Pages:
Author

Topic: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin - page 8. (Read 45353 times)

newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 03:15:28 PM
I thought we are discussing 50+% nodes attack. With more than half nodes not cooperating in broadcast reliability is seriously affected. And reliability of transfer is far far away from time bounded broadcast.
Okay, okay, that's an assumption. This assumption is stronger than those made by bitcoin. It's a start. Before, I thought that it's impossible to know the truth at all by passive observation, now it turns out that you need to disrupt the communication severely to prevent that. If broadcast is not working at all, the network is split and the situation is hopeless. If it works, but slower than usual, then we need to evaluate how much slower it can be made, how this could be prevented, etc.

The point I was making by analogy (was not about the viability of propagating the info to those who are online rather) is the "always-online" is about as far from reality as you can get. There is no way to relax from those who are always online to those who not knowing who to believe is telling the truth.
At least there is a grade of how long were you offline. The nodes connecting for the first time ever are the extreme case. A node who missed one message is probably easier to handle.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 03:12:22 PM
Randomized in this case means the selection order can't be known a priori when prospective SH peers chose their ID.
So the whole issue is based on the ability of SH to choose their IDs? Let their ID be their number in the SH sequence. So the very first SH has ID=1, the one who registers after him ID=2 and so on.

And who decides who was 1, 2, 3?

You keep pushing the problem to the same problem all over again. I already told you this, but you refuse to listen. See quote of myself below.

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.
Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.

The proof is that the only way you get the necessary entropy is by having every peer compete to be first. Everyone other form of entropy has a point of failure that there is no decision, the consensus is required ad infinitum at every point where you design it away to another point.

For how many more posts are you going to waste time talking in circles like a dog chasing his tail? You can't design away the problem of needing consensus on the order but no one can make that decision (without opening a point of failure that can be gamed).

I hear an echo:

I skipped the rest because it was all based on this.

I tried explaining this to him, but he adamantly refused to accept it. There is no point in arguing with him.

Because it is wrong as explained above.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 03:04:18 PM
I tried explaining this to him, but he adamantly refused to accept it. There is no point in arguing with him.
Well, now there's an algorithm, we can get down to business. Like, calculate what a particular ID allocation strategy could give you, in what time and for how much money Smiley
One thing I didn't specify is the random generator to use. Lets settle for HMAC_DRBG from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-90A/SP800-90A.pdf initialized with the first post of this thread as it is now in UTF-8 Smiley
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 03:02:49 PM
Ludicrous. If everyone could see everyone in the world, then there would be no corruption due to secrets. Now how do we relax that to reality.  Roll Eyes
No, that's not so unreasonable. It's not true, of course, it's an assumption, but in a highly connected network the broadcasts are quite reliable. You can try to amuse yourself by computing the probability of a message being not received by a peer when everyone is connected to N other peers, as a function of reliability of a connection and size of the network. Imagine that everyone passes the message to all neighbors once upon receiving it.

Now with not-always-online nodes there may be problems, but again these could be addressed to minimize damage to them.

The point I was making by analogy (was not about the viability of propagating the info to those who are online rather) is the "always-online" is about as far from reality as you can get. There is no way to relax from those who are always online to those who are not always-online being able to know who to believe is telling the truth.
sr. member
Activity: 359
Merit: 250
June 12, 2013, 02:58:01 PM
No, that's not so unreasonable. It's not true, of course, it's an assumption, but in a highly connected network the broadcasts are quite reliable. You can try to amuse yourself by computing the probability of a message being not received by a peer when everyone is connected to N other peers, as a function of reliability of a connection and size of the network. Imagine that everyone passes the message to all neighbors once upon receiving it.

Now with not-always-online nodes there may be problems, but again these could be addressed to minimize damage to them.
I thought we are discussing 50+% nodes attack. With more than half nodes not cooperating in broadcast reliability is seriously affected. And reliability of transfer is far far away from time bounded broadcast.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 02:50:00 PM
Ludicrous. If everyone could see everyone in the world, then there would be no corruption due to secrets. Now how do we relax that to reality.  Roll Eyes
No, that's not so unreasonable. It's not true, of course, it's an assumption, but in a highly connected network the broadcasts are quite reliable. You can try to amuse yourself by computing the probability of a message being not received by a peer when everyone is connected to N other peers, as a function of reliability of a connection and size of the network. Imagine that everyone passes the message to all neighbors once upon receiving it.

Now with not-always-online nodes there may be problems, but again these could be addressed to minimize damage to them.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 502
June 12, 2013, 02:46:58 PM
Another *new* ALt coin!

Super!

Alt coins rock!

Super!

I can nearly have as many coins as I can have Currency!

Super!

What's next?/  poocoin, aaacoin,aabcoin,aaccoin... abacoin...zzzcoin?

Super!

I hope Zack, Jeb and Bongo are mining!... i bet they are!

Super!
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
June 12, 2013, 02:44:36 PM
I skipped the rest because it was all based on this.

I tried explaining this to him, but he adamantly refused to accept it. There is no point in arguing with him.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 02:37:35 PM
Randomized in this case means the selection order can't be known a priori when prospective SH peers chose their ID.
So the whole issue is based on the ability of SH to choose their IDs? Let their ID be their number in the SH sequence. So the very first SH has ID=1, the one who registers after him ID=2 and so on. Their order for signing TBs is determined by a chosen good pseudorandom number generator in [1..number of SHs at the moment], initialized with seed value of 0 at the very first TB.
Not good? Please provide an algorithm to gain significant control over your position in TB signing queue with that (good luck). We can test it right away, I'll write the program Smiley SHs have very limited control over their ID now, they can just wait until the number grows to their desired position, or fill the IDs by creating a lot of SHs, which is supposed to be costly, and your resources are limited.

I skipped the rest because it was all based on this.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 01:45:33 PM
And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?
That node itself cannot be fooled. For example, assuming that everyone is always online, the system is perfect already (under the other assumptions, of course). It's a starting point which shows that the truth can be established at least under some assumptions. Now the next question is how to relax those assumptions, to make the system more fault-tolerant, such that loss of some messages could be compensated, for instance. Etlase2 did some steps in that direction in the detailed descriptions above.

Ludicrous. If everyone could see everyone in the world, then there would be no corruption due to secrets. Now how do we relax that to reality.  Roll Eyes

At this moment 6 billion people are doing something and you have no specific knowledge (but I can bet fornication is widespread).
jr. member
Activity: 42
Merit: 1000
June 12, 2013, 09:52:09 AM
@anty-mint
Quote
Be careful. I know more than you think I do. It will be revealed in onion layers as you make a public display of your arrogant ignorance, as I have done to numerous others in these threads.
hey, "dolt" !
(may i borrow your nice style Wink  )
I thought you had give up on Decrits long
 time ago ?
Why are you still here ?
Satan, go away :PpPpP
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 01:32:20 PM
Let me try to summarize it again, and then you may tell me which part(s) you need more elaboration on.
...
2. This order needs to be randomized, otherwise it is possible to game the system.
This one please. What exactly do you mean by "randomized", and what kind of attack you imagine if this property is not present?
In cryptography "random" usually means "unpredictable", which cannot be the case here, as you say in point 1. Why can't we just let SHs sign TBs in alphabetical order of their IDs? If this is bad for some reason, there's an infinite number of other ways to do it.

Etlase2 and I discussed this upthread and I think he and I agreed that without randomization of the order, that there was a threat.

The threat we discussed was that evil peers could position themselves to always be the chosen SHs and thus control all signing of TBs.

Randomized in this case means the selection order can't be known a priori when prospective SH peers chose their ID.

No there are not infinite number of ways. There is either randomization or there isn't. This is fundamental to cryptography. I suggest that you are not qualified in cryptography, and are only a (n exceptionally astute) layman. Otherwise you would have known what I meant. Am I correct?

Quote
3. The only way to randomize this order, is for the prospective SH peers to sign a CB, then all those who sign are eligible to be selected to sign TBs in the next CB period. The order of those selected is determined from the entropy of all those signatures on the CB. The first N closest hash keys are selected in a determined order, where N is the number of SHs peers that sign TBs per CB.
Depends on what definition you will give to randomness in this case, but in general "the only way" is always a very strong statement about an algorithm, which can practically never be true. You can only say "the only way I'm aware of currently". The "entropy of signatures" and its use to find the order has to be explained, after you explain the need for it in point 2. above.

You fail to understand a basic premise of cryptography, which is that entropy can't come from an algorithm, it can only come from instances of uncertainty occurring in nature (e.g. how often does the bee land on your flower). Thus I can for sure say that it can only come from the outside inputs to the process. And those signatures are the only outside inputs in our system. We could also use the entropy from the transactions, but that doesn't eliminate the insoluble problem I showed.

But the problem is that there is no way to have consensus on who has signed the CB. If peers (wanting to be SHs on next CB) will separately broadcast their signatures, then who decides which were broadcast within the time limit and compiles it into a CB?
Every peer will decide for himself. Remember the assumption of bounded time guaranteed broadcast.

Ludicrous. Then there must be a fork for every observing peer. You fail to reason that the consensus CB entropy determines the signing order for the fork in the next CB period.

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.
Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.

The proof is that the only way you get the necessary entropy is by having every peer compete to be first. Everyone other form of entropy has a point of failure that there is no decision, the consensus is required ad infinitum at every point where you design it away to another point.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?
That node itself cannot be fooled. For example, assuming that everyone is always online, the system is perfect already (under the other assumptions, of course). It's a starting point which shows that the truth can be established at least under some assumptions. Now the next question is how to relax those assumptions, to make the system more fault-tolerant, such that loss of some messages could be compensated, for instance. Etlase2 did some steps in that direction in the detailed descriptions above.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 12, 2013, 01:07:44 PM
Let me try to summarize it again, and then you may tell me which part(s) you need more elaboration on.
...
2. This order needs to be randomized, otherwise it is possible to game the system.
This one please. What exactly do you mean by "randomized", and what kind of attack you imagine if this property is not present?
In cryptography "random" usually means "unpredictable", which cannot be the case here, as you say in point 1. Why can't we just let SHs sign TBs in alphabetical order of their IDs? If this is bad for some reason, there's an infinite number of other ways to do it.

But the problem is that there is no way to have consensus on who has signed the CB. If peers (wanting to be SHs on next CB) will separately broadcast their signatures, then who decides which were broadcast within the time limit and compiles it into a CB?
Every peer will decide for himself. Remember the assumption of bounded time guaranteed broadcast.

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.
Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.
jr. member
Activity: 42
Merit: 1000
June 12, 2013, 09:24:04 AM
Quote
{likely women will throw themselves at you}
Sounds dangerous Huh
sr. member
Activity: 359
Merit: 250
June 12, 2013, 01:03:03 PM
Quote
True. But the ability of the honest always-online node to see through 51% attack with just passive observation is already a good start.
Still the assumption of guaranteed broadcast message delivery must be taken.
And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
June 12, 2013, 12:49:20 PM
 the reason i haven't read it yet is because i'm reading the pages in order - from 2 to say 8 Etlas seemed to prove to you that the functions he had would work, and you claimed you misunderstood what he was saying , yet even a binary dunce like myself understood the basics of what he was trying to express.

i will look at your post no problem.  
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 12:40:49 PM
my advice is - make it and let it fail - then look at why it did - if it does let AnonyMint say it was the 78 year cycle - and keep studying -

I already explained why it can't work, i.e. why it would fail. The logic presented at the link below is simple and clear.

Thanks for spamming this thread with content-free (no content) hot-air, and burying my post that contained the succinct UNARGUABLE logic why MY and Etlase2's Proof-of-Consensus can't work. Did you fail to read that I also proposed a Proof-of-Consensus coin in my thread (proof-of-hard disk) and that I was saying that both of our concepts won't work (Etlase2's is Proof-of-Share, they are both subset of Proof-of-Consensus). Why would I kill my own idea if I didn't realize it can't work?

You have not made a single technical argument in the numerous posts you've made. You obviously don't understand the technology.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
June 12, 2013, 12:32:48 PM
I got a feeling, that this topic will be
 deleted someday... Wink
So read it, while you can.

It better not be deleted, or I will protest to the moderators. I have very important analysis in this thread, that I need to refer back to.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
June 12, 2013, 12:20:03 PM
Quote
{likely women will throw themselves at you}
Sounds dangerous Huh

preferably under 59 kg. {in the new world government talk !}

If Asia is the new center of the economic universe, that is quite obese for a 5' woman with small bone structure.

hey i never said they would be perfect ! -

as the old saying goes :

"a woman thown can not be chosen"  < i just made that up ,  sorry..
Pages:
Jump to: