Topic: Blockchain vs DAG (Byteball's concencus algorithm). (Read 11011 times)
Hey, guys! Can anyone explain how is data stored in DAG? Nodes? In other words, what provides decentralization feature?
I have an entire section (#8) of my whitepaper dedicated to analyzing and explaining Byteball.
It is an interesting discovery. It has flaws (and not just related to the consensus algorithm). And my design is not Byteball, but there is one aspect which is similar to one aspect of Byteball, yet my design would not work if it was only Byteball.
One of the main flaws of Byteball that you should be aware of besides the messed up transaction fees and distribution, is that the consensus of the blockchain can become entirely stuck if > 50% of the witnesses collude or stop functioning. Then it requires a (political gridlock potentially) hardfork to unstuck the blockchain. Ditto Tendermint, Casper, and all Byzantine agreement variants (that includes Bitshares/Graphene/Steem's DPoS, yet the whales can vote to unstuck it without a hardfork). Note there is a mechanism for voting in new witnesses, but because it requires a total order so it will in practice never work out because total orders don't exist in nature.
Yeah Byteball has something important in it, but it is not really the solution.
Iota has an entire different consensus than Byteball, and my stance is it won't work without centralized servers. We've already been down that technical debate in the past, so I won't repeat it and get trolled again by Iota shills. Readers can either learn to recognize that I know what I say, or they can suffer the same fate as all the other times I've been doubted.
And no, Bitcoin can't adopt any of these things. Bitcoin isn't ever going to be anything more than what it already is (which is sufficient). Learn to accept that and move on. Lightning Networks is never going to work (decentralized, which is thus the same as saying it is never going to scale up in terms of relevance).
It is an interesting discovery. It has flaws (and not just related to the consensus algorithm). And my design is not Byteball, but there is one aspect which is similar to one aspect of Byteball, yet my design would not work if it was only Byteball.
One of the main flaws of Byteball that you should be aware of besides the messed up transaction fees and distribution, is that the consensus of the blockchain can become entirely stuck if > 50% of the witnesses collude or stop functioning. Then it requires a (political gridlock potentially) hardfork to unstuck the blockchain. Ditto Tendermint, Casper, and all Byzantine agreement variants (that includes Bitshares/Graphene/Steem's DPoS, yet the whales can vote to unstuck it without a hardfork). Note there is a mechanism for voting in new witnesses, but because it requires a total order so it will in practice never work out because total orders don't exist in nature.
Yeah Byteball has something important in it, but it is not really the solution.
Iota has an entire different consensus than Byteball, and my stance is it won't work without centralized servers. We've already been down that technical debate in the past, so I won't repeat it and get trolled again by Iota shills. Readers can either learn to recognize that I know what I say, or they can suffer the same fate as all the other times I've been doubted.
And no, Bitcoin can't adopt any of these things. Bitcoin isn't ever going to be anything more than what it already is (which is sufficient). Learn to accept that and move on. Lightning Networks is never going to work (decentralized, which is thus the same as saying it is never going to scale up in terms of relevance).
Hey, a link to your White Paper by any chance? Sounds interesting
I do not feel like the BTC is taken advantage of by investing in a laptop without end up providing anything relevant beyond what the BTC is offering (or in the future). And I work for a low-income job with ill health to invest in my BTC portfolio and continue to grow it. I can not even concentrate to explain briefly to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material. But you can, with a signature-based program like Byteball, and other cryptocurrency, even DPO works better. "IoT but IoT will not be a full button, it will only send / sing the transaction," Well duh, obviously, any fucking cryptocurrency can commit a silent chip and full trust button. Thank you
If you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you do some research into the subject to better acquaint yourself with the problem at hand.
No, thx. You sounded as Shelby Moore in disguise, your replies just proved that. We can stop at this point.
Ok, no problem, that's your choice.
For other readers who may be interested in ELI5 explanation of the problem:
*) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block.
*) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward for doing so. Slower miners lose out to faster miners, but they still participate in the competition to produce a block because they stand a chance of winning occasionally.
*) This mining subsidy provides a positive incentive to miners to play by the rules, and encourages them not try to double spending, because they might as well claim the mining reward instead of trying to double spend which is often much more difficult than producing a single block.
*) The mining subsidy also encourages all miners to participate in the mining process, which gives an overall metric for total network hashing power, which you can then use to give an estimate of when it is safe to accept a transaction of a given size, as confirmed, because (on average), the block reward is equal to the electricity cost of mining that block. That means that when your transaction has been buried under enough blocks that the mining subsidy equals the transactions size, it is more or less safe to accept that transaction as confirmed.
Now, imagine the situation with no mining reward.
*) Instead of participating in a competition to win the block reward, miners have no positive incentive to participate anymore. They now are left with the negative incentive to try and double spend.
*) Since these miners are not contributing their hashing power to the network anymore, the overall hashrate of the network in unmeasurable, since these miners are quite likely to leave their ASICs in sleep mode until they want to double spend
*) With the network hash rate unmeasurable, there is no way to put an estimate on when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed.
When there is no way to estimate when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed, that currency is now useless because any transaction can potentially be reversed.
This is why both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network, but at that point, you might as well be using VISA.
edit: ELI4 - You work at a bank dealing with money every day. You get paid for your job. Do you steal the money you work with? Now imagine if you didn't get paid. Are you more tempted to steal money? Now imagine if you could never get caught and everything was anonymous.
Cheers, Paul.
All full nodes perform validation. Witnesses are a small subset of full nodes. Witnesses simply point full nodes to look at the witnesses in the recent history to establish the path of the Main Chain; i.e. the path that goes through as many witness-authored units as possible, providing a sequenced path for eliminating any potential double spends. They simply provide a sequenced path which would otherwise not be clear within a DAG.
Your objections simply don't apply to this architecture.
If you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you do some research into the subject to better acquaint yourself with the problem at hand.
No, thx. You sounded as Shelby Moore in disguise, your replies just proved that. We can stop at this point.
Ok, no problem, that's your choice.
For other readers who may be interested in ELI5 explanation of the problem:
*) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block.
*) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward for doing so. Slower miners lose out to faster miners, but they still participate in the competition to produce a block because they stand a chance of winning occasionally.
*) This mining subsidy provides a positive incentive to miners to play by the rules, and encourages them not try to double spending, because they might as well claim the mining reward instead of trying to double spend which is often much more difficult than producing a single block.
*) The mining subsidy also encourages all miners to participate in the mining process, which gives an overall metric for total network hashing power, which you can then use to give an estimate of when it is safe to accept a transaction of a given size, as confirmed, because (on average), the block reward is equal to the electricity cost of mining that block. That means that when your transaction has been buried under enough blocks that the mining subsidy equals the transactions size, it is more or less safe to accept that transaction as confirmed.
Now, imagine the situation with no mining reward.
*) Instead of participating in a competition to win the block reward, miners have no positive incentive to participate anymore. They now are left with the negative incentive to try and double spend.
*) Since these miners are not contributing their hashing power to the network anymore, the overall hashrate of the network in unmeasurable, since these miners are quite likely to leave their ASICs in sleep mode until they want to double spend
*) With the network hash rate unmeasurable, there is no way to put an estimate on when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed.
When there is no way to estimate when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed, that currency is now useless because any transaction can potentially be reversed.
This is why both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network, but at that point, you might as well be using VISA.
edit: ELI4 - You work at a bank dealing with money every day. You get paid for your job. Do you steal the money you work with? Now imagine if you didn't get paid. Are you more tempted to steal money? Now imagine if you could never get caught and everything was anonymous.
Cheers, Paul.
Paul this is compelete bullshit what you said right here. Seriously.
How are you comparing the people who specifically mine bitcoin "MINERS" that was born with a consensus specifically PoW which earns the "MINERS" a reward for securing the chain, with a totally new TECH with a different consensus for securing the graph, which didn't promise any "MINERS" any reward because they are not needed in the first place.
GTFO!
You see we live in a time where the ignorent is ruling the world.
and Yes this is my first post with this account.
If you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you do some research into the subject to better acquaint yourself with the problem at hand.
No, thx. You sounded as Shelby Moore in disguise, your replies just proved that. We can stop at this point.
Ok, no problem, that's your choice.
For other readers who may be interested in ELI5 explanation of the problem:
*) Network hashrate is the overall power of the network - in bitcoin, this is the computing power needed to generate a block.
*) Bitcoin employs a mining reward which creates a competition between miners to produce a block and claim their reward for doing so. Slower miners lose out to faster miners, but they still participate in the competition to produce a block because they stand a chance of winning occasionally.
*) This mining subsidy provides a positive incentive to miners to play by the rules, and encourages them not try to double spending, because they might as well claim the mining reward instead of trying to double spend which is often much more difficult than producing a single block.
*) The mining subsidy also encourages all miners to participate in the mining process, which gives an overall metric for total network hashing power, which you can then use to give an estimate of when it is safe to accept a transaction of a given size, as confirmed, because (on average), the block reward is equal to the electricity cost of mining that block. That means that when your transaction has been buried under enough blocks that the mining subsidy equals the transactions size, it is more or less safe to accept that transaction as confirmed.
Now, imagine the situation with no mining reward.
*) Instead of participating in a competition to win the block reward, miners have no positive incentive to participate anymore. They now are left with the negative incentive to try and double spend.
*) Since these miners are not contributing their hashing power to the network anymore, the overall hashrate of the network in unmeasurable, since these miners are quite likely to leave their ASICs in sleep mode until they want to double spend
*) With the network hash rate unmeasurable, there is no way to put an estimate on when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed.
When there is no way to estimate when it is safe to accept a transaction as confirmed, that currency is now useless because any transaction can potentially be reversed.
This is why both byteball and iota use trusted third parties to secure the network, but at that point, you might as well be using VISA.
edit: ELI4 - You work at a bank dealing with money every day. You get paid for your job. Do you steal the money you work with? Now imagine if you didn't get paid. Are you more tempted to steal money? Now imagine if you could never get caught and everything was anonymous.
Cheers, Paul.
If you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you do some research into the subject to better acquaint yourself with the problem at hand.
No, thx. You sounded as Shelby Moore in disguise, your replies just proved that. We can stop at this point.
Nope. That is a plain and obvious fact.
Could you provide links to sources showing that the claim is a plain and obvious fact?
If you don't understand what I've written, I suggest you do some research into the subject to better acquaint yourself with the problem at hand.
Nope. That is a plain and obvious fact.
Could you provide links to sources showing that the claim is a plain and obvious fact?
edit: the key point is that last one. With no competition to mine, the network hash rate cannot be measured which implies that the time you need to wait to accept a transaction as confirmed is essentially unbounded. This is not acceptable in any currency.
Just another claim lacking a proof.
Nope. That is a plain and obvious fact.
edit: the key point is that last one. With no competition to mine, the network hash rate cannot be measured which implies that the time you need to wait to accept a transaction as confirmed is essentially unbounded. This is not acceptable in any currency.
Just another claim lacking a proof.
Present your counter argument and lets talk about it.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden and re-read my previous post again, please.
I'm quoting myself here; this is not a formal proof, its a wordy one.
Quote
With no competition to mine, the maximum network hashing rate will be impossible to measure, since although transactions may be incoming at a high rate in a mature currency (and assuming a PoW must be submitted with the transaction) , this rate could still be vastly below that of even just one ASIC* such that any adversary looking to double spend would find the task relatively easy.
This also brings into question the entire way in which transaction acceptability can be bounded. In bitcoin the adversary's hashing power relative to the network as a whole is considered, yielding a probability of the best block being reversed, yet with no competition to mine, the maximum hashing rate of the network as a whole cannot be measured since adversaries have nothing to gain by participating in the network's nominal operations, instead they might chose to lie in wait.
This also brings into question the entire way in which transaction acceptability can be bounded. In bitcoin the adversary's hashing power relative to the network as a whole is considered, yielding a probability of the best block being reversed, yet with no competition to mine, the maximum hashing rate of the network as a whole cannot be measured since adversaries have nothing to gain by participating in the network's nominal operations, instead they might chose to lie in wait.
edit: the key point is that last one. With no competition to mine, the network hash rate cannot be measured which implies that the time you need to wait to accept a transaction as confirmed is essentially unbounded. This is not acceptable in any currency.
Both are good. But people still prefer blockchain more because it has existed for more than 8 years. They need more time to learn about the DAG and adapt it. Byteball is very good. No need to mine, no need crowdfund but they still have a big marketcap right now. I think that DAG will become a strong force in the future with the leader is byteball
Present your counter argument and lets talk about it.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden and re-read my previous post again, please.
You cannot have a trustless concensus like bitcoin's without a mining reward - that is what creates convergence.
Great, now just prove this claim because the burden of proof is on you...
Present your counter argument and lets talk about it.
edit: for the interested reader, consider what it was that allowed satoshi to solve the double spend problem that had previously made p2p currencies unworkable.
You cannot have a trustless concensus like bitcoin's without a mining reward - that is what creates convergence.
Great, now just prove this claim because the burden of proof is on you...
This thread deserves a bump. Have IOTA or Byteball made any recent improvements to address Shelby Moore's concerns?
Neither byteball or Iota can be truly trustless or decentralised; they are flawed.
Byteball requires witnesses which are trusted super users in order to form a consensus:
Quote
Looking for a “reality test”, observe that some of the participants of our network
are non-anonymous reputable people or companies who might have a long
established reputation, or they are businesses interested in keeping the network
healthy. We’ll call them witnesses
are non-anonymous reputable people or companies who might have a long
established reputation, or they are businesses interested in keeping the network
healthy. We’ll call them witnesses
Iota requires what they used to refer to as checkpoints, now known as 'coordinators' in order to maintain consensus until the currency is 'bootstrapped', which is years to never.
You cannot have a trustless concensus like bitcoin's without a mining reward - that is what creates convergence.
This thread deserves a bump. Have IOTA or Byteball made any recent improvements to address Shelby Moore's concerns?
There is nothing minding blowing here. Just more of the same centralization failure. Well the concept of a DAG is mind blowing in the sense that it allows proof-of-publishing to be orthogonal to consensus finalization, which is one facet of increasing the TPS rate. But the Byteball "stability points" algorithm solution is incomplete. It hasn't solved the holistic problems entirely.
Exactly. It's not trustless. They took the various incomplete research into DAGs (e.g. Bob McElrath) and implimented it in node (node!?). They couldn't find a consensus algorithm that works so they go with a sibyl attack prone trusted node system instead. I bought 1BTC to get a real stake in it though because the community is strong which means they might end up solving these issues, if they do it will be unstoppable.
There is nothing minding blowing here. Just more of the same centralization failure. Well the concept of a DAG is mind blowing in the sense that it allows proof-of-publishing to be orthogonal to consensus finalization, which is one facet of increasing the TPS rate. But the Byteball "stability points" algorithm solution is incomplete. It hasn't solved the holistic problems entirely.
Jump to: