing a phrase between double quotes can also mean that the quoted description is an example of how someone might say it (not specifically any person, since the quote was not attributed to any person).
design—for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus
There is no such thing as Byzantine fault tolerance since the byzantine problem is stated in terms of separation of communication a.k.a. network partitioning. Only after partitions have been merged can a final conclusion be reached for instance bitcoin isn't tolerant against partitioning since if the network was partitioned and each separate segment was generate separate block chains, a conclusion as to which is the longest couldn't be reached until the partitions were merged and the results compared, hence it would no longer by a byzantine problem.
Please read up more on the topic before commenting on them.
Do NOT again write an absurd condescending remark that assumes I hadn't yet researched the fundamental concepts.
Try to remain respectful please (and leave the ad hominem diarrhea aside) as we had been up thread.
I have no idea what rational basis you have told yourself to justify assuming I don't understand the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance. How could I possibly be commenting with so much technical knowledge in your thread if I hadn't yet researched the fundamental concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance, so I have now expended the time to research, think, and hopefully correctly define it. Your design's frame-of-reference for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus is majority of the vote by the "voters" which have locked a suitable amount of coins (value). We must determine the (game theory) objectivity of this frame-of-reference and the impacts within the CAP theorem.
Again, the CAP theorem states that all three states cannot simultaneously be achieved so by the nature that RaiBlocks, in addition to any crypto currency, does not claim it can operate while partitioned, this means at most we're claiming 2 out of 3 which by definition satisfies the CAP theorem and no cryptocurrency out there is violating it.
Please read more before commenting.
This ad hominem noise again.
Yet another vacuous argument demonstrating that you do not understand that Bitcoin is partition tolerant within its Byzantine fault tolerant objectivity. Byzantine fault tolerance doesn't mean that CAP has to be fulfilled for those observers who are ignoring the longest chain rule or who are unwilling to accept the probabilitistic nature of the expectations (and thus the fault tolerance). Within Bitcoin's objectivity of the longest chain, all three of the CAP attributes are attained. And my criticisms of your design are about its ill-defined objectivity.
Let this technical rebuttal be instructive to you on the fact that my skills/expertise/research in this area are higher than you apparently assume (given your condescending remarks and your continual unwillingness to accept that 3 experts gmaxwell, monsterer, and myself have come into your thread and graciously tried to explain that your design has serious flaws).
The rest of your reply really seemed to start going off the rails of rational logic. But I will try to find the desire to reply to it point-by-point after I cool down from the lashing of your condescending assumptions above.
Nodes take the first block they receive or which ever block is winning in votes as observed by vote traffic coming off the network compared against the set of stake holders currently in the ledger.
So at the very least, nodes which are syncing would accept my fork as truth? Also possibly online nodes if my fork was presented within some window of time?
Sounds right I think, bootstrap poisoning is one attack vector. One way to address this would be to bootstrap to your representative or whoever gave you your wallet code. Presumably if you trust them enough to download and execute a program that manages your private keys, you can trust them to bootstrap you correctly.
Another option is to bootstrap to someone you're interested in sending to, a merchant perhaps, because in the end the only thing that matters is if they'll accept your payments as valid and they'll tell you what they're accepting through bootstrapping.
Another problem would be if almost everyone simultaneously changed their representative while forks were occurring. This would would require every account to be online and simultaneously signing a change to their representative; interesting but I don't see that actually happening.
But after reading all this i concluded that XRB is not finally secure and that i needed to stay away of it, that's why no exchanges is selling it, its because they understood that its gona be a big mess no ? I see multiple experts of this forum telling that its XRB is faulty so i do not understand why this hype...
Thank you for your help if maybe i am not understanding well the situation
