Topic: Blockchain vs DAG (Byteball's concencus algorithm). - page 3. (Read 11018 times)

It is not that we are scared of changes. I am eager to diversify some of my BTC portfolio, to make gains faster by getting into a project that is not smoke and mirrors/not a plain meme, the problem is, I can't find it. There is always something that makes me thing im investing into a short lived pump and dump, or medium term pump and dump at best if the project is something ambitious but ultimately has flaws that make it nonviable long term.

I don't feel like getting my hard earned BTC scammed by investing in altcoins that don't end up delivering anything relevant enough beyond what BTC can currently (or in the future) offer. And I work my ass off for a low paying job with bad health in order to invest in my BTC portfolio and continue growing it so that makes me extra cautious when investing a single satoshi.

It means you are butthurt and stubborn.

The 33 - 50% control only gains an unfair amount of rewards. It doesn't convey the power to win every block. The reason that can "break" Bitcoin, is then the other miners have an incentive to join the selfish mining cartel until 50+% control is attained:


Also with asymmetrical rewards (and all other factors not considered), the 33-50% attacker will over time increase his proportion of the hashrate, because he is more profitable than the other miners.

Yeah you are getting closer to understanding why Byteball's witness replacement mechanism, is in practice not going to work. But it requires deeper analysis to see that without whales, the mechanism won't be able to not diverge from choosing a new witness replacement.

Bitshares learned by fire that the natural order is divergence in the absence of whales, because of the power vacuum of egalitarianism. That is ostensibly why they launched Steem with a stealth mine so the principals control ~80% of the tokens.

This is a interesting bit, btw. I don't get how 6 witnesses could be replaced if discrepancy in 1 witness is the max of what is allowed.

Oh, smell of "elite" ass here.

This is how we know that you are the original iamnotback, not someone who bought his account. 

No, they can't in practice be replaced. It is not the same. I already refuted that:


I am sorry if you don't understand the terminology, e.g. the implications of the term "total order". It is indicative of why you are not an expert.

When I discussed this in the Byteball thread, the Byteball author Anthony realized there is a problem and started to talk about avoidance of needing to replace witnesses and how to have a community wide vote and other mechanisms for overcoming the inherent flaw (which means really he will end up needing whales same as for DPoS to avoid chaos so then you are right back to centralization and the failure of Bitshares and Steem again).

And someone wrote upthread that Anthony current controls 87% so we can see once again centralization is employed to avoid the truth that (without centralization) chaos is the only outcome if we don't use PoW.

We don't have decentralization in any blockchain in existence (Monero claims otherwise but I doubt it and the ASICs and mining farms will come if the market cap grows some more). That is a fact. And that is one reason that blockchains are not going mainstream, because the world isn't going to trust some whales to handle the world's blockchain.

With 33+% of hashing power I can break Bitcoin, this is what the paper says. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~luca/cs174/byzantine.pdf talks about 33% too. 51% works only in unrealistic assumptions. I can imagine a case where an attacker with 90% of hashing power won't break the system. I hope you got my point, I'm not going to extend it because it's an off-topic.

Bad witnesses can be replaced.


Same with byteball, only replacement mechanism is different.

In Bitcoin, the miners are not fixed and can come and go as they please. Thus if the value of the token craters from the 51% censoring all transactions, then the miners stop mining and new miners can take over and it becomes unstuck again without any hard fork. It is a naturally correcting system.

Whereas in Byzantine agreement (of which Byteball is an example), then when sufficient witnesses stop responding (or collude to respond towards divergence), then the system can't become unstuck even if the token value declines. (note Byteball is consensus by majority whereas most Byzantine agreement is 2/3 consensus and I explain the technical reason for that difference in my whitepaper)

Also the number of witnesses in Byteball is fairly limited (maybe at most a dozen or perhaps maybe up to 10X more could be considered), whereas, the number of miners in PoW is in the 1000s. Even if PoW becomes centralized, then those huge mining farms will go bankrupt if the value of the token plummets, so then the 1000s of little miners take over (because many individuals mine Bitcoin for altruistic and anonymity of acquisition reasons on a small scale, not just for profit).

So the probability of Byteball becoming entirely and permanently stuck is much greater. And given shorting and the fact that witnesses don't expend any significant resource, a group that wants to profit by destroying the token value entirely can succeed. Whereas they can't sustain such an activity with PoW, because mining requires ongoing expenditures.

With Bitshares' DPoS (also in Steem), the whales can vote in new witnesses at any time, so it can't get stuck unless the whales decide to destroy it.

The challenge is to design a system that isn't so centralized as all of these, yet also has the positive attributes of PoW without the electricity cost. I claim I have designed such as consensus algorithm. The whitepaper is written. I am just trying to cure my disseminated, extra-pulmonary Tuberculosis so I can get back to programming and continue my project.


Incorrect. A 50+% attacker can censor every transaction because he can always build the longest chain with only the blocks he chooses.

Please I wish you would state your claims as questions rather than pretending you actually know what you are doing. You are arguing with an expert, and you are obviously not an expert.

An academic understands not to make strong claims for that which he hasn't written down the theorems and proofs. So many armchair "experts" around here who pontificate absolute bullshit, hand waving, and technical errors. No wonder that speculators have no clue about the technology. Speculators may get confused by your "Legendary" ranking and presume that means you really know the technology.

It does not matter if it is 51% or 33% or 73.5% vulnerability, it is still vulnerability, but not a flaw. A flaw would be something which prevents the network from being used. 51% vulnerability does not prevent bitcoin from being used, it just puts a limit on how secure it is. Same goes with any other consensus algorithm. A lack of security at all would be a flaw.

Note we are referring to Satoshi's PoW below...


No it doesn't. You don't understand the whitepaper.

The 33% attacker doesn't win every block (can't always create the longest chain). He only wins more block rewards than his 33% share.

It is an asymmetrical statistical advantage against those with less than 33% control, not absolute control.

The whitepaper claims the opposite, if you want to argue - argue with the authors.

When other people repeat your questions I answer them. What does this mean? Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question.

No you are incorrect. It requires greater than 50% to stall the blockchain by censoring all transactions.

The selfish mining attack you have cited (which only requires 33% control) is applicable to fairness of distribution of rewards, not censoring transactions (as a form of making the blockchain stuck).

You dont take kindly to any questions anywhere, it is not surprising due to the big ego you carry. A common trait of sociopaths.

In any case, the quoted was not for you, but for many other readers. 

Interesting how sustainable urban legends are. Like http://fc14.ifca.ai/papers/fc14_submission_82.pdf has never existed.

This is not a flaw, this is a limitation, just like bitcoin 51% vulnerability. Every consensus algorithm has this kind of limitation, nevertheless some of them are working for years without any fault.

I don't have time to delve back into the math. I am interested to see you guys actually remove the centralization, so we can see what happens in the wild. I don't have time to argue with you and also it isn't going to help me to get all the Iota investors pissed off at me (and one of my angel investors is still waiting to sell his Iota so it also doesn't help me to attack your coin).

Let's just say I have my strong doubts (in the absence of myself putting in the effort to do some formal exposition). But let's see how it performs in the wild without centralized servers.